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

First.Aspect

I'm wondering if we need to think up policies that accept that people will want personal motorised transport.

Either that or we will need to destroy all copies of the ladybird book of cars to stop people being tempted.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

Stevo_666

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

A bigger stick. It's a war, BB.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Pross

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

First.Aspect

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

Pross

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

Many drivers will be passing numerous ANPR cameras a day already, often without knowing. Other than having different banding it wouldn’t really differ much from various congestion charge or ULEZ schemes. By that stage I suspect all cars would have inbuilt GPS technology. There is already talk about linking car systems to GPS so that they automatically get limited to speed limits and it doesn’t feel close to the technology that is require for autonomous vehicles.

There would be privacy issues but no more so than many other examples including current ULEZ schemes, we can already be tracked through mobile phones and use of payment cards etc. so it just needs robust data management.

First.Aspect

I don't think roadside measurement and charging changes that much either. But of course it limits mileage charges to roads with the infrastructure.

Fine for trunk roads I guess. Not sure about residential, which is where a lot of the pointless journeys like the school run take place.

Having my car know when I've gone to visit Nora Batty and report that to the DVLA does seem like a step change though.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want other people priced off the road.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

I don't think roadside measurement and charging changes that much either. But of course it limits mileage charges to roads with the infrastructure.

Fine for trunk roads I guess. Not sure about residential, which is where a lot of the pointless journeys like the school run take place.

Having my car know when I've gone to visit Nora Batty and report that to the DVLA does seem like a step change though.

Your phone will be doing that but reporting it to a commercial entity instead (unless you turn it off and remove your SIM when you visit her).

First.Aspect

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

I don't think roadside measurement and charging changes that much either. But of course it limits mileage charges to roads with the infrastructure.

Fine for trunk roads I guess. Not sure about residential, which is where a lot of the pointless journeys like the school run take place.

Having my car know when I've gone to visit Nora Batty and report that to the DVLA does seem like a step change though.

Your phone will be doing that but reporting it to a commercial entity instead (unless you turn it off and remove your SIM when you visit her).

Shit

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

The data is already there. Google Maps traffic data is sourced from all those phones and satnavs. It's a small step to sending you a bill at the end of the month with a breakdown of miles driven in each zone.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

The data is already there. Google Maps traffic data is sourced from all those phones and satnavs. It's a small step to sending you a bill at the end of the month with a breakdown of miles driven in each zone.

Yeah, you are right.

So is it cheaper to put up roadside cameras, or manage that everyone has a GPS device in their car.

Norman, who owns the Wolsey with the white walled tyres, will have a fit if he needs to do that. But I think it's a better option than a bazillion traffic cameras.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

Pross

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

The data is already there. Google Maps traffic data is sourced from all those phones and satnavs. It's a small step to sending you a bill at the end of the month with a breakdown of miles driven in each zone.

Yeah, you are right.

So is it cheaper to put up roadside cameras, or manage that everyone has a GPS device in their car.

Norman, who owns the Wolsey with the white walled tyres, will have a fit if he needs to do that. But I think it's a better option than a bazillion traffic cameras.

Bear in mind we’re talking at least a decade down the line as the carrot needs to be in place and I would guess 90% plus of vehicles will already have more than enough technology. You could exempt ‘classic’ cars like they seem to do on all these things and The Telegraph can run an article about drivers winning the war by buying a 1980s Maestro for £100k.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

Thanks

And it was also to point out that those were mandatory, whereas pricing people out of unnecessary car journeys isn't. That's more like pricing people out of smoking through the tax on tobacco products.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

The data is already there. Google Maps traffic data is sourced from all those phones and satnavs. It's a small step to sending you a bill at the end of the month with a breakdown of miles driven in each zone.

Yeah, you are right.

So is it cheaper to put up roadside cameras, or manage that everyone has a GPS device in their car.

Norman, who owns the Wolsey with the white walled tyres, will have a fit if he needs to do that. But I think it's a better option than a bazillion traffic cameras.

Well the majority of people already have the GPS. Can't think it would be that difficult to make it work even for the classic car weirdos. I suppose there are the GPS accuracy issues to deal with - did you really drive into that zone or were you actually 10m the other side of the boundary - but I would have thought that was manageable with a degree of tolerance.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

What do you mean how? I don't see how your post addresses what I said.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

What do you mean how? I don't see how your post addresses what I said.

How are they a completely different set of arguments.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Why are people back to arguing about travelling by public transport with the censored system with have in place at the moment?

