Filtering dangers - the turning car
Comments
-
DISCLAIMER: This post, and any content therein, is not intended to be read as an anti-car post, and expresses the opinion of the author only, not of the entire forum as a group. If that is still your opinion, please check with the author before making accusations and wrong assumptions.
END of DISCLAIMERW1 wrote:And I'm opposed to that because (again, in reality) they wouldn't be able to accommodate the varieties of cyclists who would be forced to use them (and if not forced, at least at the receiving end of stick for not using them), from the SCR bandits to the family trains. Funnily enough in my experience the current road system does.
My opinion is that the current road system is accomodating the current cycling population because it is a fraction of all the traffic population, and as such, constitutes an anomaly more than a regular event.
Anomalies are usually tolerated.
But there will be a point, IMHO, when this won't be possible.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:Headhuunter wrote:fnegroni wrote:So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.
I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..
Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.
Daft idea
Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.
I wouldn't say that I specifically anti car and am trying to drive a wedge between road users, but car use in many major cities in the UK is ridiculously and pointlessly high. I read somewhere that most car journeys in London are a mile or less and average speed is about 10mph. I mean what's the point?! If you don't like cycling then walk! It would provide a solution to the obesity problem and improve air quality. Every year, the UK pays millions in fines to the EU for breaching air quality regulations in many major cities, particularly London. Most of that air pollution comes from pointless journeys by car. It's about time people were priced off the road.
That has nothing to do with cycling, of course. One of the major reasons (in my opinion, of course) as to why there is a problem between cyclists and drivers is because drivers assume cyclists are "anti-car". However there is no reason why choosing to ride a bike should make anyone try to force those who want to sit in a car out of them. If you want to run the obesity/pollution etc lines that's fine, but it's nothing to do with cycling.
I agree that many car journeys are pointless, but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to do so. And I think it does serious harm to the "cycling" campaigns for cyclists to jump on any anti-car band wagon.
Not directly to do with cycling but I prefer not to breathe heavily polluted air which frequently exceeds EU health levels, either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian, so IMO as many cars as possible should be forced off the road.
And no-one should live in more than a shoebox, must grow their own food, wear sacks, never leave their village (let alone fly anywhere) and must marry a close relative. There are plenty of things that are unnecessary and produce pollution - cars and drivers are an easy target and a currently convenient band wagon for the government to justify excessive taxation (required due to their own mismanagement.......another tangent)
The funny thing is that I agree with your sentiments HH (i.e. the pointlessness of unnecessary car use) but not the principles behind it (be it environmental, obesity etc). I would just rather there was a carrot rather than a stick approach. It's a slippery slope to campaign against freedom of choice due to "unnecessary" activities. And, as we agree, nothing to do with cyclists!0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:WheezyMcChubby wrote:Headhuunter wrote:fnegroni wrote:So, my solution would be: keep the current road network for exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians, and keep cars either overground of underground.
I agree with a lot of this, although the practicality of actually moving all motor traffic underground is uncertain. ..
Yes the practicality is uncertain but the cost would be in the order of £billions, even just for a fraction of the roads of one city.
Daft idea
Indeed. Mental. It irritates me that this type of posting gives the impression that all cyclists are anti-car, and simply attempts to drive a wedge between various road users, when in fact what would be more effective (and safer) is more common ground between cyclists, peds and cars.
I wouldn't say that I specifically anti car and am trying to drive a wedge between road users, but car use in many major cities in the UK is ridiculously and pointlessly high. I read somewhere that most car journeys in London are a mile or less and average speed is about 10mph. I mean what's the point?! If you don't like cycling then walk! It would provide a solution to the obesity problem and improve air quality. Every year, the UK pays millions in fines to the EU for breaching air quality regulations in many major cities, particularly London. Most of that air pollution comes from pointless journeys by car. It's about time people were priced off the road.
That has nothing to do with cycling, of course. One of the major reasons (in my opinion, of course) as to why there is a problem between cyclists and drivers is because drivers assume cyclists are "anti-car". However there is no reason why choosing to ride a bike should make anyone try to force those who want to sit in a car out of them. If you want to run the obesity/pollution etc lines that's fine, but it's nothing to do with cycling.
I agree that many car journeys are pointless, but I don't begrudge anyone choosing to do so. And I think it does serious harm to the "cycling" campaigns for cyclists to jump on any anti-car band wagon.
Not directly to do with cycling but I prefer not to breathe heavily polluted air which frequently exceeds EU health levels, either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian, so IMO as many cars as possible should be forced off the road.
