Methods to curb Motoring

Chris_Who

Here's the game - I submit an idea and you help me explore the holes in it. We patch the holes and take it from there

I hold that motoring should be discouraged as far as possible for a large variety of reasons, which I believe to be self-evident. To acheive this, motoring should be made as unattractive as possible including measures such as increased fuel duty, vehicle excise, congestion charging, strict imposition of sensible(!) speed limits etc.

This could be simplified enormously by equipping each vehicle with a GPS system akin to that used by Norwich Union for their pay-as-you-drive insurance. This could be fitted at (and be a requirement of) MOTs, so all legal vehicles would be equipped within the year. Data on location and speed is sent to central database where speeding fines, congestion charging and a more sophisticated excise duty can be calculated.

Additional benefits could include reduction in vehicle theft and consequently insurance

Could this be done?

ricadus

Why stop with cars? Fitting such a GPS to bikes and setting up sensors at junctions could finally transform the irresponsile RLJer into a law-abiding model citizen.

passout

Are you trying to get us to write a University report for you?

iainment

ricadus wrote:

Why stop with cars? Fitting such a GPS to bikes and setting up sensors at junctions could finally transform the irresponsile RLJer into a law-abiding model citizen.

It wouldn't.

:twisted:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Chris_Who wrote:

Here's the game - I submit an idea and you help me explore the holes in it.

This country needs cars to survive.
There you go, NEXT! :arrow:

BigWomble

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Chris_Who wrote:

Here's the game - I submit an idea and you help me explore the holes in it.

This country needs cars to survive.
There you go, NEXT! :arrow:

No, we don't.

The rate of technological progress is advancing all the time. In 100 years time we will be doing something else altogether. The question is - can we guess what it will be right now?

If we believe that we cannot manage without cars, is anyone going to ask this question?

BW.

BigWomble

Chris_Who wrote:

Here's the game - I submit an idea and you help me explore the holes in it. We patch the holes and take it from there

I hold that motoring should be discouraged as far as possible for a large variety of reasons, which I believe to be self-evident. To acheive this, motoring should be made as unattractive as possible including measures such as increased fuel duty, vehicle excise, congestion charging, strict imposition of sensible(!) speed limits etc.

This could be simplified enormously by equipping each vehicle with a GPS system akin to that used by Norwich Union for their pay-as-you-drive insurance. This could be fitted at (and be a requirement of) MOTs, so all legal vehicles would be equipped within the year. Data on location and speed is sent to central database where speeding fines, congestion charging and a more sophisticated excise duty can be calculated.

Additional benefits could include reduction in vehicle theft and consequently insurance

Could this be done?

Yes, it could be done technically, although if a lot of people start appealing their bills, it could start to skate away from you.

The flaw in the argument is this - with the exception of speed limits, every one of your approaches is regressive. The rich gent will be irritated by yet another curb on his driving. The single parent, working part time to afford a car and improve the quality of life for their family, is going to get well stuffed.

Reducing speed limits in order to speed the traffic flow is a very good idea. Doing it to annoy car drivers isn't.

Here's a few alternatives -

People need to be offered positive choices - choices which stack up against the car. Telecommuting is probably the next big thing. Flexi-working also. Employees should be entitled to do these things, up to a limit, and where reasonably practical.

Buses need to be improved radically. Buses (not trams, or monorails - not cars either) are where the cutting edge technology is. Franchising can bring that (expensive) technology to the high street. I would like to see a National Transport Service, which offers free-at-the-point-of-delivery service to all the citizens within this country, certainly within the city limits. It would also provide yellow buses for schools. And a much denser service during the rush hours.

There are major improvements that could be made to bicycles and PTWs. Safety, hills, weather protection, security.

The constant refrain is - without congestion charging, car drivers won't switch. The cost of running a 3-yr-old Ford Focus for one year is about £5500. If there was something remotely comparable, at a reduced cost, that would be a major incentive. Congestion charging is usually regressive. The only exception I've come across is where the noise of a busy road means that poor residents living along it cannot open their windows, and sometimes cannot sleep even if their windows are closed. Congestion charging under those circumstances can provide enough income to improve the lives of those residents (better sound proofing, relaying the road with better tarmac).

