The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

davebradswmb

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

Stevo_666

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

kingstongraham

Love the freedom of the open road.

https://twitter.com/for_birmingham/status/1699695109191712775

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Love the freedom of the open road.

https://twitter.com/for_birmingham/status/1699695109191712775

That had me confused, looking at the still image it looked like the cars were driving on the wrong side of the road.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

My local company is replacing the fleet with electric although I have been told (not fact checked) that they don't have enough juice at the depot to charge them all and have to use a diesel generator as backup! Once they're in the city they tend to move more quickly on the bus lanes providing no-one is using the lane as a delivery bay.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

Ability to pay is a key aspect of fair taxation. Either you don't understand enough about tax or you have a chip on your shoulder. Or both?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

May your empathy block towards anyone older than you come back to haunt you in the blinknof an eye it will take you to get there.

The bleeting about your own circumstances really jars with your dismissal of others. If I might be so bold.

You've been on top form lately. Must have been a good month in terms of smugness in recruitment.

davebradswmb

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

There just isn't room. Other forms of transport are much more space efficient, those who "need" more space should be made to suffer so they change their minds.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

May your empathy block towards anyone older than you come back to haunt you in the blinknof an eye it will take you to get there.

The bleeting about your own circumstances really jars with your dismissal of others. If I might be so bold.

You've been on top form lately. Must have been a good month in terms of smugness in recruitment.

We’ve got schools and hospitals falling apart, police don’t have enough officers to catch criminals or keep them in prison blah blah blah.

Kids turning up to school without being fed in increasing numbers but no, it’s the poor millionaire pensioner we’re worried about here.

Plus, pensioners holding onto family houses to the bitter end is also not an efficient use of very limited housing stock.

It’s all entirely worth debating and not dismissing out of hand because somehow wealth, which is the real inequality, must never be touched.

Working for that income though, rather than literally just sitting there, go ahead, tax the sh!t out of it.

How do you propose paying for all this stuff?

And to bring it back on topic, how else you gonna pay for all the necessary public investment to sort the transport system out?!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

Yes. I think the reasons a lot of these measures are so unpopular is that they discourage one thing whilst not facilitating an alternative.

Last time I checked, most busses in the UK were slow, expensive, dirty and diesels. And also relatively not on time because they are just part of traffic.

Out of interest when was last time, and was this run by the same people sorting out the Edinburgh tram?

In fairness I'm usually on a bike behind a bus breathing it in. But busses were my best plan b for commuting until 2020.

Lothian busses haven't quite made the switch to hybrid, hydrogen or electric.

There is progressive electrification of rail, except on the newest lines, which still use diesel electric. They have replaced the 1980s rolling stock woth 1990s stuff though.

You could argue that's short sighted.

I'm beginning to see why you are trying to leave the place 🙂

It's multiplicative stupidity up here. Two halfwits don't make a wit, they make a quater wit.

There is talk of a wealth tax. Wealthy is one in 8. Who would have to put their hands on at least £10k.

But it's based on assets not income, so a lot of people with those assets will not be able to pay.

And to make it worse, it will include "high value items". So the Intellectual pigmys in charge somehow think they will be able to assess that. Excuse me sir, but how much is that Lencowitz worth?

If people want to tie up all their wealth in illiquid assets that’s their problem.

There’s a liquidity premium in the world. Get over it.

For the same reason I don’t lock up all my savings in a 2 year fixed.

God you are a pillock.

It's about people with pension pots and a home worth more than £1m. This will capture a lot of pensioners.

Stupid stupid people for letting their houses rise in value and for having saved for a pension.

Oh no, how tough for them.

That’s the real problem. Your house going up in value *too much*

May your empathy block towards anyone older than you come back to haunt you in the blinknof an eye it will take you to get there.

The bleeting about your own circumstances really jars with your dismissal of others. If I might be so bold.

You've been on top form lately. Must have been a good month in terms of smugness in recruitment.

We’ve got schools and hospitals falling apart, police don’t have enough officers to catch criminals or keep them in prison blah blah blah.

Kids turning up to school without being fed in increasing numbers but no, it’s the poor millionaire pensioner we’re worried about here.

Plus, pensioners holding onto family houses to the bitter end is also not an efficient use of very limited housing stock.

It’s all entirely worth debating and not dismissing out of hand because somehow wealth, which is the real inequality, must never be touched.

Working for that income though, rather than literally just sitting there, go ahead, tax the sh!t out of it.

How do you propose paying for all this stuff?

And to bring it back on topic, how else you gonna pay for all the necessary public investment to sort the transport system out?!

