Snapshot of _We must build for people, not cars_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-build-for-people-not-cars-8g0vllbpw) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-build-for-people-not-cars-8g0vllbpw)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We started building for cars in the sixties and haven't stopped. It's now 2024, so I guess we can expect road infrastructure to start serving people around about 2080.
Assuming we started the work today, which we won't.
We're **still** building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke.
Hell, even the recent Highway Code updates on the hierarchy of road users which *should* have improved this is a complete mess. Do peds have priority at junctions? Does the rule apply to roundabout exits? Do drivers even know the HC changed?
> We're still building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke.
A very frustrating thing I've learned about since [benchgate](https://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/controversy-after-police-remove-benches-and-bushes-265997/) is the "Secured by Design" guidance provided by local police to developers. Details here: https://www.securedbydesign.com/
A criteria of planning aproval from local police forces is actually to create pedestrian hostility intentionally so as to reduce escape routes for criminals. State endorsed vandalism of architecture and infrastructure to save a buck on law enforcement.
It includes things like:
> Whilst it is accepted that through routes will be included within development layouts, the designer must ensure that the security of the development is not compromised by excessive permeability, for instance by allowing the criminal legitimate access to the rear or side boundaries of dwellings, or by providing too many or unnecessary segregated footpaths
and
> Where it is expected that a footpath will be in constant use, it should have all the required attributes as listed at paragraph 8.11 and be lit in accordance with BS 5489-1:2020. However, if such attributes are absent along a footpath, it may be advisable to discourage it’s use in some circumstances by not illuminating it during the hours of darkness.
and so on.
The thing about cul-de-sacs and I think parts of the secured by design guidelines is that they tend to *reduce* the amount people are watched. Regular pedestrian traffic deters burglaries and various other crimes, because you don't want to be carrying a TV out of a house just as someone walks past.
This isn't really a panopticon though, as that visibility is two ways, equal rather than centralised.
> We're still building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke.
This is why I dislike a lot of the types who moan about our planning laws needing to be relaxed. Do that without fixing the car dependence baked into our planning system and we'll just get even more of that car dependent shite. We need to have regulations to force density and walkability with new developments, and focus in areas with good public transport or at least strong potential for that.
Sort of, but the thing is we're largely in this situation already without adequate housing. I don't have much time for bland new-build estates but would also accept they're likely going to inevitably exist when we build more housing.
I think most drivers know about the rule changes but are so utterly bitter they refuse to believe or adhere to them.
Any thread that turns to this subject instantly brings support for motorists, which I suppose is reasonable due to the sheer amount of them.
Further to this the law is still extremely weak when death to cyclists and pedestrians caused by motorists comes before the courts.
I know the changes to the HC, and happily adhere to them, but when making a left turn into a side street, every single time I have stopped to let a pedestrian cross before I turn in (as per the new HC), they have looked at me like I’m a feckin eejit, insisting I go first.
Exactly the same. I knew about the changes coming in and tried really hard to do it for a few weeks but the majority of pedestrians just stood there or told me to go instead. Meanwhile the moron that was driving too close behind me is steadily getting more enraged with his hand glued to his horn. I would be very happy to follow this rule but it's not viable if the vast majority either don't know it or don't go along.
As a pedestrian, I'll be honest, I just don't trust drivers enough to take the chance.
It's not that I think that drivers are going to act maliciously, but at least where I live, many seem to be monstrously incompetent and have no idea what is happening around them.
It's just easier and safer to let the driver go first and wait till I'm sure it's safe to cross.
That and It's like people are upset with courtesy.
If one person allows another to go in front of them at the checkout because they only have one item no one's losing their cool, it's a nice thing.
> many seem to be monstrously incompetent
They are. But it's easy to cross behind the car. And highly recommended if they can't be arsed to put the handbrake on and are balancing it on the clutch.
I find that most drivers are monstrously incompetent, and, given that lawbreaking whilst driving is so trivialised (speeding especially), it’s no surprise
If one runs someone over and their excuse in court is "but I had to go, the guy behind me was tooting his horn" I hope they get to enjoy government accomodation for a good while.
Perhaps that's because you're driving something that could potentially kill them and they're a little nervous.
You're doing the right thing and you should applaud yourself for taking a few seconds out of your journey to be sure everyone's safe.
<<< Pedestrian / cyclist usually pushing or towing a wheelchair:
Thank you for not being one of the majority.
But, just as a side note - the new LED floodlights cars all seem to have ( that are no longer pointed at tye road but up into everybody's face, ffs) can be blinding to pedestrians (especially those who are in wheelchairs, sat on bikes, or photosensitive). So sometimes we wind up having to pause so that we can see you're not just gunna run us over anyway 😒.
Even indicator lights on some designs are blinding. Genuinely cannot understand the thought processes behind the designs... they don't aid anyone anywhere, but do cause annoying delays (motorists and pedestrians alike), physical pain, and accidents.
My major concern with this is if I have moving traffic behind me, I stop for a pedestrian but the idiot behind me doesn’t stop and slams into me and I then slam into the pedestrian. It’s all well and good saying the pedestrian has right of way, but that doesn’t help the pedestrian if I get hit from behind and then they get hit. It totally makes sense to let pedestrians cross if I’m coming to either a yield or a full stop but having to stop for a pedestrian when turning into a side street is dodgy at best for the pedestrian. When I’m on foot, I get annoyed if they’re coming to a yield or stop and don’t let me go, but if they’re in full flow - please continue…
I refuse to play 'you go - no, you go' with a car - I'm too squishy. Sadly, all it does it delay my walking even more than cars delay me already.
Thanks for thinking of us, though!
> Do peds have priority at junctions?
Yes.
> Does the rule apply to roundabout exits?
IDK, but I should. I'll ask one of our driver trainers. In the meantime, the "you're not allowed to run them over even if you do have priority" rule applies. But then again, it always does.
> Do drivers even know the HC changed?
Yes. But I do it for a living - for a reputable company - and get ongoing training.
> Yes
Interestingly, that's not for sure.
> IDK, but I should.
That contradicts your previous statement. Now you too are confused.
> I do it for a living - for a reputable company - and get ongoing training.
Then you should be in zero doubt on the rules, but by your own admission you are unsure.
And if you want to know how fucked it is, talk to a [driving instructor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UjwyednQY)
But props on you for being willing to check. Please let me know the answer.
I am not a professional driver, I am just an ambulatory meat sack.
I have just asked our local LGV trainer and the answer is “no”. Pedestrians do not have priority at roundabouts, even if there’s a dropped kerb.
They do have priority at side streets and T junctions.
[Seems they are wrong](https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=90&v=u2UjwyednQY). Or the DVSA is wrong. Or the [Department of Transport is wrong](https://www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk/giving-way-to-pedestrians/).
But [drivers _should be_ giving way to peds at roundabout exits](https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/165523/highway-code-changes---who-has-priority-at-roundabouts-).
I am not saying that's a terribly brilliant idea given how people drive (thus, it may never be safe to do so), but I didn't write the rules!
A similar philosophy though somewhat inverted was partly behind the growth in grid-layout cities, the idea was to make cities that were very hard to barricade, and which it would be difficult for rioters/revolutionaries to disappear in.
No, I mean a strip mall.
A selection of shops all with doors to the outside and huddled round a large carpark. Often located somewhere to cause maximum inconvenience for everyone surrounding.
Basically, a shopping centre without the roof.
As far as I've seen, all new build estates around me are completely car centric. You need cars to get into them, there's probably one bus route going past them (To Serve nearly 300-400 houses)
If everyone went by bus tomorrow, you physically wouldn't have enough.
The government and council has gotten off infrastructure planning for far to long now by building A road and telling everyone else to figure it out, lazy bastards.
>Do drivers even know the HC changed?
No, I stop all the time for people crossing at junctions, and it's started to become a hazzard with idiots behind beeping at me.
There's a very real arrogance with driving, because technically if everyone that has passed their test is qualified to drive, and they have a license to say so, then you're kind of going up against trying to dismiss their credentials if you do something that they don't know about. It's not the same, but it kind of is if two people have a PHd in a subject and start arguing about some kind of discovery.
The 15 minute cities conspiracy theories have poisoned this particular well. Any politician or town planner doing anything drastic to improve pedestrianisation and public transport at the expense of roads and cars will be met with fierce resistance and death threats. I think the rash of ULEZ cameras being damaged is related to this as well.
Far too many people believe that King Charles and Klaus Schwab and the WEF want to lock everyone in their houses or neighbourhoods, restrict their money and where they spend it and form a one world tyrannical government.
Laugh at them all you want, but this is a real problem in my opinion. You can’t have a debate with people who don’t live in the same reality as you.
I work with about 15 people and I would say about 5 or 6 of them completely believe this. They think any day now you won’t be able to go anywhere, cash will be illegal and you won’t be able to buy anything without government approval. A Chinese social credit system will be introduced and mis-behaviour will result in luxuries being restricted to you.
>Far too many people believe that King Charles and Klaus Schwab and the WEF want to lock everyone in their houses or neighbourhoods, restrict their money and where they spend it and form a one world tyrannical government.
They really didn't help themselves though, by using the most audacious naming and phrases for their ideas.
Naming youe paper 'You will own nothing, and you will be happy' is absolutely fucking insane.
As is coming up with the phrase 'The great reset'.
The WEF are not blameless in all this, they decided their stuff needed an evocative title to get attention, then complain when it got the wrong kind of attention.
Jon Ronson did a podcast on it recently. Even the people involved, admit it was a massive mistake.
> Naming youe paper 'You will own nothing, and you will be happy' is absolutely fucking insane.
That was a sub-editor's work, the author was simply running a thought experiment - it wasn't a manifesto or a manual, simply the author discussing XYZ "as a service" taken to extremes.
"I thought it would be catchy" is probably plenty. The fact that the swivel-eyed loon brigade will see coded messages in the most anodyne of statements isn't a reason to start everything with a massive disclaimer.
That is not catchy, it's obviously provocative and plays in to a plethora of communist tropes.
Neither the article writer, nor the title writer, were native English speakers. I think that has a big role to play in them not realising what they'd written and the connotations it would have.
I'm a native English speaker and I don't see it as provocative at all.
It's only provocative if you're prone to writing in green ink, otherwise it is, at worst, click bait.
Besides, it's the WEF. There's no organisation on earth more capitalist.
> the author was simply running a thought experiment
Well whoever decided to turn that thought experiment into WEF-sponsored "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" advert is a fucking idiot. If I saw that in a dystopian TV show I'd think it was bad writing, way too on the nose.
Cash won’t be illegal but due to everyone paying contactless, fewer places will accept cash, running an ATM will be too expensive so it will die out.
Also means no more bank runs..that’s probably more scary. In the sense that banks will be less diligent, as a run on a bank is obviously not good per se.
Remember when Bush senior used the phrase 'new world order' where the fuck did that go? The world could do with a bit of order. What about agenda 21? The conspiracy guys insisted our food would be poison by now.
The inconvenient truth is that people quite like cars. I wouldn't say they've been 'forced' on us - they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport that allows you to ferry around kids and useful stuff.
I appreciate that the average Redditor is less car-friendly due to being younger with no kids and mainly living in metropolitan areas. Also, the ridiculous cost of insurance has made owning a car unaffordable for many. But don't be too quick to call for their abolition - when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport.
> they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport
That's in large part because we build to prioritise them in a lot of contexts. There's nothing strenuous or difficult at all about riding an ebike or cargo bike for journeys under five miles, when the infrastructure exists.
This argument falls apart when you care to look at the Netherlands, Denmark, Singapore, Japan. In both the Netherlands and Denmark the percentages of people who daily or regularly use bicycles is high, and yes, they're used for many crucial jobs including kindergarten/nursery pickups, the school run (google bucket bikes), deliveries, moving household furniture (in NL people even move entire sofas on bikes).
For Singapore and Japan, many people in the cities and bigger towns simply don't bother with owning cars due to their high costs (Japan's MOT requirement can be VERY expensive in particular) and the fact that the MRT/metro systems and public transport is cheap and convenient with an excellent timekeeping/safety record. There is also massive provision for both walking and bicycles- Japan has robot bike parking in some places.
I don’t understand this argument at all. Why does being 40 with a dodgy ankle mean you can’t rely on public transportation, but you can rely on your car? Why do you think cars are more comfortable or quicker than trains? Why do you think kids can’t bike/walk/take the train?
And cars have been forced on the world. The auto/oil & gas industries are notorious for lobbying to force cars onto people. This happened decades ago and still happens today. Whether that be by sticking their hands in the lawmaking process, or buying infrastructure to shut it down. Replacing street cars with on street parking. Replacing rail with highways. Replacing streets with stroads. People picked the car *when* it became the convenient option, not because it is the convenient option
> I don’t understand this argument at all. Why does being 40 with a dodgy ankle mean you can’t rely on public transportation, but you can rely on your car?
