Most GOP voters think there was a lot of voters fraud at WH2020 – politicalbetting.com

System

Most GOP voters think there was a lot of voters fraud at WH2020 – politicalbetting.com

Economist/YouGov Poll (Aug. 5-8)How much voter fraud do you think occurred in the 2020 presidential election?% who say "a lot"U.S. adult citizens: 31%Democrats: 5%Independents: 30%Republicans: 59%https://t.co/qOGJXmMDJ6

Read the full story here

DavidL

A loser is unacceptable. A fraudster, RICO offender, insurrectionist, free form distributor of national security material, no problem.

DavidL

I think that's 2 firsts in one day. I may buy a lottery ticket on the way home.

Pulpstar

Trump benefits from many opponents. Ramaswamy seems to be enjoying his day in the Betfair sun right now - Christie looks an OK bet @ 90-1 on the exchange to me. I think Desantis could get a redemption arc too, he is still polling second (albeit a long way behind) the Donald right now.
Both Christie and Desantis have experience of political fights unlike Ramaswamy who looks like another Yang/RFK to me.

Nigelb

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

OnlyLivingBoy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/15/rishi-sunak-mickey-mouse-conservatives-election

This Marina Hyde piece on the current "government" is really quite brilliant and says everything that needs to be said on the subject.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

DavidL

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

I believe that there is pretty solid evidence of an attempted voter fraud in Georgia....

ydoethur

How many of the 30% of independents think there was massive voter fraud - by the Republicans?

kamski

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

BartholomewRoberts

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

LostPassword

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

My general experience of cycling is that the greater the number of cars I am sharing a road with the worse will be my experience. A lot of people flat out refuse to cycle because of the danger posed by cars to cyclists.

Far too many drivers do not share your belief that cars and bicycles can work in tandem, which is why they went out of their way to make cycling dangerous and hostile for me.

Cars are certainly very useful, but I think that most cities would be better places with a lot less car use.

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Given the considerable increase in population, by around 17-20% over the period in question, and the housing developments on the outskirts, 0.82 is actually going down a fair bit. Bear in mind that the city centre has also been hollowed out population wise by airbnb and similar trends.

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now. If we further reduce the space allocated to cars, we can expect even more people to use public transport and cycle.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your ideological fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys.

Carnyx

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

No. Much too dangerous, all tyhose cyclists and cars.

OnlyLivingBoy

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

This is what I find so worrisome about these kinds of surveys - they show a world where voters have not only their own opinions, but their own facts, with a worldview that has become detached from objective reality. With social media, AI, deepfakes etc and the undermining and defunding of traditional objective news reporting this problem will only become worse. How long before we have a QAnon government elected somewhere?

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a threat to anyone else.

BartholomewRoberts

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Given the considerable increase in population, by around 17-20% over the period in question, and the housing developments on the outskirts, 0.82 is actually going down a fair bit. Bear in mind that the city centre has also been hollowed out population wise by airbnb and similar trends.

Well if there's been developments then "per household" isn't a decline since its a like for like comparison. Each extra household adds to both the numerator and denominator so is neutral, the average is still the average.

If the city centre has been hollowed out by AirBnB then surely that means the proportion of homes with cars is deflated not inflated as those homes will still be homes but have zero registered cars? Unless they're now businesses not homes, in which case they're not relevant to the conversation anyway?

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

You cannot be pro-cycling without reducing the space allocated to cars on the road. Cycling rates are closely correlated to how safe people feel.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Nigelb

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

I believe that there is pretty solid evidence of an attempted voter fraud in Georgia....

That was attempted fraud on the voters, rather than the other way around.

Sean_F

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

That just proves how cunning the perpetrators of the fraud were. They completely covered it up.

TimS

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/15/rishi-sunak-mickey-mouse-conservatives-election

This Marina Hyde piece on the current "government" is really quite brilliant and says everything that needs to be said on the subject.

I've not read one of hers for a while as I found her sketches a bit too much about playing to the crowd - more polemic than political sketch. But I can see from this last one that she has found a more coherent voice - it is polemic, an op-ed, but written with humour. Not pretending to be a sketch anymore, and much better for it.

I particularly like "The Tories seem obsessed to the exclusion of all else with the remote possibility they could form the next government, even when they are actually the current government" because that's exactly how it feels.

DavidL

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

I believe that there is pretty solid evidence of an attempted voter fraud in Georgia....

That was attempted fraud on the voters, rather than the other way around.

All voter fraud is a fraud on the voters. It undermines the entire purpose of the democratic system. It is a very sick demos where 59% of the voters supporting one of the two major parties think that is okay as long as it is by their side.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

Malmesbury

Sean_F said:

Nigelb said:

And 0% of those Republicans can cite any solid evidence of extensive voter fraud.

That just proves how cunning the perpetrators of the fraud were. They completely covered it up.

I shall ask the Lizard Men to do a report on what they did. They tend to gloss things over in their reports to the Zeta Reticulans, and the Illuminati then gloss over than.

