The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
How many people have significant usage on private land?TheBigBean said:
If it works as you describe, like an electricity meter, then it might work. Temptation for trackers will be strong though - who wants to pay for usage abroad or on private land?kingstongraham said:
Locally, London can use the ulez cameras for toll charging at specific times. That wouldn't replace fuel tax though.TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
Nationally if it was based on the mileage at mot (or a new check for new cars), what's the concern?0 -
Farmers. I should imagine usage abroad is greater though.Jezyboy said:
How many people have significant usage on private land?TheBigBean said:
If it works as you describe, like an electricity meter, then it might work. Temptation for trackers will be strong though - who wants to pay for usage abroad or on private land?kingstongraham said:
Locally, London can use the ulez cameras for toll charging at specific times. That wouldn't replace fuel tax though.TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
Nationally if it was based on the mileage at mot (or a new check for new cars), what's the concern?0 -
Maybe they should think about it.Jezyboy said:
I think people don't quite think about mobile phone tracking on the same way, and similarly with social media, they either don't think, or only share with a purposely chosen few.pblakeney said:
Why?TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
Government using GPS to track cars would have been interesting during lockdown.
Assuming they care...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I think about it. I care. It's not easy. Hope that helps.pblakeney said:
Maybe they should think about it.Jezyboy said:
I think people don't quite think about mobile phone tracking on the same way, and similarly with social media, they either don't think, or only share with a purposely chosen few.pblakeney said:
Why?TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
Government using GPS to track cars would have been interesting during lockdown.
Assuming they care...0 -
I know, but let's be honest, you are the exception. How many on here use Strava for example? Anyone worried about big brother shouldn't even be online.TheBigBean said:
I think about it. I care. It's not easy. Hope that helps.pblakeney said:
Maybe they should think about it.Jezyboy said:
I think people don't quite think about mobile phone tracking on the same way, and similarly with social media, they either don't think, or only share with a purposely chosen few.pblakeney said:
Why?TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
Government using GPS to track cars would have been interesting during lockdown.
Assuming they care...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
I know, but let's be honest, you are the exception. How many on here use Strava for example? Anyone worried about big brother shouldn't even be online.TheBigBean said:
I think about it. I care. It's not easy. Hope that helps.pblakeney said:
Maybe they should think about it.Jezyboy said:
I think people don't quite think about mobile phone tracking on the same way, and similarly with social media, they either don't think, or only share with a purposely chosen few.pblakeney said:
Why?TheBigBean said:
Likely to be implemented by GPS trackers though which is something to oppose. I say that as someone who thinks anything that discourages driving is a good thing.kingstongraham said:
What's the alternative in an age of electric vehicles? Even if it is literally "you've driven this much in the year" to replace fuel tax.
I ask as the vast majority are quite happy not only to carry a mobile phone everywhere but some also post their locations on social media.
Government using GPS to track cars would have been interesting during lockdown.
Assuming they care...
I think that the difference is that at least with mobile phones and social media there is an element of choice, even if it's sometimes difficult to navigate (pardon the pun). Having one's car automatically tracked and logged my HMG feels on a different level of invasiveness, especially given it would be obligatory.
That said, it would not necessarily be tied to the person to whom the cart is registered (it would be tracking the car rather than the person), and it would be entirely possible to limit the activity to public roads.0 -
I'm sure they could limit the data transferred to only be mileage, not locations.
That wouldn't satisfy the worriers, but nothing will.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Driving is a privilege etc.
Tbh with all the cameras with plate recognition they know where you are anyway most of the time0 -
pblakeney said:
I'm sure they could limit the data transferred to only be mileage, not locations.
That wouldn't satisfy the worriers, but nothing will.
Mind you, they could tie that up with location data from the vaccine 5g chips... didn't think of that, did you?0 -
No, I didn't. For obvious reasons. 🤣briantrumpet said:pblakeney said:I'm sure they could limit the data transferred to only be mileage, not locations.
That wouldn't satisfy the worriers, but nothing will.
Mind you, they could tie that up with location data from the vaccine 5g chips... didn't think of that, did you?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That mainly reflects places becoming more built up though. That said, the A road I travel along to my parents’ house is about 50% dual carriageway and 50% single carriageway. Up until a few years ago the single carriageway was 60mph other than 3 short sections through villages and the dual carriageway was 70mph. In the last few years the first couple of miles of dual carriageway after the single has been reduced to 50mph, there is then about a mile of 70 retained before it drops back to 50mph for a mile then back to 70. For a couple of years the second 50 section extended for around 5 miles but has now reverted to 70.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
There’s no obvious reason for the 50mph sections, nothing has changed there in the last 30 years (the last change was a roundabout I worked on in the early 90s). Obviously the 50mph section as you come out of the single carriageway is routinely ignored as people look to get past trucks etc. they’ve been stuck behind for 10 miles on a winding rural road. It’s crazy.0 -
In a different way, that sounds as crazy as the Ilminster bypass, in both its original and revised forms. No idea how it ever got built as it was.0
-
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.0 -
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDOSFaJ3y5U
Right, can't we knock this thread on the head now?0 -
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think the car haters will want to slap a 20mph limit on those.focuszing723 said:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDOSFaJ3y5U
Right, can't we knock this thread on the head now?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Speak for yourself. Far from everywhere has traffic jams.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
But if you want to 'solve' it by reducing road space for cars in urban areas and pricing poorer drivers off the road, crack on."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.2 -
Applies to more and more every day.Stevo_666 said:
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.0 -
Not a justification for urban only policies being applied rurally though RC.
ULEZ is at least urban only applied to urban areas only, more or less.1 -
To who? Not me.rick_chasey said:
Applies to more and more every day.Stevo_666 said:
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Maybe that's why we don't see itTheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are not everyone.Stevo_666 said:
To who? Not me.rick_chasey said:
Applies to more and more every day.Stevo_666 said:
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation0 -
17% is a non-negligible minority, I would say.rick_chasey said:
You are not everyone.Stevo_666 said:
To who? Not me.rick_chasey said:
Applies to more and more every day.Stevo_666 said:
And one of the point made early on was that this does not apply to many of us. add to this the point that the same people typically need a car to get around because it simply isn't simply feasible to replace cars with public transport in large part of the country inside of the cities.rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation0 -
Let’s not do this again.
Trend is more urban living ergo more urban driving.
Average speeds are trending down, traffic is trending up etc etc.
Vast majority of car journeys are spent in urban areas etc etc
As the urban areas grow there will be fewer and fewer rural roads. Etc etc0 -
The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.TheBigBean said:
I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.super_davo said:
But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!rick_chasey said:
Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.Stevo_666 said:
The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?rick_chasey said:
I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.Stevo_666 said:
So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?rick_chasey said:Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.
Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?
More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.
If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.
And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.0 -
Do what you like in the sticks where there's no traffic. Not sure paying for the roads where there's no traffic on a profit making basis would be more popular out there though.
We can't grow the roads in cities as much as we've grown car numbers. So we can either just price according to who is most prepared to sit in traffic, or try something else. Closing rat runs just makes this fairer.0 -
Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.0
