The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
can you snswer the questions above pleaserick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
2 -
First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
this exactly, however Rick wasn't as polite as FA.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.0 -
Private cars, because I don't accept your premise. It is their use, not the objects themselves, that is unsustainable.rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
I do therefore support policies that make it more and more difficult to own and use one in cities, because this prevents people from driving to and from work in them unnecessarily, both around cities and to and from them.
Using a car to go from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere else was never a problem.1 -
rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.1 -
0.25% is a town the size of Southend every year. Or Bristol every two and a half years. All of which means that the focus should be within urban areas rather than rural.Stevo_666 said:
I don't view an annual change of 0.25% as significant.pangolin said:
Slow and significant have very different definitions.Stevo_666 said:
It hasn't moved significantly. Even you said it was slow.pangolin said:
Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.Stevo_666 said:
I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.pangolin said:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.Stevo_666 said:
First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.rick_chasey said:
Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.MattFalle said:
because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.rick_chasey said:Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.
We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.
We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.
Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.
So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.
That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?
Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.
Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.
The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.
Handy to know you view 3% as insignificant, I'll remind you when we next discuss tax rises.
You could view it as a 15% reduction in rural living if that helps.
Given that I struggle to see how it can be a key part of Ricks argument.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't think anyone of sound mind and who doesn't live under a bridge is disagreeing.rjsterry said:
0.25% is a town the size of Southend every year. Or Bristol every two and a half years. All of which means that the focus should be within urban areas rather than rural.Stevo_666 said:
I don't view an annual change of 0.25% as significant.pangolin said:
Slow and significant have very different definitions.Stevo_666 said:
It hasn't moved significantly. Even you said it was slow.pangolin said:
Odd to say it hadn't moved significantly in recent years then.Stevo_666 said:
I looked at at same stats. We are pretty close to the limit and you cannot extrapolate ever upwards. Rick seems to think there is still major change in the pipeline, which there is not.pangolin said:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/#:~:text=The degree of urbanization in,increase over the past decade.Stevo_666 said:
First you've picked on Holland which is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet outside of small islands and city states.rick_chasey said:
Holland was extremely car centric until the 70s.MattFalle said:
because we're realists discussing it openly not living blindly in Ricktopia.rick_chasey said:Remarkable how posting how other countries do it successfully is borderline troll worthy on here, a cycling forum.
We’ve already seen some minor success with LTNs.
We are literally running out of space and resources for cars. None of the arguments presented here addresses that challenge. Roads can only be so big, and as we become more and more urbanised, there is an increasing restriction on space to store cars near where the owners are.
Nor is there enough refinable metals for every existing car to be replaced with batteries, and plainly burning fossil fuels is also not sustainable. Plus, for the next decade there is a geopolitical challenge that China refines the vast majority of the metals to a point that that can be used in batteries (around 70-90% depending on the metal) so there is real geopolitical exposure there. China can’t be bossed about like the petrostates can, bluntly.
So unless you can find good arguments against those, the future of general transport cannot fundamentally be orientated around cars as it currently is.
That’s the situation. So if you don’t agree with my train/bike focus, what alternative are you proposing?
Then you've assumed that we are becoming ever more urbanised - in percentage terms the UK is already in the low to mid 80s and that hasn't moved significantly in recent years - probably because there are enough of us who don't want to live there for little reasons like quality of life.
Public transport in many cities is well developed and will probably continue to so. Outside of the big cities, cars are still a major part of getting around and will continue to be because of all their self evident advantages to the user. The only real question is what powers them. The wisdom of relying on electric only as the future is already being being questioned (for example by the head of Toyota) so it will likely end up being a mix. Petrol will be around for a while; batteries and electric will be part of it; Hydrogen may well make a comeback and synthetic fuels are on the horizon.
The degree of urbanization in the United Kingdom amounted to 84.15 percent in 2021. This shows almost a three percentage point increase over the past decade. The upward trend, though slow, has been consistently positive.
Handy to know you view 3% as insignificant, I'll remind you when we next discuss tax rises.
You could view it as a 15% reduction in rural living if that helps.