By the time it gets through ZOG and the Grand Council - it's barely in touch with reality.

Eabhal

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

That's my plan. As in me. Eabhal. I'm going to join the car club.

You're paranoid. WEF coming for your freedoms etc etc.

Leon

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

Have you ever been to Japan? You talk with apparent authority on it on the prior thread

Which cities did you visit?

Big_G_NorthWales

Seems the conservatives have finally got a poll lead !!!!

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?t=B_jjkGh0FL-8KfnIGjTZQQ&s=19

DavidL

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

BartholomewRoberts

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

That's my plan. As in me. Eabhal. I'm going to join the car club.

You're paranoid. WEF coming for your freedoms etc etc.

I'm not paranoid, I'm responding to what you wrote. It soundly like you were saying your plan was to eliminate cars from most households, sorry if I misunderstood.

If you mean just for yourself then sorry for the misunderstanding and good luck to you. I'm pro choice and the more choices you have before you the better. I'm just opposed to anyone who wants to eliminate other people's perfectly reasonable choices.

tlg86

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

I like the inflation one.

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems the conservatives have finally got a poll lead !!!!

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?t=B_jjkGh0FL-8KfnIGjTZQQ&s=19

Mischievous, Mr G!

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems the conservatives have finally got a poll lead !!!!

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?t=B_jjkGh0FL-8KfnIGjTZQQ&s=19

Mischievous, Mr G!

But where are the votes coming from, on that graph? Reform? In which case ...

Sandpit

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

Big_G_NorthWales

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems the conservatives have finally got a poll lead !!!!

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?t=B_jjkGh0FL-8KfnIGjTZQQ&s=19

Mischievous, Mr G!

My wife complains that the has suffered for nearly 60 years with my mischievousness !!!

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

The one about inflation has merit, but if it was a top ten it can't have been a field of intense competition.

Some of the others are literally embarrassing.

ydoethur

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

I like the inflation one.

I think it was a bit high though.

Sandpit

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

I like the inflation one.

You do now, but next year you won’t.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

I like the inflation one.

You do now, but next year you won’t.

Are you saying it will be worth less next year?

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

The one about inflation has merit, but if it was a top ten it can't have been a field of intense competition.

Some of the others are literally embarrassing.

A pal of mine at work today had a better one after we had been listening through the open windows to the racket all day. He said it was really weird how, at certain times of the year, what was a straightforward breach of the peace somehow became a cultural event.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

The one about inflation has merit, but if it was a top ten it can't have been a field of intense competition.

Some of the others are literally embarrassing.

A pal of mine at work today had a better one after we had been listening through the open windows to the racket all day. He said it was really weird how, at certain times of the year, what was a straightforward breach of the peace somehow became a cultural event.

Bloody lawyers!

BartholomewRoberts

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

Have you ever been to Japan? You talk with apparent authority on it on the prior thread

Which cities did you visit?

Tokyo, had family living there. Say similar things to @edmundintokyo

Though visiting places (while being quite educational) isn't the only way to learn about things. I've learnt far more about Egypt for instance by studying it, than my multiple visits there which were mostly an opportunity to sightsee stuff I already knew about but wanted to see in person.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

And block up the pavements and streets of Edinburgh whilst moving like a Unionised sloth. Yeah, great.

TimS

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Seems the conservatives have finally got a poll lead !!!!

https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1691479873959886850?t=B_jjkGh0FL-8KfnIGjTZQQ&s=19

Depending on how those votes are spread it's either bad news for the conservatives because of increasingly efficient tactical voting intention (Dutch salute etc), or good news for them because of increasingly inefficient fracturing of the anti-Tory vote.

Lab are down by 3, Lib Dem and Green are up by 3. So LLG is neutral. Refcon is up by 1%, at the expense of "other", whoever they are.

These numbers could deliver a whopping victory to anti-Tory parties, but only if tactical voters come out in force. LLG 62%, RefCon 38%.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

And block up the pavements and streets of Edinburgh whilst moving like a Unionised sloth. Yeah, great.

I'm surprised the SNP haven't banned it if it's Union based.

TheScreamingEagles

What an utter cuck Donald Trump is.

He was President, Georgia had a Republican Governor and Secretary of State and yet Sleepy Joe Biden was able to steal the election.

For that level of incompetence Trump should be never allowed anywhere near the Presidency.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

And block up the pavements and streets of Edinburgh whilst moving like a Unionised sloth. Yeah, great.

I'm surprised the SNP haven't banned it if it's Union based.

You are completely missing the point. Their enemy isn't the Unionists, it's that bloody Alex Salmond and who can doubt that his (very successful) show should have been banned?

Carnyx

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

The one about inflation has merit, but if it was a top ten it can't have been a field of intense competition.

Some of the others are literally embarrassing.

A pal of mine at work today had a better one after we had been listening through the open windows to the racket all day. He said it was really weird how, at certain times of the year, what was a straightforward breach of the peace somehow became a cultural event.

