to buy or not to buy a car...

[moose]

Good choice, madam! Welcome to the Red Golf Club

 

[Roadkill]

He says, before making a value judgement about cars

Well what I was trying to suggest is that value judgements aren't going to get us very far...

 

[Cobbles]

I can't walk where a car is parked.

Where I live, the streets retain their original cobbles and they and the pavements have been the same size since about 1806.

Back then people who walked where cars are now parked were called "fuckwits" by carters and anyone else using what was then, and now called a "road".

Plus ca change.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not sure there's a lot of difference. It'd certainly look like privatising public space, once the police start being called in to adjudicate over who has paid for which space and whether the skip that someone's just put down for their building works is in space they've paid for or not...!

It doesn't sound much different from the present, really. We already have armies of parking attendents controlling resident's parking, metered parking, red routes, etc etc.

Where I am, it certainly isn't only the wealthy who drive, and it is them who more often have off-street parking. With a space-trading scheme, they'd be free either to flog their quota for a profit or use the space for a second car. Those on tighter budgets would struggle to keep a car in the first place.

Again I don't see how this is any worse than the current situation, on balance. Some poorer people (only in high-density areas where alternatives are very likely to be available) might struggle to keep a car more than they do now, but then again, if they didn't have a car they would have a source of income from their surplus space.

It's not even true in London to suggest that car ownership is a luxury for a lot of people,

I'm afraid I simply don't agree with you here. I am firmly of the belief that 99% of people living inside zone 4 in London (and probably most of those living outside of that area) have absolutely no need for car ownership.

 

[marty21]

Although I'm pretty confident that no-one on this thread actually cares any more... I bought myself a lovely little VW Golf last night

M reg, 76,000 miles, red, alloys , cd player, years ticket, runs like a dream. tis a beauty.

 

[_angel_]

co-op, you seem to be assuming that those of us with cars have never been without. I didn't have a car for ages. I got one because I have a young baby, I'm a single mother and my parents (who provide me with much needed respite) live 40 miles away. While I could travel by train, even going across London with a baby in a pushchair is a bloody nightmare.

It's an indulgence, not a necessity - I'm under no illusion - but I use it as little as possible, not least because driving as you say above is often much less of a convenience than it's painted.

London seems very un pushchair friendly and you need two people to access most tube stations as the majority don't have lifts.

 

[trashpony]

London seems very un pushchair friendly and you need two people to access most tube stations as the majority don't have lifts.

London is very unpushchair (and baby) friendly.

I have struggled up flights of steps on several occasions and no one's bothered to help, hundreds of people cram past me going in the opposite direction because I need a clear path to get through and no one will stop and let me, I've had a woman shout at me when the baby was crying on the bus and twice been told by bus drivers they won't let me on because there are already 2 people with buggies on the bus.

So no teuchter, I don't 'need' a car but London is shit if you have a baby and it's a bloody lifesaver to be able to get out. And I challenge you to take a baby, a buggy, a travel cot and enough clothes, toys, food, milk and equipment to last 24 hours on public transport.

 

[Roadkill]

It doesn't sound much different from the present, really. We already have armies of parking attendents controlling resident's parking, metered parking, red routes, etc etc.

I think it is different, because once people have paid for something they tend to treat it as their personal property, which isn't the case at the moment. By and large, people accept atm that there's no absolute right to park everywhere and that use of the public space has to be regulated, whereas with your scheme I think you'd get the 'I've paid for this so it's mine' mentality creeping in.

Anything to say on the administrative complexities of the scheme, btw?

Again I don't see how this is any worse than the current situation, on balance. Some poorer people (only in high-density areas where alternatives are very likely to be available) might struggle to keep a car more than they do now, but then again, if they didn't have a car they would have a source of income from their surplus space.

But you do concede that it would impose an extra cost on owners, though, and that that would come down hardest on those less able to afford it? Tbh I'd take that as justification for abandoning the idea in the first place.

I'm afraid I simply don't agree with you here. I am firmly of the belief that 99% of people living inside zone 4 in London (and probably most of those living outside of that area) have absolutely no need for car ownership.