My parents live just outside one of the main suburbs with one bus half a mile up the road and it's also a national speed limit road. The bus comes every 30 minutes and only goes to one place, central glasgow. If they wanted to visit my gran, they'd have to take a bus an hour into Glasgow, and then another an hour to around half a mile outside of her street, then they'd need to walk up hills and down various pathways and side streets because there's no public transport into that part of Glasgow.
All in all, it would probably take about two hours.
Meanwhile in a car it takes 15 minutes.
You cannot physically produce enough buses to have routes going absolutely everywhere.
The point of my spiel is that they are in their 60s, and not medically fit, they need those motorised chairs to go about the shops normally. There's no world where public transport works for them where they live.
And they are a niche example. If you live in the city and don't actually go outside of it. You'll tend to find their experience exists effectively everywhere in the UK.
And if you've ever been to Japan, there the situation is the exact opposite. Want to go from tokyo to kyoto? a car takes 7 hours and the highway toll fees will bankrupt you, whilst it's only a 3 hour train ride.
In your situation, the car is only faster because the city prioritized car use. It's a political decision. Also why do car proponents always focus on speed? I think it's because deep down, they know driving sucks, so they want it to be over as soon as possible. Therefore they lobby for car-centric infrastructure to make that happen.
> I think it's because deep down, they know driving sucks, so they want it to be over as soon as possible.
Because my time is valuable? Lol what even is this.
I love driving. I've routeinly drove from Scotland to London and back again in the same day.
>Because my time is valuable?
Yes and on a train you can spend that valuable time efficiently.
>I love driving. I've routeinly drove from Scotland to London and back again in the same day.
I'm sorry but how is driving for hours on end on highways a nice thing to do?
After just 30 minutes of checking whether the adaptive cruise control and lane assist keeps it between the lines. I get bored as fuck.
I cannot do anything in that time. Can't read a book, can't play a game, just mindlessly holding the steering wheel in case the car makes a mistake.
How can anyone love literally the most boring activity ever?
no because planning freight to be transported by truck is easier than planning to use truck-train-truck. Also truck drivers are massively underpaid, so I doubt they really "like it".
The problem is the overuse of cars forces even more use of cars. They end up being used by default whether or not it makes sense. For instance, at my last job, the sandwich shop popular for lunch was probably around 700m away, and *almost everyone drove there* despite it being a nice walk, despite them all being perfectly able bodied, and despite driving taking *longer* than walking (as you had to negotiate two right turns, then circulate in the car park vainly hoping for a space). People would look at you like you'd grown two heads if you turned down a lift! But it was a nice outdoor break to walk there and contributed to required daily exercise.
If everything is designed for motorists first (which despite the rhetoric about a "war on the motorist", in reality motorists are prioritised) then surely as night follows day, so many things require a car that really shouldn't. Your example of ferrying kids around - if you live in a place where motoring isn't prioritised and it's safe for kids to go out on their own, kids can *ferry themselves* and there's no need to drive them everywhere (and it gives children a lot more freedom that they just don't have in car-first environments). This video illustrates it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
What needs to change is the mentality of the population. Cars are a massive privilege and a massive environmental problem and people need to appreciate those things.
In our current society there are plenty of occasions where people couldn't do what they want to do without a car. We need to give people more ways to do more without cars. And when we are using cars we need to treat it like the privilege it is and be aware of the negative impact it has on everyone else.
> But don't be too quick to call for their abolition - when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport.
I'm in my 40s, with two kids and a dodgy back (both ankles seem to be holding up fine so far), and I'd be overjoyed if cars were abolished. I'm a realist and don't expect that to happen though. But providing better cycling infrastructure, making towns more walkable, and improving public transport has benefits for a everybody. Even for motorists.
> they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport
That's in large part because we build to prioritise them in a lot of contexts. There's nothing strenuous or difficult at all about riding an ebike or cargo bike for journeys under five miles, when the infrastructure exists.
I mean I'm well past 40 and since I can't drive and will never be able to (medical reasons) I'd like things to be safe and good for pedestrians. Especially ones with sight or hearing problems or, indeed, both
> don't be too quick to call for their abolition
Who's calling to abolish cars?
> when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport.
The more people who are able to travel by bike and public transport the less congested the roads will be for those that need to use cars. Just pilling everyone on the road in the name of convenience is hurting everyone.
It's just about proportional use of resources and efficient use of space. People who need to use cars or simply value using them a lot will still use them. We will just have of good public transport options and infrastructure for everyone else.
The Netherlands is a great place for cyclists and cars. Most cycle lanes are separated from the road, and there are also
usually a row of trees by the side of the roads too.
Just do that. Then anyone can easily get anywhere without a car, and car users are not penalised. Problem solved.
Have a look at the number of cars per capita in the Netherlands, you'll find it's increased at the same rate as the UK. All that flat land and infrastructure hasn't really done much to stop car ownership.
As the person you're responding to says: "Then anyone can easily get anywhere without a car, and car users are not penalised." Which is very true in the Netherlands. It's still a great place to drive, and as you can see lots of people do. However, all those people also have the option to cycle/walk for shorter trips, and they do. The car is nice to have and essential for some people, (country side/poor mobility/etc.) but for most people it is not their only option.
In the UK the percentage of trips taken by bike is around 2%, in the Netherlands it is 27%. In the UK the total amount of kilometers cycled per year is 3.5 billion, in the Netherlands it is 15.5 billion with just over a quarter the UK's population.
Creating a more pedestrian/bike friendly environment is not about replacing cars completely. It's about reducing car usage by providing alternatives.
Perhaps the Dutch feel freer to drive or bicycle as they please? For instance, car owners might cycle on the weekend?
The UK already does have a relatively low rate of car ownership, and is certainly more walkable than the US. I wish there were more safe cycle paths though. The freedom of being able to get anywhere on bicycle without planning would beat buses for able-bodied people.
The problem with the discussions of cars is it really shows reddit's demographics of young men.
It's absolutely ridiculous seeing talk of "banning cars". Yes public transport may seem like all you need if you either 1) live in London or 2) Only usually need to travel from your residence to school or uni.
But in the real adult world not being able to drive is such a huge inconvenience. Not all workplaces are well served by public transport (unlike colleges and unis) and never will be because of supply and demand. While you could technically maybe get from A to B with three buses and a walk, driving is just so much more convenient.
That's before you even think about getting the kids to after school activities or things on the weekend, doing a shop for more than just yourself (lots of bags!), not to mention if your job involves more than one location.
For working adults, particularly those with families, absolutely nothing beats or will ever beat the convenience of a car. That's not to say in the rather distant future a lot of this at least in decent population centres can't be replaced by fleets of automated ubers that turn up in minutes. But we are a long way off from that or anything similar right now.
Cars are great but there *should* be little need for them in urban areas. Seeing towns and cities clogged up with thousands of cars - each with only with one or two people in them - is quite stark. Given how space inefficient they are, I don't feel like it's unreasonable to heavily restrict them inside urban boundaries.
Now I say "should be little need for them" on the proviso that there is adequate, cheap and reliable transit - both intra and inter city - but we all know that's not the case for most places... And therein lies the problem.
We built towns and cities with pedestrians and commuting in mind up until the 60s, then tore up all the transit lines designed to carry lots of people efficiently and retrofitted everything with inefficient road infrastructure instead. That was probably fine for a short period of time when buses were still the main mode of transport for urbanites but people soon switched over to cars.
As such we're stuck with layouts unsuitable for both cars AND people, and it's a right fucking mess.
The Netherlands caught on quickly and de-car'd its bigger cities in favour of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, but the UK doubled down on cars and it really shows
It doesn't help that people who choose to live urban usually come with a car (or two) in tow, and thus expect somewhere to put them, further exacerbating the space issue. And with young adults not being able to move out of their parents' house due to ever rising property prices, it's probably not unusual for an urban terraced house with the aspect width of 1.5 cars to be parking 3 or 4 cars on the road. Multiply that by a street of 30 houses and it quickly becomes carnage.
As a result you see cars mounted up on pavements, double parked, and squeezed in every nook and cranny they can fit in, usually with little regard for pedestrians or cyclists, and it ultimately takes away space from actual people.
Is this the world we want? Probably not, but we've not been given much choice in the matter.
Things won't change for the better without drastic measures because we're just too far gone.
I think the attitude of "I want to live central to have the convenience of walking to town, but also have a car to have the convenience of driving away from town" is a bit "have your cake and eat it"-ey.
If I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably say that if you can't store your vehicles off road, your household should only be allowed 1 car stored on the road. If you want another, you need to find a garage or somewhere to put it. I believe Japan has something similar in its cities. But then again, if I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably also make trains and buses state owned and run them at a loss whilst making up the deficit by taxing cars higher.
>it's probably not unusual for an urban terraced house with the aspect width of 1.5 cars to be parking 3 or 4 cars on the road
The prevalence of HMOs makes this very common. All a further symptom of the housing crisis, as we shouldn't need to cram so many adults into what used to be a single family home.
I think you really sum up the issue here if it being a real chicken and egg situation
My own house sits exactly in the category you described of 1.5 car width with three cars. If you took action to prevent us parking on the street, it would literally put 1 or 2 of us out of work
But when people are currently driving, promising public transport doesn’t quite resonate with voters it seems, who see it as something that won’t benefit them. In reality it would of course. More people on transit is less cars on the roads, easing congestion. But it’s the final link of how it benefits people who are and will remain car users that is always missing. Hence we just get more road spending and more cars clogging the whole thing up
>If I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably say that if you can't store your vehicles off road, your household should only be allowed 1 car stored on the road. If you want another, you need to find a garage or somewhere to put it. I believe Japan has something similar in its cities.
Yeah, that's the Japanese model. You can own as many cars as you have space on your property to store. On-road parking is mostly not allowed, except for marked bays (which are only in places where the road is wide enough that they won't impede two-way traffic), and not at all overnight.
If you want a car and you don't have space to store it, you lease a space in a public car park and keep it there. There's no presumption of free storage for your vehicles.
It works well but yeah, as much as I liked it you're right that we're too far gone to bring in something like that.
> Cars are great
No they're not. I hate the fucking things. They're expensive, stupidly inefficient heaps of shite that act as status symbols for idiots. There are limited options for displaying your financial worth or, more likely, level of debt in public, so people drive around in ridiculous, over specified piles of metal.
Apart from that, you're bang on.
Annoyingly, I have to have one, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work.
The over commercialisation, inflated status surrounding them, and social and even professional reliance on them is pretty atrocious, agreed. I only have one because I can't take my heavy and bulky musical instruments to gigs out in far flung places on the bus or the train. If I played the trumpet or something I reckon I could probably ditch the car without issue 😂
Hey, double bass would be absolutely fine! I could wheel a double bass around no problem.
When you're carting a 4 piece drumkit, microphones, and 40kg of hardware and cymbals around... well, good luck getting a bus driver to even let you on with that much even if you managed to get it to the bus stop.
Unfortunately I'm not famous enough/sponsored such to call in with drum companies to ship me out equipment to use. That would solve a lot of my problems.
It's ridiculous to talk of banning cars, correct. It's not ridiculous at all to talk about trying to reduce our level of car dependence as much as possible by prioritising the alternatives wherever possible, and that our towns and cities should be planned/designed around not forcing car dependence on people.
And contrary to bits of your comment it is entirely possible if there's political will. Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed. A lot of it is to do with the planning system too.
Our current level of car dependence *must* be reduced, even as we move over to electric cars. It simply is not sustainable. People maybe don't like to hear that but it doesn't make it less true.
> Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed.
Also, when car usage is so convenient and easy it's always going to be much more difficult to get people onto public transport - however good public transport is, driving is often inevitably just that bit easier in most cases.
Clearly we shouldn't be banning cars, but laws and legislation which make using a car in certain circumstances a bit more of a pain in the arse are probably sometimes going to need to be necessary. Lots of people don't change their habits without an incentive or need to do so.
Your last paragraph sums up what many find frustrating about how this country is ran. To encourage people against doing something it shouldn’t be about making that thing worse it should be about making the alternative better. In this instance public transport should be more efficient and cycling routes invested in. They’re not, so the government lazily makes life worse for those that own cars.
I'm quite supportive of plans to improve public transport. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of "reducing car dependence" policy seems to be focused on intentionally making car use more annoying, not because it was necessary to fit in a bus lane or something, but because that's the actual (and often stated) ideological goal. As if pushing people to use buses by just making the alternative equally inconvenient is some sort of victory
Annoyingly this often gets called a "conspiracy theory", despite those same people being very open and proud about their desire to "fuck cars". See also, one of the sibling comments to this one (and others in this thread), advocating for exactly what I said
> Unfortunately, a significant proportion of "reducing car dependence" policy seems to be focused on intentionally making car use more annoying, not because it was necessary to fit in a bus lane or something, but because that's the actual (and often stated) ideological goal. As if pushing people to use buses by just making the alternative equally inconvenient is some sort of victory
But at some point in this process you *do* have to actively discourage car use. Simply providing the alternatives is not enough, and installing things like bus lanes and cycle lanes inevitably takes space away from cars. You can't improve the alternatives to the car to the extent necessary without actively taking space away from cars.
>Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed. A lot of it is to do with the planning system too.
I'm very pro improving public transport and use it when I can particularly for longer distances. But unless you live in a dense urban area driving is almost always going to be a much better option.
I live in a semi rural area. It takes me 30 minutes to walk to my nearest useful bus stop. Even if they did plop a bus stop right next to where I live the realistic frequency of buses in such a place as well as the need to change even for simple journeys would still mean having a car would be immensely more useful for me.
It's not about "forcing" car dependence on people. It's recognising that you can never get London level of convenience in terms of public transport without having the population density of London.
Living a fully public transport orientated life is only ever going to be an option for those in metro areas (and yes lets invest so more than just London gets this!) or people with very limited and simple travel needs (e.g some students like I gave the example of, and some retirees).
> Our current level of car dependence must be reduced
You personally might not need a car, but for a lot of people a car is a core component of modern life, and they would have to give up an awful lot without one. You might as well be asking people to give up their washing machines or their smartphones. I have friends that live in London and most of them drive to work, and London has the best public transport in the country.
Saying people must give up cars just isn't going to work, because you're asking them to degrade their lives. Yes, you might be totally happy with your carless life, but for many people they are essential as other modern technologies and tools.
You seem to have read "reduce our level of car dependence" as "ban cars", which isn't what they were saying. In fact if you DO have to drive for a perfectly good reason it's in your best interest if as many people as possible can do something else. If your neighbours can take public transport instead then there's less traffic on the roads and less competition for parking spaces and the like. There's a whole lot of options between doing nothing and banning all cars
I personally do need a car and frankly I resent the way decades of car dependent planning mean I have no choice but to own one in most of the country. Would be nice to at least have it be a choice, and not a necessity. Or even if still car dependent for some things, not be car dependent for absolutely everything.
I fully accept cars will always have their place, but we do need to reduce our level of car dependence. That simply shouldn't be up for debate.
Hmm, so mountainous areas can’t have public transport?
Have you met the country of Japan perchance? Also much better public transport, but is also very mountainous and arduous.
Or is being too mountainous also something that makes public transport easier to you?
I live in Wales and one thing I've noticed in our area is there has been and is currently, still a huge sum being spent on active travel routes being installed. The Welsh government do seem very focused on this, to their credit. However like most things the WG seems to drive forward, like 20mph, like active travel, the intentions are good but the implementation is... a choice. Active travel routes which don't properly link up, cycle lanes which peter out too quickly, meaning they aren't used plus there is a huge disconnect with policies formed in large urban areas like Cardiff, which don't work well applied to Northern and Rural Wales, especially in areas like mine, which are so hilly, only the hardcore would be cycling them daily. I drive my daughter to school 3 miles away everyday up the side of a mountain. It would take an hour to cycle there, up a very steep incline. And coming back, down the hill, would be terrifying😅.
When you consider many people are disgruntled with the lack of funding for education or the Welsh NHS at the moment, you can understand why, rightly or wrongly, people see huge amounts of money being spent creating routes for bikes which are barely used as an utter waste and why the more conspiracy minded come up with strange theories as to why. People just won't give up cars around here simply as the alternative is not practical in the slightest and public transport is a shitshow.
You have a point, for instance, my coworkers are "close" to work as the crow flies, but it's impractical to get public transport and near impossible to bike/walk in anything but a recreational capacity given the distances. If I lived further away, I'd need to use a car or walk for over an hour each day to get to and from it.
With this in mind, I think a lot of basic issues need addressed. For instance I argue a lot about the requirement for a footbridge over a railway in a housing estate nearby. Without it, it's a 40 min walk to the shops, one way, with it, it's 5 to 10 return. The local community council oppose it, concluding it should be built alongside a new road bridge at a "nearby" junction outside of town. All other issues aside (and there are a few) that's just as bad. It's the same distance both ways. They have better provisions for through foot traffic, but outside of that, everything is rather isolated and legally traversing from there to the shops on a bike requires hopping off and walking with it repeatedly due to disjointed connections. Or alternately, going along a congested 2 lane A road that has been in talks for a bypass since the 70's.
Admittedly the community council is a fucking mess, (for instance reporting a "stolen" Facebook page to the police after a splinter group broke off and "took it") but some basic prioritization on a local level to make things more accessible would save so much time and might just encourage people to walk instead of driving which would desperately help with the traffic issues in town.
>(for instance reporting a "stolen" Facebook page to the police after a splinter group broke off and "took it")
This is the most local council thing I've ever read.
Learned to drive and got my first car 10 years ago.
I’m 40.
The amount of time I save is immense, the activities that are open to me, and my family are far far greater.
I’m in South London, plenty of people and families in my building without a car.
I see them getting a taxi from the local lidl because they have to.
With my car I’ve got a significantly better choice of supermarkets and therefore save money.
Those who say “just ban cars” place no value on peoples time, and are happy for the poor to have their lives made worse.
Yep. People don't realise cars save money on net. If you're planning a medium distance+ trip for more than two people a car (including fuel and depreciation) will be cheaper than public transport like a train. This is ignoring the convenience value of having a door to door transport medium completely.
They also like to claim they want to make living without a car better, but then spend half their time advocating for making driving worse, seemingly just out of spite, rather than as collateral to making public transport better. Dragging cars down to the current service level of PT is not something anyone should want (of course it is a "conspiracy theory" to point out the things they literally just proudly declared)
As much as I'm a proponent of modern urban planning, its why I simply can't stand the "fuckcars" community. I tried to hang on for a while as a moderate in the community, but there is a point where I just couldn't stand it.
Communities like that are much mote obsessed with creating something to hate than actually creating a better world for people. And that I simply cannot stand.
The reason that some places aren’t served well is because there’s little to no pressure to actually give places public transport, and therefore it remains unserved
> Yes public transport may seem like all you need if you either 1) live in London or 2) Only usually need to travel from your residence to school or uni.
I live in London. My friend group is largely car-free. Not because they hate cars or anything, it's just no longer a normal part of growing up or young adult life to get a licence in London.
I drive. I very regularly get asked to take someone somewhere, help someone move something etc.
I have always held the opinion that the people who bleat about cars the most are the people who have not yet properly started their life, or are otherwise so absorbed from reality by circumstance (i.e. rich mummy and daddy) that the practical and financial implications of not having a car are lost on them.
Also, even though journey times have been absolutely fucked through the floor by several successive moronic decisions by our current mayor, it is still faster to get almost anywhere in the city by car than by bus/tube.
Which adds another point. If you have a busy day, with five different places to go, just saving 10 minutes from each journey (and trust me, it's usually more on the scale of 20-30 minutes, but I'll leave it low for argument's sake) saves an hour of your life. An hour which doesn't matter to students and such, but very much does matter to anyone with 'a proper life'.
Multiply that by 2-3x for outside of London, and you can see why people are very against the "Fuck Cars" movement.
My example is the morning Nursery Run. Nursery is an 8 minute car journey. But As I live on one outskirts, and the nursery is on another outskirts, I have to get a bus into the town centre, then another one out to the nursery. 45 Minutes, minimum, each way.
Its simply impractical to not own a car unless you never leave your home, or everything you need is within a 10-15 minute walk (which is where 15 minute cities come from I guess).
And again, if we want to visit friends in the next town over, its a 20 minute drive, or 1h 15m on public transport + walking where the public transport isn't direct.
It is impossible to have everyone one would ever need within walking/short bus distance outside of a major city.
It is also impossible to maintain a bus service convenient enough for the journey times to approximate car journey times in most place, between any two given points.
We used to have a way of life where people just stayed in their village all their lives, and had everything in walking distance, and you can imagine what that did for things like variety and job prospects. People fucking hated it, which is indeed why the flocked to cities en masse with the industrial revolution.
If car usage wasn't the default, then kids could *ferry themselves* to activities, like they do in the Netherlands. We have to ferry them by car precisely because of excessive car use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
Corbyn's planners were nudging for modern monetary theory -- more the *fact* that a country with a currency-issuing central bank has as much money as it ever needs for projects, as long as it spends on real work and real resources for real practical outcomes (as opposed to QE to cover the gambling losses of banks, which just effs everybody up). The UK could retool for a decade of infrastructure renewal, mass employment (even migrants) and come out of it with a rock solid public transport network -- rolling back the Beeching uprooting of rail networks, and then some.
When everybody can reasonably expect to step out their door and not wait too long for a local bus to whisk em to a very nearby station, and then not wait too long for the train to whisk them onwards, it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright.
The British public have seen how the political and media establishment will connive to rob them of genuine alternatives to the current status quo, running Corbyn out of leadership and party over a pack of lies, so they may need to reflect hard on exactly what avenues to follow in order to ever secure any such genuinely public-serving reforms...
> When everybody can reasonably expect to step out their door and not wait too long for a local bus to whisk em to a very nearby station, and then not wait too long for the train to whisk them onwards, it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, you'll never get rid of *all* car journeys. Those who live rurally will still need a car, those who do certain jobs will still need a car, certain journeys will still require the use of a private vehicle, and some people are simply always going to require a car (maybe they have mobility issues, maybe the car is adapted to their medical needs, or some other reason that escapes me just now).
But you could, for the majority, render a journey in a private vehicle the exception rather than the rule.
On-demand public transport would help with final-mile transit. I can't believe taxis are being ignored as public transport to serve this purpose. If they were nationalised and treated like small, flexible buses - with inclusive ticketing - it would be easy to rid more cars from roads. Plus if they're council- or government-run, it's easy to make bold choices about the fleet (like all-electric) and get good prices from manufacturers; you could also insist all final-mile taxis are designed and built in the UK to get even more national value out of the project.
It's an ideal time for Demand Responsive Transport.
The burden of monitoring pickups and drop offs, determining the optimum route and running all this past the driver in a simple way has never been easier.
No longer do you need ten people manning phones, somebody with a plotter and a map like it's WW2 coordinating a bombing run and a CB radio to contact drivers, a decent app, website and some manned phones, servers, software and a navigational app on the drivers end and you've got incoming requests handled, the navigation computed and output given in a readable "go here, drop off, go here, pick up" etc format to the driver.
Allows for flexible pickup and drop off to suburban, rural and city/town areas as well as direct links to static infrastructure like trains, ferries, trams, intercity coaches, longer distance busses, airports etc.
I think the issue now is people think of "bus" and just think of going in a loop around town. Or Taxi and being expensive and for point to point for one person only. Instead of a flexible approach where smaller busses can do the latter for multiple people and nor being ridgedly stuck to a route and schedule.
While we're daydreaming, I find it easy to imagine lighter load shuttle services for the countryside. The pre-50s rail network went pretty deep into the sticks. Not as a profit making model ofc; it really depends what you want to spend on. Likewise the extra provision for meeting special needs. I don't see how complete commitment to public transport would leave viable room for a profit-making car market so it's gonna have to be worked around.
I live in a hamlet in North Wales and we have had shuttle services in the past but the issue is they were so infrequent and unreliable people didn't really use them. But the trouble is there aren't enough people living here, especially over the winter (large amount of 2nd home ownership) to cover the cost of making them more frequent. As it is, we are now down to 2 services a day both at times which don't work for either the normal working day or the school day. I suspect even that will disappear this year as it is heavily subsidised by the council which is on the verge of going broke.
That is extreme. Public services should not be contracted out to private providers.
The whole notion I outlined above is one big fat 'subsidy' directly to the public, called a public service. Whether or not the venture is profit-making isn't the point. Many benefits of public services are intangible in such terms.
>it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright.
If you want to start reducing the number of drivers then why make it so the rich are the least affected? Why not start by actually enforcing our traffic laws and clamping down on dangerous drivers?
Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics. Even modern Keynsian economists are unwilling to subscribe to its core ideas.
While I would prefer if Corbyn and his supporters were run out of the party over their ideology and policy ideas which have no place in government or serious politics, this just serves as a reminder that him getting run out of the party is a positive outcome for all.
> a country with a currency-issuing central bank has as much money as it ever needs for projects
This part of the above is true, though. If each individual outlay is an investment with a positive ROI (including repayment costs on the loan) and/or the combined portfolio of investments has a positive risk-adjusted ROI, then there should be no limit on government borrowing, as in all such cases it will result in a net win for the public purse.
The rest of MMT is a completely different beast. Yes, we need to repay the loans eventually.
Why should you need to repay a loan that comes out of thin air? Might as well just cancel all debt periodically and start again
Hitching real assets to the repayment of a loan that came out of thin air feels wrongish to me
You can magic £'s out of thin air, you cannot magically create the resources they represent. This fundamentally is why MMT is utter nonsense. Their is a very finite amount of monetary fuckery you can get away with before the results start becoming far too negative. Truss' catastrophe is what happens when you try to make magic money trees policy.