Quite. Edinburgh's unbearable in August. What really gets me is the way the pubs and cafes sometimes up the prices and reduce the choice on the menu.

DavidL

Carnyx said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

The one about inflation has merit, but if it was a top ten it can't have been a field of intense competition.

Some of the others are literally embarrassing.

A pal of mine at work today had a better one after we had been listening through the open windows to the racket all day. He said it was really weird how, at certain times of the year, what was a straightforward breach of the peace somehow became a cultural event.

Quite. Edinburgh's unbearable in August. What really gets me is the way the pubs and cafes sometimes up the prices and reduce the choice on the menu.

It's where they make the money that subsidises our lunches the rest of the year, I suppose.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

And block up the pavements and streets of Edinburgh whilst moving like a Unionised sloth. Yeah, great.

I'm surprised the SNP haven't banned it if it's Union based.

You are completely missing the point. Their enemy isn't the Unionists, it's that bloody Alex Salmond and who can doubt that his (very successful) show should have been banned?

Really?

That sounds like a Fringe theory to me.

Leon

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

The counterfactual is an Edinburgh that didn't have great public transport provision, so there would be nearly double the number if cars as there are now.

You're becoming increasingly silly. I'm not anti-car at all. Unlike you, I'm from an exceptionally remote part of the UK. My need for a car is distinct from your idealogical fixation for them.

Perhaps it's that background that makes me appreciate the freedom of not requiring a car for all my journeys so much.

I'm pro encouraging cycling and public transport. We should have all available is what I keep saying, but you object to.

But you keep making pronouncements that you want a "small minority" to have cars etc.

I have no ideological fixation for them, they simply work. They are a good tool, no more, no less, which is why we are not going to go without them.

Not requiring a car for all journeys is different to not needing them for any. I don't use or need a car for all journeys either, but I need the capability to use it for those journeys where I either need or want it - and that isn't a treat to anyone else.

I have never said I wanted it at all. Please stop making things up.

I suggested that 83% of people live in urban areas, so the scope to switch to other forms of transport is enormous.

I also predicted that people in cities (note - not towns) would likely switch to the car club model over the next 15 years or so.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

What's the difference between you saying something is your "plan" and me saying its what you wanted? 😕

As we've discussed ad nauseum, considering most of those urban areas are sprawled out towns, the scope to switch to other forms of transport is miniscule in most places. Indeed decades of attempts to switch transportation has barely moved the dial in overall transportation mileage.

Have you ever been to Japan? You talk with apparent authority on it on the prior thread

Which cities did you visit?

Tokyo, had family living there. Say similar things to @edmundintokyo

Though visiting places (while being quite educational) isn't the only way to learn about things. I've learnt far more about Egypt for instance by studying it, than my multiple visits there which were mostly an opportunity to sightsee stuff I already knew about but wanted to see in person.

To understand a country you have to read all about it AND visit it

Both are indispensable. I’ve been to America 20 times but I think it was only only my most recent visit - Ohio to the coast, taking in DC, along the Mason Dixon line (and back via the upper south) that allowed me to finally comprehend it (and even then my grasp will be flawed, I am sure)

On a barely related note it amazes me how poorly most people comprehend basic geography

I had a drink with some friends the other day and I got talking to an educated female friend, good degree, middle aged, well read, and I was trying to describe some recent travels and I realised she had no conception of where a country like Armenia might be, or how Ukraine is near Poland

It was, to her, all just stuff “out there”

How can you map your way through life in such a haze of ignorance?

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Given the considerable increase in population, by around 17-20% over the period in question, and the housing developments on the outskirts, 0.82 is actually going down a fair bit. Bear in mind that the city centre has also been hollowed out population wise by airbnb and similar trends.

Well if there's been developments then "per household" isn't a decline since its a like for like comparison. Each extra household adds to both the numerator and denominator so is neutral, the average is still the average.

If the city centre has been hollowed out by AirBnB then surely that means the proportion of homes with cars is deflated not inflated as those homes will still be homes but have zero registered cars? Unless they're now businesses not homes, in which case they're not relevant to the conversation anyway?

Correct on the first point. BUT I should have asked, what is the comparison?

Scotland *as a whole* has increased cars per household from 0.83 in 1999 to 1.11 in 2019 - so basically Edinburgh has declined relatively over precisely the period.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100261821/

TheScreamingEagles

Anyhoo.

An old editor told me to always look for what isn't there: Mike Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Lin Wood, Lindsey Graham are not indicted.

https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/1691291299201122304

kamski

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Pulpstar

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

Leon

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

DavidL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo.

An old editor told me to always look for what isn't there: Mike Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Lin Wood, Lindsey Graham are not indicted.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1691349315447377920

Either I am suffering deja vu (and this is NOT the day to do that, once is enough) or you posted that this morning.

TheScreamingEagles

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo.

An old editor told me to always look for what isn't there: Mike Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Lin Wood, Lindsey Graham are not indicted.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1691349315447377920

Either I am suffering deja vu (and this is NOT the day to do that, once is enough) or you posted that this morning.

