"When it's full, tow it to Rwanda." "Erm ... Rwanda is land-locked, Home Secretary." "OK. Tristan da Cunha, then." "It has an active volcano, Home Secretary. Even worse optics than a recent genocide." "Pitcairn?" "Too far" "Necker?" "Sir Richard Branson says no." "OK, how about Ascension, then? It was in the papers yesterday." "Ascension is a top secret military base, Home Secretary." "Perfect. Get me Ben."
Cough cough St Helena cough cough
Isn't the airport a bit iffy in terms of what can land there, especially the size and therefore range of the planes? IANAE but have no idea what the current situation is.
I am not sure the proposal was to fly the Bibby Stockholm there tbf
Sure; just a reply to Vieawcode's suggestion of St Helena!
I don't understand Ascension btw - I thought one of HMG's favourite attack lines was that asylum seekers are a security hazard?
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I think St Thomas's is the other side of County Hall. The plot in question was part of the Festival of Britain, then a car park, then Jubilee Gardens.
And yes, some provision for cars is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. But that provision does make life worse for everyone else, and cars do have a habit of swallowing any provision provided and then some. So we do have to consider when there are better ways of achieving the things we use cars to do.
A policy of gradually reducing on street parking spaces is the place to start, as is happening in various European cities. Creates space for people, bus lanes, mobility, and a lot of other things. And reduces motorised traffic at the same time.
What's not to like?
I believe Paris is currently removing 60,000 on street parking spaces.
And we all love Paris, apart from the policemen, the tenements, the prices, and the sewage in the Seine.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
"When it's full, tow it to Rwanda." "Erm ... Rwanda is land-locked, Home Secretary." "OK. Tristan da Cunha, then." "It has an active volcano, Home Secretary. Even worse optics than a recent genocide." "Pitcairn?" "Too far" "Necker?" "Sir Richard Branson says no." "OK, how about Ascension, then? It was in the papers yesterday." "Ascension is a top secret military base, Home Secretary." "Perfect. Get me Ben."
Cough cough St Helena cough cough
Isn't the airport a bit iffy in terms of what can land there, especially the size and therefore range of the planes? IANAE but have no idea what the current situation is.
I am not sure the proposal was to fly the Bibby Stockholm there tbf
Sure; just a reply to Vieawcode's suggestion of St Helena!
I don't understand Ascension btw - I thought one of HMG's favourite attack lines was that asylum seekers are a security hazard?
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I don't think it is fake. It is the eastern facade of County Hall - you can see it here on Street View
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I think St Thomas's is the other side of County Hall. The plot in question was part of the Festival of Britain, then a car park, then Jubilee Gardens.
And yes, some provision for cars is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. But that provision does make life worse for everyone else, and cars do have a habit of swallowing any provision provided and then some. So we do have to consider when there are better ways of achieving the things we use cars to do.
Ah I see - so they took the car park out.
Not 100% sure which PBer wins their argument as a result.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
This Ascension Island plan is interesting. The lunacy of the Rwanda plan was that we were dumping our asylum seekers on Rwanda for a bribe - there would be no applying for asylum in the UK.
If we create a gulag on Ascension, they remain our responsibility. We will need to process them and then return them when their claims are declared eligible (so many will be, as they are now).
A very different proposal, the first step towards this government accepting its reponsabilities.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
VW and BMW didn't buy up the local equivalents of London Underground and close them down, either.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
I think Germany has more of a liking for heritage - they rebuilt so much of it. They also don't have the USA's poisonous zoning codes, or indifference to roads being a killing zone.
Germany does have an attachment to "my car represents my freedom", which is similar in some ways to the USA, but much less loopy - with baggage of the auto industry being one thing that rescued the country in the 1950s.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I think St Thomas's is the other side of County Hall. The plot in question was part of the Festival of Britain, then a car park, then Jubilee Gardens.
And yes, some provision for cars is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. But that provision does make life worse for everyone else, and cars do have a habit of swallowing any provision provided and then some. So we do have to consider when there are better ways of achieving the things we use cars to do.
A policy of gradually reducing on street parking spaces is the place to start, as is happening in various European cities. Creates space for people, bus lanes, mobility, and a lot of other things. And reduces motorised traffic at the same time.
What's not to like?
I believe Paris is currently removing 60,000 on street parking spaces.
And we all love Paris, apart from the policemen, the tenements, the prices, and the sewage in the Seine.
This Ascension Island plan is interesting. The lunacy of the Rwanda plan was that we were dumping our asylum seekers on Rwanda for a bribe - there would be no applying for asylum in the UK.
If we create a gulag on Ascension, they remain our responsibility. We will need to process them and then return them when their claims are declared eligible (so many will be, as they are now).
A very different proposal, the first step towards this government accepting its reponsabilities.
I hand't thought of Ascension. I was thinking the best place would be West Falkland, as you could create a very civilised camp there without much need for security, as there's nowhere to go anyway. And anyone who is prepared to stick it out in the Falkland weather for any length of time must be a genuine refugee.
Finding staff prepared to go there to run it might be more of a challenge.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I think St Thomas's is the other side of County Hall. The plot in question was part of the Festival of Britain, then a car park, then Jubilee Gardens.
And yes, some provision for cars is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. But that provision does make life worse for everyone else, and cars do have a habit of swallowing any provision provided and then some. So we do have to consider when there are better ways of achieving the things we use cars to do.
A policy of gradually reducing on street parking spaces is the place to start, as is happening in various European cities. Creates space for people, bus lanes, mobility, and a lot of other things. And reduces motorised traffic at the same time.
What's not to like?
I believe Paris is currently removing 60,000 on street parking spaces.
And we all love Paris, apart from the policemen, the tenements, the prices, and the sewage in the Seine.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
VW and BMW didn't buy up the local equivalents of London Underground and close them down, either.
Did that happen in the USA? Ford and Chrysler shut down the mass transit?!
Incredible
The car-ification of America is such a disaster. It was bad enough in Britain, but the USA.....
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Guardian doesn't have ads for me. I use Adblocker. The fundraising popup is very occasional.
Don't worry they have learned from Cambridge Analytica and are getting their value from you.
Some of us switch cookies off.
And the vast majority don't.
If you know enough to turn cookies off why wouldnt you?
Well, quite. But maybe some folk confuse them with "biscuits"?
In USA, the way WE "turn cookies off" is by NOT baking them with THC or other cannabis-ingredients.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
VW and BMW didn't buy up the local equivalents of London Underground and close them down, either.
Did that happen in the USA? Ford and Chrysler shut down the mass transit?!
Incredible
The car-ification of America is such a disaster. It was bad enough in Britain, but the USA.....
Not familiar with the details myself (edit: and don't think Ford and Chrysler specifically were involved), but see this:
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
London actually has excellent public transport connections. They have buses, subway, trains, comprehensive cycle network. 👍
That's how that park was made possible. 👍
Central London also has a population density of over 10k so public transport makes more sense there.
The rest of the country has parks everywhere too, there's loads of parks both within walking distance and within a five minute drive of my house. No public transport in that area (though there is cycle paths there) so its not like you need public transport to enable parks.
For areas with a population density of less than roughly 5k/km^2 then the car makes by far the most sense for transport. Roughly over 10k/km^2 then public transport makes more sense.
In between you need a mix of both.
You suggested that Jubilee Gardens needed a road and parking spaces to be accessible. That's very silly.
A bit like your suggestion ULEZ was the same as Section 28.
And your £1 trillion investment in roads for economic growth.
No, I didn't.
I said "Most places ..." need and have that.
Jubilee Gardens != Most places.
I also never said ULEZ was the same as Section 28. I said the attitude of "so what, it's only a minority that hurts" is like and what leads to Section 28.
And finally a billion for investment in our nation's most critical infrastructure is not an unreasonable suggestion and the fact that it comes across as one is why our infrastructure is so neglected.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
VW and BMW didn't buy up the local equivalents of London Underground and close them down, either.
Did that happen in the USA? Ford and Chrysler shut down the mass transit?!