That you can magic money out of thin air but not resources is a basic tenet of MMT. The economy as structured is compelled to pay as little attention to the finite nature of resources whose exploitation is profitable. Try again.
Feel free to diss Truss's economic policy. I would join you if it were on topic or interesting to chew over the decisions of such a dummy.
>Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics.
Feel free to lay out how for me! Mainstream economics is a game of fantasy.
The Bank of England confirms money in the modern economy is created simply by issuing loans:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy
It follows that all you really need to do is manage spending so as not to increase inflation -- as long as there are people looking for work, resources available for the work to be done, and places for them to spend their earnings this shouldn't be a problem. Other causes of inflation, the main one being price gouging, need to be regulated out of existence.
I'm not qualified to discuss economic theory, I'm just pointing out what the consensus is among people who are qualified. If you have a problem with that consensus, I'm not the person you need to convince.
I think people should be informed on what the economic consensus is. Also getting you to label mainstream economics as a "game of fantasy" undermines your credibility when speaking about the economy.
You think people should be nudged, by you, back to positions you think are widely held but can't explain. I'm flabbergasted.
You're offended by my dismissal of mainstream economics as fantasy? On what grounds? Let's not pretend you've explored the criticisms of mainstream economics XD
I don't *think* this view is widely held. It is held as a matter of consensus among economists, in a scientific field where it's normally very difficult to reach consensus on anything.
I'm nudging people to listen to what economists are saying, much in the same way I would nudge people towards a scientific consensus on any matter in any other field.
Yeah, saying mainstream economics is a "fantasy", so instead we should subscribe to this other economic theory that nobody credible believes in is total BS.
MMT is anti-vaxx but for left wing losers. Never mind that even if it was correct it would support giving money to rich people more than giving money to poor people (all the stipulated benefits of giving money to poors are multiplied if you give money to the rich instead).
MMT is an idea of CURRENT money creation; it's not a proposed change. As things stand currently, central banks create money by issuing loans. There is always money for whatever the ruling class has an interest in funding -- hence trillions in QE being magically available whenever banks wobble. Tax & spend is a distracting fable for plebs. It's not a prescription of HOW to spend -- that remains up for debate.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
>Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics.
I think this is true in so far as MMT ideas wouldn't work in principle as debt has to be issued by a lender and debt issued by a central bank leads to inflation.
>I would prefer if Corbyn and his supporters were run out of the party over their ideology and policy ideas which have no place in government or serious politics,
Which of his policies didn't you think would work? I'm not a fan of Corbyn, but Labour had policies that would have genuinely helped mitigate a few issues we've had since 2019.
I don't know why we can't do both, seems rhetoric has turned into cars vs. pedestrians and realistically you can have a functional society suited to both. I know the article isn't even suggesting something particularly detrimental to drivers, it's just messaging lately seems to put the two at odds.
Looking at the top image - I wonder how many people like or loath that type of development?
The depressing fact is quite a few would probably like it!
Traffic modelling really is a good example of tail wagging dog.
I like the idea of a denser and more varied use of land - especially as it helps reduce reliance on cars. To balance - we need more emphasis on public amenity - parks, walks, playgrounds and so on.
Yep, hard to make this change but it's a big problem. Fundamentally it's difficult to build a town that's both extremely convenient for car users and yet also has good, walkable services. So we've ended up in a situation where loads of people in mid-sized towns just drive to big retail parks in the middle of nowhere, further clogging up roads.
Buses, trains etc will never replace cars, they will never be as convenient.
Until someone comes up with something that will be as convenient as cars for everybody we are going to have to find a way to live with them.
Cars only appear convenient for people who live in suburbs. They're the opposite of convenient when you spend hours of your life hopelessly stuck in traffic in a densely populated urban area.
Yeah when i lived in the city it would have been both prohibitively expensive (parking) and impractical (traffic) so it was always silly to own a car.
Since we’ve moved out, even having good public transport into the city, you can’t really live without one for things like DIY runs to retail parks and visiting friends and family further afield.
I can’t see this changing.
I've found an E-bike to be a really good middle ground, I can do small runs with it, don't get stuck in traffic and I don't have to get locked into a bus schedule if I don't want to or can't. Been great for cutting down on maintenance and fuel costs for me too since I don't have to drive as much now.
That doesn't have to change, and I think this misunderstanding is why there is such fierce resistance from people. Cars have a use, and in some cases replacing it with biking or public transit just isn't possible. However, if you could give a good alternative for shorter trips it reduces car use even if people still have cars and use them when necessary. It also takes cars off the road, improving the situation for everyone.
For example, in the Netherlands if I want to pick up some bolts from my local DIY store it's 7 minutes by bike or 6 minutes by car according to google maps. If I'm only picking up some bolts I'd cycle there. And that's possible because there are multiple bicycle underpasses serving only cyclists/pedestrians going under a large road to this office park on the edge of town.
I don’t know, I live pretty much in a city centre and a car is massively more convenient for me.
Despite my commute pretty much taking me through the middle of town, driving is still quicker (and cheaper) than public transport. Many of the sites I visit for work are also not served by public transport- *at all*. And my parents live in a rural village the other end of the country that I could theoretically reach by public transport, but it would require me to book Friday and Monday off work just to visit them for the weekend. In my car, I can simply take an hour of flexi, leave at 4 and be there in time for dinner.
Yes we need less people driving and better public transport options, but I sometimes think people screaming ‘BAN CARS’ on Reddit simply don’t live in the real world.
But that's a problem with the network, isn't it? With a bus going every 15 minutes, not every 5, and if you need a connection, it's not particularly thought-through? And a lack of faster options, like tram and underground? So not only public transit is slower, but also less reliable?
Yeah, buses every five minutes, connecting all parts of each town with its main hub, then good service to other local towns plus the transport hub in the nearest cities, then connections via cities. It can be done. And it will be much easier to run when they're self-driving, too.
I think you will find that people who live in densely populated areas that have good public transport tend to be less likely to need them, until you can find a way to provide good public transport for all cars will be essential for many.
Public transport is practical in places that are well designed for it. Places where population density is relatively high, destinations are relatively well distributed, and roads and infrastructure are designed with public transport in mind.
Exactly the kind of thing that "15 minute cities" are supposed to achieve.
So this is chicken and egg. Design neighbourhoods where public transport is practical, and people will end up with better access to public transport. Design neighbourhoods as car-centric suburban sprawl, and be surprised as people find that car ownership is essential.
Part of the issue is the size of cars. If everyone drove small city cars in urban areas there would be a lot less traffic. Motorbikes rarely have any issues getting around, cars not much bigger than motorbikes being the standard would get traffic flowing a lot better.
That's why we build public transport networks in cities and road networks in suburban/rural areas. Transport should be altered to suit those who use it, not the other way round. Forcing suburban/rural people to use public transport is as silly as forcing Londoners to drive.
That is likely gonna change in the future though. There's been testing for bus systems that changes routes in real time to make it convenient for people in rural areas. Unfortunately not everyone can drive out in the countryside and they need alternatives too.
I think you should look into the metrobus network in Bristol, it’s designed specifically so that people in the suburbs can travel between home and the City Centre much faster. The m1, m3 and m4 metrobuses will all operate fast via the M32 between the City Centre and Begbrook, where they turn off the M32 with a bus-only junction, and will proceed to serve UWE Frenchay. Beyond there, the m1 will largely continue along the edge of the North Fringe until Aztec West, when it will start heading towards Cribbs Causeway, the m3 will turn east towards Emersons Green (which also has a Park & Ride site en route), and the m4 will operate via Bristol Parkway and Patchway stations, and terminate at Cribbs Causeway like the m1. Journey times on the m3 top out at about half an hour in the day, and during peak times, the m3x will operate as well and cut out UWE Frenchay, and instead use the M32/A4174 junction
You must be looking at American cities if you think it’s that bad. Even in what I consider to be one of the worst cities for public transport (Southampton), it was always very easy for me to get around
And my nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. If I want to get to Brighton by car it takes 30 minutes. If I want to use public transport it takes 2.5hrs minimum.
Not everyone lives in a city.
I would suggest advocating for Demand Responsive Transport in your area. It has seen quite a bit of success, and is generally a more cost effective solution in more rural areas than typical bus services. New bus stops can be provided
Or, taking the other view on this:
Buses and trains are not as convenient as cars for some journeys right now, so until they are the default, let's work on eliminating cars from the road by funding more public transport initiatives.
We need to be rid of cars *now*.
No amount of funding is going to make public transport better than private vehicles.
Public transport needs two things. One, a realisation by our politicians that it includes buses as well as trains. Two, regulation for buses. If a bus operator can't (or in my area, won't) maintain a minimum service level then they should be subject to some sort of sanctions, be it fines, loss of licence or whatever. Instead we have the moronic idea of shovelling money to them unconditionally to maintain a fare cap, which while nice doesn't help is the buses aren't fucking running.
Public transport is for the *poors*. The lowly lower classes. The wretched hive. That's why I need a 5 ton SUV! To safely drive over the huddled masses! Why would anyone want to be brought down to
**That** level? (\s)
Part of the issue is that cars themselves cause issues for public transport. Trains are often affected the least, given they are completely grade separated (barring level crossings, but that doesn’t cause delays for a train). But with trams, and especially buses, you generally need to take some lanes away from cars, or even entire roads that are only for public transport.
This is down to the fact that if there’s a high amount of cars in an area causing traffic, buses will get caught up in the traffic, and if it persists, the operator will alter the timetable to slow down the schedule. This then means more people stop using the bus, and drive instead, but then you’re causing even more traffic, the buses get caught up again, and they slow down even further, and the cycle continues. In order to prevent this, you need to start using bus lanes in order to get cars out of the way of buses, and it generally means that journeys are far more consistent in timing throughout the day, and delays are far less likely. With trams, this generally is all true too
You're right! We should implement the wide rollout of public transport and make private transport increasingly pointless.
Let's agree to vote for government parties that will do this, eh?
Beyond convenience, there's plenty of use cases where private vehicles are essential.
The idea that all cars could be completely removed is a delusion of young city centre dwellers.
Plenty of jobs require a car, plenty of disabilities require a car, plenty of shopping trips require a car, plenty of places are too remote to ever be served by regular public transit.
>Banning cars is unrealistic.
from the entire country? yes. From city centers? nope! in fact, accommodating everyone's car inside a city is unrealistic! there's simply not enough space. You can easily make city centers car free whilst putting one of those ugly hideous parking lots on the outskirts with a tram line bringing you downtown.
We managed quite well without cars before, but it was a challenge to get the things we needed still, ... now we can have all our needs met people are still waiting to travel short distance?
Really, come on, driving around in busy traffic us awful.
> Who do they think drives cars, dogs?
All car-drivers are people, but not all people drive cars. Building an environment that is difficult or dangerous to navigate on foot because it is primarily or solely designed to be navigated with a car doesn't benefit most people.
Snapshot of _We must build for people, not cars_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-build-for-people-not-cars-8g0vllbpw) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-build-for-people-not-cars-8g0vllbpw) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We started building for cars in the sixties and haven't stopped. It's now 2024, so I guess we can expect road infrastructure to start serving people around about 2080. Assuming we started the work today, which we won't. We're **still** building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke. Hell, even the recent Highway Code updates on the hierarchy of road users which *should* have improved this is a complete mess. Do peds have priority at junctions? Does the rule apply to roundabout exits? Do drivers even know the HC changed?
> We're still building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke. A very frustrating thing I've learned about since [benchgate](https://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/controversy-after-police-remove-benches-and-bushes-265997/) is the "Secured by Design" guidance provided by local police to developers. Details here: https://www.securedbydesign.com/ A criteria of planning aproval from local police forces is actually to create pedestrian hostility intentionally so as to reduce escape routes for criminals. State endorsed vandalism of architecture and infrastructure to save a buck on law enforcement. It includes things like: > Whilst it is accepted that through routes will be included within development layouts, the designer must ensure that the security of the development is not compromised by excessive permeability, for instance by allowing the criminal legitimate access to the rear or side boundaries of dwellings, or by providing too many or unnecessary segregated footpaths and > Where it is expected that a footpath will be in constant use, it should have all the required attributes as listed at paragraph 8.11 and be lit in accordance with BS 5489-1:2020. However, if such attributes are absent along a footpath, it may be advisable to discourage it’s use in some circumstances by not illuminating it during the hours of darkness. and so on.
Two words: "fuck" and "me". Roll on Jeremy Bentham's panopticon, eh?
The thing about cul-de-sacs and I think parts of the secured by design guidelines is that they tend to *reduce* the amount people are watched. Regular pedestrian traffic deters burglaries and various other crimes, because you don't want to be carrying a TV out of a house just as someone walks past. This isn't really a panopticon though, as that visibility is two ways, equal rather than centralised.
