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

davebradswmb

I've just come across this thread and I'm surprised that the idea doesn't have more support on a cycling forum. Sure, it will mean some big changes in the way we live, but it's doable, we just have to accept that we will have less stuff. My car died a year ago and I decided not to fix it or replace it. My commute is 10 miles, I just committed to doing more by bike. The wheels fell off in the cold snap in December, I tried sticking to the gritted main roads for a couple of days but there are a couple of unavoidable deeply unpleasant sections that forced me into borrowing my daughter's car.

I've now invested in a pair of studded tyres.

Stevo_666

MattFalle said:

Stevo_666 said:

MattFalle said:

Stevo_666 said:

MattFalle said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?

That's only about 13.5m people in the UK, why bother about such a small number?

Although we're quite happy to keep it that way.

It's around 10.67 million and dropping. What's 3 million here or there though.

Do you actually live in a rural area?

The number was derived from the 2022 population of the UK of 67.5m multiplied by Ricks fraction of those who,live in the countryside 1/5). Which one is wrong?

I live in a village in Kent. Pretty sure Ricktopians would call that rural.

Depends if it has a railway station. That would make it a legitimate conurbation.

Nope, the railway line that used to pass through it was closed in the 1960s. It has zero shops, 2 pubs, a village hall, a primary school and a postbox if that helps you to categorise it? I admit there is a bus stop but I've not actually seen a bus in months.

does it have room for an electric bike storage, all the facilities for same, safe, lit roads, someone to service all the bikes and facilities to train everyone to ride the bikes safely?

let alone a population that wants to use bikes and can use bikes?

What are these 'lit roads' you speak of? I use my old MTB torch if I want to get back from the pub.

but you mean that there is no infrastructure set up to allow you to cut around on non vandalised free electric bikes?

you're just trolling now.

Bah, rumbled

It's a good excuse to drive The Panzer. Some nice country roads round here.

sounds quite harmless good fun

rick'll soon stop that.

I live in the wastelands outside of Mega City 1 so Judge Dwedd has no jurisdiction.

pblakeney

davebradswmb said:

I've just come across this thread and I'm surprised that the idea doesn't have more support on a cycling forum.....

I made this point earlier. If you can't convince cyclists that bikes are the solution then there is zero chance with the general public. Still, 10 years plus before worrying about it.

briantrumpet

MattFalle said:

B - would you be happy comingbback from a gig at 4 in the morning on public transport carrying your trumpet which we assume is eorth a bit?

youknows, neds, pissheads, chavs, couple of crack heads in the same carriage...

If I couldn't do it, I wouldn't. But doesn't mean to say I shouldn't look at car sharing or other creative stuff in the meantime. But it's what I mean about we've modelled our lives on this little bubble of easy & cheap transport. Maybe musicians shouldn't be traveling all over Devon, the UK, or internationally. Well, maybe, one day, they won't be able to.

Your POV ensures that nothing will change until it has to or the world blows up. You seem to be happy to shrug your shoulders and wait for some horsemen and an apocalypse to turn up, while you find all the reasons not to adapt our choices and lifestyles.

MattFalle

Nah - he'll be like Rogue Trooper, popping out of swamps'n'shit,comin' at ya.

nothing will stop him (apart from, say, a high pavement).

MattFalle

orraloon said:

MattFalle said:

B - would you be happy comingbback from a gig at 4 in the morning on public transport carrying your trumpet which we assume is eorth a bit?

youknows, neds, pissheads, chavs, couple of crack heads in the same carriage...

Careful now. B is actually Charles Bronson, and I've seen some documentaries on how he behaves on public transport with neds and pissheads.

its a scary thought.

subduing fighting with impro jazz.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

MattFalle

davebradswmb said:

I've just come across this thread and I'm surprised that the idea doesn't have more support on a cycling forum. Sure, it will mean some big changes in the way we live, but it's doable, we just have to accept that we will have less stuff. My car died a year ago and I decided not to fix it or replace it. My commute is 10 miles, I just committed to doing more by bike. The wheels fell off in the cold snap in December, I tried sticking to the gritted main roads for a couple of days but there are a couple of unavoidable deeply unpleasant sections that forced me into borrowing my daughter's car.

I've now invested in a pair of studded tyres.

it doesn'thave dupport, cycle forum or not, because its afuckingridiculous idea.

how you gonna get your Christmas tree with new lights, tinsel and base home on your pushie?

Stevo_666

MattFalle said:

nothing will stop him (apart from, say, a high pavement).

Sounds a bit like the Daleks.

orraloon

Overpopulation is at the core of the problem. So reduce the numbers. Start by walling off the biggest cities, use the model in that historic documentary 'Escape from New York', e.g. close off all outbound exits from the M25, brick them up, close the gates, throw away the keys. Let the urbanites sort themselves out. Meanwhile us countryboyz can just chill and enjoy life. Sorted.

MattFalle

don't worry, there will be a tram slong to take her home from the ambi station in 30 mins.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

I already tried that. He's hiding.