Finally, there are some simple things - like improving junctions - that can greatly reduce congestion. And advertising. There's a lot of advertising on TV and in the press telling me that I need to buy that new car. None telling me how great cycling is, for example. Why not?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

BigWomble wrote:

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Chris_Who wrote:

Here's the game - I submit an idea and you help me explore the holes in it.

This country needs cars to survive.
There you go, NEXT! :arrow:

No, we don't.

We do currently.
I for one need my car for my weekend job.

Random Vince

the holes in it are;

at the age of 17 i could go into town for less than the entire day/ get to a part time job / college without my parents giveing me a lift because;

time by bus: (one every 3 hours!)
20 mins walk
1 hour bus journey

20 mins walk in other direction,
30 mins bus journey
10 mins wait
20 mins bus journey
5 mins walk

time by train (for college / town centre, one every hour, if running)
10 mins walk
30 mins train journey
10 mins walk

by bike; 1 hour but slightly tired (often did college this way)

car; 20 mins, able to carry shopping, needed it when finishing college after dark due to danger of little country lanes (parents wouldnt let me ride it) able to get there for odd times when busses and trains werent running.

my parents dont particulally live in the middle of nowhere, its not like its a tiny village in the lakes miles from anywhere, its just the transport systems arround are crap

I currently live a 10 min walk from uni (in a city centre) so bike, skateboard or walk in as i dont need the car,

however its blooming hard doing a weeks shopping, gonna get panniers and see how it goes tho.

while i aggree that there are many car journeys not nesessarry (my housemate driving to his uni, a 15-20 min ride or bus journey away with no walk involved being one example) some people really do need a car for some or even all journeys they need to do

Brains

Two issues here - the need for a vast and radical improvement in public transport, like as a starter making it cheaper and faster for a single person to travel at any time of the day from say London to Edinburgh via any form of public transport other than the car, add in 3-6 more people and it becomes even cheaper via public transport. Get each person of the above scenario to take a bike and they get a further reduction. In other words the car become a silly alternative.

Road pricing - the GPS unit exists - it's called the mobile phone.

Imagine instead of a car key you had to fit your "pay as you go" mobile phone into the slot on the car. You were then charged like a taxi, several pounds for the first half mile, several more during certain times of the day, several more depending on where your vehicle was etc. That way the 9 to 5 inner city dweller driving 5 miles to inner city work would pay through the nose, but the rural dweller driving 50 miles to work would pay a reasonable fee, even though they may work at the same place.

John Stevenson

We should start with the compulsory introduction of my modest proposal, the Stevenson Safety Car.

This class of vehicles puts the risk of driving back on the driver by the following design features:

Entire front end of the vehicle is a fragile glass bubble. The driver sits immediately behind it.

There are no seatbelts, SIPS, crumple zones, airbags or other such namby-pamby, driver-coddling frippery. Instead, the driver is constantly reminded of the serious of the activity they are undertaking by the viciously sharp 12in (30cm in new money) steel spike that protrudes from the steering wheel.

Since modern legislation insists people be warned of even the bleeding obvious, the vehicle has a sticker across the inside of the windscreen that says, "If you crash this vehicle you will die."

People would be very reluctant to drive these things, those that did would be damn careful, and those that weren't probably wouldn't survive long enough to breed, adding a useful Darwinian element to the design.

Chris_Who

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

As random vince shows, the car is just so easy, and despite its £5,500 p.a. cost is still the most attractive option for many.

But if this were £20k p.a. would we feel the same way? - what about £50k?

Would it be regressive if driving became the preserve of the wealthy - subsidising the public transport system for the rest of us?

If the sums work public transport could be free-at-point-of-delivery, thereby saving 'hard working single-parents' £5,500 p.a., surely that's progressive.

