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

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?

...and a carriage to stay dry in.
Then more horses..and on and on....

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

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

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

Let's have another go at rational discourse.

If we all had a houshold environmental impact budget to spend each year, which would be the higher budget?

1. Rural dweller, no kids, two low mileage a year cars, work from home/cycle commute.

2. Town dweller, one low mileage car, one child, 100,000 miles of rail travel a year.

You are comparing different numbers of people. And who on earth does 100,000 miles of rail commuting a year. Even London to Cardiff every working day is only 70,000 miles a year, which works out at about 5 tonnes of CO2 emitted. The rural dweller will emit around 3-4 tonnes of CO2 just to heat his house, whereas a small terraced house is around 2.7 and that's shared between two people. I think it's likely the rural dweller will have a significantly higher carbon footprint despite working from home and cycling.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?

...and a carriage to stay dry in.
Then more horses..and on and on....

But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?

MattFalle

a length of drainpipe
a fence panel
spare bicycle wheels
a fairing for my motorbike
a stool for my piano

First.Aspect

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

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

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

Let's have another go at rational discourse.

If we all had a houshold environmental impact budget to spend each year, which would be the higher budget?

1. Rural dweller, no kids, two low mileage a year cars, work from home/cycle commute.

2. Town dweller, one low mileage car, one child, 100,000 miles of rail travel a year.

You are comparing different numbers of people. And who on earth does 100,000 miles of rail commuting a year. Even London to Cardiff every working day is only 70,000 miles a year, which works out at about 5 tonnes of CO2 emitted. The rural dweller will emit around 3-4 tonnes of CO2 just to heat his house, whereas a small terraced house is around 2.7 and that's shared between two people. I think it's likely the rural dweller will have a significantly higher carbon footprint despite working from home and cycling.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

I think we are at about 5t co2 for heating, but I live in Scotland at some altitude, and the house is all but detached. (Would be a lot less in the south of the UK, but I'm sure no one is suggesting we abandon the north because its more sustainable for us all to live in Cambridgeshire.)

Anyway, by the back of the envelope calculations, it seems like a close run thing doesn't it?

First.Aspect

In terms of comparing numbers of people, that's the elephant in the room, isn't it?

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

I literally don’t know why I can’t make this any clearer.

Currently the transport system for travel is fundamentally oriented around private cars.

For reasons, such as the fact that 85% of people live in urban areas and the associated geometrical problems (traffic jams and car storage) as well as the sustainability of resources needed for mass private car travel, means that, in the future, it’s not really viable for travel in the future to be private car oriented. In plainer English, it’s not sustainable for the majority of journeys to be made by private car.

Instead, we are likely to see a system where public transport is the main way to travel and the roads are left largely to commercial vehicles and ebikes, not private vehicles. The challenge with public transport is the miles betwee destinations and those hubs and I recon the vast majority of those journeys are e-bikeable.

This is not an argument, despite everyone’s best attempts, about the sustainability or otherwise of rural living. Or a discussion about how car reliant everyone is. That’s a given because that’s the system we have collectively built. For thy very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

If we spent what we all collectively spent on cars and instead spent it on public transport and infrastructure for more efficient travel, the quality and reach of public transport would be better, and I recon, sufficient for the vast majority of journeys.

For things like shopping, the roads could clearly be used, as they are already, for commercial vehicles to deliver. I can’t remember the last time I needed the car to buy something, and soon it will cost me £5 every day i use my car, so it’ll even more economical to pay for delivery. I’d be surprised if the delivery costs were more than a few hundred quid a year for most people. And think how much faster they’d be without private cars clogging up the routes.

Taxis etc could form part of the travel network too, and for obvious reasons, taxis are much more efficient for those journeys not serviceable by the type of network I’m describing. (After all, private cars spend on average 96% of their time not being used)

I am genuinely surprised this is so controversial. I mean, if you read anything into transport planning in the future, what I’m saying is basically the model the experts want to head towards.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?

...and a carriage to stay dry in.
Then more horses..and on and on....

But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?

We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

.

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

rick_chasey said:

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

It's the repetitive dogma that's the problem here.

Let's have another go at rational discourse.

If we all had a houshold environmental impact budget to spend each year, which would be the higher budget?