Incredible
The car-ification of America is such a disaster. It was bad enough in Britain, but the USA.....
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
I think St Thomas's is the other side of County Hall. The plot in question was part of the Festival of Britain, then a car park, then Jubilee Gardens.
And yes, some provision for cars is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. But that provision does make life worse for everyone else, and cars do have a habit of swallowing any provision provided and then some. So we do have to consider when there are better ways of achieving the things we use cars to do.
A policy of gradually reducing on street parking spaces is the place to start, as is happening in various European cities. Creates space for people, bus lanes, mobility, and a lot of other things. And reduces motorised traffic at the same time.
What's not to like?
I believe Paris is currently removing 60,000 on street parking spaces.
And we all love Paris, apart from the policemen, the tenements, the prices, and the sewage in the Seine.
bondegezou asked: " While Trump's woes are a good reason for the Republicans to pick someone else to run for President, how does a someone else build momentum when they can't get a word in edgeways?"
DeSantis by trying to get attention by a debate with Gavin Newsom, and talk about cultural issues.
Other candidates by retail politics, for the more rational candidates. So, for example, Nikki Haley is campaigning in New Hampshire, meeting voters in small groups all over the state. Others are trying to do something similar in the Iowa caucuses. Were any of them to win, or even finish a strong second, they would get national attention. Finally.
That said, our national journalists are disgracing themselves -- again -- by mostly ignoring the qualified Republcan candidates.
(I have been wondering for some time what Modi's reaction would be to Haley doing well. She's a daughter of India, but was raised as a Sikh, married a Christian, and converted to Christianity. I don't think he would offer her wholehearted congratulations.)
I expect courts will do all they can not to jail him before trial, but as the article notes he is not going to abide by pre-trial conditions, he doesn't seem capable of it. So sooner or later there will be a moment where he has pushed things so far they either ignore flagrant violations, or take the action they normally would.
"When it's full, tow it to Rwanda." "Erm ... Rwanda is land-locked, Home Secretary." "OK. Tristan da Cunha, then." "It has an active volcano, Home Secretary. Even worse optics than a recent genocide." "Pitcairn?" "Too far" "Necker?" "Sir Richard Branson says no." "OK, how about Ascension, then? It was in the papers yesterday." "Ascension is a top secret military base, Home Secretary." "Perfect. Get me Ben."
Cough cough St Helena cough cough
Isn't the airport a bit iffy in terms of what can land there, especially the size and therefore range of the planes? IANAE but have no idea what the current situation is.
Yes it is. Due to dodgy nearby cliffs the runway suffers from downdrafts. You can still use it provided you use one of the few passenger aircraft capable of making the landing from the wrong end (ie with a tailwind).
Luckily (so to speak) during Covid the ginormous gas-hungry aircraft were mothballed or abandoned, and the survivor aircraft were low-capacity long-range aircraft that could fly on a sip of fuel. Such aircraft are capable of landing at St Helena and if memory serves there is a scheduled flight.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Mike Smithson - I want to congratulate you for providing data showing that UK Conservatives are, in general, somewhat more rational on the global warming problem than those who identify with Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
As I understand it, you are an LD supporter, so supplying this data shows intellectual honesty.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
Looks like: posh girl gets into drugs; as a result of the latter, shacks up with local druggie; under the influence of drugs, rows heavily, stabs him. What a waste of two lives. The added subplot of her getting into far left politics adds colour but isn't really relevant, except to wonder whether her whole life is just some act of frustrated rebellion, and if so against what.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
If they base their entire campaign around it they will just across as a bit weird.
Sunak's helicopter trips make the prospect laughable. The man doesn't even know how to use a petrol pump.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
The problem the Conservatives have is that they have reached the stage where they are spending most of their time talking to themselves. And since virtually everyone in the 25 percent or so is pro-car to the extent of getting the horn at the thought of Maggie's Old Rover, they think it's a vote winner. The voices on the right saying "hold on a second" just get filtered out.
It's one of the things that happens to political parties when they become unpopular; Labour under Late Jezza (post Magic Grandpa) was terrible for it. Major's manifesto for 1997 was straying from mainstream reality (A grammar school in every town? A tax allowance for stay-at-home wives? Really?) but not like this.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
But there's no sign of it in the polls and the Tories only just saved Uxbridge
It might swing a few suburban seats in London or wherever, it is absolutely not going to save the GE for Sunak
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
Could you define "non-trivial minority" (how many %), and identify which one you are referring to?
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
To be clear, that second image is a fake. It's a render. You can obviously tell
But there are thousands of real examples of this: where cars have been removed and everything looks nicer and kinder and prettier
The first image is a fake also. Is that County Hall? In which case opposite should be St. Thomas' not a car park.
No. The picture is of the north (downriver) side of County Hall. St Thomas's to its south (upriver), over Westminster Bridge Road.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
The problem the Conservatives have is that they have reached the stage where they are spending most of their time talking to themselves. And since virtually everyone in the 25 percent or so is pro-car to the extent of getting the horn at the thought of Maggie's Old Rover, they think it's a vote winner. The voices on the right saying "hold on a second" just get filtered out.
It's one of the things that happens to political parties when they become unpopular; Labour under Late Jezza (post Magic Grandpa) was terrible for it. Major's manifesto for 1997 was straying from mainstream reality (A grammar school in every town? A tax allowance for stay-at-home wives? Really?) but not like this.
None of these things are necessarily inherently losing positions by themselves. But the centrepiece of a campaign they do not make. As Stuart says, parties start to think their own hobbyhorses are everyone's hobbyhorses.
Most people don't feel strongly about ULEZ because as has been pointed out on here repeatedly, most people aren't affected. That's not to deny that they might not be prepared to agree that in principle they're a bad idea. But that alone isn't going to make them vote for you.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
[Radio Norwich. Alan sits behind the mixing desks in the radio studio, wearing a Pringle sweater.] Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.
Quite right.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
Coming back to Bart's point: from where I live in halfway-out suburban south Manchester: I can park outside my nearest post office for free, and 7 times out of ten there is a space within 20 yards of it. Ditto my third and fourth nearest POs. My second nearest is in a pedestrianised precinct, so no luck there, though I can park within 5 minutes of it for free.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
We were talking about towns, so what county is the town of Hampstead in? Gone to the the Post Office website and put in Hampstead and it came up with lots of options but in London.
I can understand one person falling off the Aonach Eagach - particularly if the weather isn't great - but 3 is a bit odd, unless it was a roped party with two inexperienced members. Most hillwalkers wouldn't bother with a rope although it is quite "exciting" in parts.
Something must have gone horribly wrong, anyway, as multiple deaths are quite rare in the summer.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
[Radio Norwich. Alan sits behind the mixing desks in the radio studio, wearing a Pringle sweater.] Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.
Quite right.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
While we're complaining about Lennon, I can't ever remember not hating "Merry Christmas War is Over". Even to a six year old who didn't know the meaning of the words 'smug' and 'pious' it sounded smug and pious. And even at the age of 6, the line "so this is Christmas" followed up with "another year over and a new one just begun" struck me as the witterings of someone who didn't care about getting the details right. "Another year nearly over and a new one about to start" may not have scanned but would have been more internally consistent. Wouldn't have saved it from banality though.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
We were talking about towns, so what county is the town of Hampstead in? Gone to the the Post Office website and put in Hampstead and it came up with lots of options but in London.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
[Radio Norwich. Alan sits behind the mixing desks in the radio studio, wearing a Pringle sweater.] Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.
Quite right.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
While we're complaining about Lennon, I can't ever remember not hating "Merry Christmas War is Over". Even to a six year old who didn't know the meaning of the words 'smug' and 'pious' it sounded smug and pious. And even at the age of 6, the line "so this is Christmas" followed up with "another year over and a new one just begun" struck me as the witterings of someone who didn't care about getting the details right. "Another year nearly over and a new one about to start" may not have scanned but would have been more internally consistent. Wouldn't have saved it from banality though.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
[Radio Norwich. Alan sits behind the mixing desks in the radio studio, wearing a Pringle sweater.] Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.