And no-one should live in more than a shoebox, must grow their own food, wear sacks, never leave their village (let alone fly anywhere) and must marry a close relative. There are plenty of things that are unnecessary and produce pollution - cars and drivers are an easy target and a currently convenient band wagon for the government to justify excessive taxation (required due to their own mismanagement.......another tangent)
The funny thing is that I agree with your sentiments HH (i.e. the pointlessness of unnecessary car use) but not the principles behind it (be it environmental, obesity etc). I would just rather there was a carrot rather than a stick approach. It's a slippery slope to campaign against freedom of choice due to "unnecessary" activities. And, as we agree, nothing to do with cyclists!
Well a lot of the things you outline above would be very good if implemented (although I don't see how marrying a close relative would help). However the fact is that simply cutting down on pointless car mileage is a simple, quick, part solution to problems with city living - congested roads, polluted air etc and it could make life in cities so much more pleasant and if along the way a few fat people get a bit more exercise and actually lose some weight, this saving the NHS and therefore taxpayers, money, all the better.
We live in an over populated world and have to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately we can't carry on raping and pillaging the workld's finite resources and get away with it. Whether you agree with these "principles" or not, they're problems we are all increasingly faced with.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I have to say fnegroni that I read your posts as anti-car. It may not have been your intention, but when you make statements saying that motorised transport should be made expensive then it does seem like a clear statement.
As for the idea that cars would somehow run in tunnels or bridges (assuming we could find the space, budget, will, and environmental trade-offs), whilst us cyclists are given free reign on all the current streets isn't going to happen. Even if the oil stopped tomorrow then horses, people or something else would quickly claim that all that space.0 -
What's with all the huge numbers of nested quotes, and the long posts?
I'm betting most other people did what I did, which is not to bother reading much more than the briefest of skims.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
Well a lot of the things you outline above would be very good if implemented (although I don't see how marrying a close relative would help). However the fact is that simply cutting down on pointless car mileage is a simple, quick, part solution to problems with city living - congested roads, polluted air etc and it could make life in cities so much more pleasant and if along the way a few fat people get a bit more exercise and actually lose some weight, this saving the NHS and therefore taxpayers, money, all the better.
We live in an over populated world and have to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately we can't carry on raping and pillaging the workld's finite resources and get away with it. Whether you agree with these "principles" or not, they're problems we are all increasingly faced with.
I was obviously using some exaggerated examples. However much of modern life is not "necessary" but where do you draw the line, and at what stage would "enough be enough"?
How would you go about reducing city mileages though? More congestion charging (which obviously hasn't cut down all city driving)? Or increase the cost of the charge (which will obviously penalise those who actually do need to drive)? Again, sticks only, no carrots.
A couple of years ago there was an interesting series called (I think) "The Woman who Stops Traffic" which outlined very well that changing people's attitute to using their cars, not forcing them off the road with huge penalties, was effective and didn't build resentment. Sadly the government can't make any money out of that.
As to the worlds resources, we had 30 years of oil left thirty years ago.0 -
davmaggs wrote:I have to say fnegroni that I read your posts as anti-car. It may not have been your intention, but when you make statements saying that motorised transport should be made expensive then it does seem like a clear statement.
Making motoring more expensive then it currently is, is not anti-car.
I call it 're-establish' the equilibrium. Some might call it offsetting your carbon footprint, in marketing speech.
Essentially, the cost of motoring does not currently take into account its impact in terms of its effects not only in terms of pollution, but also in terms of health and safety.
Smoking and drinking went through exactly the same process long time ago, and still are.
I can give you two examples which are not anti-car yet make motoring more expensive, but potentially safer for everyone:
- demand fitting of winter tyres between October and March to all vehicles.
- demand proficiency tests for drivers at more frequent intervals.
You might disagree with what the above statements might be trying to achieve, but both make motoring more expensive yet are not anti-car.
Simply reading 'more-expensive' as 'negative' is not what I meant for anyone to read.
I will ensure an appropriate disclaimer in placed as heading to all future posts where cars are mentioned, just to 'clear the air'.BentMikey wrote:What's with all the huge numbers of nested quotes, and the long posts?
Indeed, I only quote what's relevant.0 -
I cycle as well as motorcycle, and am afraid you need to ride defensively at all times, whether in a cycle lane or not!