1. Rural dweller, no kids, two low mileage a year cars, work from home/cycle commute.

2. Town dweller, one low mileage car, one child, 100,000 miles of rail travel a year.

You are comparing different numbers of people. And who on earth does 100,000 miles of rail commuting a year. Even London to Cardiff every working day is only 70,000 miles a year, which works out at about 5 tonnes of CO2 emitted. The rural dweller will emit around 3-4 tonnes of CO2 just to heat his house, whereas a small terraced house is around 2.7 and that's shared between two people. I think it's likely the rural dweller will have a significantly higher carbon footprint despite working from home and cycling.

Extra zero typing on phone. Besides I was being conservative, more like 20k. Which equates to about 1-1.5 ton by your numbers.

I think we are at about 5t co2 for heating, but I live in Scotland at some altitude, and the house is all but detached. (Would be a lot less in the south of the UK, but I'm sure no one is suggesting we abandon the north because its more sustainable for us all to live in Cambridgeshire.)

Anyway, by the back of the envelope calculations, it seems like a close run thing doesn't it?

Is insulation not available in Scotland? This nicely illustrates the point that even with your pretty extreme scenario, travel emissions are only roughly equivalent to domestic heating. Also it hides that car emissions are much higher than rail emissions per passenger mile. Average car emissions are 220g/mile, so let's say 6,000 miles for a low-mileage year, that gives us 1.3tonnes of CO2.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

In terms of comparing numbers of people, that's the elephant in the room, isn't it?

Not sure if this is what you are getting at, but no, I don't think that everyone foreswearing starting a family is anything other than a way to exacerbate the demographic strain we already have in this country.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

There are 2 great ones in my post you replied to.

You may want to think again then. Or if you need another clue, ask yourself why 'Escape to the country' is quite a popular show. Seems to appeal to city types.

Popular whimsy, but in reality people vote with their feet. 84% of them and rising

Actually, don't let me put you off your little urban rabbit hutch. The country is probably better that way

So we're calling north Kent, 'the country' now? 🤔

Didn't have you down as a daytime TV watcher 😀.

I don't live in a hutch, that's for sure Given you don't have a car, it's unlikely you would have made it over to see what my part of the world is like

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Ypu are right. Let's start over.

So, we accept the car is unsustainable, right, so....

So we just need a transport system that takes people from their house or wherever they are, to wherever they want to go - at a time that they want to go. And can allow them to take a sizeable number of things with them. I think we used have something like that called 'cars'.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

If we're talking 'unsustainable', every one of us ought to be looking at what we buy at the supermarket: for our convenience, food is being harvested in various countries' countryside, and being transported to the places where they dont grow much food: towns.

My own modest proposal would be, since obviously big lorries hurtling all over the place are unsustainable, would be that people move t where food is produced: the countryside, and live on a diet of potatoes and mangelwurzels.

They tried that in Cambodia and it did not work

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

If we're talking 'unsustainable', every one of us ought to be looking at what we buy at the supermarket: for our convenience, food is being harvested in various countries' countryside, and being transported to the places where they dont grow much food: towns.

My own modest proposal would be, since obviously big lorries hurtling all over the place are unsustainable, would be that people move t where food is produced: the countryside, and live on a diet of potatoes and mangelwurzels.

They tried that in Cambodia and it did not work

There is some connection as what is being proposed here is effectively socialism applied to transport.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

There are 2 great ones in my post you replied to.

You may want to think again then. Or if you need another clue, ask yourself why 'Escape to the country' is quite a popular show. Seems to appeal to city types.

Popular whimsy, but in reality people vote with their feet. 84% of them and rising

Actually, don't let me put you off your little urban rabbit hutch. The country is probably better that way

So we're calling north Kent, 'the country' now? 🤔

Didn't have you down as a daytime TV watcher 😀.

I don't live in a hutch, that's for sure Given you don't have a car, it's unlikely you would have made it over to see what my part of the world is like

I'm fairly familiar with north Kent from cycling as it's just along the Downs from me. Also had family in Tonbridge for a while. I don't drive but we do have a car.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

I'm not saying it's morally wrong we drive. I'm just being practical that they're unlikely to be the mass transit solution like they are today.

The current system is set up for private cars. For lots of reasons, I don't think that will be possible in the future, because of how the majority of us live, and what is required in terms of resources to do so.

So I think the future of the car as the main means to get around the country is limited.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

So you can see the benefits. I posted above what a replacement will need to do in order to be accepted:
"So we just need a transport system that takes people from their house or wherever they are, to wherever they want to go - at a time that they want to go. And can allow them to take a sizeable number of things with them. I think we used have something like that called 'cars'."