Not guilty, somebody else may have posted it.

Daveyboy1961

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyhoo.

An old editor told me to always look for what isn't there: Mike Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Lin Wood, Lindsey Graham are not indicted.

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1691349315447377920

Either I am suffering deja vu (and this is NOT the day to do that, once is enough) or you posted that this morning.

Not guilty, somebody else may have posted it.

deja vu all over again...

TheScreamingEagles

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp responds to Donald Trump:

"The 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen.

For nearly three years now, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward - under oath - and prove anything in a court of law."



https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1691486893873999872/photo/1

TheScreamingEagles

What an utter tool Sunak is.

Last week was 'small boats week', and perhaps as a result immigration is now the top issue Tory voters see facing the UK:

Immigration: 67% (+6 from 5-7 Aug)
Economy: 61% (-8)
Health: 48% (+8)

Unfortunately for the govt, 85% of Tory voters say they are handling immigration badly

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1691489711506829324

BartholomewRoberts

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

Sandpit

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/97/ceb1s4nbiknw.jpeg" alt="" />

Oh dear, so comedy is okay as long as the wokes don’t get offended by it?

The wokes are now very much the Establishment, and the whole point of comedy is to be able to say the unsayable about those in charge.

Hell, I live in Dubai and we have comedy nights there - not just the international comics (Jimmy Carr, Dara O’BrIain, Bill Burr, and Andrew Schulz this year, awesome!), but also a growing scene of local comics who aren’t afraid to comment on local issues and critisise the local Establishment. In the Middle East.

Who cares, so long as the jokes are funny? When the Establishment can’t laugh at itself, we have a problem.

Roger

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/15/rishi-sunak-mickey-mouse-conservatives-election

This Marina Hyde piece on the current "government" is really quite brilliant and says everything that needs to be said on the subject.

Normally the most laugh-out-loud-female journalist yet you can see she's struggling.

This horrendous government isn't funny

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp responds to Donald Trump:

"The 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen.

For nearly three years now, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward - under oath - and prove anything in a court of law."



https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1691486893873999872/photo/1

In a way it’s a shame Kemp doesn’t have the power to pardon Trump.

Can you imagine how much he’d enjoy refusing to do so?

BartholomewRoberts

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

kamski

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?

And have you heard of children?

Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?

You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.

Leon

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/97/ceb1s4nbiknw.jpeg" alt="" />

Oh dear, so comedy is okay as long as the wokes don’t get offended by it?

The wokes are now very much the Establishment, and the whole point of comedy is to be able to say the unsayable about those in charge.

Hell, I live in Dubai and we have comedy nights there - not just the international comics (Jimmy Carr, Dara O’BrIain, Bill Burr, and Andrew Schulz this year, awesome!), but also a growing scene of local comics who aren’t afraid to comment on local issues and critisise the local Establishment. In the Middle East.

Who cares, so long as the jokes are funny? When the Establishment can’t laugh at itself, we have a problem.

I like the way the venue claims it is “inclusive”

That is to say: it includes people that agree with
their politics, but not anyone else

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

You sound like a second amendmenter, Bart. The right of the people to keep and drive Cars, shall not be infringed. They will have to prise your ignition keys from your cold, dead hands. I like cars (and indeed guns). I have one. But sadly they are too large, dangerous, resource and space intensive, and have got, in the medium to long term, to go.

Pulpstar

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

Other half picking me up. Refund requested

MightyAlex

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

BartholomewRoberts

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?

And have you heard of children?

Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?

You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.

Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.

Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.

Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.

Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.

So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.

Malmesbury

a

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/97/ceb1s4nbiknw.jpeg" alt="" />

Oh dear, so comedy is okay as long as the wokes don’t get offended by it?

The wokes are now very much the Establishment, and the whole point of comedy is to be able to say the unsayable about those in charge.

Hell, I live in Dubai and we have comedy nights there - not just the international comics (Jimmy Carr, Dara O’BrIain, Bill Burr, and Andrew Schulz this year, awesome!), but also a growing scene of local comics who aren’t afraid to comment on local issues and critisise the local Establishment. In the Middle East.

Who cares, so long as the jokes are funny? When the Establishment can’t laugh at itself, we have a problem.

There is something to this. I don't agree on the whole culture war thing, but it is true that some shibboleths are becoming Establishment Rules. See Coutts.

At what point does cancelling people become angry old people demanding the young people behave according to The Rules?

ydoethur

Kemp for Republican Candidate in 2028.

Not only is he committed to the constitution, sane and a proven winner in a swing state, but it would REALLY confuse the hell out of the MAGA twats.

Malmesbury

ydoethur said:

Kemp for Republican Candidate in 2028.

Not only is he committed to the constitution, sane and a proven winner in a swing state, but it would REALLY confuse the hell out of the MAGA twats.

"sane" = Libtard to MAGA types

Carnyx

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Just like Pulpy's train!