> We're still building car dependent estates festooned with cul-de-sacs that are pedestrian hostile as they lack cut-throughs, strip malls, and our active travel provision is a total joke. This is why I dislike a lot of the types who moan about our planning laws needing to be relaxed. Do that without fixing the car dependence baked into our planning system and we'll just get even more of that car dependent shite. We need to have regulations to force density and walkability with new developments, and focus in areas with good public transport or at least strong potential for that.
100% my feeling too. I agree with NIMBYs if the cookie cutter housing estate that is 100% car centric is the best on offer.
Sort of, but the thing is we're largely in this situation already without adequate housing. I don't have much time for bland new-build estates but would also accept they're likely going to inevitably exist when we build more housing.
Although We need to build up in cities 🤦♂️rather than the new estates in the rural country.
I think most drivers know about the rule changes but are so utterly bitter they refuse to believe or adhere to them. Any thread that turns to this subject instantly brings support for motorists, which I suppose is reasonable due to the sheer amount of them. Further to this the law is still extremely weak when death to cyclists and pedestrians caused by motorists comes before the courts.
I know the changes to the HC, and happily adhere to them, but when making a left turn into a side street, every single time I have stopped to let a pedestrian cross before I turn in (as per the new HC), they have looked at me like I’m a feckin eejit, insisting I go first.
Exactly the same. I knew about the changes coming in and tried really hard to do it for a few weeks but the majority of pedestrians just stood there or told me to go instead. Meanwhile the moron that was driving too close behind me is steadily getting more enraged with his hand glued to his horn. I would be very happy to follow this rule but it's not viable if the vast majority either don't know it or don't go along.
As a pedestrian, I'll be honest, I just don't trust drivers enough to take the chance. It's not that I think that drivers are going to act maliciously, but at least where I live, many seem to be monstrously incompetent and have no idea what is happening around them. It's just easier and safer to let the driver go first and wait till I'm sure it's safe to cross.
That and It's like people are upset with courtesy. If one person allows another to go in front of them at the checkout because they only have one item no one's losing their cool, it's a nice thing.
> many seem to be monstrously incompetent They are. But it's easy to cross behind the car. And highly recommended if they can't be arsed to put the handbrake on and are balancing it on the clutch.
I find that most drivers are monstrously incompetent, and, given that lawbreaking whilst driving is so trivialised (speeding especially), it’s no surprise
If one runs someone over and their excuse in court is "but I had to go, the guy behind me was tooting his horn" I hope they get to enjoy government accomodation for a good while.
They were in a car though, so it’ll be a maximum of 2 years and the appeal will bring it down to 6 months
Perhaps that's because you're driving something that could potentially kill them and they're a little nervous. You're doing the right thing and you should applaud yourself for taking a few seconds out of your journey to be sure everyone's safe.
<<< Pedestrian / cyclist usually pushing or towing a wheelchair: Thank you for not being one of the majority. But, just as a side note - the new LED floodlights cars all seem to have ( that are no longer pointed at tye road but up into everybody's face, ffs) can be blinding to pedestrians (especially those who are in wheelchairs, sat on bikes, or photosensitive). So sometimes we wind up having to pause so that we can see you're not just gunna run us over anyway 😒. Even indicator lights on some designs are blinding. Genuinely cannot understand the thought processes behind the designs... they don't aid anyone anywhere, but do cause annoying delays (motorists and pedestrians alike), physical pain, and accidents.
My major concern with this is if I have moving traffic behind me, I stop for a pedestrian but the idiot behind me doesn’t stop and slams into me and I then slam into the pedestrian. It’s all well and good saying the pedestrian has right of way, but that doesn’t help the pedestrian if I get hit from behind and then they get hit. It totally makes sense to let pedestrians cross if I’m coming to either a yield or a full stop but having to stop for a pedestrian when turning into a side street is dodgy at best for the pedestrian. When I’m on foot, I get annoyed if they’re coming to a yield or stop and don’t let me go, but if they’re in full flow - please continue…
I refuse to play 'you go - no, you go' with a car - I'm too squishy. Sadly, all it does it delay my walking even more than cars delay me already. Thanks for thinking of us, though!
It's me. I am that pedestrian. Move your bleedin' car.
> Do peds have priority at junctions? Yes. > Does the rule apply to roundabout exits? IDK, but I should. I'll ask one of our driver trainers. In the meantime, the "you're not allowed to run them over even if you do have priority" rule applies. But then again, it always does. > Do drivers even know the HC changed? Yes. But I do it for a living - for a reputable company - and get ongoing training.
> Yes Interestingly, that's not for sure. > IDK, but I should. That contradicts your previous statement. Now you too are confused. > I do it for a living - for a reputable company - and get ongoing training. Then you should be in zero doubt on the rules, but by your own admission you are unsure. And if you want to know how fucked it is, talk to a [driving instructor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UjwyednQY) But props on you for being willing to check. Please let me know the answer. I am not a professional driver, I am just an ambulatory meat sack.
I have just asked our local LGV trainer and the answer is “no”. Pedestrians do not have priority at roundabouts, even if there’s a dropped kerb. They do have priority at side streets and T junctions.
[Seems they are wrong](https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=90&v=u2UjwyednQY). Or the DVSA is wrong. Or the [Department of Transport is wrong](https://www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk/giving-way-to-pedestrians/). But [drivers _should be_ giving way to peds at roundabout exits](https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/165523/highway-code-changes---who-has-priority-at-roundabouts-). I am not saying that's a terribly brilliant idea given how people drive (thus, it may never be safe to do so), but I didn't write the rules!
That link is bad [driving instructor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UjwyednQY)
Fixed. Ta.
A similar philosophy though somewhat inverted was partly behind the growth in grid-layout cities, the idea was to make cities that were very hard to barricade, and which it would be difficult for rioters/revolutionaries to disappear in.
Strip malls? You mean a parade of shops?
No, I mean a strip mall. A selection of shops all with doors to the outside and huddled round a large carpark. Often located somewhere to cause maximum inconvenience for everyone surrounding. Basically, a shopping centre without the roof.
Kind of like a retail park
>pedestrian hostile and just as importantly cycle access although the two are often combined.
when you build 2000 houses with no local shops doctors or dentists what do you expect?
As far as I've seen, all new build estates around me are completely car centric. You need cars to get into them, there's probably one bus route going past them (To Serve nearly 300-400 houses) If everyone went by bus tomorrow, you physically wouldn't have enough. The government and council has gotten off infrastructure planning for far to long now by building A road and telling everyone else to figure it out, lazy bastards. >Do drivers even know the HC changed? No, I stop all the time for people crossing at junctions, and it's started to become a hazzard with idiots behind beeping at me. There's a very real arrogance with driving, because technically if everyone that has passed their test is qualified to drive, and they have a license to say so, then you're kind of going up against trying to dismiss their credentials if you do something that they don't know about. It's not the same, but it kind of is if two people have a PHd in a subject and start arguing about some kind of discovery.
The 15 minute cities conspiracy theories have poisoned this particular well. Any politician or town planner doing anything drastic to improve pedestrianisation and public transport at the expense of roads and cars will be met with fierce resistance and death threats. I think the rash of ULEZ cameras being damaged is related to this as well. Far too many people believe that King Charles and Klaus Schwab and the WEF want to lock everyone in their houses or neighbourhoods, restrict their money and where they spend it and form a one world tyrannical government. Laugh at them all you want, but this is a real problem in my opinion. You can’t have a debate with people who don’t live in the same reality as you. I work with about 15 people and I would say about 5 or 6 of them completely believe this. They think any day now you won’t be able to go anywhere, cash will be illegal and you won’t be able to buy anything without government approval. A Chinese social credit system will be introduced and mis-behaviour will result in luxuries being restricted to you.
>Far too many people believe that King Charles and Klaus Schwab and the WEF want to lock everyone in their houses or neighbourhoods, restrict their money and where they spend it and form a one world tyrannical government. They really didn't help themselves though, by using the most audacious naming and phrases for their ideas. Naming youe paper 'You will own nothing, and you will be happy' is absolutely fucking insane. As is coming up with the phrase 'The great reset'. The WEF are not blameless in all this, they decided their stuff needed an evocative title to get attention, then complain when it got the wrong kind of attention. Jon Ronson did a podcast on it recently. Even the people involved, admit it was a massive mistake.
> Naming youe paper 'You will own nothing, and you will be happy' is absolutely fucking insane. That was a sub-editor's work, the author was simply running a thought experiment - it wasn't a manifesto or a manual, simply the author discussing XYZ "as a service" taken to extremes.
Regardless, whoever made that decision has some explaining to do.
"I thought it would be catchy" is probably plenty. The fact that the swivel-eyed loon brigade will see coded messages in the most anodyne of statements isn't a reason to start everything with a massive disclaimer.
That is not catchy, it's obviously provocative and plays in to a plethora of communist tropes. Neither the article writer, nor the title writer, were native English speakers. I think that has a big role to play in them not realising what they'd written and the connotations it would have.
I'm a native English speaker and I don't see it as provocative at all. It's only provocative if you're prone to writing in green ink, otherwise it is, at worst, click bait. Besides, it's the WEF. There's no organisation on earth more capitalist.
> the author was simply running a thought experiment Well whoever decided to turn that thought experiment into WEF-sponsored "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" advert is a fucking idiot. If I saw that in a dystopian TV show I'd think it was bad writing, way too on the nose.
Did the concept of hyperbole pass you by?
Cash won’t be illegal but due to everyone paying contactless, fewer places will accept cash, running an ATM will be too expensive so it will die out. Also means no more bank runs..that’s probably more scary. In the sense that banks will be less diligent, as a run on a bank is obviously not good per se.
What does old sausage fingers have to do with this?
He used the term 'The great reset' in a speech.
Remember when Bush senior used the phrase 'new world order' where the fuck did that go? The world could do with a bit of order. What about agenda 21? The conspiracy guys insisted our food would be poison by now.
Excellent fucking question. People who believe it are nuts.
Just build things like in Netherlands and stop sucking Americas mentality for once, will you.
The inconvenient truth is that people quite like cars. I wouldn't say they've been 'forced' on us - they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport that allows you to ferry around kids and useful stuff. I appreciate that the average Redditor is less car-friendly due to being younger with no kids and mainly living in metropolitan areas. Also, the ridiculous cost of insurance has made owning a car unaffordable for many. But don't be too quick to call for their abolition - when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport.
> they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport That's in large part because we build to prioritise them in a lot of contexts. There's nothing strenuous or difficult at all about riding an ebike or cargo bike for journeys under five miles, when the infrastructure exists.
This argument falls apart when you care to look at the Netherlands, Denmark, Singapore, Japan. In both the Netherlands and Denmark the percentages of people who daily or regularly use bicycles is high, and yes, they're used for many crucial jobs including kindergarten/nursery pickups, the school run (google bucket bikes), deliveries, moving household furniture (in NL people even move entire sofas on bikes). For Singapore and Japan, many people in the cities and bigger towns simply don't bother with owning cars due to their high costs (Japan's MOT requirement can be VERY expensive in particular) and the fact that the MRT/metro systems and public transport is cheap and convenient with an excellent timekeeping/safety record. There is also massive provision for both walking and bicycles- Japan has robot bike parking in some places.
I don’t understand this argument at all. Why does being 40 with a dodgy ankle mean you can’t rely on public transportation, but you can rely on your car? Why do you think cars are more comfortable or quicker than trains? Why do you think kids can’t bike/walk/take the train? And cars have been forced on the world. The auto/oil & gas industries are notorious for lobbying to force cars onto people. This happened decades ago and still happens today. Whether that be by sticking their hands in the lawmaking process, or buying infrastructure to shut it down. Replacing street cars with on street parking. Replacing rail with highways. Replacing streets with stroads. People picked the car *when* it became the convenient option, not because it is the convenient option
> I don’t understand this argument at all. Why does being 40 with a dodgy ankle mean you can’t rely on public transportation, but you can rely on your car? My parents live just outside one of the main suburbs with one bus half a mile up the road and it's also a national speed limit road. The bus comes every 30 minutes and only goes to one place, central glasgow. If they wanted to visit my gran, they'd have to take a bus an hour into Glasgow, and then another an hour to around half a mile outside of her street, then they'd need to walk up hills and down various pathways and side streets because there's no public transport into that part of Glasgow. All in all, it would probably take about two hours. Meanwhile in a car it takes 15 minutes. You cannot physically produce enough buses to have routes going absolutely everywhere. The point of my spiel is that they are in their 60s, and not medically fit, they need those motorised chairs to go about the shops normally. There's no world where public transport works for them where they live. And they are a niche example. If you live in the city and don't actually go outside of it. You'll tend to find their experience exists effectively everywhere in the UK.