Given that I struggle to see how it can be a key part of Ricks argument.0 -
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
0 -
I think you'd be surprised how much manufacturing is located in largely urban areas, for fairly obvious reasons.morstar said:
But that works both ways. Town dwellers should then pay more for any goods or services produced/processed outside of cities.kingstongraham said:
You could. If you choose to live somewhere that has higher associated costs, then why should us townies subsidise you?First.Aspect said:
You could make the same argument for electricity, water and post.kingstongraham said:Should journeys in the countryside cost more because the upkeep of the road costs more per person journey that uses it?
In which case the answer is probably no. But then the spend on rural roads is lower as well. I think the road past mine is resurfaced around every 30 years.
Utilities, food, most manufactured goods. FWIW, I don’t agree with this but the argument is not as Uni-directional as it often portrayed. The cities are massively serviced by non-city areas.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/thespatialdistributionofindustriesingreatbritain/20151985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Sending them to America was the previous course of action.MattFalle said:and what about some village say in the Highlands with 300 people?
what does Rick decree must happen to them?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 -
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.0 -
So you keep saying. In slightly different ways.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.0 -
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?0 -
because you aren't answering any questions of your own making.
can you answer Matt's questions above or not?
it very, very much seems you can't.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I’m not going to engage with you Matt because I think you’re a knob and a troll. ✌🏻
In an ideal world I’d just mute you but the new forum doesn’t have that feature.1 -
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.2 -
Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.First.Aspect said:
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.
Where are the usable materials coming from?0 -
Hydrogen cars. Problem solved 👍1
-
Of I can see that but I’m not the one who says we need to rid of them, you are. I guess you haven’t got the courage of your convictions.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?0 -
Why are you singling out a car? What about all the other electronic devices you use, or the concrete foundations of the house you live in, which might be larger than you need it to be, meaning you live 60 miles from work, and need a railway to get you there, rather than wrapping sustainably sourced cotton rags around your feet and walking from the smaller but adequate house you could be living in... no flat you could be living in, so you share heating?rick_chasey said:
Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.First.Aspect said:
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.
Where are the usable materials coming from?
Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.
1 -
That's only about 13.5m people in the UK, why bother about such a small number?rick_chasey said:Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?
Although we're quite happy to keep it that way."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You can both participate in a system and acknowledge that the system is flawed.webboo said:
Of I can see that but I’m not the one who says we need to rid of them, you are. I guess you haven’t got the courage of your convictions.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
I'm sure a lot of us realise we could be more environmentally friendly, and that it will take some external pressure to change some of our behaviours.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I can’t lay rail or bike lanes?webboo said:
Of I can see that but I’m not the one who says we need to rid of them, you are. I guess you haven’t got the courage of your convictions.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
Because I think the batteries require in cars are several orders of magnitude bigger than in other electronic devices, and the forecasts confirm that for expected demand from cars there is not enough refinable materials, nor can the west scale up their own refining capabilities fast enough to keep up with the speed of demand they themselves are regulating, so they will a) be relying on China to supply them and b) there isn’t enough materials known about in the ground for all of them.First.Aspect said:
Why are you singling out a car? What about all the other electronic devices you use, or the concrete foundations of the house you live in, which might be larger than you need it to be, meaning you live 60 miles from work, and need a railway to get you there, rather than wrapping sustainably sourced cotton rags around your feet and walking from the smaller but adequate house you could be living in... no flat you could be living in, so you share heating?rick_chasey said:
Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.First.Aspect said:
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.
Where are the usable materials coming from?
Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.
There are for other things.0 -
So are you part of any groups that are campaigning for these things and if so what are you doing to progress these changes.0
-
It's around 10.67 million and dropping. What's 3 million here or there though.Stevo_666 said:
That's only about 13.5m people in the UK, why bother about such a small number?rick_chasey said:Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?
Although we're quite happy to keep it that way.