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

Overpopulation is at the core of the problem. So reduce the numbers. Start by walling off the biggest cities, use the model in that historic documentary 'Escape from New York', e.g. close off all outbound exits from the M25, brick them up, close the gates, throw away the keys. Let the urbanites sort themselves out. Meanwhile us countryboyz can just chill and enjoy life. Sorted.

I was thinking more 'Army of the Dead' or 'Resident Evil'. Not sure we'd notice the difference, mind.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

That's the ultimate solution. Hong Kong on Thames. Everybody stays in tiny easy to heat flats in tower blocks and no travel required. Sorted. I'll be retired though. 😉

MattFalle

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

I already tried that. He's hiding.

he reckons you're trolling him so he's not going to answer you and then cll you a nob.

webboo

kingstongraham said:

webboo said:

Something I don’t think anyone has mentioned is, the gritting of roads in rural areas. On an icy morning I can’t ride my bike out of my village as there is only one road gritted through the village and that’s a mile away. There are villages that never see a gritter.

Easy solution then.

Move in with Rick.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

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?

Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.

His house won't have concrete foundations. The bricks it's built from were fired over a century ago and will last more or less indefinitely. The embodied carbon emissions are literally baked in. But I would suggest that if you want to reduce your personal contribution to carbon emissions, you should both look at your home before your transport. Heating in particular.

First.Aspect

.

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

I already tried that. He's hiding.

he reckons you're trolling him so he's not going to answer you.

That'll teach me.

He's on Google scholar learning all he can about materials we'd need to make non stoichiometric perovskites, to show me up in the morning with a graph tweeted by the FTs chemical industry analyst about titanium mining. He will post it with a comment like, "Interesting".

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

That's the ultimate solution. Hong Kong on Thames. Everybody stays in tiny easy to heat flats in tower blocks and no travel required. Sorted. I'll be retired though. 😉

Flats are even better for retirees. More seriously, there are diminishing returns in building higher. The additional energy required to lift everything up and the additional structure required start to outweigh the benefits of greater density.

pangolin

MattFalle said:

briantrumpet said:

MattFalle said:

oi - 50 year old teacher - any chance you can all this marking home?

7 classes' worth.

yeah, no worries yah gallah, pop it in my panniers. its only raining with a force 5 blowing, all will be fine. I won't stop to pick up dinner from the supermarket, I'll dine on knowledge.

Working practices will change over time, especially as more is done digitally. Transport will change too.

Because things are difficult doesn't mean we should just accept the status quo. We've grown up with easy and cheap transport, then have modelled our lives around this very recent phenomenon. Whether travel will be as cheap and easy in fifty or a hundred years will be an interesting question, and people will have to model their lives around whatever's left, not what we've got now.

For my own part, I decided first where I wanted to live, then found ways to make enough money to live there without endless travel, as I find driving and longer-distance travel mostly very dull and perceive it as a waste of time and resources. I'll admit to twinges of guilt about my escapes to France, given it involves air travel, but is all on 'public transport' or bike & feet.

I guess I drove about 2000 miles max in the last twelve months.

90% of working practices won't change.

you still need hospitality, healthcare, trades, production.

all these are long hours, blimmin' hard work. no one will do 10 hours on a builfing site then jump on a 'leccy bike. Rick would last 30 mins doing anything like that. He'd be Derek down the mine.

has great thinker Rick ever done a season in hospitlity let alone years of it? We doubt it. arrive in kitchen at 7 in the morning, leave at 2 the following morning. Where's your bus? and its raining and cold and be late and you've censored up lunchprep so you're sacked.

I used to work in a sausage roll factory years ago. 12 hour shifts to a factory in the middle of nowhere. Not a chance in hell of getting to work without a car/lift.

white collar working practices can be changed but you can't build a fridge by Zoom. Or, in Rick's case, knit him a polo neck jumper no matter how small it will be to fit him.

90% of working practices won't change over time?? That would be a first for history, we must have arrived at a working utopia.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?

That's only about 13.5m people in the UK, why bother about such a small number?

Although we're quite happy to keep it that way.

It's around 10.67 million and dropping. What's 3 million here or there though.

Do you actually live in a rural area?

The number was derived from the 2022 population of the UK of 67.5m multiplied by Ricks fraction of those who,live in the countryside 1/5). Which one is wrong?

I live in a village in Kent. Pretty sure Ricktopians would call that rural.

Depends if it has a railway station. That would make it a legitimate conurbation.

Nope, the railway line that used to pass through it was closed in the 1960s. It has zero shops, 2 pubs, a village hall, a primary school and a postbox if that helps you to categorise it? I admit there is a bus stop but I've not actually seen a bus in months.

I'm afraid it sounds rural.

You could be right. Now I'm off to find an episode of 'Escape to the City' to watch on iPlayer. Oh, hang on...

There's no need to escape somewhere if most of us are already there. Just makes no sense to make a show that would appeal to such a small and aging demographic

MattFalle

.

First.Aspect said:

.

MattFalle said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

I already tried that. He's hiding.

he reckons you're trolling him so he's not going to answer you.

That'll teach me.