BartholomewRoberts

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

So a miniscule figure.

8 per week is nothing nationwide. Definitely not a reason not to walk.

And pedestrians crossing the road safely, looking properly and crossing at intersections would reduce that figure, but if people want to take risk that's their choice.

Malmesbury

Carnyx said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Just like Pulpy's train!

Right.

So the Comedy club should pay a cancellation fee to Pulpy.

And the train company should put on a performance of the cancelled comic.

All good?

darkage

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.

Sunil_Prasannan

2020:

Biden 81 million votes
Trump 74 million votes

Carnyx

BartholomewRoberts said:

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

So a miniscule figure.

8 per week is nothing nationwide. Definitely not a reason not to walk.

And pedestrians crossing the road safely, looking properly and crossing at intersections would reduce that figure, but if people want to take risk that's their choice.

Age distribution, remember. Killing a toddler gets you a lot more QALYs to paint on your car door than a 95 year old.

Leon

Malmesbury said:

a

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/97/ceb1s4nbiknw.jpeg" alt="" />

Oh dear, so comedy is okay as long as the wokes don’t get offended by it?

The wokes are now very much the Establishment, and the whole point of comedy is to be able to say the unsayable about those in charge.

Hell, I live in Dubai and we have comedy nights there - not just the international comics (Jimmy Carr, Dara O’BrIain, Bill Burr, and Andrew Schulz this year, awesome!), but also a growing scene of local comics who aren’t afraid to comment on local issues and critisise the local Establishment. In the Middle East.

Who cares, so long as the jokes are funny? When the Establishment can’t laugh at itself, we have a problem.

There is something to this. I don't agree on the whole culture war thing, but it is true that some shibboleths are becoming Establishment Rules. See Coutts.

At what point does cancelling people become angry old people demanding the young people behave according to The Rules?

It was trans right activists who got it cancelled, because the line-up included Graham “father Ted” Linehan, who has some *robust* views on trans rights

It will be the death of comedy in the end. If you simply cave in to the “offended”. Because good comedy is nearly always about breaking taboos, as Freud concluded

BartholomewRoberts

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?

If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.

PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.

Carnyx

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Just like Pulpy's train!

Right.

So the Comedy club should pay a cancellation fee to Pulpy.

And the train company should put on a performance of the cancelled comic.

All good?

Sounds fine to me!

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

Using trains in this country is a bit like sex with an ex.

You thought it was a good idea but after the first ten minutes you've filled with immense feelings of regret.

BartholomewRoberts

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

So a miniscule figure.

8 per week is nothing nationwide. Definitely not a reason not to walk.

And pedestrians crossing the road safely, looking properly and crossing at intersections would reduce that figure, but if people want to take risk that's their choice.

Age distribution, remember. Killing a toddler gets you a lot more QALYs to paint on your car door than a 95 year old.

Yep, old people are only worth 100 points, while toddlers are worth 300 points.

400 point bonus if you take out a toddler and grandparents simultaneously.

ydoethur

darkage said:

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.

My car’s got to go in for some fairly extensive work in early September, so I looked at getting to an appointment by bus.

One hour each way by car.

Three hours by the quickest route using buses, including a staggering five changes.

I’ve rescheduled.

Sunil_Prasannan

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp responds to Donald Trump:

"The 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen.

For nearly three years now, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward - under oath - and prove anything in a court of law."



https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1691486893873999872/photo/1

In a way it’s a shame Kemp doesn’t have the power to pardon Trump.

Can you imagine how much he’d enjoy refusing to do so?

Oskar Schindler: Power is when we have every justification to kill, and we don't.
Amon Goeth: You think that's power?
Oskar Schindler: That's what the Emperor said. A man steals something, he's brought in before the Emperor, he throws himself down on the ground. He begs for his life, he knows he's going to die. And the Emperor... pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.
Amon Goeth: I think you are drunk.
Oskar Schindler: That's power, Amon. That is power.

Nigelb

.

TheScreamingEagles said:

What an utter cuck Donald Trump is.

He was President, Georgia had a Republican Governor and Secretary of State and yet Sleepy Joe Biden was able to steal the election...

That's why he needed the Biden Crime Family to do it for him.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.

My car’s got to go in for some fairly extensive work in early September, so I looked at getting to an appointment by bus.

One hour each way by car.

Three hours by the quickest route using buses, including a staggering five changes.

I’ve rescheduled.

Rent a car, or take your car to a garage that hands out courtesy cars, even if it’s the main dealer.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

Using trains in this country is a bit like sex with an ex.

You thought it was a good idea but after the first ten minutes you've filled with immense feelings of regret.

"I forgot that to rely on a train, in Blair's Britain, is to engage in a crapshoot with the devil."
- Boris in The Daily Telegraph, 3 July 2003, p. 22.

MightyAlex

BartholomewRoberts said:

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

So a miniscule figure.

8 per week is nothing nationwide. Definitely not a reason not to walk.