Do you actually live in a rural area?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
So if I can have an electric car that uses a solid state perovskite based battery where aluminium is the charge carrier, or alternatively a hydrogen fuel cell powered car, will I be able to have a car?rick_chasey said:
I can’t lay rail or bike lanes?webboo said:
Of I can see that but I’m not the one who says we need to rid of them, you are. I guess you haven’t got the courage of your convictions.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
Because I think the batteries require in cars are several orders of magnitude bigger than in other electronic devices, and the forecasts confirm that for expected demand from cars there is not enough refinable materials, nor can the west scale up their own refining capabilities fast enough to keep up with the speed of demand they themselves are regulating, so they will a) be relying on China to supply them and b) there isn’t enough materials known about in the ground for all of them.First.Aspect said:
Why are you singling out a car? What about all the other electronic devices you use, or the concrete foundations of the house you live in, which might be larger than you need it to be, meaning you live 60 miles from work, and need a railway to get you there, rather than wrapping sustainably sourced cotton rags around your feet and walking from the smaller but adequate house you could be living in... no flat you could be living in, so you share heating?rick_chasey said:
Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.First.Aspect said:
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.
Where are the usable materials coming from?
Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.
There are for other things.0 -
I find it an interesting thought experiment anyway. "Reliance on cars is destroying the planet, either reduce global reliance on them or keep killing your own grandkids."
How is that achieved when everyone really likes having a car?0 -
You're making an assumption that all car based transport is unsustainable and going from there. Assumption is the mother of something or other, so I've heard.rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You should be leading from the front and setting an example. So when are you selling your car?rick_chasey said:
I can’t lay rail or bike lanes?webboo said:
Of I can see that but I’m not the one who says we need to rid of them, you are. I guess you haven’t got the courage of your convictions.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
Because I think the batteries require in cars are several orders of magnitude bigger than in other electronic devices, and the forecasts confirm that for expected demand from cars there is not enough refinable materials, nor can the west scale up their own refining capabilities fast enough to keep up with the speed of demand they themselves are regulating, so they will a) be relying on China to supply them and b) there isn’t enough materials known about in the ground for all of them.First.Aspect said:
Why are you singling out a car? What about all the other electronic devices you use, or the concrete foundations of the house you live in, which might be larger than you need it to be, meaning you live 60 miles from work, and need a railway to get you there, rather than wrapping sustainably sourced cotton rags around your feet and walking from the smaller but adequate house you could be living in... no flat you could be living in, so you share heating?rick_chasey said:
Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.First.Aspect said:
Because you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.rick_chasey said:
That’s the entire argument I’m making. We currently have a car centric system. If cars are not sustainable, and I don’t think they are, we need to come up with an alternative model.webboo said:
Well you live in a city Rick, how about you put your money where you mouth is and get rid of your car. People might take you a bit more seriously if you did.rick_chasey said:
It’s more I think the problem with cars is underestimated. Even if it’s just for rural travel there aren’t enough usable resources around to sustain cars, electric or otherwise.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?First.Aspect said:
You were suggesting policies for the 80% be applied everywhere, and the rural 20% could stuff it. At least that's how it came across.rick_chasey said:
I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:It’s more if you’re working on sustainable solutions that don’t involve the car, for reasons stated above, given that 80%of people live in urban areas it makes sense to get those urbanites out of cars first, right?
Yes.
Just for a sense of proportion, 20% is roughly 12m people though. That's quite a few. This isn't an either/or. Ditch the "I don't give a fig about the few people who live outside of towns" and you might get a more constructive discussion about how priorities might be met.
I'm quite happy for car driving in towns to be made the least attractive option.
The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.
Cars. With the right technology in the future, and eliminating their use as much as possible when you get to towns.
Your only solution seems to be to depopulate the countryside, cos, well, its the countryside, and you think it's a waste of space.
And you wonder why we bang on about it.
This isn’t a depopulation argument. It’s a - cars are literally not sustainable.
Hoping some technology comes along seems to be a high risk strategy.
Why can people not see an argument without getting personal?
The model is car oriented so I have a car. You can see that can’t you?
People try to discuss for a post or two, before you re state your original premise, which irritates people you've not really ever been debating with, so they say something dismissive and you ask why. Then repeat.
Where are the usable materials coming from?
Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.
There are for other things."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