I guess in a cycle lane you have the advantage of being in a specific, designated area, which should be an aid in the event of any dispute or claim.0 -
fnegroni wrote:davmaggs wrote:I have to say fnegroni that I read your posts as anti-car. It may not have been your intention, but when you make statements saying that motorised transport should be made expensive then it does seem like a clear statement.
Making motoring more expensive then it currently is, is not anti-car.
I call it 're-establish' the equilibrium. Some might call it offsetting your carbon footprint, in marketing speech.
Essentially, the cost of motoring does not currently take into account its impact in terms of its effects not only in terms of pollution, but also in terms of health and safety.
Smoking and drinking went through exactly the same process long time ago, and still are.
I can give you two examples which are not anti-car yet make motoring more expensive, but potentially safer for everyone:
- demand fitting of winter tyres between October and March to all vehicles.
- demand proficiency tests for drivers at more frequent intervals.
You might disagree with what the above statements might be trying to achieve, but both make motoring more expensive yet are not anti-car.
Simply reading 'more-expensive' as 'negative' is not what I meant for anyone to read.
.
I agree that increasing the costs of motoring via the examples you use is not necessarily anti-car but that can be balanced by the benefits brought (such as fewer accidents), rather than broad brush additional costs to the motorist. But honestly did you mean increasing driver training or compulsory winter tyres when you said "Make motorised transport expensive" ? Or did you really mean increasing the cost of motoring via punitive fuel taxes and such like, which is more hand-in-hand with your stance of dedicating the roads to pedestrians and cyclists, and which of course is unarguably anti-car?
As for re-establishing the equilibrium, it's equally easy to say (with equally little justification) that cars already pay more than they "cost" in terms of the benefits they bring. It's a limitless argument however, because much of the "benefit" or indeed the "damage" is impossible to quantify in monetary terms. And as we all know, the government is unlikely to actually spend the revenue on buying more ozone....0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
Well a lot of the things you outline above would be very good if implemented (although I don't see how marrying a close relative would help). However the fact is that simply cutting down on pointless car mileage is a simple, quick, part solution to problems with city living - congested roads, polluted air etc and it could make life in cities so much more pleasant and if along the way a few fat people get a bit more exercise and actually lose some weight, this saving the NHS and therefore taxpayers, money, all the better.
We live in an over populated world and have to make some tough decisions. Unfortunately we can't carry on raping and pillaging the workld's finite resources and get away with it. Whether you agree with these "principles" or not, they're problems we are all increasingly faced with.
I was obviously using some exaggerated examples. However much of modern life is not "necessary" but where do you draw the line, and at what stage would "enough be enough"?
How would you go about reducing city mileages though? More congestion charging (which obviously hasn't cut down all city driving)? Or increase the cost of the charge (which will obviously penalise those who actually do need to drive)? Again, sticks only, no carrots.
A couple of years ago there was an interesting series called (I think) "The Woman who Stops Traffic" which outlined very well that changing people's attitute to using their cars, not forcing them off the road with huge penalties, was effective and didn't build resentment. Sadly the government can't make any money out of that.
As to the worlds resources, we had 30 years of oil left thirty years ago.
Re finite resources, it's not just oil but other carbon based fuels like coal as well. It's wood used to make furniture, it's metal oxides mined from sensitive spots like rainforests (bauxite is mined from the Amazon) for example), it's increasing use of land to produce crops and meat to feed the burgeoning population at the expense of all other life on earth.
I agree regards stiick vs carrot. I guess the bike to work scheme qualifies as a carrot type scheme. Other than that I would recognise that to provide a decent service, railways need to be recognised as loss making, in place simply to provide a tax funded transport service, just as the NHS is there to provide medical care. Re nationalise the railways and substantially bring down rail fares at taxpayers expense, or better at motorists expense. Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I believe if we were provided with a decent rail netwrok at a good price, more people would be tempted out of cars.
Other than that, as fnegroni points out, we need to encourage development of local resources, so instead of people getting in their cars to drive to enormous out of town shopping centres for their needs and instead of major, multinational companies operating superstores fed by enormous logistics centres fed in turn by motorways and involving transport of goods by plane and lorry, try to encourage smaller, local shop networks as we had before the advent of private car ownership.
However I do believe that a certain amount of "stick" is helpful too. Tax hikes for motorist should help fund to a certain degree, changes outlined above. If people wish to make pointless car journeys - fine, but make them pay.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
fnegroni wrote:DISCLAIMER: This post, and any content therein, is not intended to be read as an anti-car post, and expresses the opinion of the author only, not of the entire forum as a group. If that is still your opinion, please check with the author before making accusations and wrong assumptions.