Quite right.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
I can forgive Mitchell. I think she is talking about a specific and possibly imaginary example to lament our inability to value what we have (not just environmentally), rather than lamenting all development. The other two examples you cite, I can't defend.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
We were talking about towns, so what county is the town of Hampstead in? Gone to the the Post Office website and put in Hampstead and it came up with lots of options but in London.
Hampstead is not a town but a village, as everybody who has lived there knows.
The legal definition of "light truck" in the US may suprise some: "A half-century ago, if you needed to haul 3.5 kids, hamburger buns and a standard poodle, car companies would happily sell you a station wagon, and you’d be counted on Team Car.
Today, if you show up with the same cargo needs you’ll be steered toward a crossover SUV — an eerily similar vehicle serving an eerily similar purpose, but one that comes with a few extra bells and whistles that just so happen to allow manufacturers to classify it as a “light truck,” regardless of whether it’s actually well-suited to off-roading or hauling. Now you’re on Team Truck." source$:
For instance, the Toyota Corolla Cross 4WD is, legally, a "light truck". Find some pictures of them, if you aren't familiar with that model.
In this area -- well-off Seattle suburbs -- such vehicles seem to be especially popular with moms, including that important political group, "soccer moms".
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
We were talking about towns, so what county is the town of Hampstead in? Gone to the the Post Office website and put in Hampstead and it came up with lots of options but in London.
Hampstead is not a town but a village, as everybody who has lived there knows.
The amazing bit - to me - is that Light Trucks outsell cars 4-to-1.
Speaking of which, we've had a few conversations about electric vehicles, I'm very keen on them but am worried about infrastructure for off-road charging - you seem even more positive.
However, while I can envision the end of the ICE vehicle in this country, I don't think its remotely going to be possible everywhere.
I was just visiting my in-laws who live in a small Hamlet up in the Rockies in Alberta, on the "scenic route" between the Montana and Alaska. In winter the temperature varies from -20C to -40C and for pretty necessary and obvious reasons almost every vehicle is a form of truck - but it doesn't look stupid there at all. What would be a large model Jeep and Dodge car here looks small there compared to most other vehicles.
The nearest town to their hamlet is 200km away and the nearest city is 400km away. As you head out of the hamlet there's a warning sign that there's no fuel or tourism services for 189km [of often steep, all mountainous road] and there's literally nothing on the road as you go along, no services, nothing.
I simply can't imagine electric vehicles ever replacing oil based fuels there in any foreseeable timescale. It simply isn't a realistic option. Especially at those temperatures, batteries lose most of their efficiency at -20C and below so its just completely unrealistic.
On the other hand, there's nothing but trees and rivers in about 200+ square km surrounding them so that area is almost certainly massively carbon negative even with the internal combustion engine being used in perpetuity.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic
Hard to imagine it will be better hung than this one was. It has been dominated by A Johnson.
The amazing bit - to me - is that Light Trucks outsell cars 4-to-1.
Speaking of which, we've had a few conversations about electric vehicles, I'm very keen on them but am worried about infrastructure for off-road charging - you seem even more positive.
However, while I can envision the end of the ICE vehicle in this country, I don't think its remotely going to be possible everywhere.
I was just visiting my in-laws who live in a small Hamlet up in the Rockies in Alberta, on the "scenic route" between the Montana and Alaska. In winter the temperature varies from -20C to -40C and for pretty necessary and obvious reasons almost every vehicle is a form of truck - but it doesn't look stupid there at all. What would be a large model Jeep and Dodge car here looks small there compared to most other vehicles.
The nearest town to their hamlet is 200km away and the nearest city is 400km away. As you head out of the hamlet there's a warning sign that there's no fuel or tourism services for 189km [of often steep, all mountainous road] and there's literally nothing on the road as you go along, no services, nothing.
I simply can't imagine electric vehicles ever replacing oil based fuels there in any foreseeable timescale. It simply isn't a realistic option. Especially at those temperatures, batteries lose most of their efficiency at -20C and below so its just completely unrealistic.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
And if you think the problem is colour photos vs black and white, consider these;
Both of those pictures look nice to me. 👍
Parks are a good thing to have, I think we can all agree with that. Most places, to get to somewhere like your bottom image, there's a parking lot, or road with parking, next to it. Which makes the park convenient and accessible. 👍
[Radio Norwich. Alan sits behind the mixing desks in the radio studio, wearing a Pringle sweater.] Alan Partridge: That was Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell, a song in which Joni complains they paved paradise to put up a parking lot, a measure which actually would have alleviated traffic congestion on the outskirts of paradise, something which Joni singularly fails to point out, perhaps because it doesn't quite fit in with her blinkered view of the world. Nevertheless, nice song. It's 4:35 AM, you're listening to Up With The Partridge.
Quite right.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
While we're complaining about Lennon, I can't ever remember not hating "Merry Christmas War is Over". Even to a six year old who didn't know the meaning of the words 'smug' and 'pious' it sounded smug and pious. And even at the age of 6, the line "so this is Christmas" followed up with "another year over and a new one just begun" struck me as the witterings of someone who didn't care about getting the details right. "Another year nearly over and a new one about to start" may not have scanned but would have been more internally consistent. Wouldn't have saved it from banality though.
You'll be complaining that there isn't actually a barber on Penny Lane next.
Mike Smithson - I want to congratulate you for providing data showing that UK Conservatives are, in general, somewhat more rational on the global warming problem than those who identify with Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
As I understand it, you are an LD supporter, so supplying this data shows intellectual honesty.
Yes, it doesnt exactly look much of a divide to me. If you combine the two variations of "man-made climate change is a real issue", you get 85% for Tories v 89% for Labour, 90% for LD. Only by splitting them with the pinhead question of "the effects are often exaggerated" can you realise that Labour &LD supporters are mildly more gullible as they believe it is not exaggerated at all in any way whatsoever which seems a little implausible.
Basically there is a consensus in the UK on manmade climate change between Labour and Tory and LD. It is a fake dichotomy to suggest it is a political divide.
Perhaps the difference between US republicans and democrats might be more interesting.
The amazing bit - to me - is that Light Trucks outsell cars 4-to-1.
Speaking of which, we've had a few conversations about electric vehicles, I'm very keen on them but am worried about infrastructure for off-road charging - you seem even more positive.
However, while I can envision the end of the ICE vehicle in this country, I don't think its remotely going to be possible everywhere.
I was just visiting my in-laws who live in a small Hamlet up in the Rockies in Alberta, on the "scenic route" between the Montana and Alaska. In winter the temperature varies from -20C to -40C and for pretty necessary and obvious reasons almost every vehicle is a form of truck - but it doesn't look stupid there at all. What would be a large model Jeep and Dodge car here looks small there compared to most other vehicles.
The nearest town to their hamlet is 200km away and the nearest city is 400km away. As you head out of the hamlet there's a warning sign that there's no fuel or tourism services for 189km [of often steep, all mountainous road] and there's literally nothing on the road as you go along, no services, nothing.
I simply can't imagine electric vehicles ever replacing oil based fuels there in any foreseeable timescale. It simply isn't a realistic option. Especially at those temperatures, batteries lose most of their efficiency at -20C and below so its just completely unrealistic.
400km theoretical range in ideal conditions with a car isn't going to convince people in the mountains they can safely drive up and down mountains in -40C weather with a truck, where a breakdown means you could die unless someone happens to drive past and can organise a rescue (absolutely no cellular service of course either).
Not seeing it sorry.
Though environmentally it probably doesn't matter much either. Billions living in rest of the world switching their cars to electric will handle the problem even if the relatively people who live in such remote locations in the mountains still drive ICE vehicles. Though tourists wanting to drive the scenic route would probably need to hire an ICE too.