He's on Google scholar learning all he can about materials we'd need to make non stoichiometric perovskites, to show me up in the morning with a graph tweeted by the FTs chemical industry analyst about titanium mining. He will post it with a comment like, "Interesting".

thing is he'll do all that for you but he'll just blank me and call me a nob before quoting the title of some book he's never read but thinks we'll be impressed by like he used to do in the Pootin thread

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

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?

Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.

His house won't have concrete foundations. The bricks it's built from were fired over a century ago and will last more or less indefinitely. The embodied carbon emissions are literally baked in. But I would suggest that if you want to reduce your personal contribution to carbon emissions, you should both look at your home before your transport. Heating in particular.

Thought he had a new build. Imagined it anyway. He seems the sort of chap who would appreciate the sterility.

The materials for my house were quarried a century and a half ago.

I forgive myself for the parts that aren't well insulated by keeping it at about 16 C this time of year
and not all of it, at that. I found these things called jumpers and blankets that really help.

rjsterry

orraloon said:

Overpopulation is at the core of the problem. So reduce the numbers. Start by walling off the biggest cities, use the model in that historic documentary 'Escape from New York', e.g. close off all outbound exits from the M25, brick them up, close the gates, throw away the keys. Let the urbanites sort themselves out. Meanwhile us countryboyz can just chill and enjoy life. Sorted.

This is nonsense.

webboo

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

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?

Or is the sustainability line coincidentally exactly where it doesn't affect you personally in the slightest? In which case, hey, so is mine.

His house won't have concrete foundations. The bricks it's built from were fired over a century ago and will last more or less indefinitely. The embodied carbon emissions are literally baked in. But I would suggest that if you want to reduce your personal contribution to carbon emissions, you should both look at your home before your transport. Heating in particular.

Thought he had a new build. Imagined it anyway. He seems the sort of chap who would appreciate the sterility.

The materials for my house were quarried a century and a half ago.

I forgive myself for the parts that aren't well insulated by keeping it at about 16 C this time of year
and not all of it, at that. I found these things called jumpers and blankets that really help.

I think Rick lives in an 19th century workers terraced house. There’s irony in f*cking spades.

rjsterry

MattFalle said:

don't worry, there will be a tram slong to take her home from the ambi station in 30 mins.

The one place you are likely to be able to catch a bus at pretty much any time is outside a hospital. How do you think all the cleaners get there?

MattFalle

rjsterry said:

orraloon said:

Overpopulation is at the core of the problem. So reduce the numbers. Start by walling off the biggest cities, use the model in that historic documentary 'Escape from New York', e.g. close off all outbound exits from the M25, brick them up, close the gates, throw away the keys. Let the urbanites sort themselves out. Meanwhile us countryboyz can just chill and enjoy life. Sorted.

This is nonsense.

tbh, not as nonsensical as Rick wanting to close the countryside and "relocate" all the people who live and work there.

i reckon if John Craven found out sbout Rick's plans him and Terry Nutkins would be straight round to #kickfuck outta him.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Why is everyone still going on about the countryside when 4 out of 5 people don’t live there?

That's only about 13.5m people in the UK, why bother about such a small number?

Although we're quite happy to keep it that way.

It's around 10.67 million and dropping. What's 3 million here or there though.

Do you actually live in a rural area?

The number was derived from the 2022 population of the UK of 67.5m multiplied by Ricks fraction of those who,live in the countryside 1/5). Which one is wrong?

I live in a village in Kent. Pretty sure Ricktopians would call that rural.

Depends if it has a railway station. That would make it a legitimate conurbation.

Nope, the railway line that used to pass through it was closed in the 1960s. It has zero shops, 2 pubs, a village hall, a primary school and a postbox if that helps you to categorise it? I admit there is a bus stop but I've not actually seen a bus in months.

I'm afraid it sounds rural.

You could be right. Now I'm off to find an episode of 'Escape to the City' to watch on iPlayer. Oh, hang on...

There's no need to escape somewhere if most of us are already there. Just makes no sense to make a show that would appeal to such a small and aging demographic

Think about why there isn't such a series on TV.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

webboo said:

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

I never said it’s an either or but the problems with cars don’t go away just because you want them to.

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.

The ideas for towns and cities aren't particularly contentious in themselves.

If we assume private cars are not sustainable, electric or otherwise, what solution do you propose for the countryside?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 you've not made an argument. You just keep asserting that cars aren't sustainable for anyone.

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.

Ok what I don’t get is everyone here says “cars are the future” but can’t explain how they suddenly become sustainable.

Where are the usable materials coming from?

Ok. Why are cars unsustainable, but houses - which you and I agree that we need more of - not?

That's the ultimate solution. Hong Kong on Thames. Everybody stays in tiny easy to heat flats in tower blocks and no travel required. Sorted. I'll be retired though. 😉

Flats are even better for retirees. More seriously, there are diminishing returns in building higher. The additional energy required to lift everything up and the additional structure required start to outweigh the benefits of greater density.

Still a better return than 120 mile commute.

rick_chasey

Lol remarkable how nasty the cyclists get when you say the car isn’t the future.