I think the thread can be summarised as follows:

- Rick thinks that public transport should be better and then everyone can give up their cars
- Some people think that they need to buy christmas trees and toilet paper, so a car is necessary for every journey,
- Other people think that Rick would choose a car over public transport even when public transport is available and isn't too bad hence arguments about the existing system.

Where I grew up, people would choose to drive for 30 mins rather than take one of the three trains an hour that only took 10 mins and cost a similar amount to the parking charge. There was always an excuse. Therefore, I don't think improving public transport will change some people's views.

That's where the stick (AKA 'war on drivers') is needed. Take away the legitimate issues that can be used as excuses and when they still don't change their habits you absolutely hammer them. If they decide it's a reasonable sacrifice for their "freedom" then so be it. I guess that isn't too far away from Rick's original point other than he would extend reasonable to moving home to somewhere that makes the public transport option viable.

The problem is how do you successfully use a stick on the people that had access to the train, but not on those that didn't?

Maybe things like scaled road charging so if you are driving in the Scottish Highlands where the nearest rail station is 50 miles away you pay a very low rate whereas if you are in Central London you have a huge charge. Again, these are thoughts for a way down the road (no pun etc.) after you put significantly better public transport in place.

Technology options for that would make an interesting discussion.

Far more interesting than family tickets to York anyway.

Thoughts? Would you monitor within each car, or record at the roadside?

Are there any privacy issues that it would raise?

The data is already there. Google Maps traffic data is sourced from all those phones and satnavs. It's a small step to sending you a bill at the end of the month with a breakdown of miles driven in each zone.

Yeah, you are right.

So is it cheaper to put up roadside cameras, or manage that everyone has a GPS device in their car.

Norman, who owns the Wolsey with the white walled tyres, will have a fit if he needs to do that. But I think it's a better option than a bazillion traffic cameras.

Whichever it is can do the speeding fines too. Win win.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

What do you mean how? I don't see how your post addresses what I said.

How are they a completely different set of arguments.

Different situations, considerations and facts. Obvious really.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Short summary from me: both cars and public transport are needed and many people will use both depending on their circumstances.

Do you think there are too many journeys currently undertaken by car that don't need to be? I know I definitely use the car for convenience rather than necessity quite often e.g. to pick up a takeaway from a mile away so I get it home 10 minutes quicker.

I agree that both are still needed by many (again, we're talking about how things are today not how they could be with some thought and investment) but I suspect the amount a car is 'needed' is far less than how often it is used.

Maybe. But regardless, we live in a country where we can choose how to get to places rather than have it mandated for us. And long may it remain that way.

Once upon a time, the "liberty to choose" argument was used about helmets on motorbikes, seatbelts in cars, and smoking in pubs. I think it would be quite hard to argue to roll those back now.

I'd be more than happy for pips to be squeezed to nudge people into less environmentally damaging options: that way, possibly, private cars might have actually have a longer shelf life, if they are used more for when necessary, not out of habit.

Those were a completely different set of arguments, so the same logic doesn't apply. Nor did the degree of public support.

How? It was public benefit versus private liberty in each of those. Seatbelts weren't imposed because someone really cared about people getting hurt, but because cleaning up after RTAs is really expensive. Traffic also has a public cost. It also took decades to become mandatory to wear seatbelts; even longer for smoking to be banned

What do you mean how? I don't see how your post addresses what I said.

How are they a completely different set of arguments.

Different situations, considerations and facts. Obvious really.

Obvious that they are different situations. But also obvious that I was using various situations to illustrate that pricing cars off roads is not a 'mandatory' measure (people can still choose to drive), and that measures that were opposed as being infringements on individuals' 'liberty to choose' can be justified on wider publc benefit grounds.

rjsterry

Sorry, I meant how is it different from seatbelts, crash helmets and smoking in public places? Obviously there are differences in the details but they are all at their root, situations where the balance between personal liberty and public benefit was reset in the face of initial resistance and long periods of campaigning.

First.Aspect

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Decarbonising transport is a public health measure that's met with resistance.

Spoiling everone's fun by GPS tracking to automatically prevent speeding, that would be another. There will be riots against that, because it is a god given right to endanger others with speeding.

Reducing the amount of decarbonised and non-speeding traffic is different, I would say.

All part of the same system. Moving individuals around in heavy EVs is just shifting the emissions elsewhere without the required infrastructure changes. And congestion itself has a cost in lost productivity.

On the GPS point, I think a 'metered' model for VED wouldn't be that hard a sell overall. Difficult to argue that it's unfair.