Nice - price motorists off the roads

[WiseOwl182 10]

31 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

So all these short journeys (75% of car journeys are under 1 mile) are (you claimed) school runs.  And now they're school runs for infants specifically...

And no, I didn't ever suggest that anyone cycle their children to school.

No, I never said "all". I reckon a large proportion will be. There are other short journeys too. For example, I live around quarter of a mile from the local shop. Sometimes I walk it, if it's a nice day and I'm not in a rush for anything. If it's cold or wet, or I'm in a rush, or I'm going out somewhere else as well, I'll drive it instead. I could cycle too, but by the time I've unlocked the garage, got the bike out, strapped my helmet on and cycled there, I'd be back already in the car. Lazy? Yes probably, but so what? I'd rather not get cold or wet, or waste time if I'm in a rush.

35 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

You're mistaken.  I said that I had walked to school in late infant/early junior.

To clarify that for you, somewhere around the age of 7 (late infants) or 8 (early juniors), was when I walked to school on my own.

Late infant covers 6 year old. Even 7 is too young to walk to school alone though.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Well, something changed over the last 30 years to massively increase the number of children driven to school.  And it's not "danger to children", they're safer than they ever were from both road accidents and any other form of harm.

Lots of the smaller primaries have closed, and compacted into fewer, larger ones for economies of scale.

Lots of families both parents work, dropping off kids on way to work. Lots drop off kids at childminders near school, or breakfast club also on way to work.

[Cyclone 10]

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

Are there any stats about school closures?

 

All the ones that existed in my village are still there, 4 of them I think, 5 maybe.

4 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

No, I never said "all". I reckon a large proportion will be. There are other short journeys too. For example, I live around quarter of a mile from the local shop. Sometimes I walk it, if it's a nice day and I'm not in a rush for anything. If it's cold or wet, or I'm in a rush, or I'm going out somewhere else as well, I'll drive it instead. I could cycle too, but by the time I've unlocked the garage, got the bike out, strapped my helmet on and cycled there, I'd be back already in the car. Lazy? Yes probably, but so what? I'd rather not get cold or wet, or waste time if I'm in a rush.

Late infant covers 6 year old. Even 7 is too young to walk to school alone though.

So what?

So it contributes to congestion I guess, wasn't that what we were discussing?  Isn't that why Nice would like to make it more expensive for motorists?

 

But you popping to the shop at 1830 in the evening probably isn't make a big difference to the congestion that most people notice, which is the commute congestion.  In fact if you're in a congested area you probably actively avoid going to the shop at rush hour, I know I deliberately time my journeys to be better.  I'll be visiting my parents tomorrow, I don't cycle the 18 miles there and back, but I do make sure I leave home by 1600, no later, to avoid the worst of the traffic, and head back at 1900 again to avoid any bad traffic.

[WiseOwl182 10]

18 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

 

"Lots of". Can we have stats, now Vs then please? You wouldn't accept "lots of" from anyone else.

[Cyclone 10]

On 20/01/2019 at 21:58, WiseOwl182 said:

"Lots of". Can we have stats, now Vs then please? You wouldn't accept "lots of" from anyone else.

That took a bit of finding.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

 

Employment rates for women have been increasing steadily since 1971 (when the graph starts), that increase slowed since 1991.

 

The rise in women in employment is partly due to an increase in the percentage of mothers in work. In 1996 (when comparable records began), 67% of married or cohabiting mothers with dependent children were in work and by 2013 this had increased to 72%. 

 

1996, that's >20 years ago and it was already "most" at 2 3rds.

 

Even going back to 1971 (well beyond the 30 years I defined), it was greater than 50% of women (which isn't to say families of course, women exist outside families).

 

Looking at another bit of data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/workingandworklesshouseholds/aprtojune2016

In 2015 56% of households were dual income, compared to 1996 when it was 51%.  Not a huge shift, because the shift had happened earlier.  (That's 22 years ago)

 

30 years would be back to 1988.  I can't say that this evidence is conclusive, it doesn't look like the data to prove it exists in any way that can be easily accessed.  But these two sets of data support my assertion.

