Cars, cars, cars...

wavefront

rick_chasey said:

wavefront said:

but simply saying ebikes and public transport is the future is a tad naive.

If you're getting to over 80% of journeys via those two, then it pretty much is the future.

But for what age groups?

rick_chasey

wavefront said:

rick_chasey said:

wavefront said:

but simply saying ebikes and public transport is the future is a tad naive.

If you're getting to over 80% of journeys via those two, then it pretty much is the future.

But for what age groups?

Everyone?

If public transport isn't good for oldies why are we giving them all free bus passes?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough shit for 17% of the population?

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

wavefront

rick_chasey said:

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

So many points to come back to it’s hilarious. But in the meantime, thoughts on e bikes and public transport in countries other than uk? India for example? Rural living globally is closer to 50%. Still a minor group that you shouldn’t cave into?

photonic69

The only thing that will solve the transport issue in congested areas is to get less people travelling.
For instance - London has a fantastic public transport system - tube, buses, rail etc. It is vast and extensive. There are various CAZ's, ULEZ, etc yet traffic is still a major problem for the capital.
Public transport in rural areas is unsustainable. Our local council is pouring hundreds of thousands into some local bus services to keep them going. They just don't have the numbers to make them viable.
Cars are just too easy and cheap. We are addicted to their convenience. Unless there are hard measures taken to make them unaffordable and unattractive as a first choice of transport then things will not change. We need to wean people off them like rehab.
I can't see this changing anytime soon. Not at least until we have a more efficient way of producing energy or societal change. Gas boilers will be banned from new build homes in 2025. If all homes in the UK switched overnight to air source heat pumps they estimate about 7-10 new coal fired power stations would be needed to produce enough electricity to run these. That is without most of the population changing to EV's.

I'm just going to carry on riding my bike and driking beer. It's too depressing to think about it all now :-(

pinno

You have your EV's in cities and we'll keep our ICE/Hybrids in rural areas.
Where I am, regular bus routes serving odd people around a labyrinth of lanes is impossible.

Aren't cities in the UK over populated without compelling the country folk to move there because they have to 'cave in'?

Forget going to Cumbria and the lake district for your hols (surely environmentally better than flying) because there will be no one manning the Waverley or serving your cake and a Latte after cycling over Hardknott. You'll have to bake your own cake in a makeshift oven and chase down a cow for the milk on your Mtb.

'Rural lot need to get over that'.
What sort of blind language is that?
The countryside is incidental to Rick. Perhaps he should go and meet real, actual people who live rurally and see why it matters to them and see what lives they live.

In Rick's world, the rural population would only be populated by people in agriculture.
...and there's obviously no such thing as 'community' because in his integrated eutopia, he would destroy many. This is why I think not only do you suffer from dyslexia, you are on the autistic spectrum too.
What Rick say's shouldn't worry anyone because he isn't a policy maker. Thank fook.

First.Aspect

Define "convenience". The nearest shop to me is 4 miles away, and the nearest bus stop is outside that shop. There will never be a bus coming past here because there would be one passenger a week on it.

Whay would you suggest as an alternative to some form of personal transport? I know, move to a town.

Also, you seem not to see any tension between your arguments and your own complaints about your commute. Really you shouldn't live so far from work you know, or you could get there by ebike.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

Nothing to do with wanting the convenience. There is no alternative.

You really are so ignorant of life outside of an urban area with a population of at least 100,000.

How practical do you think building a rail or tram system to villages of 250 houses is? Or have the faintest idea of the cost of running any sort of bus service to such communities that is practical to use?

It really beggars belief.

Wheelspinner

@rick_chasey

I recommend a book for you: The Lathe of Heaven. (Ursula K Le Guin).

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

Nothing to do with wanting the convenience. There is no alternative.

You really are so ignorant of life outside of an urban area with a population of at least 100,000.

How practical do you think building a rail or tram system to villages of 250 houses is? Or have the faintest idea of the cost of running any sort of bus service to such communities that is practical to use?

It really beggars belief.

I think you really misunderstand the point i'm making.

What proportion of people actually live so rurally that it matters what they do?