PS I said there was nothing on the road side, that wasn't entirely correct. At one point my Father in Law pulled over as there was a big black bear walking along the roadside which we pulled over to take a look at.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upo n the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
Bath
Free Car Parks in Bath
Bath University Car Park BA2 7JX – free after 5pm every day, all day on public holidays. Sydney Road BA2 6NS – 4 hours maximum. Raby Mews BA2 4EJ – 2 hours maximum. Sydney Wharf BA2 4BG – 4 hours maximum. Daniel Street BA2 6NB – 2 hours maximum.
Those are just the free ones after a 46 millisecond google.
I was mildly joking. I agree you can generally park in most British towns quite easily. London is an outlier
I find the whole debate enervating and a bit depressing. Cars are shit and destroy townscapes. Thank god they are on the way out
What utter nonsense. A "Leon" post just to see who would bite.
Leon is right (unusually). I am someone who travels 30,000 miles a year and car travel is nightmarish. Main motorway arteries gridlocked adjacent to conurbations, particularly during rush hours. Parking is also difficult and expensive. Travel from the motorway to the parking spot is also slow and frustrating.
I'd take the bus if there were any.
Just looks better too
Take anywhere on earth, and remove the cars, and replace with people, trees, greenery, and it looks infinitely better
Cars are an abomination. Thank God they are in the Last Gasp Saloon. In decades to come we will look back and marvel - in a bad way - at how we allowed cars to destroy and desecrate beautiful towns and cities
Fuck knows what America is gonna do, tho. It is built for cars. Take them away and what is left?
"remove cars, and replace with people" is the most foolish comment yet. Its the cars that enable people to be brought to an area generally.
I know you love to be a manic Cassandra forecasting scenarios of doom and gloom, but of all of them your suggestion of the doom and gloom of the end of cars is the most crazy you have - and furthest from the truth.
Far from the end of the age of the car, the reality is that cars are better, safer, cleaner and driven more than they have ever been in history.
Cars may be better safer and cleaner than ever but that's like saying "Look we've perfected mass execution, why stop at Auschwitz?"
Cars are evil and everyone now knows it. The whole tendency of modern societies is therefore AWAY from the car, as they destroy cities and alienate humans. I know you don't like this, but this is the arrow of time, and it points in the opposite direction to the one you want to go. Ah well, you will cope
Here is an excellent essay on how cars destroyed America
"The road to ruin — how the car drove US cities to the brink
"Car-centric infrastructure turned many into unwalkable wastelands. Planners now look to prewar cities to find inspiration for the future"
Only problem is cars are very popular in a country like Germany, and they haven't destroyed that country. So it must be something specific to the United States.
1. The centres of nearly all German cities were built BEFORE the motorcar, so in 2.general the cars have had to work around the city, rather than the city being expressly designed or redesigned FOR cars
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
VW and BMW didn't buy up the local equivalents of London Underground and close them down, either.
Did that happen in the USA? Ford and Chrysler shut down the mass transit?!
Incredible
The car-ification of America is such a disaster. It was bad enough in Britain, but the USA.....
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
Yes, it doesnt exactly look much of a divide to me. If you combine the two variations of "man-made climate change is a real issue", you get 85% for Tories v 89% for Labour, 90% for LD. Only by splitting them with the pinhead question of "the effects are often exaggerated" can you realise that Labour &LD supporters are mildly more gullible as they believe it is not exaggerated at all in any way whatsoever which seems a little implausible.
You're slipping silently from "are not often exaggerated" to "are never exaggerated" there, but those are not the same point of view.
The amazing bit - to me - is that Light Trucks outsell cars 4-to-1.
Speaking of which, we've had a few conversations about electric vehicles, I'm very keen on them but am worried about infrastructure for off-road charging - you seem even more positive.
However, while I can envision the end of the ICE vehicle in this country, I don't think its remotely going to be possible everywhere.
I was just visiting my in-laws who live in a small Hamlet up in the Rockies in Alberta, on the "scenic route" between the Montana and Alaska. In winter the temperature varies from -20C to -40C and for pretty necessary and obvious reasons almost every vehicle is a form of truck - but it doesn't look stupid there at all. What would be a large model Jeep and Dodge car here looks small there compared to most other vehicles.
The nearest town to their hamlet is 200km away and the nearest city is 400km away. As you head out of the hamlet there's a warning sign that there's no fuel or tourism services for 189km [of often steep, all mountainous road] and there's literally nothing on the road as you go along, no services, nothing.
I simply can't imagine electric vehicles ever replacing oil based fuels there in any foreseeable timescale. It simply isn't a realistic option. Especially at those temperatures, batteries lose most of their efficiency at -20C and below so its just completely unrealistic.
On the other hand, there's nothing but trees and rivers in about 200+ square km surrounding them so that area is almost certainly massively carbon negative even with the internal combustion engine being used in perpetuity.
If you go electric my advice would be to buy a Tesla. If it is currently out of your price range then there are cheaper ones on the way in the next year or so. The fundamental reason is the charging network. The non-Tesla network is woeful and I have known a number of people regret their choice when they have bought non-Tesla EVs. The Tesla system works on the principle that if you program you are travelling from, say, London to Leeds you will need to stop at a supercharger on the way. As you use your satnav, it will electronically "inform" the supercharger station that you are on the way with an ETA. If it is busy it will only allow the Teslas charging to charge to 80% thereby encouraging people to move off or face an increased tariff. I have only ever had to wait once and that was for 5 minutes
Equally if you have a short commute and you can charge at home and the office then any EV will do.
Yes, it doesnt exactly look much of a divide to me. If you combine the two variations of "man-made climate change is a real issue", you get 85% for Tories v 89% for Labour, 90% for LD. Only by splitting them with the pinhead question of "the effects are often exaggerated" can you realise that Labour &LD supporters are mildly more gullible as they believe it is not exaggerated at all in any way whatsoever which seems a little implausible.
You're slipping silently from "are not often exaggerated" to "are never exaggerated" there, but those are not the same point of view.
It was poetic licence in pursuit of humour, which may have passed you by if you are not in possession of that particular sensitivity.
Though environmentally it probably doesn't matter much either. Billions living in rest of the world switching their cars to electric will handle the problem even if the relatively people who live in such remote locations in the mountains still drive ICE vehicles. Though tourists wanting to drive the scenic route would probably need to hire an ICE too.
I agree we don't need to worry from an environmental point of view about that kind of corner case. I suspect that what might eventually force them to a non ICE solution will be when "I have a petrol powered truck" goes from "yeah, so does much of the test of the world" to "that is an extreme outlier position and no longer benefits from the cost reduction from mass production and the well developed supply chain for petrol production and supply". At some point the cost of petrol, selection of vehicles and ability to find people who do maintenance on them will all gradually get worse. But that's a long long way in the future.
I said yesterday I thought the Tories might have a downward facing period now in the polls after a couple of OKish weeks. If only I’d coined some moonrabbit style phrase for it.
How about fifth wicket stand? Labour were sitting comfortably at 252 for 3 chasing 310. Then they lost the wicket of Uxbridge to a careless shot and the Tories scented blood. Only for the smiles to fade as the 5th wicket partnership put on another 20 before tea with no chances.
The argument about transport availability & cost highlights both the huge variances in availability and the huge gulf in understanding.
For your outer London resident there are riches in public transport options which are largely paid for out of general taxation. For your cundry bumpkins there is often a complete absence of public transport options despite paying general taxation.
For suburbanites it is optimal to encourage more public transport and less driving. For country folk the choice is driving or not going.*
Road pricing gets talked about as a replacement for fuel duty. And gets shouted at as being patently unfair. Which is probably true the way that shitbox UK would implement it. What we need is subsidised fuel for the countryside and heavier taxes in towns. ULEZ and similar is the right policy, just being implemented poorly.
* Before anyone says "what about walking or cycling", what about them? Too many roads between villages would be lethal to walk / cycle down, and thats before we ask about fitness / safety issues.
Agree. On your *, I agree that investment in walking and cycling, or even public transport, between villages isn't worth it.
But 83% of us live in urban areas, so investment in active and public transport makes sense for most.
Urban areas = towns, not cities.