And that's ignoring environmental arguments

Random Vince

Chris_Who wrote:

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

as random vince points out,

he wouldnt be able to get to work / uni if he lived at his parents (assuming a local uni) without the car

and based on public tranport costs being £5 for the return trip to town by bus or train

£5 of petrol in the car can last me a week if i'm careful and group my trips, ie going to the supermarket, diy store, town and visiting reletives into one trip instead of sepperate trips

thus its a little bit more expencive but much more convinient

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Chris_Who wrote:

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

You obviously missed the bit where I stated that I need a car for my job.
To clarify, that means without my car, I couldn't do my job.

Do I win £5?

BigWomble

Random Vince wrote:

Chris_Who wrote:

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

as random vince points out,

he wouldnt be able to get to work / uni if he lived at his parents (assuming a local uni) without the car

and based on public tranport costs being £5 for the return trip to town by bus or train

£5 of petrol in the car can last me a week if i'm careful and group my trips, ie going to the supermarket, diy store, town and visiting reletives into one trip instead of sepperate trips

thus its a little bit more expencive but much more convinient

The average car costs about £3500 per year - that's all the costs included. If the driver makes,on average, four journeys per day, that's £3500/(365*4) or in real money £2.50 per journey, £5 return.

There's no reason why buses shouldn't be free of charge at the point of delivery. Season ticket holders are already doing this. This would open up a real cost difference. If the buses are good enough...

BigWomble

John Stevenson wrote:

We should start with the compulsory introduction of my modest proposal, the Stevenson Safety Car.

This class of vehicles puts the risk of driving back on the driver by the following design features:

Entire front end of the vehicle is a fragile glass bubble. The driver sits immediately behind it.

There are no seatbelts, SIPS, crumple zones, airbags or other such namby-pamby, driver-coddling frippery. Instead, the driver is constantly reminded of the serious of the activity they are undertaking by the viciously sharp 12in (30cm in new money) steel spike that protrudes from the steering wheel.

Since modern legislation insists people be warned of even the bleeding obvious, the vehicle has a sticker across the inside of the windscreen that says, "If you crash this vehicle you will die."

People would be very reluctant to drive these things, those that did would be damn careful, and those that weren't probably wouldn't survive long enough to breed, adding a useful Darwinian element to the design.

Sounds like a penny farthing.

Hotblack Desiato

Chris_Who wrote:

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

70 mile round trip commute to work each day.

Car - 2 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day

Motorcycle - 1.5 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day

Public transport - 4 buses & 2 trains, 4 hours total travel time & £11 / day

Convincing enough for me.

Come back to me with a realistic alternative and I'll gladly reconsider my position.

.

Random Vince

BigWomble wrote:

Random Vince wrote:

Chris_Who wrote:

Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport, only how we have become dependent on it. Though if anyone feels they have a winner?

as random vince points out,

he wouldnt be able to get to work / uni if he lived at his parents (assuming a local uni) without the car

and based on public tranport costs being £5 for the return trip to town by bus or train

£5 of petrol in the car can last me a week if i'm careful and group my trips, ie going to the supermarket, diy store, town and visiting reletives into one trip instead of sepperate trips

thus its a little bit more expencive but much more convinient

The average car costs about £3500 per year - that's all the costs included. If the driver makes,on average, four journeys per day, that's £3500/(365*4) or in real money £2.50 per journey, £5 return.

There's no reason why buses shouldn't be free of charge at the point of delivery. Season ticket holders are already doing this. This would open up a real cost difference. If the buses are good enough...

so we've just established that i'll still be screwed without the car when at my parents then?

thought so.

oh, forgot to mention,
my new car when i get it will be £120 insurance for the year, no tax.

Tourist Tony

...so we have established that public transport is crap?

Random Vince

that and that people seem to assume that anyone can use public transport sensibly for any journey they choose

Chris_Who

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

You obviously missed the bit where I stated that I need a car for my job.
To clarify, that means without my car, I couldn't do my job.

Do I win £5?