They probably make up less that 3% of journeys, so why gear an entire infrastructure towards those?

it's the 95% of journeys that we can do.

If living 4 miles from the nearest shop isn't efficient, they'll have to move.

We don't mind moving people for additional railways; no different.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

I live on the edge of city albeit with countryside within a few hundred metres. Over the years I have commuted by bike regularly (38 mile round trip) and whenever possible used the train to get to the office before now WFH full-time but there are still trips I have to make on a regular basis that simply couldn't be carried out by bike or public transport e.g. my work includes visiting sites for things such as wind or solar farms that can be a couple of hundred mile round trips to areas that are, by their very nature, remote and not served by public transport. In the past I've had jobs where to make a meeting at 10.00am by public transport I would have to leave about 8.00pm the previous day and stay over somewhere.

As I've said recently, public transport shouldn't be seen as something that has to break even or make a profit and should be seen purely as infrastructure that allows the country and its economy to function but there will still be people, no matter how hard they try, who will need to use some for of motorised transport on a near daily basis. As always, your vision is based on how you are able to live rather than understanding the multitude of other essential things that have to be carried out in people's daily lives.

rick_chasey

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

The future is not private car ownership. It has to be something else. If it's not public transport and ebikes, what is it?

Pross

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

It would be ironic if we had insufficient energy supply because the people planning green energy facilities couldn't reach the sites as someone deemed private cars unsustainable.

DeVlaeminck

Whether we agree with Rick or not there is surely scope for a massive expansion of electric bike and public transport use even if not as a replacement for cars in rural areas. However a number of issues really need addressing .
1 - safety of women - my 24 year old daughter recently said she'd had to miss her netball for a while as the woman she gets a lift with has been injured and the area she has to walk through is one where she feels unsafe due to the level of street sexual harassment she gets. Having daughters has really opened my eyes to the extent this goes on - I recommend watching Dispatches from earlier in the week.

2 - Theft - I bought a shopping bike from the local tip for £10 once - someone had literally thrown this thing away - and it got stolen - no way am I leaving £1ks worth of electric bike anywhere.

3 - Safety - just about every cyclist I know has had a big crash at some time leading to quite serious injury. Ok so a lot of that is down to riding fast in groups but I'm not sure everyone is up for riding electric bikes - I'm actually quite glad both my youngest didn't continue with cycling as a sport (they both do still use bikes occasionally).

4 - The weather - I just don't fancy braving mornings like we've had in the last week on any kind of bike any more. It was fine in my 30s but if small electric vehicles are part of the solution I'd rather have something with a roof (and a preferably a heater) . I'd also rather a scooter than a bike for short journeys - I just feel a little scooter is easier with "normal" clothes than a bike - yet it's illegal for me to ride one other than a council hire scooter which don't exist here anyway.

First.Aspect

.

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

The future is not private car ownership. It has to be something else. If it's not public transport and ebikes, what is it?

You seem to be admitting that some form of motorised personal transportation is, in fact, necessary, even if you are vituous and live in a town.

Why is this one form of electric personal transportation the only one that is acceptable in your vision of the future? I assume it isn't arbitrary, that it doesn't parrot something you've read, and that you've thought it through.

Oh, are tandems okay, btw? Or cargo bikes? And if so, is it okay to have some sort of weather protection in climates like this? And can they be more stable, you know like e-tricycles. If so, what is permissibly wide and long? And if you can't pedal, is it okay if it is 100% electronically propelled.

These are genuine questions, I'm not taking the pi$s, honest.

pangolin

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

It would be ironic if we had insufficient energy supply because the people planning green energy facilities couldn't reach the sites as someone deemed private cars unsustainable.

Lots of imaginary scenarios would be ironic.

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

It would be ironic if we had insufficient energy supply because the people planning green energy facilities couldn't reach the sites as someone deemed private cars unsustainable.

The other irony is that it is becoming apparent that for "us" to transition to a much more energy efficient society is requiring very substantially *more* energy supply to achieve than it ever has. IoT stuff everywhere, battery powered everything, vastly increased waste production.. to do what? Buy more internet-connected fridges so you can stay home and WFH longer hours to pay for more... internet connected fridges?

pangolin

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

It would be ironic if we had insufficient energy supply because the people planning green energy facilities couldn't reach the sites as someone deemed private cars unsustainable.