I got a train (first time in about 5 years) recently, to and from the Airport, got the return train journey yesterday. To get to the train station took a car [in this case taxi] ride.
You seem to view the country as either Edinburgh or Sticksville. Reality is somewhat different.
I grew up in a town in rural Scotland. It had a train station. The main problem is you couldn't walk or cycle to it. Sounds like your problem too.
Even public transport in towns is designed for drivers.
Because cars work.
Towns require cars. The alternative to cars is taxis or buses. And that's the bulk of your 83%
You simply can't get your head around supply/demand, can you?
The only reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users is because there are lots of buses.
The reason Edinburgh has lots of bus users, is its a city. Its not a town, what part of this are you failing to understand?
Nothing wrong with buses existing, but buses in towns are a crappy mode of transportation that only those who can't afford their own car (or can't drive as they lack a licence) would use.
The thing with a car is if you want to get from A to B you drive there and are done.
With buses you are stuck with the bus routes, and in most towns the bus routes don't go between A and B if you aren't trying to get to the town centre. Get a bus into the bus depot in town, then another bus from the depot out of town to your destination. And of course that relies upon the bus turning up, and the bus then follows its route stopping everywhere it has to stop.
My wife doesn't drive, she used to take two buses to get to work which took at least an hour, nearly an hour and a half sometimes one way. It took me 15 minutes to drive it, or 30 minutes return to go pick her up and drive her home.
Good luck finding a parking place at B unless your destination is a supermarket, or you are MD of the company.
I always find a parking place at B. 🤷♂️
Try leaving your bubble from time to time. Saying "oh but what about parking" to someone who drives everywhere and always finds parking, isn't much a problem.
You drive everywhere and always finds parking, in English towns, without a blue badge and without privileged access to private spaces?
I don't want to call you a liar, but happy to call you an outlier. 5 sigma.
Your kidding, right? The rest of the UK is not RBKC outside Harrods. There is plenty of parking all over the country in towns, villages, cities. Some even - gasp if you can believe this - for free.
Name me a town where you can't park without the criteria you specify.
I drove yesterday into Maltby, which is a "town" by anyone's imagination. Parked up briefly in the Tesco Car Park, bought some swim nappies and onto the leisure centre which had ample parking. Parking for picking up items from Worksop post office is a bit iffy mind; the last time I had to properly PLAN and pay for parking was in Manchester (Obviously a city) last weekend meeting some friends, Lower Chatham St carpark nicely close to the motorway though. Parking in Harworth, Carlton, Langold or Oldcotes tends to be trivial though (All villages) - so I'd say the smaller the locality the easier the parking unless it's a tourist hotspot like York.
I excepted supermarkets, whose USP is extensive free parking. Leisure centres tend to be the same (but it's pay and display in my local town) so that leaves the Post Office, which is a pretty good proxy for all the non-supermarket shops you might otherwise want to visit.
So excluding places you might want to go to, there might be a problem?
Where exactly is this supposed problem of yours? And pay and display parking is still parking, nothing wrong with that. So long as there's ample spaces, its clean, well lit and secure. If you're using a service, there's nothing wrong with paying for it.
Sure, you can classify places like the post office as not "places you might want to go to." I have already pointed you to an ostensibly well-researched article in a respected newspaper identifying numerous market towns where the problem is critical. If your ambition is limited to weekly shops at tesco I appreciate there is less of a problem for you. As far as paying for it is concerned, some people are poor and some people are lazy. i am one of the two.
You shared a clickbait article about what clearly aren't typical towns actually. And I'm sceptical how much credit to give to such clickbait anyway.
My local Post Office is in a local community centre which has a car park. The Post Office where I used to live was in a shop, with a car park. Any Post Office I've ever been to has parking, either it's own, or on the road.
And the emptiest car park I ever go to is the main Post Office depot nearby, if I need to collect a "you were out" parcel. Their car park is unnecessarily big, but it's their land so up to them what they do with it.
Never been to a Post Office you can't park at. Not sure why any town would ever have one, what would be the point of it?
Sure.
Clickbait has a specific meaning: lurid headlines placed on third party websites to induce the idle surfer to follow them to a page full of lurid advertisements for timeshares and penis enlargement and such. I can find no links to that article on third party websites, and, having disabled my adblocker, can see no ads on the page itself. What is the basis for your use of the term, other than that the article destroys your point?
This is nonsense about post offices. The main sorting depot obviously has lots of parking, but other than collect parcels there's generally nothing you can do there. There is no parking at either town centre post Office in my local town.
No ads on the page itself? This is what popped up when I clicked on the page, covering a third of my screen. [EDIT the ad is so big, that PB Vanilla is now shrinking my screenshot of it]
Then under the article is this ad.
The Grauniad is full of ads and clickbait, just begging letters are its ads not penis pumps, and the clickbait is bullshit like that you just shared that it thinks people will share and click
I simply don't believe that you do not have a Post Office you can drive to, I don't believe it. Not my experience at all, and if you go to the Post Office website they're very happy to provide details of where you can drive to in order to get Post Office services.
Please feel free to name any town that you can't drive to and park near a Post Office, as its BS in my eyes.
Not seeing the bait element here, Barty. And I don't want to park "near" the PO I want to park at it, and without faffing about with coins and parking apps and similar balls, and walking 10 minutes.
I think this is a generational thing. you regard all that shit as "easy parking." Not how it used to be.
Considering I haven't carried cash in years, no I don't faff about with coins either. Only used a pay and display once all year and that cost £1.20 was paid for by contactless.
Again, name any town you can't park at a Post Office. I'm calling Bullshit. I bet if you name any town I could go to their website and find a Post Office you can park at.
Yes if you mean one in a shopping centre you might need to use the shopping centre's car park but that's neither a problem, nor representative of most Post Office branches.
Typical it seems to me is simply parking at the Post Office. Which makes sense as you can drive to take a parcel there to post, or drive back after picking up one.
(You can't park at the Post Office in Hampstead. Or, to be technically accurate, there is only one space, and someone will have parked a car there and gone into Cote for lunch. So your chances of it being free are minimal.)
We were talking about towns, so what county is the town of Hampstead in? Gone to the the Post Office website and put in Hampstead and it came up with lots of options but in London.
Hampstead is not a town but a village, as everybody who has lived there knows.
So how come my Mum and Dad were married at Hampstead Town Hall in 1963?
I said yesterday I thought the Tories might have a downward facing period now in the polls after a couple of OKish weeks. If only I’d coined some moonrabbit style phrase for it.
How about fifth wicket stand? Labour were sitting comfortably at 252 for 3 chasing 310. Then they lost the wicket of Uxbridge to a careless shot and the Tories scented blood. Only for the smiles to fade as the 5th wicket partnership put on another 20 before tea with no chances.
Yup. In a way, the glimmer of hope the Conservatives took from Uxbridge might make things worse for them. It does seem that the lesson the blue team have taken is to roll out the Uxbridge approach, but that could turn off more voters than it turns on. So like a bowling side going aggressive as they sniff a chance and shipping more runs more quickly as a result.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic
Hard to imagine it will be better hung than this one was. It has been dominated by A Johnson.
I was thinking more of the traditional role of large and expensive cars as genital extensions for gents of a certain age.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
It's just stupid (well, it's a Drakeford policy, of course it's stupid, but even by his standards it's impressive).
It's actually quite difficult to drive a modern car at 20mph consistently in anything other than second gear. Not good for the car, not good for emissions and not good from a noise point of view.
It also really does risk two things (1) idiots ignoring speed limits altogether on the grounds that they're a load of nonsense, so where you have important speed limits they get lost too and (2) idiots ignoring road conditions and constantly driving slowly regardless of the situation, causing massive tailbacks and/or crashes. Wales is already cursed with far too many of both these groups and it doesn't need more of either.
If Drakeford wanted to do something useful on road safety, perhaps he could clamp down on people like the twat with an undersized cock and a quad bike doing wheelies on the A48 at St Fagan's yesterday afternoon. But no, when they crash and kill themselves he writes articles blaming Tory cuts and a lack of social workers.