Nope.

rick_chasey

You seem to say no a lot.

pinno

There are over 30,000 recruitment agencies in the UK all charging excessive fees and inflating wages in specific areas. If we tax them a bit more, we might raise enough money to fund and kick start the planning of the mega integrated transport, taxation and social reconfiguration process.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

There are over 30,000 recruitment agencies in the UK all charging excessive fees and inflating wages in specific areas. If we tax them a bit more, we might raise enough money to fund and kick start the planning of the mega integrated transport, taxation and social reconfiguration process.

What's excessive if the client pays for it? It's a pretty regulation free market - lot of competition (all 30,000 of them), very low barriers to entry (a phone and an email address), so how did you arrive at "excessive?".

And sure, I've argued for higher corp tax here, so I'm not being hypocritical?

First.Aspect

Did you get screwed out of an inheritance RC?

If you received something from a relative, would you decline it?

If your house goes up in value, will you donate the difference from what you paid for it to the treasury?

Because you seem to dislike anyone you perceived to have had it easy. What you miss is that you are at least the second generation that feels this way.

You are also under informed about Scotland, presumably because it has a lot of countryside, unambitious people and its not London or your bubble.

The tax is already higher in England than it has been historically. It is also higher in Scotland than in England.

And a wealth tax is effectively a tax on any possession above £1M, and a tax on any pension contribution and any savings above that threshold.

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

There are over 30,000 recruitment agencies in the UK all charging excessive fees and inflating wages in specific areas. If we tax them a bit more, we might raise enough money to fund and kick start the planning of the mega integrated transport, taxation and social reconfiguration process.

What's excessive if the buyer/renter pays for it? It's a pretty regulation free market - lot of competition (57,600 of them), very low barriers to entry (a phone and an email address), so how did you arrive at "excessive?".

And sure, I've argued for higher corp tax here, so I'm not being hypocritical?

How does that stack up with estate agents and house prices?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

Please let me know if you can devise a more counter productive tax concept.

Following your "logic", a progressive income tax?

rjsterry

Had a genuinely enjoyable commute yesterday evening. Left the office slightly too late to catch the direct train from Farringdon so got the next to East Croydon, a few stops on the tram, a five minute walk to a bus stop, A short bus ride and then walk the last mile. It struck me that almost as important as the transport itself is the integrated contactless ticketing, so I'm not constantly rummaging for change and just get one charge for the day.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

davebradswmb said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

I used to commute to Brentwood (population 50,000) and cycled from 10 miles away. Generally took in 35 minutes each way. Even in that size of small/medium town, it would typically take 20 minutes to get across town to the part my work was in, making cycling from that distance faster or at least next to nothing in it.

It doesn't need to be a massive city to benefit from better cycling provisions and a shift to cycling, just one where where the infrastructure can't cope with the level of cars it has. And there are an awful lot of places that fit into that category in the UK.

Shorter distances are doable - I drive half way to London, ditch the car and ride (too far to do regular rounds trips purely on the bike). But beyond certain distances and for example where you need to transport stuff or other people etc, then it doesn't work.

You objected to the roll out of active travel across the country because what has happened in London cannot be replicated in a small town, now you are saying that shorter distances (such as getting from one side of a small town to the other) are doable. Make your mind up.

Already have, ta. Point about small towns is that they don't need and cannot justify the cost of transport solutions like trams and tubes. But getting around a town on a bike is OK subject to the stuff I mentioned above.

And the bus. We just need the infrastructure in these towns to change to encourage active travel, i.e. make it harder for cars.

No, they need to make it easier to use other forms of transport. No reason to punish a successful and popular form of transport.

To make useable space for walking, cycling and buses, cars need to be displaced and/or slowed down. Call it a rebalancing.

Plenty of space for walking and cycling and there are bus lanes for buses. Sorted.

Things have improved slightly in some places in the face of opposition, agreed. Still plenty more improvements to be made.

The fact that buses can be described as slow because they are just "part of traffic" is not ideal.

Look at this beauty that was consulted on for the A48 between Newport and Cardiff

pinno

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:

There are over 30,000 recruitment agencies in the UK all charging excessive fees and inflating wages in specific areas. If we tax them a bit more, we might raise enough money to fund and kick start the planning of the mega integrated transport, taxation and social reconfiguration process.

What's excessive if the buyer/renter pays for it? It's a pretty regulation free market - lot of competition (57,600 of them), very low barriers to entry (a phone and an email address), so how did you arrive at "excessive?".

And sure, I've argued for higher corp tax here, so I'm not being hypocritical?

How does that stack up with estate agents and house prices?

How does me being sarcastic stack up?

rjsterry

Did I mention how much I enjoy traveling on the top deck of a bus?