Driving is shit

[roryer]

An anti-motoring cartoon is supposed to prove what, exactly?

btw, the point I made above is an important one, because as long as the debate over transport is conducted as a slanging match between a pro- and anti-motoring faction, we're not going to get anywhere. Maybe you could address that? And maybe also the points I raised above about cars being something that people enjoy?

The cartoon is not anti-motoring it's pro-community.

I'm opposed to the car dependent society and see this as a cause of many of the ills that the world faces today. The drain on depleted resources and inappropriateness in terms of space for the car to operate as the main form of transport is astounding. Its destroying cities, communities and our planet. Meanwhile a car based transport system costs more, takes up more space and ultimately doesn't work in that people move more slowly. There can be no defense for this situation.

However there are very good reasons for us to have reached this point, there is no doubt that cars are more convenient, more comfortable, more flexible in that they can go anywhere at any time. Finally despite your objections they are seen as a status symbol.

As an individual it makes sense for each of us to drive, while as a society it makes sense for us to invest in public transport and control the demand for cars, limit their access to urban areas and encourage walking and cycling through progressive urban design.

However so long as the car remains an object of desire and that people consider that they have a right to drive, there is little that the government can do to control it without threatening their popularity, thus it was announced in the pre- budget that £10.5bn were to be spent on road widening schemes, meanwhile cycling needs to go to the lottery to beg for £50m.

Sometimes individuals need to stand up and to try to change the consensus when it is clearly destructive, its a difficult job, but there are some interesting examples to draw on that give us hope.

When an urban highway in Australia recently closed due to structural problems more public transport was laid on which most people switched to, cycling also increased, and the predicted congestion was completely averted, when it reopened the road immediately became full and congested at peak hours. Showing that people can change. We need a series of sticks and carrots and maybe we can begin to improve our urban realm.

So in answer to your question, I'm not anti-motoring, and appreciate friends who give me lifts, sometimes it is not easy to get around without one so very occasionally I will drive. I see this as a symptom of car dependency in that not enough people use public transport, so often the services are insufficient. I accept that people enjoy motoring, but I believe that our first duty is to help and improve the community in which we live, not to ourselves.

 

[Roadkill]

Well that's rather more reasonable than the uncompromisingly anti-car stance you've taken for the rest of this thread - and others.

I fail to see why 'pro-car' and 'pro-community' are incompatible, though. Granted, major roads can chop through geographically-defined communities - but then so can railway lines. Tens of thousands of people were displaced from British cities, London especially, by the building of urban railway lines in the nineteenth century. But yes, I'm fully in favour of more pedestrian precincts, less use of cars in built-up areas and the like.

As an individual it makes sense for each of us to drive, while as a society it makes sense for us to invest in public transport and control the demand for cars, limit their access to urban areas and encourage walking and cycling through progressive urban design.

That's a false dichotomy. Different means of transport have different strengths and weaknesses. With the best will in the world, it will never be viable to provide a fully comprehensive, 24-hour public transport system outside the major cities, which is where cars come into their own. Conversely, the space-inefficiency of the car makes it a poor means of urban transport: it is the car lobby's main failing that they do not acknowledge that fact. And so on.

Cutting cars out of the picture altogether is impossible, and it's silly to try: what we need to do is to aim for a situation where people are able and willing to use the best means of transport for a given journey, rather than always reaching for the car keys. But the car in the drive has its uses and its pleasures, and it's foolish to disparage them.

However there are very good reasons for us to have reached this point, there is no doubt that cars are more convenient, more comfortable, more flexible in that they can go anywhere at any time. Finally despite your objections they are seen as a status symbol.

No-one ever said they weren't. But they're not only that, and if you refuse to see that, you'll never understand why we've reached the point we have.

When an urban highway in Australia recently closed due to structural problems more public transport was laid on which most people switched to, cycling also increased, and the predicted congestion was completely averted, when it reopened the road immediately became full and congested at peak hours.

Source?

 

[Calva dosser]

I like cars.

I like seeing monkeymen sporting and shafting themselves in them.

I wish I could remember where I parked mine.

 

[disownedspirit]

I like cars.

I like seeing monkeymen sporting and shafting themselves in them.

I wish I could remember where I parked mine.

france
probably

 

[co-op]

I'd race you Croydon to Brent Cross, any time of day, any day of the week and beat you if you cycle

How long do you reckon that takes you on 4 wheels? I'm finding it hard to believe you'd beat any half-decent cyclist over that course during the norning rush hour.

 

[roryer]

Source?

One of the presentations at the European Transport Conference last week, or it could have been Smarter Choices the week before, too much research to confirm which is why details are a little shaky.

 

[Roadkill]

Hmm, well I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I would like to see some details before I accept the rosy picture you paint above.

Closure of major roads usually leads to worse congestion on alternative routes. I'm curious as to why it should have been so different in this case.

 

[fredfelt]

Like your cartoon Roryer.

Cars are great when used in moderation. But I guess my idea of moderate car use is probably a lot less than most.

Surely it's not anti car to yearn for clean, congestion free cities which you can safely get around without having to rely on a car?

 

[Roadkill]

Surely it's not anti car to yearn for clean, congestion free cities which you can safely get around without having to rely on a car?

Of course not.

 

[fredfelt]

Of course not.

But when suggestions are floated to achieve just this they allways seem to be dismissed as anti car.

 

[Herbsman.]

I mainly prefer the look of old cars as most modern cars look just like a shiny, boring, homogeneous wedge to me. Bizarrely enough, I am quite interested in new car technologies and will even sit and watch Top Gear.

I reckon people will look back in amazement at the selfishness and madness of our current car culture though. Big cars with a single driver, roads clogged to fuck, villages choked in car fumes, more and more countryside ripped up while cars merrily burn though a heavily polluting, finite resource that remains at the core of global conflict.

Car culture has fucked up things good and proper. But they're still handy things at times.

Spot on. As much as there is to hate about the effects of the car, I still really enjoy driving now and then, it's such a massive convenience. And the technology is amazing, I would love to take a car apart and have someone explain exactly how each part works, how it was developed, who by and why.

Sadly, the pollution, and the death, and the oil, and the roads... Why couldn't they have invented a non-dangerous, flying, solar-powered car or something? Wouldn't need roads or fuel, and wouldn't kill people... </dreams>

 

[Roadkill]

But when suggestions are floated to achieve just this they allways seem to be dismissed as anti car.

Not always.

 

[co-op]

But when suggestions are floated to achieve just this they allways seem to be dismissed as anti car.

What's wrong with being anti-car? They are a social disaster in our cities.

 

[Roadkill]

What's wrong with being anti-car? They are a social disaster in our cities.

There's nothing wrong with thinking that cars aren't a very good means of urban transport. If you read the thread, you'll notice that's my opinion as well.

What I take issue with is the uncompromisingly anti-car stance taken by some people - the kind that says cars have had 'little positive benefit' anywhere and seems to think we can dispense with them altogether.

 

[soulman]

What's wrong with being anti-car? They are a social disaster in our cities.

I agree about in cities but what do you propose as a realistic alternative that will appeal to car users?

 

[co-op]

Hi to the last two posters - I've not really time to discuss the issue just now (honest) - I was just asking "what's wrong with being anti-car?" - a previous poster described people as being "dismissed as just being anti-car" as though this were some kind of bizarre position to hold. To me it seems quite a reasonable one - especially, as I often forget to add, in cities. The countryside is a whole other thingy.

It seems more to me that it's the petrolheads who form a clique with a strangely narrow position - I'm open to any non-privatised suggestions.




*runs away knowing that this is a blatantly aggy post*