END of DISCLAIMER.
I'd just like to say that I would like all my posts to be read as anti-car posts - even the ones about me driving.
I hate cars. I hate what they represent. what they do to our communities, our environment and our personal budgets. I hate the constant smell of petrol, having to wash the black grime of me everyday. hate the fact that millions are dead because of them. I hate the fact that for years I have been forced to own and use one because of our car centric society.
Car free for two years now and very happy about it.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Re finite resources, it's not just oil but other carbon based fuels like coal as well. It's wood used to make furniture, it's metal oxides mined from sensitive spots like rainforests (bauxite is mined from the Amazon) for example), it's increasing use of land to produce crops and meat to feed the burgeoning population at the expense of all other life on earth.
I agree regards stiick vs carrot. I guess the bike to work scheme qualifies as a carrot type scheme. Other than that I would recognise that to provide a decent service, railways need to be recognised as loss making, in place simply to provide a tax funded transport service, just as the NHS is there to provide medical care. Re nationalise the railways and substantially bring down rail fares at taxpayers expense, or better at motorists expense. Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I believe if we were provided with a decent rail netwrok at a good price, more people would be tempted out of cars.
Other than that, as fnegroni points out, we need to encourage development of local resources, so instead of people getting in their cars to drive to enormous out of town shopping centres for their needs and instead of major, multinational companies operating superstores fed by enormous logistics centres fed in turn by motorways and involving transport of goods by plane and lorry, try to encourage smaller, local shop networks as we had before the advent of private car ownership.
However I do believe that a certain amount of "stick" is helpful too. Tax hikes for motorist should help fund to a certain degree, changes outlined above. If people wish to make pointless car journeys - fine, but make them pay.
Now way way off topic, but some interesting points. I bow to your superior knowledge re other resources, although my natural cynicism is roused when anyone attempts to guess how much of a certain resource the world has remaining.
There were good reasons why the "local" gave way to the "national", the key one being price. Would we really be prepared to pay a large increase in our food bills for the sake of having to visit twenty shops instead of one? I think that's a no-go anymore. There are also arguable economies of scale and efficiencies which mean the impact may be substantially less than a large number of smaller, less efficient producers.
As to the trains, I'd agree in part, though the ability of national services to be hideously bloated and inefficient is scary. I think a more "public" sided public-private partnership might work. Either way, the current alternative to the car is horrid and expensive, hence why many of us cycle perhaps!
Personally I think there are enough sticks (for the motorist arguably, for most people definitely). By simply sitting in the traffic jam the motorist is already "paying" (as is his/her choice). And, as outlined, the overiding argument is that this has nothing to do with cycling and nor should it.0 -
Porgy wrote:fnegroni wrote:DISCLAIMER: This post, and any content therein, is not intended to be read as an anti-car post, and expresses the opinion of the author only, not of the entire forum as a group. If that is still your opinion, please check with the author before making accusations and wrong assumptions.
END of DISCLAIMER.
I'd just like to say that I would like all my posts to be read as anti-car posts - even the ones about me driving.
I hate cars. I hate what they represent. what they do to our communities, our environment and our personal budgets. I hate the constant smell of petrol, having to wash the black grime of me everyday. hate the fact that millions are dead because of them. I hate the fact that for years I have been forced to own and use one because of our car centric society.
Car free for two years now and very happy about it.
Sadly there are those who are equally vehemont in their unbalanced hatred of cyclists.0 -
Improving the rail network... now that's finally a sensible idea!
A good friend is a massive rail enthusiast, has a rail museum at his house, (with 3 full-size steam trains!) which has an old illuminated rail map of the UK, which shows just how much of the network has been lost.
I completely agree that rail travel should be cheaper than flying.
However, I do think that, while penalties imposed on drivers in dense urban areas seem reasonable, people out in the sticks need their cars far more, and to impose the same penalties on them seems unfair. And I don't know how you'd work that.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:fnegroni wrote:DISCLAIMER: This post, and any content therein, is not intended to be read as an anti-car post, and expresses the opinion of the author only, not of the entire forum as a group. If that is still your opinion, please check with the author before making accusations and wrong assumptions.
END of DISCLAIMER.
I'd just like to say that I would like all my posts to be read as anti-car posts - even the ones about me driving.