And pedestrians crossing the road safely, looking properly and crossing at intersections would reduce that figure, but if people want to take risk that's their choice.

You can admit to being wrong, its actually more acceptable than being a complete arse.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Kemp for Republican Candidate in 2028.

Not only is he committed to the constitution, sane and a proven winner in a swing state, but it would REALLY confuse the hell out of the MAGA twats.

The 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen.

For nearly three years now, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward - under oath - and prove anything in a court of law. Our elections in Georgia are secure, accessible, and fair and will continue to be as long as I am governor.

The future of our country is at stake in 2024 and that must be our focus.
https://twitter.com/BrianKempGA/status/1691483026356678660

darkage

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/97/ceb1s4nbiknw.jpeg" alt="" />

Oh dear, so comedy is okay as long as the wokes don’t get offended by it?

The wokes are now very much the Establishment, and the whole point of comedy is to be able to say the unsayable about those in charge.

Hell, I live in Dubai and we have comedy nights there - not just the international comics (Jimmy Carr, Dara O’BrIain, Bill Burr, and Andrew Schulz this year, awesome!), but also a growing scene of local comics who aren’t afraid to comment on local issues and critisise the local Establishment. In the Middle East.

Who cares, so long as the jokes are funny? When the Establishment can’t laugh at itself, we have a problem.

I like the way the venue claims it is “inclusive”

That is to say: it includes people that agree with
their politics, but not anyone else

The 'woke' think that they are solving political problems by being like this, but actually it is the opposite, they are creating them. If you keep trying to censor everything you don't like then eventually an Andrew Tate or Donald Trump appear and people - being tired of being told what to think - gravitate towards them.

Miklosvar

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?

And have you heard of children?

Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?

You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.

Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.

Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.

Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.

Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.

So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.

All car tyres pollute the air.

Sandpit

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sandpit said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

Yes its that time of year again: where a list of 10 unspectacularly "funny" jokes makes you wonder what the rest of the material is like: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2023/aug/14/need-a-good-laugh-the-10-best-jokes-from-the-edinburgh-festival-2023

In fairness, the one about the cat isn't bad.

None of them are Milton Jones or Jimmy Carr, but that’s not really the point of the Fringe. I think they’re all funny in their own way.

It’s the best chance of the year, to see a bunch of up-and-coming comics showcased in the national press, and it’s great fun to go there and pay £10 to sit in a random space, listing to people you’ve never heard of before.

If comedy is in decline things like this might be the reason

Free expression is valuable but private venues can have whatever policies they want. Someone not booking you because they don't want you is completely different to state censorship. Other places love to book people who will cause a stir.

This isn’t someone not taking the booking, this is someone taking the booking and then cancelling it at the last minute.

Which unless their contract prevents that, is surely within their rights?

If they've violated their contract, then that's an issue and then there should be compensation.

PS I completely oppose no platforming, and would think this is a reason other should choose not to book with this venue in the future.

I don’t know every detail of this particular case, but I suspect that venue contracts in general have enough wiggle room to cover the possibility of militant trans rights activists phoning in threats to the venue, should the event go ahead.

They were hosting Graham Linehan - one of the greatest TV writers of his generation - not Nick Griffin.

BartholomewRoberts

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MightyAlex said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

"Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:

an average of 8 pedestrians died and 115 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road collisions

a majority of pedestrian fatalities (56%) do not occur at or within 20m of a junction compared to 46% of all seriously injured (adjusted) casualties

nearly three in five (58%) of pedestrian fatalities were in collisions involving a single car

30% of pedestrian fatalities occurred on rural roads compared to 12% of all pedestrian casualties

58% of pedestrian killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties were male

the most common contributory factor allocated to pedestrians in fatal or serious collisions (FSC) with another vehicle was ‘Pedestrian failed to look properly’. The most common factor allocated to the vehicles involved was ‘Driver or rider failed to look properly’"

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedestrian-factsheet-2021

So a miniscule figure.

8 per week is nothing nationwide. Definitely not a reason not to walk.

And pedestrians crossing the road safely, looking properly and crossing at intersections would reduce that figure, but if people want to take risk that's their choice.

You can admit to being wrong, its actually more acceptable than being a complete arse.

How was I wrong?

Probably tens of millions of people walk daily on or by roads which have cars going down them. In fact almost by definition drivers get out of their car and become pedestrians, it'd be extremely rare to leave the house, go to a drive thru, and get home without stepping out of the car.

I wasn't wrong. You're just a zealot. The fact life has risk isn't a reason not to live it. You're making zero covid bullshit arguments.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

Using trains in this country is a bit like sex with an ex.

You thought it was a good idea but after the first ten minutes you've filled with immense feelings of regret.

Or you get an announcement that the service is cancelled.

BartholomewRoberts

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kamski said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

Lot of empty shops on Exeter high street

Plus all the hideous 50s-90s architecture

Eek

Do you mean High Street or Sidwell Street/Paris Street?