Honestly, if Wales get the politicians it deserves it must have done something epically bad.
Cars give people freedom. Many use that freedom to fully express what wankers they are
I pulled out of a street earlier, onto London Road in Marlborough - which is also the A4. In Marlborough it's all 30mph limit; for the mile and a half before it reaches Marlborough it's a 50mph limit. I'd already committed to pulling out when I noticed a car coming down the hill to left in the 50, travelling at 70mph
I'm quite good at approximating speeds: I play golf, so have got quite good at judging distances in yards; I can count seconds fairly reliably; I'm pretty decent at maths, and the approximate maths is easy - 1760 yards in a mile ≃ 1800 seconds in half an hour, so you double yards per second to get mph
The road I was turning onto, and he was stupidly speeding at, had roadworks and lights about 300 yards ahead. The lights had just changed to red and there were four or five cars stopped or stopping at them in front of me; so I just rolled down toward them at about 10mph
Our speedster then decided to entertain us all with an astonishing display of his fuckwittedness
He was continuing to ignore the speed limit - I can't tell how much, judging distances in wing mirrors is rather trickier, but I'd guess still going 50 when he chose to employ his horn. He held it down for a good ten seconds, while also swerving from left to right as he closed in on me
We still had about a hundred yards to go when he desisted with the noise and swerving, so I held my horn down and started swerving for a few seconds. Then I had to stop, to avoid hitting the stationary car in front of me. I then put my arm out of the window to pretend wave him past into the oncoming traffic
I then saw his door open. He was getting out of his car. I shouldn't think he was coming to apologise for his dickheadish driving. I had a moment where I was looking forward to giving him a critique of his coming crash, but then the lights changed so I headed off before I could find out what sensible driving advice he wanted to give to me
He got left behind a bit at the lights, having to get back in his car, but ever so skilfully caught me up with a bit of a tyre screech. I turned off at the next street. Gladly he didn't follow me, but did rather impress me with another tyre screech as he sped to catch up with the car a hundred yards ahead
A propos nothing and simply my anecdotal experience - I have suffered with hayfever since my teenage years and despite tablets, I generally endure 6-8 weeks of misery from late May to late July as the various grasses to which I am allergic flower.
I have read pollens bind themselves to the finer particulate matter in pollutants which enables them to go deeper into the lungs and nose and aggravate the symptoms so traditionally on hot, still days my symptoms would be worse.
This year was odd - from a slow start the symptoms really kicked off in the second week of July and during Ascot week I suffered as badly as I have for many years but on the Sunday after the Royal meeting, the weather changed dramatically with the introduction of cooler, fresher air and it didn't just mitigate my symptoms, it stopped them dead.
I didn't take a tablet after June 26th - now, I'm left with a number of thoughts. Usually, the symptoms persist well into July before fading slowly - this year, they just went. Could the cold, wet spring followed by a much warmer spell have caused all the grasses to which I am allergenic to flower at the same time rather than over a period of weeks?
Did the change in weather help? Could it have been the ULEZ which meant less particulate pollution to which pollens could bind? As is so often said, I'm left with more questions than answers.
I'd welcome the experiences of other hayfever sufferers this year (grass pollen) - I sense it was a bad start but the cooler weather helped a lot.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
As an addendum - lots of random 40 limits being brought in more or less ad hoc at the moment.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
I hate driving at 20 mph. But I am not going to base my vote on that. After 17th September, will the Tories be promising to restore the 30 mph limit?
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
As an addendum - lots of random 40 limits being brought in more or less ad hoc at the moment.
Wales is about to become a minefield of speeding restrictions and I expect that in time a lot of them will be modified back to 30mph as Local Authorities come under intense pressure
Even the RNLI crews are affected as they do not have 'blue light' authority so have to answer shouts within a much restrictive road network
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
It's just stupid (well, it's a Drakeford policy, of course it's stupid, but even by his standards it's impressive).
It's actually quite difficult to drive a modern car at 20mph consistently in anything other than second gear. Not good for the car, not good for emissions and not good from a noise point of view.
It also really does risk two things (1) idiots ignoring speed limits altogether on the grounds that they're a load of nonsense, so where you have important speed limits they get lost too and (2) idiots ignoring road conditions and constantly driving slowly regardless of the situation, causing massive tailbacks and/or crashes. Wales is already cursed with far too many of both these groups and it doesn't need more of either.
If Drakeford wanted to do something useful on road safety, perhaps he could clamp down on people like the twat with an undersized cock and a quad bike doing wheelies on the A48 at St Fagan's yesterday afternoon. But no, when they crash and kill themselves he writes articles blaming Tory cuts and a lack of social workers.
Honestly, if Wales get the politicians it deserves it must have done something epically bad.
Problem is 20 miles an hour isn't a problem if you have an automatic or electric car and at that speed there is little chance of people being seriously injured..
All the villages/towns on the A68 are 20 miles an hour from the Scottish Border to Edinburgh. I happily stick to the limit (through the towns) while driving that way but boy does it annoy the locals...
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
I hate driving at 20 mph. But I am not going to base my vote on that. After 17th September, will the Tories be promising to restore the 30 mph limit?
If they promised a sane transport policy - i.e. resuming a road building programme to deal with bottlenecks and accident black spots and reviewing speed limits on a case by case basis rather than dogmatism - I could actually see that being both popular and a good policy.
The roads in Wales are bad. Really bad. Especially in the north and west. Poorly engineered and shockingly mismanaged. Moreover, a lack of bypasses is going to make that 20mph speed limit a very live issue in many areas. It buggers both the main A44 east/west road and the A470 north/south.
Whether it would make up for the stupidity of the Tories in other areas or the truly bucolic reflexes of Labour voting in the Valleys is a very different question.
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
I would be very surprised if speed limits change many votes. They may entrench some and prevent further leakage away from the Tories, but you're not going to build a great swing back of support on the basis of vowing to make them higher. The other problem is that once you say you oppose the reductions, you risk owning the fatalities that any increases might create. Grieving mothers on TV blaming Sunak for their kids' deaths would be a political nightmare.
Nobody is suggesting they are higher, but that they remain at 30mph and with 20mph zones by schools and other congested areas
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."
Tories are deluding themselves if they think being "pro-car" can save the election
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
Is there any real value in making a judgement about a party's political fortunes based upon a decadal long view? Not imo.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
I have no wish to diminish the impact on some individuals but is it actually a ‘non-trivial minority’ or is it in fact an extremely small minority?
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
Unless the next Parliament is very well hung, it won't affect the arithmetic.
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Good evening
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
It's just stupid (well, it's a Drakeford policy, of course it's stupid, but even by his standards it's impressive).
It's actually quite difficult to drive a modern car at 20mph consistently in anything other than second gear. Not good for the car, not good for emissions and not good from a noise point of view.
It also really does risk two things (1) idiots ignoring speed limits altogether on the grounds that they're a load of nonsense, so where you have important speed limits they get lost too and (2) idiots ignoring road conditions and constantly driving slowly regardless of the situation, causing massive tailbacks and/or crashes. Wales is already cursed with far too many of both these groups and it doesn't need more of either.
If Drakeford wanted to do something useful on road safety, perhaps he could clamp down on people like the twat with an undersized cock and a quad bike doing wheelies on the A48 at St Fagan's yesterday afternoon. But no, when they crash and kill themselves he writes articles blaming Tory cuts and a lack of social workers.
Honestly, if Wales get the politicians it deserves it must have done something epically bad.
Comments
Bibby Stockholm Syndrome.
3 walkers die in the Scottish Highlands
BBC News - Three hillwalkers found dead in Glen Coe
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66427686
What's not to like?
I believe Paris is currently removing 60,000 on street parking spaces.
And we all love Paris, apart from the policemen, the tenements, the prices, and the sewage in the Seine.
Not 100% sure which PBer wins their argument as a result.