I hate cars. I hate what they represent. what they do to our communities, our environment and our personal budgets. I hate the constant smell of petrol, having to wash the black grime of me everyday. hate the fact that millions are dead because of them. I hate the fact that for years I have been forced to own and use one because of our car centric society.
Car free for two years now and very happy about it.
Sadly there are those who are equally vehemont in their unbalanced hatred of cyclists.
I don't hate motorists - i hate cars.
People who hate others becasue of their form of transport and - worse those who seek to cause harm to those people - are nutjobs.0 -
Porgy wrote:I don't hate motorists - i hate cars.
People who hate others becasue of their form of transport and - worse those who seek to cause harm to those people - are nutjobs.
You know what I hate? People with irrational national prejudices... and the Dutch.0 -
When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I believe if we were provided with a decent rail netwrok at a good price, more people would be tempted out of cars.
It is a good point, although all too often the political solution is to look at the efficient industry and to break that business model until it becomes the same price as the expensive bloated alternative. A lot of the conversation around railways is about lobbying for other industries/means to be hobbled until trains become comparable, rather than saying what do we need to do to railways to make them more attractive.
As for localism. Nice idea, but Britain has moved on. The days when (mostly) women spent entire days of effort per week going up and down markets or high streets getting the goods for the week are gone. Sure there's a rise in niche speacialities around localism like farmers markets, but forcing people to go backwards for some ideal will quickly bring a return of other problems that we've forgotten about.
Combustion engines have freed millions from hideous amounts of toil, and allowed huge amounts of effort to be diverted into other things. Whilst cars produce pollution and have well known negatives we seem to forget that other forms of the economic activity pre-combustion engine also had a heavy toll on health and the environment.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Re finite resources, it's not just oil but other carbon based fuels like coal as well. It's wood used to make furniture, it's metal oxides mined from sensitive spots like rainforests (bauxite is mined from the Amazon) for example), it's increasing use of land to produce crops and meat to feed the burgeoning population at the expense of all other life on earth.
I agree regards stiick vs carrot. I guess the bike to work scheme qualifies as a carrot type scheme. Other than that I would recognise that to provide a decent service, railways need to be recognised as loss making, in place simply to provide a tax funded transport service, just as the NHS is there to provide medical care. Re nationalise the railways and substantially bring down rail fares at taxpayers expense, or better at motorists expense. Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I believe if we were provided with a decent rail netwrok at a good price, more people would be tempted out of cars.
Other than that, as fnegroni points out, we need to encourage development of local resources, so instead of people getting in their cars to drive to enormous out of town shopping centres for their needs and instead of major, multinational companies operating superstores fed by enormous logistics centres fed in turn by motorways and involving transport of goods by plane and lorry, try to encourage smaller, local shop networks as we had before the advent of private car ownership.
However I do believe that a certain amount of "stick" is helpful too. Tax hikes for motorist should help fund to a certain degree, changes outlined above. If people wish to make pointless car journeys - fine, but make them pay.
Now way way off topic, but some interesting points. I bow to your superior knowledge re other resources, although my natural cynicism is roused when anyone attempts to guess how much of a certain resource the world has remaining.
There were good reasons why the "local" gave way to the "national", the key one being price. Would we really be prepared to pay a large increase in our food bills for the sake of having to visit twenty shops instead of one? I think that's a no-go anymore. There are also arguable economies of scale and efficiencies which mean the impact may be substantially less than a large number of smaller, less efficient producers.
As to the trains, I'd agree in part, though the ability of national services to be hideously bloated and inefficient is scary. I think a more "public" sided public-private partnership might work. Either way, the current alternative to the car is horrid and expensive, hence why many of us cycle perhaps!
Personally I think there are enough sticks (for the motorist arguably, for most people definitely). By simply sitting in the traffic jam the motorist is already "paying" (as is his/her choice). And, as outlined, the overiding argument is that this has nothing to do with cycling and nor should it.
Yes, you're right that "local" gave way to "mega" because of price and efficiiencies of scale and profit, however I think we now have to make a choice - do we encourage people to use their cars less by making things more locaklly available, or do we carry on as before, steadily stuffing up air quality? the only reason mega out of town shopoping centres were actually able to develop was down to massive increases in private car ownership.
As for nationalised railways, of course the downside is that they become "blotaed" and inefficient, however nationalised railways work very well across the rest of Europe and , Japan, surely someone can make them work here too? A publically run monopoly, however inefficient is usually better than a privately run monopoly, feeding the pockets of shareholders. PPP is a waste of time - see the Metronet and Tublines messes in London.