I did say I think it's less necessary in London than elsewhere, but I don't believe it to be completely unnecessary in some, or many, cases. And anyway, we're not only discussing London, are we? London is a rather special case, after all...

 

[Pie 1]

What a pity, please can you drive carefully, never park illegally and don't overtake cyclists unless there is plenty of room to do so.

Arrgh!!!mad:
People with a manner like yours make me what to punch something.

You patronising, condesending, sanctimonious prick.

 

[_angel_]

London is very unpushchair (and baby) friendly.

I have struggled up flights of steps on several occasions and no one's bothered to help, hundreds of people cram past me going in the opposite direction because I need a clear path to get through and no one will stop and let me, I've had a woman shout at me when the baby was crying on the bus and twice been told by bus drivers they won't let me on because there are already 2 people with buggies on the bus.

So no teuchter, I don't 'need' a car but London is shit if you have a baby and it's a bloody lifesaver to be able to get out. And I challenge you to take a baby, a buggy, a travel cot and enough clothes, toys, food, milk and equipment to last 24 hours on public transport.

It's one of the reasons I'd never live there (oh and extortionate rents, crime and shit schools - sorry to depress you!!)

Even trying to hail a black cab out with my kid and my friends kids in buggies was an ordeal!!!

 

[_angel_]

Oh, this made me laugh in light of this thread.

I asked for application form for a lowly customer advisor job for metro (leeds bus and train people) They sent me a quite more high ranking public transport coordinator/marketing job. Think I might actually apply for it.

 

[teuchter]

London is very unpushchair (and baby) friendly.

I have struggled up flights of steps on several occasions and no one's bothered to help, hundreds of people cram past me going in the opposite direction because I need a clear path to get through and no one will stop and let me, I've had a woman shout at me when the baby was crying on the bus and twice been told by bus drivers they won't let me on because there are already 2 people with buggies on the bus.

So no teuchter, I don't 'need' a car but London is shit if you have a baby and it's a bloody lifesaver to be able to get out. And I challenge you to take a baby, a buggy, a travel cot and enough clothes, toys, food, milk and equipment to last 24 hours on public transport.

Well i don't have a baby so am not able to offer much of an opinion as to how difficult it is. I would have thought that travelling outside of rush hour would avoid most of the problems you describe. And if you need to transport it along with all it's "equipment" now and again then perhaps a taxi would be in order. In any case it's your choice to produce the baby in the first case, so i think you have to expect there's going to be a bit of inconvenience and expense involved.

 

[_angel_]

Well i don't have a baby so am not able to offer much of an opinion as to how difficult it is. I would have thought that travelling outside of rush hour would avoid most of the problems you describe. And if you need to transport it along with all it's "equipment" now and again then perhaps a taxi would be in order. In any case it's your choice to produce the baby in the first case, so i think you have to expect there's going to be a bit of inconvenience and expense involved.

That's pretty miserly. We're fast going down the route of 'children are for the priviledged' here.

 

[trashpony]

Well i don't have a baby so am not able to offer much of an opinion as to how difficult it is. I would have thought that travelling outside of rush hour would avoid most of the problems you describe. And if you need to transport it along with all it's "equipment" now and again then perhaps a taxi would be in order. In any case it's your choice to produce the baby in the first case, so i think you have to expect there's going to be a bit of inconvenience and expense involved.

I'm expect you also resent paying for education, services for the low waged, drug and alcohol addicts, NHS for people who've got self-inflicted conditions etc etc.

Kill the lot of them - why should the rest of us have to pay for them eh?

 

[teuchter]

I think it is different, because once people have paid for something they tend to treat it as their personal property, which isn't the case at the moment. By and large, people accept atm that there's no absolute right to park everywhere and that use of the public space has to be regulated, whereas with your scheme I think you'd get the 'I've paid for this so it's mine' mentality creeping in.

That's a valid concern but it would not apply to my scheme as i am currently imagining it - you wouldn't actually get a specific space that was yours, just the right to park within a certain area, much the same as any residents' permit scheme. All that's changing is the way in which the space is shared out - in such a way that motorists and non-motorists have equal rights to benefit from it.

Anything to say on the administrative complexities of the scheme, btw?