The other irony is that it is becoming apparent that for "us" to transition to a much more energy efficient society is requiring very substantially *more* energy supply to achieve than it ever has. IoT stuff everywhere, battery powered everything, vastly increased waste production.. to do what? Buy more internet-connected fridges so you can stay home and WFH longer hours to pay for more... internet connected fridges?

There are plenty of reasons to criticise the IoT but nobody is pretending fridges with wifi are part of a more energy efficient society so not sure what you're talking about?

First.Aspect

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

My vision is isn't based on my own experience. At all. I've spoken to various people and read up on this myself.

This is the future. Complaining that the public transport isn't right misses the point. The future is that it does get you there efficiently.

You lot can't see the geometrical, energy and resource challenges clearly. mass ownership private cars are *not sustainable*.

It would be ironic if we had insufficient energy supply because the people planning green energy facilities couldn't reach the sites as someone deemed private cars unsustainable.

The other irony is that it is becoming apparent that for "us" to transition to a much more energy efficient society is requiring very substantially *more* energy supply to achieve than it ever has. IoT stuff everywhere, battery powered everything, vastly increased waste production.. to do what? Buy more internet-connected fridges so you can stay home and WFH longer hours to pay for more... internet connected fridges?

Electrification requires more electricity, not necessarily more energy than what it is replacing.

pangolin

I guess it is similar to Pross's ironic example in that it doesn't exist.

rick_chasey

So if we assume the population will continue to grow and urbanisation continues at roughly the same rate, for a good 60-80% of the population, there will literally not be enough space on either the roads or where people live for all these cars.

Nor is there enough refining and metals in the ground to supply all the cars with batteries.

So cargo bikes, e-bikes etc make a lot of sense. They take up less space on the roads, they need what, 1/100th of the batteries a car does?

If the public infrastructure is right, the bikes then can go on the trains etc.

If you read the literature, the final 2 miles is the big challenge and e-bikes are a nice simple solution. They're light on infrastructure, they don't take up that much space, they are energy efficient and don't require a licence or anything like that.

Clearly that's not for everyone, but then, neither is anything.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

So if we assume the population will continue to grow and urbanisation continues at roughly the same rate, for a good 60-80% of the population, there will literally not be enough space on either the roads or where people live for all these cars.

Nor is there enough refining and metals in the ground to supply all the cars with batteries.

So cargo bikes, e-bikes etc make a lot of sense. They take up less space on the roads, they need what, 1/100th of the batteries a car does?

If the public infrastructure is right, the bikes then can go on the trains etc.

If you read the literature, the final 2 miles is the big challenge and e-bikes are a nice simple solution. They're light on infrastructure, they don't take up that much space, they are energy efficient and don't require a licence or anything like that.

Clearly that's not for everyone, but then, neither is anything.

But we shouldn't cave to the people this doesn't work for, right?

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

Nothing to do with wanting the convenience. There is no alternative.

You really are so ignorant of life outside of an urban area with a population of at least 100,000.

How practical do you think building a rail or tram system to villages of 250 houses is? Or have the faintest idea of the cost of running any sort of bus service to such communities that is practical to use?

It really beggars belief.

I think you really misunderstand the point i'm making.

What proportion of people actually live so rurally that it matters what they do?

They probably make up less that 3% of journeys, so why gear an entire infrastructure towards those?

it's the 95% of journeys that we can do.

If living 4 miles from the nearest shop isn't efficient, they'll have to move.

We don't mind moving people for additional railways; no different.

If 17% of people live rurally, why would they make up only 3% of journeys? Please explain that made up stat.
1 in 6 is not irrelvant.
So you're keen to abandon perfectly habitable properties to move people, using up additional resources to build them a new property adjacent to a supermarket? Who is paying for that as the original property becomes worthless in your scenario.

We don't move 17% of the population to build a new railway. How many people have been moved to build HS2, or the Elizabeth line?

You really don't have a clue about the realities.

