Although I see no need for using a 4x4 for the school run, it's personal choice what type of vehicle people use.
Irrespective of the type of vehicle and the justification for using it (journey of a few miles), this doesn't excuse stopping on the yellow zig-zags. If the only reason they use the car is to avoid a walk of a few miles, surely a few yards wouldn't kill them, and it would contribute to others' safety.
This whole "crackdown" is just one of many examples where a rule that is designed to make life safer for all has been routinely ignored for so long that the authorities feel they have to find some new, radical method of control. The same applies to speed limits and the suggestion that satellite navigation systems will be used in future to control speed, plus congestion and road pricing to cover for the failure to persuade people out of their cars by providing a realistic alternative. As a result of some refusing to change their habits, we all end up paying a fortune. If they had just done something about enforcement before it got out of hand we'd all be better off.
Why not just enforce the existing laws - a few fines for those stopping outside schools or not belting their kids in would soon stop a lot of them! I know what I'd like to do to the guy I saw a few weeks ago driving along in an ageing Astra convertible with a child standing on the front seat holding onto the top of the windscreen!!
|
If you don't send your kids to the local school because of the "thugs" then this school will always remain a thugs school, to survive the educational system a school needs a cross section of the community, thats why some schools perform so badly, because they only get the "dross". Then they only get the worst teachers because the others won't go there and so the spiral goes on qand on and will unless we stop the school run.
End of political blurb!
|
Flatfour yes that is a good point - but I would not make my child the guinea-pig to cure this problem, as long as I had any choice whatsoever!
The way society has gone over several decades at least means that there are desirable and undesirable areas. The better areas tend to have the better schools. It's unfortunate but it's fact. The worst areas tend to be those with more of a thug/drug problem. Not exclusively, I know, but it does seem to be more prevalent in those places.
So by sending my children elsewhere, sure I am not helping to get rid of the problems/raise the standards in schools which are lacking - but I am also not willing to risk my kids' future whilst I have any choice whatsoever to send them elsewhere.
Yes it's a spiral but I hope my point makes sense!
|
Education is not just for christmas. There is no way I would dream of sending my kids to a dross local school. My responsibility as a parent is to them to do the best I can for them, imagine how thankful they will be in later life if I chose to experiment with their education?. No thanks, the dross are welcome to the dross school, they made it dross. After all it takes dross parents to make dross kids, and I am not a dross parent. Harsh but true.
Regards,
Alf
|
|
|
|
Why do we need all these draconian measures, laws and procedures for combatting congestion (school run, holiday, rush hour), speeding, parking, etc. etc. etc?
Because we are all made far more ware of our rights than our responsibilities! Many people choose to exercise their rights without any care for the consequences or their responsibilities to society as a whole.
The truth is that if we all decide to exercise our right to drive everywhere, all of the time, those rights will ultimately be eroded to the point where we all lose out ! It's already happening and will continue to do so.
The only easy solution to all of these problems is for each of us to understand that if we wish to retain rights we currently take for granted and frankly abuse, we need to be far more responisble. So my message to you all is don't focus on anyone else's behaviour, look at your own. If each of us cut out the unnecessary car journeys and walked or used alternative means, the roads would be a lot nicer, pollution would decrease, stress would reduce etc. etc.
If we considered the plight of the person trying to exit a junction and just let them out, much congestion would be removed from our roads in an instant! No need for congestion charging etc.
Rights come with responsibiltiies attached and what I see is far to many people who appear to want one without the other.
Part of the problem is the way our cars are taxed which almost encourages usage. I'd like to see some incentives for people to use alternatives where these are available and where they're not, for alternatives to be made available.
So hands up folks - how many unecessary car journeys do you make for no other reason than the fact that the car is in the drive and ready to go?
|
V,
As far as I view it a car relates to personal freedom and has done since I passed my test at 18 and bought a first car.
I will always fail your test....
So hands up folks - how many unecessary car journeys do you make for no other reason than the fact that the car is in the drive and ready to go?
...my hand is proudly held aloft.
No the real issue is the planning from our leaders over decades that has...
1) Not given us a decent network of roads on most popular routes.
2) Actually encouraged domestic and commercial development that makes car use essential.....ie building huge volumes of homes where everyone *has* to use a car to shop/work, also building out of town shopping areas that you *have* to drive to.
3) Encouraged a way of doing business where local offices are closed, employees are below the minimum level for given areas/tasks and so on. If you have to start somewhere (and I'm not fussed) I think poor business management puts a huge amount of vehicles over our road network every day with no good reason.
Anyway I chose to live in a rural area where safetee cameras, access charging, route charging and traffic jams are not an issue. That is a choice everyone has if they are that worried by the pressure a City environment brings.
M.M
|
|
I completely agree with MM on this one.
|
>>I completely agree with MM on this one.
Nearly a first eh?
You today, eMBe yesterday. I must be ready for a posh job at last!
Oh...and even the spelling of safetee?
;-)
M.M
|
Junior has just started (private) school. We are a two car family (2 year old 320i for the wife and I have a 6 month old 320i). We will spend this weekend looking at 4WDs for the wife, I like the look of the Shogun but we will also look at the X5.