I'll accept there would have to be all sorts of details to be sorted out. But i don't believe any are difficult enough to make the idea fundamentally unworkable. I'm just presenting this as a kind of thought experiment for now. I don't think it's fair to expect me to be giving you a totally resolved and detailed scheme quite yet!

But you do concede that it would impose an extra cost on owners, though, and that that would come down hardest on those less able to afford it? Tbh I'd take that as justification for abandoning the idea in the first place.

My reasoning is that it would only impose an extra cost on owners in locations where car ownership is non-essential. And non-owners would benefit in these areas. Given that one of my starting points is that car use should be discouraged where not essential, i don't see it as a reason for abandoning the idea at all.

I did say I think it's less necessary in London than elsewhere, but I don't believe it to be completely unnecessary in some, or many, cases. And anyway, we're not only discussing London, are we? London is a rather special case, after all...

Agreed to some extent. But there are other cities which could become more like london in this respect given the political will and the adoption of policies which broadly favour the improvement of public transport over the wishes of car owners.

 

[_angel_]

I'm expect you also resent paying for education, services for the low waged, drug and alcohol addicts, NHS for people who've got self-inflicted conditions etc etc.

Kill the lot of them - why should the rest of us have to pay for them eh?

The *why should I have to pay* argument is gaining credence - hence the rapid dismantling of our public funded welfare state, education etc

 

[teuchter]

Sorry, double post.

 

[Roadkill]

That's a valid concern but it would not apply to my scheme as i am currently imagining it - you wouldn't actually get a specific space that was yours, just the right to park within a certain area, much the same as any residents' permit scheme. All that's changing is the way in which the space is shared out - in such a way that motorists and non-motorists have equal rights to benefit from it.

I don't think it would be seen that way. Since most use of road space is for parking, it'd just be seen as buying a parking space - which fundamentally is what it is.

I'll accept there would have to be all sorts of details to be sorted out. But i don't believe any are difficult enough to make the idea fundamentally unworkable. I'm just presenting this as a kind of thought experiment for now. I don't think it's fair to expect me to be giving you a totally resolved and detailed scheme quite yet!

Well no, but it seems to me that there are so many details, and many of them pretty fundamental, that the idea would be impossibly complex to implement. I've already gone through a few - who's to administer it, on what areas is it to be based, what's to happen about visiting vehicles, deliveries etc. Of course it's only a thought experiment, but that's no reason not to debate whether it could actually ever be done or not.

My reasoning is that it would only impose an extra cost on owners in locations where car ownership is non-essential. And non-owners would benefit in these areas. Given that one of my starting points is that car use should be discouraged where not essential, i don't see it as a reason for abandoning the idea at all.

Is there really such a neat correlation between population density (which obviously would affect the amount of space available to each resident) and need for a car? I'm not at all sure there is. Once again, not every city has the public transport system that London does, either within the built-up area or to other towns, and workplaces, surrounding it.

Agreed to some extent. But there are other cities which could become more like london in this respect given the political will and the adoption of policies which broadly favour the improvement of public transport over the wishes of car owners.

In every city there's a need to improve public transport and provision for cycling and pedestrians, sometimes at the expense of the driver. That much is stating the obvious. But I still think you're generalising too much from the very particular circumstances of London.

 

[teuchter]

I'm expect you also resent paying for education, services for the low waged, drug and alcohol addicts, NHS for people who've got self-inflicted conditions etc etc.

Kill the lot of them - why should the rest of us have to pay for them eh?

That's a rather wild extrapulation from what i said, isn't it?
Anyway that's a discussion for another time and another thread.

I'm currently posting from my phone. My thumb is getting sore and the train i am on will soon be disappearing into the scottish highlands. So i will take this opportunity to wish everyone, car owners or not, a happy christmas and shall return to this in a week or so...

 

[trashpony]

That's a rather wild extrapulation from what i said, isn't it?
Anyway that's a discussion for another time and another thread.

I'm currently posting from my phone. My thumb is getting sore and the train i am on will soon be disappearing into the scottish highlands. So i will take this opportunity to wish everyone, car owners or not, a happy christmas and shall return to this in a week or so...

Have a good holiday. With any luck this thread will be dead and buried by the time you get back.

I'm off to pack up the car