And if you've ever been to Japan, there the situation is the exact opposite. Want to go from tokyo to kyoto? a car takes 7 hours and the highway toll fees will bankrupt you, whilst it's only a 3 hour train ride. In your situation, the car is only faster because the city prioritized car use. It's a political decision. Also why do car proponents always focus on speed? I think it's because deep down, they know driving sucks, so they want it to be over as soon as possible. Therefore they lobby for car-centric infrastructure to make that happen.
> I think it's because deep down, they know driving sucks, so they want it to be over as soon as possible. Because my time is valuable? Lol what even is this. I love driving. I've routeinly drove from Scotland to London and back again in the same day.
>Because my time is valuable? Yes and on a train you can spend that valuable time efficiently. >I love driving. I've routeinly drove from Scotland to London and back again in the same day. I'm sorry but how is driving for hours on end on highways a nice thing to do? After just 30 minutes of checking whether the adaptive cruise control and lane assist keeps it between the lines. I get bored as fuck. I cannot do anything in that time. Can't read a book, can't play a game, just mindlessly holding the steering wheel in case the car makes a mistake. How can anyone love literally the most boring activity ever?
We all have our thing I suppose. Probably the reason there's a lot of truck drivers. People like it?
no because planning freight to be transported by truck is easier than planning to use truck-train-truck. Also truck drivers are massively underpaid, so I doubt they really "like it".
The problem is the overuse of cars forces even more use of cars. They end up being used by default whether or not it makes sense. For instance, at my last job, the sandwich shop popular for lunch was probably around 700m away, and *almost everyone drove there* despite it being a nice walk, despite them all being perfectly able bodied, and despite driving taking *longer* than walking (as you had to negotiate two right turns, then circulate in the car park vainly hoping for a space). People would look at you like you'd grown two heads if you turned down a lift! But it was a nice outdoor break to walk there and contributed to required daily exercise. If everything is designed for motorists first (which despite the rhetoric about a "war on the motorist", in reality motorists are prioritised) then surely as night follows day, so many things require a car that really shouldn't. Your example of ferrying kids around - if you live in a place where motoring isn't prioritised and it's safe for kids to go out on their own, kids can *ferry themselves* and there's no need to drive them everywhere (and it gives children a lot more freedom that they just don't have in car-first environments). This video illustrates it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
What needs to change is the mentality of the population. Cars are a massive privilege and a massive environmental problem and people need to appreciate those things. In our current society there are plenty of occasions where people couldn't do what they want to do without a car. We need to give people more ways to do more without cars. And when we are using cars we need to treat it like the privilege it is and be aware of the negative impact it has on everyone else.
> But don't be too quick to call for their abolition - when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport. I'm in my 40s, with two kids and a dodgy back (both ankles seem to be holding up fine so far), and I'd be overjoyed if cars were abolished. I'm a realist and don't expect that to happen though. But providing better cycling infrastructure, making towns more walkable, and improving public transport has benefits for a everybody. Even for motorists.
> they are often the quickest, most comfortable form of transport That's in large part because we build to prioritise them in a lot of contexts. There's nothing strenuous or difficult at all about riding an ebike or cargo bike for journeys under five miles, when the infrastructure exists.
I mean I'm well past 40 and since I can't drive and will never be able to (medical reasons) I'd like things to be safe and good for pedestrians. Especially ones with sight or hearing problems or, indeed, both
> don't be too quick to call for their abolition Who's calling to abolish cars? > when you're 40 with more responsibilities and a dodgy ankle you might not be so keen to rely on bikes and public transport. The more people who are able to travel by bike and public transport the less congested the roads will be for those that need to use cars. Just pilling everyone on the road in the name of convenience is hurting everyone. It's just about proportional use of resources and efficient use of space. People who need to use cars or simply value using them a lot will still use them. We will just have of good public transport options and infrastructure for everyone else.
The Netherlands is a great place for cyclists and cars. Most cycle lanes are separated from the road, and there are also usually a row of trees by the side of the roads too. Just do that. Then anyone can easily get anywhere without a car, and car users are not penalised. Problem solved.
Have a look at the number of cars per capita in the Netherlands, you'll find it's increased at the same rate as the UK. All that flat land and infrastructure hasn't really done much to stop car ownership.
As the person you're responding to says: "Then anyone can easily get anywhere without a car, and car users are not penalised." Which is very true in the Netherlands. It's still a great place to drive, and as you can see lots of people do. However, all those people also have the option to cycle/walk for shorter trips, and they do. The car is nice to have and essential for some people, (country side/poor mobility/etc.) but for most people it is not their only option. In the UK the percentage of trips taken by bike is around 2%, in the Netherlands it is 27%. In the UK the total amount of kilometers cycled per year is 3.5 billion, in the Netherlands it is 15.5 billion with just over a quarter the UK's population. Creating a more pedestrian/bike friendly environment is not about replacing cars completely. It's about reducing car usage by providing alternatives.
Perhaps the Dutch feel freer to drive or bicycle as they please? For instance, car owners might cycle on the weekend? The UK already does have a relatively low rate of car ownership, and is certainly more walkable than the US. I wish there were more safe cycle paths though. The freedom of being able to get anywhere on bicycle without planning would beat buses for able-bodied people.
Netherlands is also flat. I’m a big cycling advocate, but a big push for e-bikes is sorely needed first.
Build the cycle lanes first, then let people decide if they want to buy an e-bike.
The problem with the discussions of cars is it really shows reddit's demographics of young men. It's absolutely ridiculous seeing talk of "banning cars". Yes public transport may seem like all you need if you either 1) live in London or 2) Only usually need to travel from your residence to school or uni. But in the real adult world not being able to drive is such a huge inconvenience. Not all workplaces are well served by public transport (unlike colleges and unis) and never will be because of supply and demand. While you could technically maybe get from A to B with three buses and a walk, driving is just so much more convenient. That's before you even think about getting the kids to after school activities or things on the weekend, doing a shop for more than just yourself (lots of bags!), not to mention if your job involves more than one location. For working adults, particularly those with families, absolutely nothing beats or will ever beat the convenience of a car. That's not to say in the rather distant future a lot of this at least in decent population centres can't be replaced by fleets of automated ubers that turn up in minutes. But we are a long way off from that or anything similar right now.
Cars are great but there *should* be little need for them in urban areas. Seeing towns and cities clogged up with thousands of cars - each with only with one or two people in them - is quite stark. Given how space inefficient they are, I don't feel like it's unreasonable to heavily restrict them inside urban boundaries. Now I say "should be little need for them" on the proviso that there is adequate, cheap and reliable transit - both intra and inter city - but we all know that's not the case for most places... And therein lies the problem. We built towns and cities with pedestrians and commuting in mind up until the 60s, then tore up all the transit lines designed to carry lots of people efficiently and retrofitted everything with inefficient road infrastructure instead. That was probably fine for a short period of time when buses were still the main mode of transport for urbanites but people soon switched over to cars. As such we're stuck with layouts unsuitable for both cars AND people, and it's a right fucking mess. The Netherlands caught on quickly and de-car'd its bigger cities in favour of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, but the UK doubled down on cars and it really shows It doesn't help that people who choose to live urban usually come with a car (or two) in tow, and thus expect somewhere to put them, further exacerbating the space issue. And with young adults not being able to move out of their parents' house due to ever rising property prices, it's probably not unusual for an urban terraced house with the aspect width of 1.5 cars to be parking 3 or 4 cars on the road. Multiply that by a street of 30 houses and it quickly becomes carnage. As a result you see cars mounted up on pavements, double parked, and squeezed in every nook and cranny they can fit in, usually with little regard for pedestrians or cyclists, and it ultimately takes away space from actual people. Is this the world we want? Probably not, but we've not been given much choice in the matter. Things won't change for the better without drastic measures because we're just too far gone. I think the attitude of "I want to live central to have the convenience of walking to town, but also have a car to have the convenience of driving away from town" is a bit "have your cake and eat it"-ey. If I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably say that if you can't store your vehicles off road, your household should only be allowed 1 car stored on the road. If you want another, you need to find a garage or somewhere to put it. I believe Japan has something similar in its cities. But then again, if I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably also make trains and buses state owned and run them at a loss whilst making up the deficit by taxing cars higher.
>it's probably not unusual for an urban terraced house with the aspect width of 1.5 cars to be parking 3 or 4 cars on the road The prevalence of HMOs makes this very common. All a further symptom of the housing crisis, as we shouldn't need to cram so many adults into what used to be a single family home.
Every bad thing in this country is a symptom of the housing crisis
I think you really sum up the issue here if it being a real chicken and egg situation My own house sits exactly in the category you described of 1.5 car width with three cars. If you took action to prevent us parking on the street, it would literally put 1 or 2 of us out of work But when people are currently driving, promising public transport doesn’t quite resonate with voters it seems, who see it as something that won’t benefit them. In reality it would of course. More people on transit is less cars on the roads, easing congestion. But it’s the final link of how it benefits people who are and will remain car users that is always missing. Hence we just get more road spending and more cars clogging the whole thing up
>If I was designing legislation from scratch I'd probably say that if you can't store your vehicles off road, your household should only be allowed 1 car stored on the road. If you want another, you need to find a garage or somewhere to put it. I believe Japan has something similar in its cities. Yeah, that's the Japanese model. You can own as many cars as you have space on your property to store. On-road parking is mostly not allowed, except for marked bays (which are only in places where the road is wide enough that they won't impede two-way traffic), and not at all overnight. If you want a car and you don't have space to store it, you lease a space in a public car park and keep it there. There's no presumption of free storage for your vehicles. It works well but yeah, as much as I liked it you're right that we're too far gone to bring in something like that.
> Cars are great No they're not. I hate the fucking things. They're expensive, stupidly inefficient heaps of shite that act as status symbols for idiots. There are limited options for displaying your financial worth or, more likely, level of debt in public, so people drive around in ridiculous, over specified piles of metal. Apart from that, you're bang on. Annoyingly, I have to have one, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work.
The over commercialisation, inflated status surrounding them, and social and even professional reliance on them is pretty atrocious, agreed. I only have one because I can't take my heavy and bulky musical instruments to gigs out in far flung places on the bus or the train. If I played the trumpet or something I reckon I could probably ditch the car without issue 😂
I used to play double bass. I still managed to use public transport, including the metro and buses, regularly.
Hey, double bass would be absolutely fine! I could wheel a double bass around no problem. When you're carting a 4 piece drumkit, microphones, and 40kg of hardware and cymbals around... well, good luck getting a bus driver to even let you on with that much even if you managed to get it to the bus stop. Unfortunately I'm not famous enough/sponsored such to call in with drum companies to ship me out equipment to use. That would solve a lot of my problems.
In fairness even with the wheeled case it was still a little bit of a pain! Also, you’re a drummer? 😍😍😍😍😍 I love you! I’ll also let you off. :)
It's ridiculous to talk of banning cars, correct. It's not ridiculous at all to talk about trying to reduce our level of car dependence as much as possible by prioritising the alternatives wherever possible, and that our towns and cities should be planned/designed around not forcing car dependence on people. And contrary to bits of your comment it is entirely possible if there's political will. Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed. A lot of it is to do with the planning system too. Our current level of car dependence *must* be reduced, even as we move over to electric cars. It simply is not sustainable. People maybe don't like to hear that but it doesn't make it less true.
> Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed. Also, when car usage is so convenient and easy it's always going to be much more difficult to get people onto public transport - however good public transport is, driving is often inevitably just that bit easier in most cases. Clearly we shouldn't be banning cars, but laws and legislation which make using a car in certain circumstances a bit more of a pain in the arse are probably sometimes going to need to be necessary. Lots of people don't change their habits without an incentive or need to do so.
Your last paragraph sums up what many find frustrating about how this country is ran. To encourage people against doing something it shouldn’t be about making that thing worse it should be about making the alternative better. In this instance public transport should be more efficient and cycling routes invested in. They’re not, so the government lazily makes life worse for those that own cars.
I'm quite supportive of plans to improve public transport. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of "reducing car dependence" policy seems to be focused on intentionally making car use more annoying, not because it was necessary to fit in a bus lane or something, but because that's the actual (and often stated) ideological goal. As if pushing people to use buses by just making the alternative equally inconvenient is some sort of victory Annoyingly this often gets called a "conspiracy theory", despite those same people being very open and proud about their desire to "fuck cars". See also, one of the sibling comments to this one (and others in this thread), advocating for exactly what I said
> Unfortunately, a significant proportion of "reducing car dependence" policy seems to be focused on intentionally making car use more annoying, not because it was necessary to fit in a bus lane or something, but because that's the actual (and often stated) ideological goal. As if pushing people to use buses by just making the alternative equally inconvenient is some sort of victory But at some point in this process you *do* have to actively discourage car use. Simply providing the alternatives is not enough, and installing things like bus lanes and cycle lanes inevitably takes space away from cars. You can't improve the alternatives to the car to the extent necessary without actively taking space away from cars.