I argued against the need for private motorised transport. If you actually use a car in your job, e.g. taxi or police driver it doesn't count.

If you use it to get from location to location, eg travelling salesman, it's a bit of a grey area but not really included.

If you use it to commute you have no excuse

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

70 mile round trip commute to work each day. ...

You don't need a car, you need to work closer to where you live, or to live closer to where you work.

I'm not saying it would be an easy change for anyone to make but you only feel you 'need' a car because we have become dependent on them and you have made choices you wouldn't have made without them.

Random Vince quite clearly didn't need a car to get to town/work etc it was just so much more convenient that under the conditions he faced it was the most rational decision.

That is why it must be made to be the unrational decision, for at least the vast majority.

Pirahna

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

70 mile round trip commute to work each day.

Car - 2 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day
Motorcycle - 1.5 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day
Public transport - 4 buses & 2 trains, 4 hours total travel time & £11 / day
Convincing enough for me.
Come back to me with a realistic alternative and I'll gladly reconsider my position.
.

I've got an 80 mile round trip. I cycle it one day a week (2 in the summer). The rest of the time I use a motorcycle.

Cycle - 4.5 hous total. Cost is minimal.
Motorcycle - 2 hours total and around £6 in petrol.

Public transport isn't possible for the entire journey. It takes 2.5 hours on the train but the first bus doesn't leave the village until 8am and is a 30 minute trip to the station. I have to be in work by 9am. I get back to the station after the last bus. When I do take the train it's £25 return plus a lift to the station.

spen666

Pirahna wrote:

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

70 mile round trip commute to work each day.

Car - 2 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day
Motorcycle - 1.5 hours total travel time & £5 petrol / day
Public transport - 4 buses & 2 trains, 4 hours total travel time & £11 / day
Convincing enough for me.
Come back to me with a realistic alternative and I'll gladly reconsider my position.
.

I've got an 80 mile round trip. I cycle it one day a week (2 in the summer). The rest of the time I use a motorcycle.

Cycle - 4.5 hous total. Cost is minimal.
Motorcycle - 2 hours total and around £6 in petrol.

Public transport isn't possible for the entire journey. It takes 2.5 hours on the train but the first bus doesn't leave the village until 8am and is a 30 minute trip to the station. I have to be in work by 9am. I get back to the station after the last bus. When I do take the train it's £25 return plus a lift to the station.

Cycle to/from the station?
buy a season ticket on the train?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Random Vince wrote:

oh, forgot to mention,
my new car when i get it will be £120 insurance for the year, no tax.

VW Polo, or are you importing a diesel Smart or Honda Insight?

Random Vince

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Random Vince wrote:

oh, forgot to mention,
my new car when i get it will be £120 insurance for the year, no tax.

VW Polo, or are you importing a diesel Smart or Honda Insight?

all but the insight will be taxed (honda may be)

morris traveler; it was built before 1972 so is tax exempt.

but it'd get used for when the car is the sensible option, i'd still bike places / use public transport (if placement happens as expected then i will be doing)

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

You said new car! :P

I think all the cars mentioned are tax exempt.
The VW I looked up, but I know when the zero band was introduced, only the Insight and Smart fulfilled the requirements, neither of which were on sale in the UK.
The Insight is great for commuting, although it is impractical. Far better than the Prius which is an appalling car environmentally speaking.

Big n Daft

You will never reduce the amount of cars on the road until a viable alternative is provided.

You won't ever tax cars off the road, no matter how much it costs people will simply forego other things they see as less important.

With today's technology, only a massive investment in a coordinated public transport system will have any effect whatsoever.

Provide a fairly priced, safe, clean, punctual, regular and wide ranging transport system, you might have half a chance.

Until then......forget it.

dynohub

Big n Daft wrote:

You will never reduce the amount of cars on the road until a viable alternative is provided.

You won't ever tax cars off the road, no matter how much it costs people will simply forego other things they see as less important.

With today's technology, only a massive investment in a coordinated public transport system will have any effect whatsoever.

