Nice - price motorists off the roads

[Baron99 775]

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), have proposed councils introduce / increase congestion charges in towns & cities & increase the number of road humps & other traffic calming measure to encourage people to walk, cycle & use public transport. 

 

Great as long as you don't have to get anywhere in a hurry, carry a flat-packed wardrobe or fancy waiting for ages for a filthy bus that may or may not turn up, to then hopefully get you into the city centre, so you can then hopefully catch another bus to your destination, while sitting, (or more likely standing), amongst the great unwashed shouting down their mobiles while ignoring their screaming children. 

 

Give me my nice, clean reliable car any day.  

[geared 302]

It'd be nice if they called for improved public transport first.

 

Railways are in a shocking state and plenty of buses are spewing out tons of polluting emissions.

[max 13]

It's in their remit to promote measures which help improve the health of the nation.  These are simply proposals so don't get too excited.

 

If the Road Hauliers Association recommended that all public rights of way favour HGVs that would be fulfilling part of the Association's remit.

[ads36 214]

we've built our towns and cities around the car. As a result, we drive too much and walk/cycle too little. this is catastrophic for our health.

 

and then there's the pollution.

and then there's the crash-casualties.

and then there's the noise.

and then there's the acres and acres and acres of space given to car-parking.

 

fewer cars and car-journeys in towns and cities ? - yes please!

 

there are legitimate concerns for those who really do need access to car travel; eg. the disabled, deliveries, etc. Successful active travel projects have the effect of reducing car use, making car-travel easier for those still driving/reliant on cars.

 

weirdly, some of the loudest anti-cycling voices come from taxi drivers. Since selling our 2nd car a couple of years ago i've used loads of taxis...

 

i can understand there are concerns about high-street shopping, but cars don't spend money, people do. people-friendly high-streets see more footfall, and more spending.

 

it really is all win-win.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by ads36

[Top Cats Hat 10]

18 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

 increase the number of road humps & other traffic calming measure to encourage people to walk, cycle & use public transport. 

Are you sure?

 

It has been accepted for a number of years now, that slowing down and speeding up between speed humps increases vehicle exhaust emissions.

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

12 minutes ago, ads36 said:

we've built our towns and cities around the car. As a result, we drive too much and walk/cycle too little. this is catastrophic for our health.

 

and then there's the pollution.

and then there's the crash-casualties.

and then there's the noise.

and then there's the acres and acres and acres of space given to car-parking.

 

fewer cars and car-journeys in towns and cities ? - yes please!

 

there are legitimate concerns for those who really do need access to car travel; eg. the disabled, deliveries, etc. Successful active travel projects have the effect of reducing car use, making car-travel easier for those still driving/reliant on cars.

 

weirdly, some of the loudest anti-cycling voices come from taxi drivers. Since selling our 2nd car a couple of years ago i've used loads of taxis...

 

i can understand there are concerns about high-street shopping, but cars don't spend money, people do. people-friendly high-streets see more footfall, and more spending.

 

it really is all win-win.

 

 

 

 

 

Well it really isn't is it.

 

Firstly good for you for increasing your use of taxis -  you must have a lot more than I have in the bank because I won't be able to afford to do that.  On average I fill up my car with £15 pounds of fuel once a week which covers all the journeys I want to make and my daily commute to the office.   A taxi from my house to the shops is anything between £8 to £10 each way.  

 

Secondly,  last time I checked buses still caused pollution and still caused lots of noise. Presumably if we are to encourage people not to use their cars we will have to massively increase the service frequencies and route offerings to make sure it is as convenient as possible for service users - That would obviously lead to more buses on the road and more pollution in the air. 

 

Perhaps we could extend the less polluting tram network but that will cost significant sums of money which we don't have and those pesky hazardous tram tracks will be spread all over every primary road in the city  -   awww the humanity!!!  To think of all those poor cyclist who keep getting their wheels caught in tram tracks smashing their faces into the concrete, skulls shattered, limbs broken all over the pavement.

 

I know, maybe we could get rid of the commute all together.  That would be best.  Get people living within the city limits -.  yeah that could work a great big metropolis with everyone living on top of each other.   London does it why can't we.  I'm sure that wouldn't have an effect on the property prices whatsoever.   

[ads36 214]

Quote

Firstly good for you for increasing your use of taxis -  you must have a lot more than I have in the bank because I won't be able to afford to do that.  On average I fill up my car with £15 pounds of fuel once a week which covers all the journeys I want to make and my daily commute to the office.   A taxi from my house to the shops is anything between £8 to £10 each way.  

financing + maintaining + insuring + fueling a car costs upwards of £300/month. Which i'm not spending.

 

vs 2 or 3 taxis a month?

 

But you raise a valid point, we've built our transport system around the car, which many people (me included) can't afford.

 

Let's remember that this thread is in response to NICE suggesting that councils should do more to enable people to make more journeys on foot or bike - because it turns out that exercise is good for us, and being sedentary really *really* isn't.

 

Transport is definitely a health-related issue. Why have we devoted our towns and cities to the unhealthy option?