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

So you can see the benefits. I posted above what a replacement will need to do in order to be accepted:
"So we just need a transport system that takes people from their house or wherever they are, to wherever they want to go - at a time that they want to go. And can allow them to take a sizeable number of things with them. I think we used have something like that called 'cars'."

Yeah but because most of us live in relatively densely populated areas (around 85%), private cars are just too inefficient in terms of road (traffic james everywhere) and storage space (private cars are unused 96% of the time). And that's before you get to the problems with either burning fossil fuels (pollution, climate change) or using electric cars (the resources required to get the stuff for the batteries is tricky both geopolitically and there aren't enough relevant metals around to supply demand if everyone did have private cars).

So as we get more and more densely populated, which is the trend, they will become less and less useful to get people around, and it will be harder and harder to find the stuff needed to make them go.

focuszing723

The future will be gps automous VTOLS, no infrastructure required apart from charging.

In my advanced superior opinion, abundant cheap electricity (fusion) is just around the corner relative to humanities existence on Earth.

HS2 will be as useful as a canal.

Case closed me lud, thread time of death 9:10am.

Dorset_Boy

Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.

rick_chasey

So they solve the traffic geometry problem by adding a dimension to roads, but how do they solve the storage or battery problem?

focuszing723

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

So you can see the benefits. I posted above what a replacement will need to do in order to be accepted:
"So we just need a transport system that takes people from their house or wherever they are, to wherever they want to go - at a time that they want to go. And can allow them to take a sizeable number of things with them. I think we used have something like that called 'cars'."

Yeah but because most of us live in relatively densely populated areas (around 85%), private cars are just too inefficient in terms of road (traffic james everywhere) and storage space (private cars are unused 96% of the time). And that's before you get to the problems with either burning fossil fuels (pollution, climate change) or using electric cars (the resources required to get the stuff for the batteries is tricky both geopolitically and there aren't enough relevant metals around to supply demand if everyone did have private cars).

So as we get more and more densely populated, which is the trend, they will become less and less useful to get people around, and it will be harder and harder to find the stuff needed to make them go.

If you want something that works and is accepted in the real world, the key criteria are set out in my post above. We await a workable solution that work for the whole country.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It's not nasty, we can just spot bollox when we see it. In this case it seems to be persistent bollox

Shame you started such a boring thread, Stevo.

RC, if you actually read what I've written you know I don't like cars - it's why I started the car thread to get them out of the way of more interesting stuff. But you can expect pushback if you can't find the nuance in people's arguments against your unfounded assertions about travel outside of urban areas. You might even notice that I don't accept MF's arguing for the status quo. Most of us accept that there's lots you can do in urban environments, and that we could do a lot more.

Sorry Brian

To be fair, Rick can't dislike cars that much as he owns one.

For that very reason I don’t understand the “you drive a car, so you’re been a hypocrite” argument, as I’m saying exactly that - we’re in a system where private cars are usually the best way to get around so of course I’ll have one. That is exactly why i am saying about the current model.

I'm not saying it's morally wrong we drive. I'm just being practical that they're unlikely to be the mass transit solution like they are today.

The current system is set up for private cars. For lots of reasons, I don't think that will be possible in the future, because of how the majority of us live, and what is required in terms of resources to do so.

So I think the future of the car as the main means to get around the country is limited.

Cars will be part of transport in the future. As mentioned, the main question is the means of propulsion.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

I am awaiting the onset of 3D movement, crashes and air rage. 🤣
Where does everyone park the things?

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.

What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.

What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?

Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?

Background. When I lived in cities I did not own a car.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't people say they just wanted a faster horse back in the day?

...and a carriage to stay dry in.
Then more horses..and on and on....

But how's the market for horses and carriages looking now?

We have progressed from carriages to cars, People don't want to go backwards.
For that to happen they will have to be forced, it will not be voluntary.

I don't think anyone needed to be forced from horses to cars did they? The next advance might be similar, we just don't know what it is yet. And eventually places selling diesel for private cars will almost disappear and those who think they can go on as they are now will find it more difficult.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Rick, if you were to insert the words "in the larger urban areas" on a frequent basis in your posts, you might just rermove some of the heat.

What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" is so hard to understand?

Because while it works for those in the larger urban areas it does not work for everybody. Is that so hard to understand?

Christ alive. What about "changing from a car orientated transport system to a public transport orientated system" says anything to do with not working for everyone?

The current system isn't just one thing. It's a mishmash. It will forever be a mishmash. But the orientation is going to change.

Come on. is "a orientated transport system not orientated around cars" that confusing a statement?!