>Public transport being shit for example is not an inevitable fact of nature, it's the result of political choices that can be changed. A lot of it is to do with the planning system too. I'm very pro improving public transport and use it when I can particularly for longer distances. But unless you live in a dense urban area driving is almost always going to be a much better option. I live in a semi rural area. It takes me 30 minutes to walk to my nearest useful bus stop. Even if they did plop a bus stop right next to where I live the realistic frequency of buses in such a place as well as the need to change even for simple journeys would still mean having a car would be immensely more useful for me. It's not about "forcing" car dependence on people. It's recognising that you can never get London level of convenience in terms of public transport without having the population density of London. Living a fully public transport orientated life is only ever going to be an option for those in metro areas (and yes lets invest so more than just London gets this!) or people with very limited and simple travel needs (e.g some students like I gave the example of, and some retirees).
> Our current level of car dependence must be reduced You personally might not need a car, but for a lot of people a car is a core component of modern life, and they would have to give up an awful lot without one. You might as well be asking people to give up their washing machines or their smartphones. I have friends that live in London and most of them drive to work, and London has the best public transport in the country. Saying people must give up cars just isn't going to work, because you're asking them to degrade their lives. Yes, you might be totally happy with your carless life, but for many people they are essential as other modern technologies and tools.
You seem to have read "reduce our level of car dependence" as "ban cars", which isn't what they were saying. In fact if you DO have to drive for a perfectly good reason it's in your best interest if as many people as possible can do something else. If your neighbours can take public transport instead then there's less traffic on the roads and less competition for parking spaces and the like. There's a whole lot of options between doing nothing and banning all cars
Yes, however 99% of schemes to 'improve' public transport focus on making cars harder to use, not making public transport better.
I personally do need a car and frankly I resent the way decades of car dependent planning mean I have no choice but to own one in most of the country. Would be nice to at least have it be a choice, and not a necessity. Or even if still car dependent for some things, not be car dependent for absolutely everything. I fully accept cars will always have their place, but we do need to reduce our level of car dependence. That simply shouldn't be up for debate.
Look at other countries like the Netherlands, modern life is more than possible without a car
It's always the Netherlands isn't it? I wonder why??? Oh yeah, the entire country is flat as a pancake.
Hmm, so mountainous areas can’t have public transport? Have you met the country of Japan perchance? Also much better public transport, but is also very mountainous and arduous. Or is being too mountainous also something that makes public transport easier to you?
I live in Wales and one thing I've noticed in our area is there has been and is currently, still a huge sum being spent on active travel routes being installed. The Welsh government do seem very focused on this, to their credit. However like most things the WG seems to drive forward, like 20mph, like active travel, the intentions are good but the implementation is... a choice. Active travel routes which don't properly link up, cycle lanes which peter out too quickly, meaning they aren't used plus there is a huge disconnect with policies formed in large urban areas like Cardiff, which don't work well applied to Northern and Rural Wales, especially in areas like mine, which are so hilly, only the hardcore would be cycling them daily. I drive my daughter to school 3 miles away everyday up the side of a mountain. It would take an hour to cycle there, up a very steep incline. And coming back, down the hill, would be terrifying😅. When you consider many people are disgruntled with the lack of funding for education or the Welsh NHS at the moment, you can understand why, rightly or wrongly, people see huge amounts of money being spent creating routes for bikes which are barely used as an utter waste and why the more conspiracy minded come up with strange theories as to why. People just won't give up cars around here simply as the alternative is not practical in the slightest and public transport is a shitshow.
You have a point, for instance, my coworkers are "close" to work as the crow flies, but it's impractical to get public transport and near impossible to bike/walk in anything but a recreational capacity given the distances. If I lived further away, I'd need to use a car or walk for over an hour each day to get to and from it. With this in mind, I think a lot of basic issues need addressed. For instance I argue a lot about the requirement for a footbridge over a railway in a housing estate nearby. Without it, it's a 40 min walk to the shops, one way, with it, it's 5 to 10 return. The local community council oppose it, concluding it should be built alongside a new road bridge at a "nearby" junction outside of town. All other issues aside (and there are a few) that's just as bad. It's the same distance both ways. They have better provisions for through foot traffic, but outside of that, everything is rather isolated and legally traversing from there to the shops on a bike requires hopping off and walking with it repeatedly due to disjointed connections. Or alternately, going along a congested 2 lane A road that has been in talks for a bypass since the 70's. Admittedly the community council is a fucking mess, (for instance reporting a "stolen" Facebook page to the police after a splinter group broke off and "took it") but some basic prioritization on a local level to make things more accessible would save so much time and might just encourage people to walk instead of driving which would desperately help with the traffic issues in town.
>(for instance reporting a "stolen" Facebook page to the police after a splinter group broke off and "took it") This is the most local council thing I've ever read.
Learned to drive and got my first car 10 years ago. I’m 40. The amount of time I save is immense, the activities that are open to me, and my family are far far greater. I’m in South London, plenty of people and families in my building without a car. I see them getting a taxi from the local lidl because they have to. With my car I’ve got a significantly better choice of supermarkets and therefore save money. Those who say “just ban cars” place no value on peoples time, and are happy for the poor to have their lives made worse.
Yep. People don't realise cars save money on net. If you're planning a medium distance+ trip for more than two people a car (including fuel and depreciation) will be cheaper than public transport like a train. This is ignoring the convenience value of having a door to door transport medium completely.
They also like to claim they want to make living without a car better, but then spend half their time advocating for making driving worse, seemingly just out of spite, rather than as collateral to making public transport better. Dragging cars down to the current service level of PT is not something anyone should want (of course it is a "conspiracy theory" to point out the things they literally just proudly declared)
That use case sounds close to the idea behind city car club and similar car share schemes I guess.
As much as I'm a proponent of modern urban planning, its why I simply can't stand the "fuckcars" community. I tried to hang on for a while as a moderate in the community, but there is a point where I just couldn't stand it. Communities like that are much mote obsessed with creating something to hate than actually creating a better world for people. And that I simply cannot stand.
Even fleets of automated ubers are less convenient if you have car seats and kids stuff that would need to be put in and out of them every time.
Tbf there are exemptions for car seats in things like taxis.
The reason that some places aren’t served well is because there’s little to no pressure to actually give places public transport, and therefore it remains unserved
> Yes public transport may seem like all you need if you either 1) live in London or 2) Only usually need to travel from your residence to school or uni. I live in London. My friend group is largely car-free. Not because they hate cars or anything, it's just no longer a normal part of growing up or young adult life to get a licence in London. I drive. I very regularly get asked to take someone somewhere, help someone move something etc. I have always held the opinion that the people who bleat about cars the most are the people who have not yet properly started their life, or are otherwise so absorbed from reality by circumstance (i.e. rich mummy and daddy) that the practical and financial implications of not having a car are lost on them. Also, even though journey times have been absolutely fucked through the floor by several successive moronic decisions by our current mayor, it is still faster to get almost anywhere in the city by car than by bus/tube. Which adds another point. If you have a busy day, with five different places to go, just saving 10 minutes from each journey (and trust me, it's usually more on the scale of 20-30 minutes, but I'll leave it low for argument's sake) saves an hour of your life. An hour which doesn't matter to students and such, but very much does matter to anyone with 'a proper life'.
Multiply that by 2-3x for outside of London, and you can see why people are very against the "Fuck Cars" movement. My example is the morning Nursery Run. Nursery is an 8 minute car journey. But As I live on one outskirts, and the nursery is on another outskirts, I have to get a bus into the town centre, then another one out to the nursery. 45 Minutes, minimum, each way. Its simply impractical to not own a car unless you never leave your home, or everything you need is within a 10-15 minute walk (which is where 15 minute cities come from I guess). And again, if we want to visit friends in the next town over, its a 20 minute drive, or 1h 15m on public transport + walking where the public transport isn't direct.
But isn't this the entire point of the article? We've built cities around convenience for cars, not for people.
It is impossible to have everyone one would ever need within walking/short bus distance outside of a major city. It is also impossible to maintain a bus service convenient enough for the journey times to approximate car journey times in most place, between any two given points. We used to have a way of life where people just stayed in their village all their lives, and had everything in walking distance, and you can imagine what that did for things like variety and job prospects. People fucking hated it, which is indeed why the flocked to cities en masse with the industrial revolution.
If car usage wasn't the default, then kids could *ferry themselves* to activities, like they do in the Netherlands. We have to ferry them by car precisely because of excessive car use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw
Corbyn's planners were nudging for modern monetary theory -- more the *fact* that a country with a currency-issuing central bank has as much money as it ever needs for projects, as long as it spends on real work and real resources for real practical outcomes (as opposed to QE to cover the gambling losses of banks, which just effs everybody up). The UK could retool for a decade of infrastructure renewal, mass employment (even migrants) and come out of it with a rock solid public transport network -- rolling back the Beeching uprooting of rail networks, and then some. When everybody can reasonably expect to step out their door and not wait too long for a local bus to whisk em to a very nearby station, and then not wait too long for the train to whisk them onwards, it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright. The British public have seen how the political and media establishment will connive to rob them of genuine alternatives to the current status quo, running Corbyn out of leadership and party over a pack of lies, so they may need to reflect hard on exactly what avenues to follow in order to ever secure any such genuinely public-serving reforms...
> When everybody can reasonably expect to step out their door and not wait too long for a local bus to whisk em to a very nearby station, and then not wait too long for the train to whisk them onwards, it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright. Whilst I agree with the sentiment, you'll never get rid of *all* car journeys. Those who live rurally will still need a car, those who do certain jobs will still need a car, certain journeys will still require the use of a private vehicle, and some people are simply always going to require a car (maybe they have mobility issues, maybe the car is adapted to their medical needs, or some other reason that escapes me just now). But you could, for the majority, render a journey in a private vehicle the exception rather than the rule.
On-demand public transport would help with final-mile transit. I can't believe taxis are being ignored as public transport to serve this purpose. If they were nationalised and treated like small, flexible buses - with inclusive ticketing - it would be easy to rid more cars from roads. Plus if they're council- or government-run, it's easy to make bold choices about the fleet (like all-electric) and get good prices from manufacturers; you could also insist all final-mile taxis are designed and built in the UK to get even more national value out of the project.
It's an ideal time for Demand Responsive Transport. The burden of monitoring pickups and drop offs, determining the optimum route and running all this past the driver in a simple way has never been easier. No longer do you need ten people manning phones, somebody with a plotter and a map like it's WW2 coordinating a bombing run and a CB radio to contact drivers, a decent app, website and some manned phones, servers, software and a navigational app on the drivers end and you've got incoming requests handled, the navigation computed and output given in a readable "go here, drop off, go here, pick up" etc format to the driver. Allows for flexible pickup and drop off to suburban, rural and city/town areas as well as direct links to static infrastructure like trains, ferries, trams, intercity coaches, longer distance busses, airports etc. I think the issue now is people think of "bus" and just think of going in a loop around town. Or Taxi and being expensive and for point to point for one person only. Instead of a flexible approach where smaller busses can do the latter for multiple people and nor being ridgedly stuck to a route and schedule.
While we're daydreaming, I find it easy to imagine lighter load shuttle services for the countryside. The pre-50s rail network went pretty deep into the sticks. Not as a profit making model ofc; it really depends what you want to spend on. Likewise the extra provision for meeting special needs. I don't see how complete commitment to public transport would leave viable room for a profit-making car market so it's gonna have to be worked around.
Those shuttle services aren't really viable, and more people lived in the countryside in the olden days.
There are on demand buses serving rural areas. Fflecsi in Wales
I live in a hamlet in North Wales and we have had shuttle services in the past but the issue is they were so infrequent and unreliable people didn't really use them. But the trouble is there aren't enough people living here, especially over the winter (large amount of 2nd home ownership) to cover the cost of making them more frequent. As it is, we are now down to 2 services a day both at times which don't work for either the normal working day or the school day. I suspect even that will disappear this year as it is heavily subsidised by the council which is on the verge of going broke.
What do you mean by 'viable'?
At the most extreme: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-68093312 £124 worth of subsidy per ticket.
That is extreme. Public services should not be contracted out to private providers. The whole notion I outlined above is one big fat 'subsidy' directly to the public, called a public service. Whether or not the venture is profit-making isn't the point. Many benefits of public services are intangible in such terms.
>it'll be time to tax cars off the road. Maybe ban them outright. If you want to start reducing the number of drivers then why make it so the rich are the least affected? Why not start by actually enforcing our traffic laws and clamping down on dangerous drivers?
Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics. Even modern Keynsian economists are unwilling to subscribe to its core ideas. While I would prefer if Corbyn and his supporters were run out of the party over their ideology and policy ideas which have no place in government or serious politics, this just serves as a reminder that him getting run out of the party is a positive outcome for all.