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by ads36

[Flexo 10]

3 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Firstly good for you for increasing your use of taxis -  you must have a lot more than I have in the bank because I won't be able to afford to do that.  On average I fill up my car with £15 pounds of fuel once a week which covers all the journeys I want to make and my daily commute to the office.   A taxi from my house to the shops is anything between £8 to £10 each way.  

 

To be a fair comparison, you need to include your costs of:

• Car purchase or initial+final payments
• Any monthly payments
• Insurance
• Repairs and MoT
• Parking (if on-street then this is effectively paid for you by the tax payer)
• Cleaning
• Your time in dealing with insurance, repairs, refuelling. cleaning it, etc.

As all those costs are included in the taxi side of your comparison already.

 

We could also imagine a city - perhaps not that far into the future - where private car ownership is rare because on-demand vehicles have become more convenient. Residential streets are no longer festooned with stationary vehicles, parents are less fearful of allowing their children to play in the streets and more people are enjoying the benefits of cycling. There is a value to that improved quality of life which is not included in the cost comparison.

 

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

13 minutes ago, ads36 said:

financing + maintaining + insuring + fueling a car costs upwards of £300/month. Which i'm not spending.

 

vs 2 or 3 taxis a month?

 

 

 

 

OK that's fine but presumably you will have increased cost when you travel around different parts of the country.  If you don't have a car you will assumedly have to hire one or pay expensive train, coach or bus fares to get around.

 

How much does that cost a month?  Even buses arnt free.  

 

Even people who choose not to drive in cities or commute everyday still often own a car. 

 

It's a very regular rebuttal from cyclists when criticised that they don't pay road tax -  they proudly remind the critics that they are also car owners.

 

If we are going to start playing games itemising cost let's see exactly how much daily public transport is. How much are long-distance train tickets, coach fares, taxes between destinations.  It all racks up.  

 

Perhaps some people never go anywhere - I have to. 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

12 minutes ago, Flexo said:

To be a fair comparison, you need to include your costs of:

• Car purchase or initial+final payments
• Any monthly payments
• Insurance
• Repairs and MoT
• Parking (if on-street then this is effectively paid for you by the tax payer)
• Cleaning
• Your time in dealing with insurance, repairs, refuelling. cleaning it, etc.

As all those costs are included in the taxi side of your comparison already.

 

We could also imagine a city - perhaps not that far into the future - where private car ownership is rare because on-demand vehicles have become more convenient. Residential streets are no longer festooned with stationary vehicles, parents are less fearful of allowing their children to play in the streets and more people are enjoying the benefits of cycling. There is a value to that improved quality of life which is not included in the cost comparison.

 

I have no problem with that.  I am happy to embrace new technology and new infrastructure when it is sufficiently established.   I agree that that would be much nicer than rows of parked cars.

 

But at the moment it certainly is not anywhere near being established and given the backlash against uber and similar companies by not only the government but also militant taxi drivers I don't see it happening anytime soon.

 

Until that time comes I am not going to accept some over simplistic statement like "....let's ban cars from cities..." when the practicalities of it are completely unrealistic for the majority of residents.

[ads36 214]

We've got one car. We sold our 2nd a couple of years ago. It's saving us thousands, every year.

 

Exercise is good for us, and active travel is a great way to build it into our lives. But without safe routes, cycling feels really dangerous, which is a shame, as it doesn't have to be like that. 

 

Cycling is cheap, good for our health, *and* good for our high streets. 

 

The only person who has said 'banning cars' is you. That's a text-book straw man.

Edited January 4, 2019 by ads36

[ECCOnoob 1,017]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make then.

 

You reeled off a list earlier about pollution and noise and space being taken up for car parking.  You say you want to reduce car use and reduce car ownership but you still own one.  You must therefore concede that you need it and the alternatives are simply not good enough yet for you to get rid of it altogether.

 

I only have one vehicle anyway so does that mean I'm OK to use mine?  

 

Yes I am deliberately choosing to use a strawman argument of ban cars because like you have done in your own postings its a simplistic approach to my points.

 

Yes I know we are not talking about literally banning cars entirely but the more people are discouraged and the more cost and pressures are put onto motorists that will become the ultimate aim - as has actually been in force in some cities. 

 

My arguments are still valid.  The fact is that until the alternatives to car use are fully in place and fully established these headline grabbing statements and ridiculous proposals will not work.  

 

100 years ago the majority of the population lived within the city boundaries. They did walk to work. They all lived within walking distance. People lived on top of their business premises or within the same compound as them.

 

After the wars and after the city was decimated the slums were pulled down and the majority of people bettered themselves.  They quite rightly decided that they did not want to live 100m away from their factory employer and land on the outskirts of the city was turned into pleasant suburbs for people to live.  As population expanded the suburbs had to expand with it.  We are now in a position where the majority of the population of a city are not able to walk to work or cycle to work easily.  

 

That means that we either have to change back to living in a metropolis with everyone in the city limits or we have to make dramatic improvements to the efficiency, speed and regularity of public transport.  We also have to make sure that it is as cheap as what a car owner would expect for their own journeys.   

 

Without those basics in place nothing will change.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by ECCOnoob