The High Street has a lot of post-war dross on it, but also some older and rather fine architecture, and the Princesshay shopping centre, which isn't my sort of thing but not bad as they go.

Sidwell Street/Paris Street has long been slated for demolition/redevelopment, although as so often with these things, it isn't totally clear when.

Sidwell. Grotesque

I am now in a charming restaurant having lunch but, distressingly, it is full of photos of luscious pre war Exeter before the Luftwaffe and the left wing developers got the better of it

None of those responsible for the postwar rebuilding of Exeter could be considered left wing. The city council was run by the Conservatives, had a Tory MP (who praised the reconstruction efforts) and rebuilding efforts only gained momentum when the Tories returned to government in Westminster and relaxed the planning rules. Much of the development was left to the private sector, including an enterprising development firm that saw big opportunities in postwar reconstruction and later became Land Securities. I doubt that they were a hotbed of Marxism.
Postwar reconstruction was generally shoddy not for ideological reasons but because politicians and the public were desperate for it to happen quickly, and the country was broke. In construction you can have it nice, you can have it quick or you can have it cheap. If you aim for quick and cheap too, you are certainly not going to get nice.

And yet the impoverished Poles managed to rebuild all of central Warsaw, intact, as it was, and it is now delightful and quaint (and entirely “fake”, but who cares)


A lot of the urge to build ugly crap came from left wing architects and town planners ideologically opposed to traditional “beauty” - which was seen as regressive and Tory and hierarchical and all that shite. They still do it NOW - see the way lefty architects react to anything proposed by Prince Charles

I agree evil greedy right wing developers could be at fault as well

Yes, you see that crap with idiotic idealists choosing to be against parking, so people end up parking on the road rather than having cleverly thought through, integrated parking to go with the buildings.

A multi story block of flats, or multistory office block, there's no reason one or more of the stories can't be a garage for everyone's vehicles, then nobody ends up on the road. But instead idiots who think they know better are against planning for vehicles, so they end up making the vehicles overspill elsewhere and make problems much worse.

Roads should never be a place for parking ideally. They should be a place for driving/cycling/whatever not standing still.

The problem with this is a large reason why people don't buy a second car, or a car in the first place, is a lack of car parking spots in town and city centres. Demand will follow supply, and in a few years you'll be back to square one.

Then there are all the secondary effects - more cars means more congestion, fewer people feeling comfortable enough to walk and cycle around, and the viability of mass transit like buses falls.

Those car parks eat up space for more flats, adding more pressure on house prices.

Showing once again your anti-car mentality, rather than a pro-cycling one.

But people do buy cars, because they need them, because they work as a mode of transportation and there is no better alternative. The overwhelming majority of people who cycle still have a car, and so they need a place to park their car, and park their bike. Secure parking can be a secure place to put your bike too.

Fewer cars parked on the road means less congestion, people feeling more comfortable to walk and cycle around. People having no alternative but to park on the road means they're parking typically right where cyclists want to cycle - you objected to this the other night posting a photo of someone parked where you wanted to cycle, and since most roads are dual-use there's not normally a ban on parking there so its the cyclists that suffer the most from the lack of parking leading to on-road parking, not drivers. I can quite comfortably park on the road if there's no alternative, and drive around parked vehicles, you're the one who has to move around my vehicle by moving further into the road or mount the pavement if I do though.

As for "eating up space" that's not remotely true. You can build further down, or further up.

Drive into Melbourne's Central Business District and if you want to park at a skyscraper, then for most of them you park under the building. Drive down the ramp under the building and head down into the car park. Ground floor and above is for the building, underneath is for cars. Leaving plenty of road space for one of the world's best tram networks, cycles and anything else you might like rather than a road littered with parked vehicles - what's the harm in that?

I'm not anti-car. I'm just pointing out that for cities and towns it's far more efficient and and cost-effective to provide public transport. This makes life significantly easier for commercial drivers (eg vans) who do need the roads to get around.

There is a reason that commercial airports like Heathrow invest in brilliant public transport systems rather than gigantic car parks - it's far easier to shift thousands of people to where you need them to be.

It's not either/or, it's far more effective to do both.

There isn't a city on the planet without cars. Public transport and cars can work well together, not be enemies.

Getting cars off the road and onto private parking liberates road space for public transport/cycling etc. Insisting on a lack of off-road parking leads to on road parking, which hurts cycling etc.

The whole of Melbourne is built with both trams and cars in mind, not either-or. Driving there is weird coming straight from UK, despite driving on same side of road as us in order to turn right you must be in the left lane to do a "hook turn" because of the trams. Which works.

Compromise - park and ride?

Avoids clogging the city with cars, folk who live out of town can get into town. Space for central parking can be converted into flats or parks.

Works really well in Edinburgh (too well - they keep reaching capacity).

Park and ride absolutely can be a
part of the mix, as a supplement to both driving and public transport. It's not an alternative to either though and people living in the city who own cars will still need places to park them, ideally not on the roads.