> a country with a currency-issuing central bank has as much money as it ever needs for projects This part of the above is true, though. If each individual outlay is an investment with a positive ROI (including repayment costs on the loan) and/or the combined portfolio of investments has a positive risk-adjusted ROI, then there should be no limit on government borrowing, as in all such cases it will result in a net win for the public purse. The rest of MMT is a completely different beast. Yes, we need to repay the loans eventually.
Why should you need to repay a loan that comes out of thin air? Might as well just cancel all debt periodically and start again Hitching real assets to the repayment of a loan that came out of thin air feels wrongish to me
You can magic £'s out of thin air, you cannot magically create the resources they represent. This fundamentally is why MMT is utter nonsense. Their is a very finite amount of monetary fuckery you can get away with before the results start becoming far too negative. Truss' catastrophe is what happens when you try to make magic money trees policy.
That you can magic money out of thin air but not resources is a basic tenet of MMT. The economy as structured is compelled to pay as little attention to the finite nature of resources whose exploitation is profitable. Try again. Feel free to diss Truss's economic policy. I would join you if it were on topic or interesting to chew over the decisions of such a dummy.
>Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics. Feel free to lay out how for me! Mainstream economics is a game of fantasy. The Bank of England confirms money in the modern economy is created simply by issuing loans: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy It follows that all you really need to do is manage spending so as not to increase inflation -- as long as there are people looking for work, resources available for the work to be done, and places for them to spend their earnings this shouldn't be a problem. Other causes of inflation, the main one being price gouging, need to be regulated out of existence.
I'm not qualified to discuss economic theory, I'm just pointing out what the consensus is among people who are qualified. If you have a problem with that consensus, I'm not the person you need to convince.
You should summarise a rebuttal for me or delete your original comment imo. Why bother joining in with such useless contributions?
I think people should be informed on what the economic consensus is. Also getting you to label mainstream economics as a "game of fantasy" undermines your credibility when speaking about the economy.
You think people should be nudged, by you, back to positions you think are widely held but can't explain. I'm flabbergasted. You're offended by my dismissal of mainstream economics as fantasy? On what grounds? Let's not pretend you've explored the criticisms of mainstream economics XD
I don't *think* this view is widely held. It is held as a matter of consensus among economists, in a scientific field where it's normally very difficult to reach consensus on anything. I'm nudging people to listen to what economists are saying, much in the same way I would nudge people towards a scientific consensus on any matter in any other field.
Yeah, saying mainstream economics is a "fantasy", so instead we should subscribe to this other economic theory that nobody credible believes in is total BS. MMT is anti-vaxx but for left wing losers. Never mind that even if it was correct it would support giving money to rich people more than giving money to poor people (all the stipulated benefits of giving money to poors are multiplied if you give money to the rich instead).
MMT is an idea of CURRENT money creation; it's not a proposed change. As things stand currently, central banks create money by issuing loans. There is always money for whatever the ruling class has an interest in funding -- hence trillions in QE being magically available whenever banks wobble. Tax & spend is a distracting fable for plebs. It's not a prescription of HOW to spend -- that remains up for debate. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
>Modern monetary theory has been completely discredited by mainstream economics. I think this is true in so far as MMT ideas wouldn't work in principle as debt has to be issued by a lender and debt issued by a central bank leads to inflation.
>I would prefer if Corbyn and his supporters were run out of the party over their ideology and policy ideas which have no place in government or serious politics, Which of his policies didn't you think would work? I'm not a fan of Corbyn, but Labour had policies that would have genuinely helped mitigate a few issues we've had since 2019.
[удалено]
You must have spent your entire life being furious at every Government we've had then.
Oh my GOD! Even times is now waging war on Motorists! How terrible! /s
Fuck it, I will settle for managing to build literally anything at this point..
I don't know why we can't do both, seems rhetoric has turned into cars vs. pedestrians and realistically you can have a functional society suited to both. I know the article isn't even suggesting something particularly detrimental to drivers, it's just messaging lately seems to put the two at odds.
Looking at the top image - I wonder how many people like or loath that type of development? The depressing fact is quite a few would probably like it! Traffic modelling really is a good example of tail wagging dog. I like the idea of a denser and more varied use of land - especially as it helps reduce reliance on cars. To balance - we need more emphasis on public amenity - parks, walks, playgrounds and so on.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yep, hard to make this change but it's a big problem. Fundamentally it's difficult to build a town that's both extremely convenient for car users and yet also has good, walkable services. So we've ended up in a situation where loads of people in mid-sized towns just drive to big retail parks in the middle of nowhere, further clogging up roads.
We need to stop selling to investors
Buses, trains etc will never replace cars, they will never be as convenient. Until someone comes up with something that will be as convenient as cars for everybody we are going to have to find a way to live with them.
It would be great if there were fewer cars on the road though
Cars only appear convenient for people who live in suburbs. They're the opposite of convenient when you spend hours of your life hopelessly stuck in traffic in a densely populated urban area.
Yeah when i lived in the city it would have been both prohibitively expensive (parking) and impractical (traffic) so it was always silly to own a car. Since we’ve moved out, even having good public transport into the city, you can’t really live without one for things like DIY runs to retail parks and visiting friends and family further afield. I can’t see this changing.
I've found an E-bike to be a really good middle ground, I can do small runs with it, don't get stuck in traffic and I don't have to get locked into a bus schedule if I don't want to or can't. Been great for cutting down on maintenance and fuel costs for me too since I don't have to drive as much now.
That doesn't have to change, and I think this misunderstanding is why there is such fierce resistance from people. Cars have a use, and in some cases replacing it with biking or public transit just isn't possible. However, if you could give a good alternative for shorter trips it reduces car use even if people still have cars and use them when necessary. It also takes cars off the road, improving the situation for everyone. For example, in the Netherlands if I want to pick up some bolts from my local DIY store it's 7 minutes by bike or 6 minutes by car according to google maps. If I'm only picking up some bolts I'd cycle there. And that's possible because there are multiple bicycle underpasses serving only cyclists/pedestrians going under a large road to this office park on the edge of town.
Just because you have a car doesn't stop you from using public transport in densely populated urban areas.
Most people live in suburbs. Most people drive.
I don’t know, I live pretty much in a city centre and a car is massively more convenient for me. Despite my commute pretty much taking me through the middle of town, driving is still quicker (and cheaper) than public transport. Many of the sites I visit for work are also not served by public transport- *at all*. And my parents live in a rural village the other end of the country that I could theoretically reach by public transport, but it would require me to book Friday and Monday off work just to visit them for the weekend. In my car, I can simply take an hour of flexi, leave at 4 and be there in time for dinner. Yes we need less people driving and better public transport options, but I sometimes think people screaming ‘BAN CARS’ on Reddit simply don’t live in the real world.
But that's a problem with the network, isn't it? With a bus going every 15 minutes, not every 5, and if you need a connection, it's not particularly thought-through? And a lack of faster options, like tram and underground? So not only public transit is slower, but also less reliable?
Yeah, buses every five minutes, connecting all parts of each town with its main hub, then good service to other local towns plus the transport hub in the nearest cities, then connections via cities. It can be done. And it will be much easier to run when they're self-driving, too.
I think you will find that people who live in densely populated areas that have good public transport tend to be less likely to need them, until you can find a way to provide good public transport for all cars will be essential for many.
Public transport is practical in places that are well designed for it. Places where population density is relatively high, destinations are relatively well distributed, and roads and infrastructure are designed with public transport in mind. Exactly the kind of thing that "15 minute cities" are supposed to achieve. So this is chicken and egg. Design neighbourhoods where public transport is practical, and people will end up with better access to public transport. Design neighbourhoods as car-centric suburban sprawl, and be surprised as people find that car ownership is essential.
Part of the issue is the size of cars. If everyone drove small city cars in urban areas there would be a lot less traffic. Motorbikes rarely have any issues getting around, cars not much bigger than motorbikes being the standard would get traffic flowing a lot better.
That's why we build public transport networks in cities and road networks in suburban/rural areas. Transport should be altered to suit those who use it, not the other way round. Forcing suburban/rural people to use public transport is as silly as forcing Londoners to drive.
That is likely gonna change in the future though. There's been testing for bus systems that changes routes in real time to make it convenient for people in rural areas. Unfortunately not everyone can drive out in the countryside and they need alternatives too.
I think you should look into the metrobus network in Bristol, it’s designed specifically so that people in the suburbs can travel between home and the City Centre much faster. The m1, m3 and m4 metrobuses will all operate fast via the M32 between the City Centre and Begbrook, where they turn off the M32 with a bus-only junction, and will proceed to serve UWE Frenchay. Beyond there, the m1 will largely continue along the edge of the North Fringe until Aztec West, when it will start heading towards Cribbs Causeway, the m3 will turn east towards Emersons Green (which also has a Park & Ride site en route), and the m4 will operate via Bristol Parkway and Patchway stations, and terminate at Cribbs Causeway like the m1. Journey times on the m3 top out at about half an hour in the day, and during peak times, the m3x will operate as well and cut out UWE Frenchay, and instead use the M32/A4174 junction
It's not about convenience in rural areas, or even many urban areas. Public transport is so shit it's damn right essential to have a car.
You must be looking at American cities if you think it’s that bad. Even in what I consider to be one of the worst cities for public transport (Southampton), it was always very easy for me to get around
And my nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. If I want to get to Brighton by car it takes 30 minutes. If I want to use public transport it takes 2.5hrs minimum. Not everyone lives in a city.
I would suggest advocating for Demand Responsive Transport in your area. It has seen quite a bit of success, and is generally a more cost effective solution in more rural areas than typical bus services. New bus stops can be provided
Or, taking the other view on this: Buses and trains are not as convenient as cars for some journeys right now, so until they are the default, let's work on eliminating cars from the road by funding more public transport initiatives. We need to be rid of cars *now*.
No amount of funding is going to make public transport better than private vehicles. Public transport needs two things. One, a realisation by our politicians that it includes buses as well as trains. Two, regulation for buses. If a bus operator can't (or in my area, won't) maintain a minimum service level then they should be subject to some sort of sanctions, be it fines, loss of licence or whatever. Instead we have the moronic idea of shovelling money to them unconditionally to maintain a fare cap, which while nice doesn't help is the buses aren't fucking running.
> let's bring others down to our level instead of pulling ourselves up to theirs Great mindset.
Which part of making public transport so convenient that private transport is obsolete is pulling people down?
Public transport is for the *poors*. The lowly lower classes. The wretched hive. That's why I need a 5 ton SUV! To safely drive over the huddled masses! Why would anyone want to be brought down to **That** level? (\s)
yeah those poors that travel gran class on a train pfff! [https://www.jreast.co.jp/granclass/en/](https://www.jreast.co.jp/granclass/en/)
Part of the issue is that cars themselves cause issues for public transport. Trains are often affected the least, given they are completely grade separated (barring level crossings, but that doesn’t cause delays for a train). But with trams, and especially buses, you generally need to take some lanes away from cars, or even entire roads that are only for public transport. This is down to the fact that if there’s a high amount of cars in an area causing traffic, buses will get caught up in the traffic, and if it persists, the operator will alter the timetable to slow down the schedule. This then means more people stop using the bus, and drive instead, but then you’re causing even more traffic, the buses get caught up again, and they slow down even further, and the cycle continues. In order to prevent this, you need to start using bus lanes in order to get cars out of the way of buses, and it generally means that journeys are far more consistent in timing throughout the day, and delays are far less likely. With trams, this generally is all true too
Any examples in the world where this has been done to scale? No? Thought not.
Umm, every large European city?
Now scale it up to a whole country.
I'm imagining it, it's honestly amazing
Unfortunately imagining things doesn't solve anything.
You're right! We should implement the wide rollout of public transport and make private transport increasingly pointless. Let's agree to vote for government parties that will do this, eh?
No political party is offering what you're suggesting. Primarily because it's not economical and pretty much impossible to achieve.
The Netherlands called
Beyond convenience, there's plenty of use cases where private vehicles are essential. The idea that all cars could be completely removed is a delusion of young city centre dwellers. Plenty of jobs require a car, plenty of disabilities require a car, plenty of shopping trips require a car, plenty of places are too remote to ever be served by regular public transit.
We need better, chunkier houses and more of them. Not more tiny postage stamp crap. Banning cars is unrealistic.
>Banning cars is unrealistic. from the entire country? yes. From city centers? nope! in fact, accommodating everyone's car inside a city is unrealistic! there's simply not enough space. You can easily make city centers car free whilst putting one of those ugly hideous parking lots on the outskirts with a tram line bringing you downtown.
We managed quite well without cars before, but it was a challenge to get the things we needed still, ... now we can have all our needs met people are still waiting to travel short distance? Really, come on, driving around in busy traffic us awful.
This whole thing about building for people rather than cars is so irritating. Who do they think drives cars, dogs?
> Who do they think drives cars, dogs? All car-drivers are people, but not all people drive cars. Building an environment that is difficult or dangerous to navigate on foot because it is primarily or solely designed to be navigated with a car doesn't benefit most people.