Provide a fairly priced, safe, clean, punctual, regular and wide ranging transport system, you might have half a chance.

Until then......forget it.

I agree with this. Where viable public transport alternatives exist, lots of people use them (I go to the pub and back by bus for example, because the bus goes and comes back at suitable times - I'm lucky where I live, many others have to use taxis)

For long journeys for work I use trains where possible, but it is amazing how often I end up driving because the train either can't get me in time or takes more than twice as long.

But there is a last and important dimension, people like the sense of freedom that powered personal transport (currently the car) gives them - I do. Whilst I do ride my bike frequently, that is for short journeys (and I'm afraid to say, fair weather) - I like the fact that I can use my car for leisure trips in an unplanned manner - it's the unplanned bit that is important. I strongly suspect that the overwhelming majority of the population think the same. I'll be honest and admit I like driving my car for pleasure just as much as I enjoy cycling.

So two things would be needed, a cheap, integrated public transport system, and a viable alternative to the car (some form of electric vehicle perhaps).

The Mechanic

First you need a bus

unCivilServant

The problem with the 'let's get everyone on public transport' idea is that public transport is not necessarily the 'greener' option.

I work in Govt policy on an aspect of transport emissions, and a few months ago came across some figures derived from the Highways Agency (which I've now lost....) IIRC the average CO2 emissions for "a bus" per km were around 5x those for the average car (around 800 and 160 g/km respectively).

*Ah, but the bus can carry more than 5x as many people as the car.* True--but outside large cities, they generally don't. In my experience of using and seeing buses in rural areas, they often have 0 or a couple of passengers at any time ie far below the 'break-even' point of 5 compared with a single-occupant car. It's pretty unusual to see one with 20-25 (the fully occupied car comparison)--bearing in mind that this is the average not minimum occupancy needed to make that comparison.

And it gets worse. Your typical bus will spend more time idling than a car on the same journey, waiting at stops--more CO2 generated. Buses also tend to take convoluted routes, meaning that for a passenger going from A to B the journey via C means, say, 50% extra distance (and therefore CO2).

The basic problem is that increasing the number of buses to provide an alternative of choice, while (probably) increasing use, will also increase vehicle number so that average passenger per bus rate if anything gets even worse (you've also got the cost to the taxpayer of paying for all these vehicles & drivers--even assuming there's a sufficient supply of potential good bus drivers in all locations. :evil: ). Say you have your 100 single-occupant drivers going from A to B each day, ranging from early morning to late evening. The 'environmental equivalent' bus provision would have to be no more than 20 services per day (ie carrying 5 people on each), ie approx one per hour. Can't imagine a switch from one to t'other would happen by choice--would have to be by coercion. Do we want to go down the route of coercion? Ultimately, there are hard questions about limits to mobility--it's not just a matter of 'provide more public transport and they will come'.

Of course, public transport nowadays is supported for other reasons, ie linking communities esp for people who can't drive (and personally I'm very glad of it, being one of those people!). Based on current notions of 'entitlement' to mobility, there obviously ARE places where population and travel density are such that doing all of everyday life by mass transport is viable as the default (although even in inner London, an effect of increasing bus numbers does seem to be rather a lot of near-empty multi-bus jams...)--it's just that there's rather a lot where it isn't.

pliptrot

Chris is absolutely right; cars should be discouraged at all costs. Saying we need cars is like saying we need diseases (they keep drug companies and doctors in work..)

The arguments against cars are absolute. One day we will view the internal combustion engine in the same way we view slavery - once considered vital to the economy, desirable to own, and the consequences of the practise being someone else's misery.

Confession time: I work in the oil industry. We are addicted to oil (the 1 and only thing I agree with George W Bush on), and I can tell you it's running out. There'll be an oil shock soon, which will change things drastically. There'll always be oil, but it will become increasingly expensive. 80% of car journeys in the UK are less than 5 miles. This behaviour constitutes environmental vandalism and social irresponsibility. It is precisely this behaviour that $150 barrel oil will curb. Which is a good- and necessary- thing, on every level.