As for motorists "paying" by sitting in gridlocked traffic, the whole point is to stop this. Thousands of cars sitting in hundreds of congested traffic queues, belching thousands of tonnes of pollution into the atmosphere is punishment for everyone - especially cyclists and pedestrians who have to breathe this rubbish. This is exactly why London's air quality regularly contravenes EU air quality standards at the cost of millions of pounds in fines paid by taxpayers. Unfortunately Boris "the cycling Mayor" (ha ha ha) has made it even easier for drivers in London. If car drivers making pointless journeys only inconvenienced themselves then fine, but they don't, they mess up the environment and air quality for everyone.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Porgy wrote:I don't hate motorists - i hate cars.
People who hate others becasue of their form of transport and - worse those who seek to cause harm to those people - are nutjobs.
You know what I hate? People with irrational national prejudices... and the Dutch.
I hate toasters too :evil:0 -
cjw wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.
Yes, of course if it were completely down to the private, capitalist markets, planes would win out and long distance railway would more or less shut down, however unfortunately the capitalist system does not provide for limited resources and massive human population. It is based on steadily increasing markets and profit, both of which need increasing populations and ever greater quantities of resources to produce marketable goods.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
cjw wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.
they tried privatising the railways - that's when the prices went up.
Perhaps if airlines had to pay for their own infrastructure and duty on fuel, it might not be such a highly profitable venture.0 -
Porgy wrote:cjw wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.
they tried privatising the railways - that's when the prices went up.
Exactly. They're still privatised and they're still rubbish but now we have inflation busting fare price rises to feed fat cats at the top and shareholders.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Porgy wrote:cjw wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.
they tried privatising the railways - that's when the prices went up.
Exactly. They're still privatised and they're still rubbish but now we have inflation busting fare price rises to feed fat cats at the top and shareholders.
It's the same old story with the railways - if you compare our infratsructure with what the French, germans, even italians, have you will see a massive discrepency.
Our railways have been starved of proper investment for about 40 years at least. They were privatised so that investment would be raised from the private sector but what happened is the private sector sucked as much wealth as possible out of their new cash cow and government ended up footing the bill.
There is some investment but it''s uneven - govenrment should get involved - national priorities, public interest and things like that should be taken into account, and work should be coordinated nationally. I read 10 years ago that we were 20 years away from having a world standard railway in the UK - probably 40 years by now.
some of that money thatw ent to the banks should have gone on improving our national infrastructure. It was a wasted opportunity.0 -
Porgy wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Porgy wrote:cjw wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Take the railways out of the hands of profit making buffoons. Privatised railways do not work or at best are too expensive to be worthwhile. When you can fly to Edinburgh from London for cheaper than you can take the train,. something is wrong. I
Intersting.... private railways; profit making buffoons vs cheap airline run by... private, profit making bufoons. BOTH are private, both for profit but, it seems the one completely free of the shackles of it's previous nationalised status can make profit and provide cheap fares.
they tried privatising the railways - that's when the prices went up.
Exactly. They're still privatised and they're still rubbish but now we have inflation busting fare price rises to feed fat cats at the top and shareholders.
It's the same old story with the railways - if you compare our infratsructure with what the French, germans, even italians, have you will see a massive discrepency.
Our railways have been starved of proper investment for about 40 years at least. They were privatised so that investment would be raised from the private sector but what happened is the private sector sucked as much wealth as possible out of their new cash cow and government ended up footing the bill.
There is some investment but it''s uneven - govenrment should get involved - national priorities, public interest and things like that should be taken into account, and work should be coordinated nationally. I read 10 years ago that we were 20 years away from having a world standard railway in the UK - probably 40 years by now.
some of that money thatw ent to the banks should have gone on improving our national infrastructure. It was a wasted opportunity.
Absolutely, the government just needs to suck it up and recognise that the only way a railway can be run as a proper service is under public ownership. Certainly there has been investment in profitable lines like the Bedford to Brighton line across London, but even then only when the government has forced it, otherwise, like privately run water infrastructure, where's the incentive to a private company to invest in the rail network? Economics dictates that priority number 1 for any private company is profit, so why burn cash on developing the network when you can just hike fares on the exisiting service and as the system runs as a monopoly, no one can stop you (apart from some toothless government body).
The problem with bringing the rail network entirely under government control again is that as Porgy points out, there has been such extreme disinvestment that it will take decades of taxpayers money to bring it up to standard and the political horizon only extends as far as the next electionDo not write below this line. Office use only.0