Dorset_Boy

Rick bitches that there aren't enough carriages on trains, yet wants another 5 added to fit all these e-bikes? how long will the platforms need to become?

pangolin

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick bitches that there aren't enough carriages on trains, yet wants another 5 added to fit all these e-bikes? how long will the platforms need to become?

I guess if we are happy with the way things are going currently then we don't need to do anything.

First.Aspect

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick bitches that there aren't enough carriages on trains, yet wants another 5 added to fit all these e-bikes? how long will the platforms need to become?

Building train lines for people who want to live semi rurally so they can have space for the children isn't sustainable.

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick bitches that there aren't enough carriages on trains, yet wants another 5 added to fit all these e-bikes? how long will the platforms need to become?

Building train lines for people who want to live semi rurally so they can have space for the children isn't sustainable.

From another angle, choosing to live somewhere that necessitates a car to reach your local amenities isn't sustainable.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick bitches that there aren't enough carriages on trains, yet wants another 5 added to fit all these e-bikes? how long will the platforms need to become?

Depends how you organise the carriage, right?

There's a really good study into I think it was Dutch trains and how they were changed to accommodate substantially more bikes. It massively increased the use of trains, as people could cycle to the station, put their bike on the train, and then cycle to their destination at the other side.

Now, the Dutch have much more modern train system which allows for double decker carriages, but the principle is universal, isn't it?

(My complaints, FYI, is that the trains were once 12 carriages and are now 8, despite a reduction of only 10% of passengers at peak-time)

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. The “our govt won’t do it” is a tautological argument.

The future is not in private cars. The sooner people get over that, the sooner we can move to a better solution.

Private cars are neither geometrically, energy or resource efficient.

85% of the population is most people. Rural lot need to get over it. They can pay through the nose to compensate for their inefficient lives.

The rest of us can work towards a more resource and space efficient lives.

Be like Rick. That's about it for you isn't it?

17% of the population need to deal with it. Okay, let's roll that out more broadly shall we? Let's not waste resources on stuff that only affects about 1 in 6.

I'm not saying ban private cars am i? We just need to recognise it is a sub-optimial transport solution and move away from it.

What's unreasonable to suggest we gear basis of transportation around the 85% of people?

Vast majority of journeys can and should be done by public transport and e-bikes.

Rural lot need to get over that. Their needs are a minority need and so ought to take minority status. No-one is saying they shouldn't be able to get around, but bluntly, even rural people live in villages. Can't they have a bus or a train service?

I cannot see many instances where train/bus/ebike doesn't cover it, even in rural areas.

Roads can be the territory of taxis, commercial vehicles and busses.

I can't match up the first and second parts of your arguments. Is there a bit missing in the middle where you change your mind and explain that it is just tough censored for 17% of the population?

Rural people want the convenience of cars, right? Not sure why we ought to cave into that.

In return they get a proper train station/bus/tram route and electric bike infrastructure.

Nothing to do with wanting the convenience. There is no alternative.

You really are so ignorant of life outside of an urban area with a population of at least 100,000.

How practical do you think building a rail or tram system to villages of 250 houses is? Or have the faintest idea of the cost of running any sort of bus service to such communities that is practical to use?

It really beggars belief.

I think you really misunderstand the point i'm making.

What proportion of people actually live so rurally that it matters what they do?

They probably make up less that 3% of journeys, so why gear an entire infrastructure towards those?

it's the 95% of journeys that we can do.

If living 4 miles from the nearest shop isn't efficient, they'll have to move.

We don't mind moving people for additional railways; no different.

If 17% of people live rurally, why would they make up only 3% of journeys? Please explain that made up stat.
1 in 6 is not irrelvant.
So you're keen to abandon perfectly habitable properties to move people, using up additional resources to build them a new property adjacent to a supermarket? Who is paying for that as the original property becomes worthless in your scenario.

We don't move 17% of the population to build a new railway. How many people have been moved to build HS2, or the Elizabeth line?

You really don't have a clue about the realities.

If 17% of people live rurally, why would they make up only 3% of journeys? Please explain that made up stat. Because not every journey is long enough to need a car?

If you're visiting your friend 4 miles down the road, you could walk (an hour walk), you could drive, take the bus, cycle, all sorts. That's two journeys right there.