Give it 15 years and only a small minority in cities will own cars - there will be a rapid switch to the bike/public transport/walk + car club combo. That's my plan.

And you claim to not have an anti-car attitude? You don't see me saying I only want small minority to ever cycle, or walk or take public transport.

People in cities shouldn't be confined to only their own city, that's a very small-minded attitude.

Thankfully your vision shouldn't come to pass as most people wherever they live have friends and family around the entire country, and want to visit places in the entire country and not just their own locale. Even in London a majority of houses have at least 1 car, with 12% of homes having 2 or more cars.

Are you aware of what car club is?

I didn't say anything you claim I said.

Basically like a time share for cars rather than having their own. Which like Leon's vision of a world made up of taxis may be useful for those who almost never need private transportation but isn't much use when most people want access to their own vehicle whenever they want/need it - which is often at the same time as others want/need theirs too.

A good system should allow all modes of transportation, without prejudice. If cycling is better then, let people choose to cycle. And where driving, they can get into their car and drive. No problems with that, why do you object to it?

Because of the negative externalities associated with driving in city centres. Your freedom to drive inhibits the freedom of others to walk, cycle and bus around their towns and cities.

Everyone else has worked this out and sensible councils are implementing it. Yours is a minority position and car dominated urban areas are coming to an end.

The great flaw in the plan is the reduction in bus services, and increased cost of those that remain. That's the nut that needs cracked in the next 5 years.

So you are anti-car then, why do you deny it when its obviously true? Besides of course, no, it does not.

Freedom to drive doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom to walk, cycle or bus. They can all work together in tandem.

Nothing wrong with individual roads being pedestrianised, eg in city centres, with parking nearby that people then can walk down the pedestrianised road without driving down it. But the city as a whole still can still have safe and ample driving and cycling and walking.

You keep claiming credit of Edinburgh as a city doing this well, but you seem to have missed that car ownership in Edinburgh has been going up not down. Ignoring 2020 data, 0.82 cars per household in 2019 was the joint highest in decades.
Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202200321397/

So good cycling and driving can go hand in hand. No need to fight or be upset.

Have you ever walked around outside?

Of course I have, lots. I do and have done a fair amount of walking. I try to walk a lot, including to the shops if only picking up small things, for my health.

Why?

You just come across as someone who hasn't ever walked around in a town or city. Pretending that driving a car has zero negative effects on anyone else is properly bonkers. Have you never noticed any cars while you were walking around outside?

Not pretending, I mean it.

Have I noticed any cars when I walked outside? Yes, of course I have. I also noticed walls, hedges, buildings etc.

I don't walk into cars, just as I don't walk into someone's hedge. I walk on the pavement, or the side of the road if I have to walk on the road. If I have to cross a road, I look both ways and cross safely. What's your problem?

Why do cities even bother having pedestrianised areas, for example, if cars never bother anyone?

And have you heard of children?

Have you heard the noise they make? Or breathed the air they pollute?

You are an absolute nutjob on the subject of cars.

Why do cities have pedestrianised areas? Because an extremely busy pedestrianised high street can have thousands of people walking down it rather than cars driving through it, the cars can drive down other roads instead. Win/win. Cars are for getting from A to B and a pedestrianised street can be a destination in itself, the B, not the route - other roads are the route.

Have I heard of children? Yes I have two young ones. They walk with me too sometimes, and I am very careful to teach them road safety, as all responsible parents do.

Noise they make? Not much, minor background noise. Electric cars are so quiet that they have added noise deliberately for road safety purposes for the blind to hear them.

Air we breathe? Air is perfectly clear round here. And again electric cars don't pollute the air either.

So again, what's your issue? I take extreme views on other issues, but not this one, I'm perfectly mainstream here.

All car tyres pollute the air.

By that logic, exhaling pollutes the air.
By that logic, walking pollutes the air.

Electric cars, including tyres, do not pollute the air at any measurable level to be concerned about.

The claims they do are mainly lies fed by climate change denialists who want to cling on to the ICE.

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

darkage said:

Pulpstar said:

As an occasional public transport user (Car in for MOT) I can't say having my train randomly cancelled is a particularly good advert for the system

I've had lots of problems travelling by train this year to work - a journey of less than 50 miles that takes 1.5 hours by car, often the journey is in excess of 3 hours on the train due to delays, cancellations, timetable changes, the excuses are endless. The train fare is £30 return, about 30p / mile. Lots of people abandoned the train and lost their jobs after the strikes in 2016. By car it would be about £10 in petrol. People travel by car because there is no alternative.

My car’s got to go in for some fairly extensive work in early September, so I looked at getting to an appointment by bus.

One hour each way by car.

Three hours by the quickest route using buses, including a staggering five changes.

I’ve rescheduled.

Rent a car, or take your car to a garage that hands out courtesy cars, even if it’s the main dealer.

I could - but I can't be bothered. It wasn't that important. The key is to have it back by the following day.

It just struck me as bizarre that I could cycle there in around two hours but it would take 50% longer by public transport.