The shift towards dual income being common started in the early 70's and was nearly at current levels within 20 years, and that is 28 years ago!

[woodview 10]

On 20/01/2019 at 21:39, Cyclone said:

Lots of families were dual income 30 years ago, that's not a new thing.

 

Are there any stats about school closures?

 

 

You'll have to research stats if it helps you.  Working from experience. Our 2 closest schools closed and we're compacted down into 2 others, I've seen others further away close too.

 

[alchresearch 214]

There was a large number of closures around 2008-09:

 

Primary schools closing at the rate of 100 a year
More than 1,000 primary schools have been forced to close in the last decade, despite fears over a shortage of places.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/5307911/Primary-schools-closing-at-the-rate-of-100-a-year.html

 

I remember this because during the coalition there was a news story and associated outrage that school playing fields were being built on. 

 

What the articles failed to mention was that many of the fields were attached to long-closed derelict schools.

[WiseOwl182 10]

13 hours ago, Cyclone said:

That took a bit of finding.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/womeninthelabourmarket/2013-09-25

 

Employment rates for women have been increasing steadily since 1971 (when the graph starts), that increase slowed since 1991.

 

The rise in women in employment is partly due to an increase in the percentage of mothers in work. In 1996 (when comparable records began), 67% of married or cohabiting mothers with dependent children were in work and by 2013 this had increased to 72%. 

 

1996, that's >20 years ago and it was already "most" at 2 3rds.

 

Even going back to 1971 (well beyond the 30 years I defined), it was greater than 50% of women (which isn't to say families of course, women exist outside families).

 

Looking at another bit of data

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/workingandworklesshouseholds/aprtojune2016

In 2015 56% of households were dual income, compared to 1996 when it was 51%.  Not a huge shift, because the shift had happened earlier.  (That's 22 years ago)

 

30 years would be back to 1988.  I can't say that this evidence is conclusive, it doesn't look like the data to prove it exists in any way that can be easily accessed.  But these two sets of data support my assertion.

The shift towards dual income being common started in the early 70's and was nearly at current levels within 20 years, and that is 28 years ago!

5 out of 10, more work needed. You also need to consider hours in employment (more hours worked by the second breadwinner means more rushed school runs needing a car) and the stats from the reference period you chose from your infant years.

 

I'm younger than you but from what I remember of my primary years, most mums were part time rather than full time, and working in jobs they were over qualified for, i.e. they gave up careers to have children. As a parent, I see more mums keeping careers and working full or near full time hours. I also see a lot more dads sharing school run duties, which is a great thing, but often involves rushing straight off to work in the car. That's all observational of course - I have not got the time nor inclination to research as thoroughly as you, so I'll see what you find.

Edited January 22, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[Cyclone 10]

No I don't.  That's evidence for my assertion.

If you want to prove difficulty you can now do some work and find that evidence yourself.

[Halibut 12]

11 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 

I'm younger than you but from what I remember of my primary years, most mums were part time rather than full time, and working in jobs they were over qualified for, i.e. they gave up careers to have children. 

You seem to have been extraordinarily knowledgeable about other kids mums lives...to the point where I find that sentence rather hard to believe.

[Cyclone 10]

It sort of fits now, as an adult he's able to speak for most women in the country when he tells us what they really want (which isn't what they say, mind).

[woodview 10]

7 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It sort of fits now, as an adult he's able to speak for most women in the country when he tells us what they really want (which isn't what they say, mind).

Knives are out for somebody not agreeing with your school run theory. He's probably a racist too?

You say you don't have kids and don't do school runs and seem to hate somebody expressing an opinion from experience that contradicts your opinion.

 

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/working-mothers-with-dependent-children-uk-surges-1-million-office-for-national-statistics-a7968486.html%3famp

 

This says it's increased to 5 million from 3.7 in '96. Up 1.2 million.