2. America did go particularly mad for cars - the car fits the individualism of American society: the freedom of the road - but they didn't think through the appalling damage they were going to inflict on their townscapes
I think Americans are reluctant to admit they fucked up, and they are reluctant to admit Urban Europe is simply nicer, due to the demotion of the car (compared to Europe). Hurts their Yankee pride
If we create a gulag on Ascension, they remain our responsibility. We will need to process them and then return them when their claims are declared eligible (so many will be, as they are now).
A very different proposal, the first step towards this government accepting its reponsabilities.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/07/will-donald-trump-be-jailed-before-trial
Germany does have an attachment to "my car represents my freedom", which is similar in some ways to the USA, but much less loopy - with baggage of the auto industry being one thing that rescued the country in the 1950s.
Interesting video on German vs USA car culture from the Black Forest Family (Usonian family who moved to Germany).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVY80gfAXZ4
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-12-07/citylab-daily-how-paris-plans-to-clean-up-the-river-seine
Finding staff prepared to go there to run it might be more of a challenge.
https://www.tideway.london/the-tunnel/
Incredible
The car-ification of America is such a disaster. It was bad enough in Britain, but the USA.....
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/25/story-cities-los-angeles-great-american-streetcar-scandal
I said "Most places ..." need and have that.
Jubilee Gardens != Most places.
I also never said ULEZ was the same as Section 28. I said the attitude of "so what, it's only a minority that hurts" is like and what leads to Section 28.
And finally a billion for investment in our nation's most critical infrastructure is not an unreasonable suggestion and the fact that it comes across as one is why our infrastructure is so neglected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
However, it is possible that recent (last 30 years) telling of the story have been too lurid.
There was a 'documentary' film about it made in 1996:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taken_for_a_Ride
It is on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4
Commentary on a GM propaganda film from the 1950s, which is also quite interesting (and opinionated):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU
The GM video "Give Yourself the Green Light" is also there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltrxz0foAI8
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/least-57-swimmers-diarrhoea-s-30638038
DeSantis by trying to get attention by a debate with Gavin Newsom, and talk about cultural issues.
Other candidates by retail politics, for the more rational candidates. So, for example, Nikki Haley is campaigning in New Hampshire, meeting voters in small groups all over the state. Others are trying to do something similar in the Iowa caucuses. Were any of them to win, or even finish a strong second, they would get national attention. Finally.
That said, our national journalists are disgracing themselves -- again -- by mostly ignoring the qualified Republcan candidates.
(I have been wondering for some time what Modi's reaction would be to Haley doing well. She's a daughter of India, but was raised as a Sikh, married a Christian, and converted to Christianity. I don't think he would offer her wholehearted congratulations.)
Labour leads by 18% nationally.
Westminster VI (6 August):
Labour 45% (+2)
Conservative 27% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 10% (-1)
Reform UK 8% (+1)
Green 6% (+1)
Scottish National Party 3% (-1)
Other 1% (-2)
Changes +/- 30 July
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1688580766911922176
Luckily (so to speak) during Covid the ginormous gas-hungry aircraft were mothballed or abandoned, and the survivor aircraft were low-capacity long-range aircraft that could fly on a sip of fuel. Such aircraft are capable of landing at St Helena and if memory serves there is a scheduled flight.
Here is a documentary telling you this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-QejUTDCWw
It's fecking nonsense
The private car is slowly becoming history, it will take time, a lot of time, but it is inevitable. The external negatives that come with the private car are far too great, even if cars are fun (and they are fun, I've owned plenty). Besides, the car will be replaced with something similar, an autonomous e-car that is yours for the duration you need it, or something of that ilk
This is an inexorable historic process, like trains replacing horse drawn carriages. It will happen over decades. It is not going to alter invididual elections at any one moment
And if anyone else wants a Bluesky invite I have another one available - most interesting sob story gets it..
As I understand it, you are an LD supporter, so supplying this data shows intellectual honesty.
More immediately, there is a non-trivial minority which is about to have its motoring costs increased dramatically and I have no doubt that any party opposing that will gain electorally.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/07/uk-climate-activist-extinction-rebellion-stabs-fiance-death/
Looks like: posh girl gets into drugs; as a result of the latter, shacks up with local druggie; under the influence of drugs, rows heavily, stabs him. What a waste of two lives. The added subplot of her getting into far left politics adds colour but isn't really relevant, except to wonder whether her whole life is just some act of frustrated rebellion, and if so against what.
Sunak's helicopter trips make the prospect laughable. The man doesn't even know how to use a petrol pump.
It's one of the things that happens to political parties when they become unpopular; Labour under Late Jezza (post Magic Grandpa) was terrible for it. Major's manifesto for 1997 was straying from mainstream reality (A grammar school in every town? A tax allowance for stay-at-home wives? Really?) but not like this.
It might swing a few suburban seats in London or wherever, it is absolutely not going to save the GE for Sunak
Cheers.
Most people don't feel strongly about ULEZ because as has been pointed out on here repeatedly, most people aren't affected. That's not to deny that they might not be prepared to agree that in principle they're a bad idea. But that alone isn't going to make them vote for you.
It is a good song. But the "message" is complete bullshit.
"They took all the trees and put 'm in a tree museum". Oh really? Funny my road has countless of trees on it. In stretches, can't even see the houses through the trees from the main road.
There's many songs like that. Imagine by John Lennon, good song but describes an horrific dystopia not utopia. Or ironic by Alanis Morrissette, good song but the only ironic thing is how a song about irony includes nothing that's actually ironic.
The stats around it (including road deaths soaring) are horrific.
AIUI about 36 constituencies (say 6% of 650) are impacted by the ULEZ expansion, 54% of London households have a car, and about 10% of car owners have a non-ULEZ compliant car. So the percentage of the electorate affected is: 6% * 54% * 10% = 0.324%.
So less than half a percent.
I can understand one person falling off the Aonach Eagach - particularly if the weather isn't great - but 3 is a bit odd, unless it was a roped party with two inexperienced members. Most hillwalkers wouldn't bother with a rope although it is quite "exciting" in parts.
Something must have gone horribly wrong, anyway, as multiple deaths are quite rare in the summer.
Sad.
Oh, you meant the song?
Of those 36 seats, about half are inner outer London (roughly those touching the North/South Circular). In those areas, ULEZ expansion is popular, because air pollution. So the expansion is only a political issue in outer outer London. Like Uxbridge.
So how many of those outer outer London seats are close enough to flipping for the ULEZ effect to make a difference?
Today, if you show up with the same cargo needs you’ll be steered toward a crossover SUV — an eerily similar vehicle serving an eerily similar purpose, but one that comes with a few extra bells and whistles that just so happen to allow manufacturers to classify it as a “light truck,” regardless of whether it’s actually well-suited to off-roading or hauling. Now you’re on Team Truck."
source$:
For instance, the Toyota Corolla Cross 4WD is, legally, a "light truck". Find some pictures of them, if you aren't familiar with that model.
In this area -- well-off Seattle suburbs -- such vehicles seem to be especially popular with moms, including that important political group, "soccer moms".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/07/activists-drill-holes-in-tyres-of-more-than-60-suvs-at-exeter-car-dealership
However, while I can envision the end of the ICE vehicle in this country, I don't think its remotely going to be possible everywhere.
I was just visiting my in-laws who live in a small Hamlet up in the Rockies in Alberta, on the "scenic route" between the Montana and Alaska. In winter the temperature varies from -20C to -40C and for pretty necessary and obvious reasons almost every vehicle is a form of truck - but it doesn't look stupid there at all. What would be a large model Jeep and Dodge car here looks small there compared to most other vehicles.
The nearest town to their hamlet is 200km away and the nearest city is 400km away. As you head out of the hamlet there's a warning sign that there's no fuel or tourism services for 189km [of often steep, all mountainous road] and there's literally nothing on the road as you go along, no services, nothing.
I simply can't imagine electric vehicles ever replacing oil based fuels there in any foreseeable timescale. It simply isn't a realistic option. Especially at those temperatures, batteries lose most of their efficiency at -20C and below so its just completely unrealistic.
