Methods to curb Motoring
Comments
-
Swim to the States did we?
Typing on a wooden keyboard are we?
et cetera, et cetera.
So whilst you not only gain employment from oil, you are also happy to use high-energy products (in their use and manufacture), you choose to vent all of your hatred against the motor car.
A touch hypocritical?
Do us a favour and stay your side of the pond.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Being deliberately provocative...........
There are personal choices, and whilst some can be avoided others can't.
What you buy is a choice.
Bikes are green as a mode of transport, both in terms of production and use they are less harmful to the environment than other modes such as cars, but are you "wrong" to buy an aluminium frame if it has a higher impact in its production than a steel one?
But back to topic:
A car is NOT essential, but is a consumer item like any other. Hence there are totally unnecessary large vehicles bought for a macho appearance rather than any efficiency or need.
What is needed is common sense, and curbing is different from removal, although it may be necessary in the future. What will unfortunately happen is that the hardliners will simpl dig their heels in and bury their heads in the sand.
To speak the words of the prophet:"I do have a disregard for the environment - I think the world can look after itself and we should enjoy it as best we can."
"I derive a huge amount of pleasure from covering 180 miles in an hour. It means I get wherever I’m going more quickly. And that means I have more time to do stuff that is worthwhile. This is what the socialists and the environmentalists just can’t get into their thick heads. Their lives may be empty and friendless, but some of us don’t have the time to dawdle. If I leave London after work in a ponderous and hopeless diesel car, then I do not have sufficient power to overtake slower-moving traffic on the run from Oxford to Chipping Norton. "
"There will be no tree, leaf, cloud, lawn, peat bog or environmental precious place that I won't drive over'"
It is the attitude of these extremists that has to be curbed, and extreme environmentalism is tarred with the same brush
What is needed is common sense practical middle ground that removes the platform for the extremists.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Come and live in rural Lincolnshire. :roll:Chris_Who wrote:Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transportRemember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Come and live in rural Lincolnshire. :roll:Chris_Who wrote:Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport
No thanks, there's more hills in rural mid-suffolk (if you count the railway bridge approach)
Fat people are so insensitive0 -
Chris_Who wrote:Well, I've never seen a convincing argument for why anybody 'needs' a car/private motorised transport
You are taking an unrealistic/political view of "need".
Nobody "needs" a TV but I suspect proposals to abolish it would be ill-received.
As it stands, our society is not structured in a way that would allow it to function in a normal way without private motorised transport. (There are simple examples, like a vast number of wheelchair users who could not lead their existing lives without their cars, the inarguable fact that, without relocation on what would be an unachievable level, many people could not get to and from work in a viable time without cars etc. Public transport is NOT a viable, and in some cases affordable, option for many).
And, as I've said before, for many private transport is seen as an important part of their leisure activities - making things like cycling in the country an obtainable experience for example.
You may feel that our current way of life is unsustainable, and you may well be right, but doing away with the car requires a major restructure of society which, as things stands, would not find favour with the electorate and hence there is not the political will to do it.0 -
I agree with dynohub.
If we want to phase out car use, an alternate transport culture is required. This has to be something that is seen as an alternative, not as as a punishment, or it won't work. At the moment people jump up and down and demand all car use ends, they don't have one so no-one else needs one - they don't give a toss about providing an alternative 'cos they're ok, they've already found their indivdual way. Just stick a spike in the middle of the steering wheel and kill 'em all!
The original poster refers to the european-wide road pricing system based on the Galileo satellite system - which must now be funded by the taxpayer, because big business could not decide who got the best bits of the cake, so had their toy taken away. It is one massive financial stick to beat people with. Of course no viable alternatives to car use will come from the money raised, and it's no deterrent if you're better off financially. But like smoking, you can't ban your revenue earner.0 -
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:
Why? They don't float.0 -
Why phase-out cars?
Hydrogen power, no CO2 emmissions, the greenhouse gas they produce, water vapour, will get rained out, produce the hydrgogen by electrolysis of water, power to do this produced by nice, big, clean nuclear power stations.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
An alternative plan to reduce car usage - fuel rationing.
Current private fuel usage is X million litres p.a.
Divide that by the number of registered keepers of taxed cars, and give vouchers for that many litres to the registered keepers.
No sale of fuel without providing the relevant voucher.
If you want to drive more than you have vouchers for, buy some from someone who isn't using theirs.
Next year, reduce the ration a bit, and the next year, and the next...
No cheating, no dodging paying your car tax, no requirement to build new roads to accommodate future traffic growth.
No government will have the nerve though.
Electric vehicles are a the only obvious loophole, and would the incentive be a bad thing?0 -
One small flaw...
"Otherwise law abiding motorists" will be forced to steal or fraudulently obtain fuel, (through no fault of their own you understand)<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
andrew_s wrote:An alternative plan to reduce car usage - fuel rationing.
Current private fuel usage is X million litres p.a.
Divide that by the number of registered keepers of taxed cars, and give vouchers for that many litres to the registered keepers.
No sale of fuel without providing the relevant voucher.
If you want to drive more than you have vouchers for, buy some from someone who isn't using theirs.
Next year, reduce the ration a bit, and the next year, and the next...
No cheating, no dodging paying your car tax, no requirement to build new roads to accommodate future traffic growth.
No government will have the nerve though.
Electric vehicles are a the only obvious loophole, and would the incentive be a bad thing?
Christ almighty!
Where do you think we are living?
No government in this country has the ability to ration any commercially available legal commodity. They can tax the hell out of anything they want, but have no legal right to ration anything except in time of national emergency due to extreme shortages.
You should count yourself lucky that you live in a society that protects your right to a market economy. Perhaps a year or 2 in North Korea would make you appreciate your economic freedom.
I really do despair at some peoples naivety
.0 -
The company I used to work for has a nice wheeze on this.
Sell the old building (1,200 car car park) 2,000 people work there.
Buy a new building (270 car car park) 800 people work there.
Less cars in Poole. The company says it is carbon neutral in the UK, it is this way expect one of the senior execs goes everywhere by private helicopter, has hire cars sitting with the engine idling, etc. One rule for them and one for those that actually create the wealth.
Thankfully I'm not going to work in the new building and I ride I bike to work unless the company I work for has to move out of Poole then I will be OK.0