On the other hand, there's nothing but trees and rivers in about 200+ square km surrounding them so that area is almost certainly massively carbon negative even with the internal combustion engine being used in perpetuity.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/catl-touts-breakthrough-cold-weather-ev-charging-2023-07-06/
German lawmakers reached consensus on long-range missile supply, said Head of 🇺🇦 delegation at NATO Parliamentary Assembly Yehor Chernev
According to him, Taurus missiles have a range of 500 kilometers and can cover all occupied territories of Ukraine
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1688592411348418571
Basically there is a consensus in the UK on manmade climate change between Labour and Tory and LD. It is a fake dichotomy to suggest it is a political divide.
Perhaps the difference between US republicans and democrats might be more interesting.
Not seeing it sorry.
Though environmentally it probably doesn't matter much either. Billions living in rest of the world switching their cars to electric will handle the problem even if the relatively people who live in such remote locations in the mountains still drive ICE vehicles. Though tourists wanting to drive the scenic route would probably need to hire an ICE too.
PS I said there was nothing on the road side, that wasn't entirely correct. At one point my Father in Law pulled over as there was a big black bear walking along the roadside which we pulled over to take a look at.
I would suggest ULEZ was the catalyst of the debate over climate change, and more specifically the transition and speed of it, rather than low emissions that are a separate subject
However, I expect it to be an election issue as it is likely the conservatives will say it is coming to a town near you just as it has under the labour Mayor of London
On the 17th September we have the abolition of the 30mph limit, replaced with 20mph right across Wales and if the conversations I am having with locals and family, and a recent online poll by North Wales News it is not going to be received well with over 3,100 out of near 3,500 rejecting it
I understand it is coming to Scotland next year and I expect the same angry response
The problem with this authoritarian edict is that the policy of 20mph zones by schools and congested areas is sensible and acceptable to most, but a blanket ban is ill thought through, much maybe as is Khan's implementation of the ULEZ scheme
Equally if you have a short commute and you can charge at home and the office then any EV will do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk8pwE3IByg
How about fifth wicket stand? Labour were sitting comfortably at 252 for 3 chasing 310. Then they lost the wicket of Uxbridge to a careless shot and the Tories scented blood. Only for the smiles to fade as the 5th wicket partnership put on another 20 before tea with no chances.
https://twitter.com/DeltapollUK/status/1688582247786426368
Keir Starmer (38%, -2) leads Rishi Sunak (33%, +2) by five points on who would be the better Prime Minister at this moment.
Prosecutors Stop Short of Gag Order But Worry Trump Will Release Evidence Before Trial
Special Counsel Jack Smith is learning DA Alvin Bragg's lessons about ducking unnecessary First Amendment battles with Trump
https://themessenger.com/politics/trump-election-interference-jack-smith-alvin-bragg-free-speech-protective-order
Mainstream media has been very poor on reporting the Trump trial(s) - largely repeating his shit without seriously questioning it.
Just imagine you drive into Wales on the 17th September and every single road in former 30mph zones are now 20mph and you try to drive at that speed
It's actually quite difficult to drive a modern car at 20mph consistently in anything other than second gear. Not good for the car, not good for emissions and not good from a noise point of view.
It also really does risk two things (1) idiots ignoring speed limits altogether on the grounds that they're a load of nonsense, so where you have important speed limits they get lost too and (2) idiots ignoring road conditions and constantly driving slowly regardless of the situation, causing massive tailbacks and/or crashes. Wales is already cursed with far too many of both these groups and it doesn't need more of either.
If Drakeford wanted to do something useful on road safety, perhaps he could clamp down on people like the twat with an undersized cock and a quad bike doing wheelies on the A48 at St Fagan's yesterday afternoon. But no, when they crash and kill themselves he writes articles blaming Tory cuts and a lack of social workers.
Honestly, if Wales get the politicians it deserves it must have done something epically bad.
I pulled out of a street earlier, onto London Road in Marlborough - which is also the A4. In Marlborough it's all 30mph limit; for the mile and a half before it reaches Marlborough it's a 50mph limit. I'd already committed to pulling out when I noticed a car coming down the hill to left in the 50, travelling at 70mph
I'm quite good at approximating speeds: I play golf, so have got quite good at judging distances in yards; I can count seconds fairly reliably; I'm pretty decent at maths, and the approximate maths is easy - 1760 yards in a mile ≃ 1800 seconds in half an hour, so you double yards per second to get mph
The road I was turning onto, and he was stupidly speeding at, had roadworks and lights about 300 yards ahead. The lights had just changed to red and there were four or five cars stopped or stopping at them in front of me; so I just rolled down toward them at about 10mph
Our speedster then decided to entertain us all with an astonishing display of his fuckwittedness
He was continuing to ignore the speed limit - I can't tell how much, judging distances in wing mirrors is rather trickier, but I'd guess still going 50 when he chose to employ his horn. He held it down for a good ten seconds, while also swerving from left to right as he closed in on me
We still had about a hundred yards to go when he desisted with the noise and swerving, so I held my horn down and started swerving for a few seconds. Then I had to stop, to avoid hitting the stationary car in front of me. I then put my arm out of the window to pretend wave him past into the oncoming traffic
I then saw his door open. He was getting out of his car. I shouldn't think he was coming to apologise for his dickheadish driving. I had a moment where I was looking forward to giving him a critique of his coming crash, but then the lights changed so I headed off before I could find out what sensible driving advice he wanted to give to me
He got left behind a bit at the lights, having to get back in his car, but ever so skilfully caught me up with a bit of a tyre screech. I turned off at the next street. Gladly he didn't follow me, but did rather impress me with another tyre screech as he sped to catch up with the car a hundred yards ahead
I love freedom
A propos nothing and simply my anecdotal experience - I have suffered with hayfever since my teenage years and despite tablets, I generally endure 6-8 weeks of misery from late May to late July as the various grasses to which I am allergic flower.
I have read pollens bind themselves to the finer particulate matter in pollutants which enables them to go deeper into the lungs and nose and aggravate the symptoms so traditionally on hot, still days my symptoms would be worse.
This year was odd - from a slow start the symptoms really kicked off in the second week of July and during Ascot week I suffered as badly as I have for many years but on the Sunday after the Royal meeting, the weather changed dramatically with the introduction of cooler, fresher air and it didn't just mitigate my symptoms, it stopped them dead.
I didn't take a tablet after June 26th - now, I'm left with a number of thoughts. Usually, the symptoms persist well into July before fading slowly - this year, they just went. Could the cold, wet spring followed by a much warmer spell have caused all the grasses to which I am allergenic to flower at the same time rather than over a period of weeks?
Did the change in weather help? Could it have been the ULEZ which meant less particulate pollution to which pollens could bind? As is so often said, I'm left with more questions than answers.
I'd welcome the experiences of other hayfever sufferers this year (grass pollen) - I sense it was a bad start but the cooler weather helped a lot.
Even the RNLI crews are affected as they do not have 'blue light' authority so have to answer shouts within a much restrictive road network
All the villages/towns on the A68 are 20 miles an hour from the Scottish Border to Edinburgh. I happily stick to the limit (through the towns) while driving that way but boy does it annoy the locals...
The roads in Wales are bad. Really bad. Especially in the north and west. Poorly engineered and shockingly mismanaged. Moreover, a lack of bypasses is going to make that 20mph speed limit a very live issue in many areas. It buggers both the main A44 east/west road and the A470 north/south.
Whether it would make up for the stupidity of the Tories in other areas or the truly bucolic reflexes of Labour voting in the Valleys is a very different question.
https://www.gov.wales/introducing-20mph-speed-limits-frequently-asked-questions#74845
"These changes will affect most 30mph roads but not all.
This legislation changes the default speed limited on restricted roads. These are generally residential or busy pedestrian streets with streetlights.
But not all 30mph roads are restricted roads, and these remain at 30mph, and will be signed.
For restricted roads, local authorities and the 2 Trunk Road Agencies, can also make exceptions to the default speed limit in consultation with their communities.
We have published a map on DataMapWales that shows which roads would stay at 30mph."