My wife has to drive 15 miles to my sons school and take the baby daughter as well and I want them to be in the safest vehicle possible which I believe to thbe a large 4WD. If people don't like it then tough you know what you can do.
As to those above who say that I should send them to a more local school then I say 'know way'! My son is in a class of 14 and is being taught well. Not in a class of 35 with all the state school oiks learning about gays and multiculturalism.
Let the socialists play with your kids minds if they want, but thankfully I can afford to buy my way out of it. You may not like it, but think on that in 15 years time he will be standing in front of your kids in the queu to get a good job.
Its a tough world out there and you have to do the best for your family. Thank god we still have freedom of choice in this country.
|
XL5,
I have absolutely no problem with your decision to choose an alternative school, to travel of buy a 4WD.
However I do believe genius will out almost wherever.
Also your reasoning may be a little flawed.
The world of business is changing all the time and it is very likely the "state school oiks, gays and multicultural folks" as you put it *will* be the bosses. Ideal then for your son to attend school with these types so he will be more at ease taking orders from them in 30yrs time.
A broad social grounding is as important as education.
M.M
|
|
|
I enjoy driving my children to our local school.
I also enjoy the fact that there are no kids with wealthy badly adjusted parents in huge 4x4's blocking up the local roads, they are all on round trips (blocking up roads in other people's neighbourhoods) to over priced schools which do not prepare the children for life in the real world.
I enjoy freedom of choice, I also enjoy being wealthy and do not wish to waste money on frivolous items which do not enrich me or my family.
I enjoy knowing that money does not make you happy, nor does it buy you intangible's like a nice family.
I enjoy motoring.
MPH
----------------------
I drive a G Reg Sierra (less safe than a BMW). I send my kids to a local school and shop at Aldi.
|
|
|
|
I agree with much of what Volvoman says above, but take MM's points about situations where alternatives to car use are not available or practical. There are also situations where a journey is not practical by public transport even when it involves a route covered by same - e.g. for safety when transporting expensive/fragile goods.
I think the issue is more around large towns and cities where there are perfectly adequate public transport alternatives that are under-used for no real reason other than selfishness/laziness. The personal freedom for some people results in restriction of personal freedom for others, usually non-car users.
The problem with some rural areas such as those chosen by MM are that they may become viable alternatives for people driven off the motorways by road pricing. Why can't we keep the high-speed long-distance traffic where the infrastructure can cope with it?
|
Do you not get the feeling that, no matter what 'proposals' are discussed, this will simply end up being another smokescreen for some 'congestion' style charging while the public transport remains as poor as it is today?
|
|
|
SR,
I still struggle with the notion of any car use being selfish. Given that a road network from one place to another has a certain comfortable capacity then how do we decide who these *extra* selfish motorists are?
Is it the social visitor, the company rep, the school run Mums, the shop/office workers, delivery drivers, near empty buses?
Or is it the wilful expansion of business/facilities we need to visit without the supporting roads?
Take your point about our rural location, we are reaslistic you can't live anywhere for 10 to 20 years and expect nothing to alter.
Funnily enough about once every three years our road is an alternative to a 4 lane motorway for local commuters "in the know" when there has been a major problem on the larger route. I'll happily forgive that for the fast local access we have 99.9% of the time.
Oh and bikers have a 100mph burst up here most weekends but I'm fine with that too, they seem more inclined to slow down for the 1/2 ton of flesh I'm leading up the verge than many other vehicle users.
M.M
"I care little what others do as long as *I'm* wearing the right jeans"
|
No, MM - it's the drivers who drive from their home, which is 5 minutes walk from the station, to the station to get the train; it's the drivers who are so desperate to park as close as possible to their destination they'll sit on yellow zig-zags, park on the pavement, park in spaces intended for disabled people (even going to the lengths of obtaining a fake blue badge to do so), park on roundabouts, in bus stops or wherever they like.
It could even be argued that any use of a car when there is a viable public transport alternative is selfish - if we really considered the benefits to the environment, other people, greater utilisation of the public transport we always condemn for being under-funded, less congestion, etc. - but then we don't always do that as we rate our own convenience more highly. Doesn't that fall into a possible definition of selfish? It's all about degrees.
Anyway, as I said already, I have no problem with car use if it's done responsibly, with consideration for others, and where there is no viable alternative, either due to geography or numbers of people involved (public transport being less economic for families). I happen to think you should be able to enjoy your rural location without it changing beyond recognition.
|
|
Well I for one want to get the most use out of natures limited oil resource before it's all gone, and we are all back to riding bikes to work in the towns that all business has now re-centralised to.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I never have and probably never will say 'ban cars' MM. Yes there are plenty of occasions on which cars are essential and necessary and that's why I also suggested that alternatives had to be made available.
When my son was taken seriously ill 3 weeks ago I would hardly have chosen to wait for a bus to take me to resuscitation room would I. Equally, when I need to buy lots of shopping I use the car. When I need to shift large items I do so too. I really don't know why anyone should think any of that makes me anti-car. All I'm trying to suggest is that if WE ALL took a look at the journeys we make by car most of us would see that we could do things differently, either by using other means or by better organising ourselves so that certain trips aren't necessary. As for those who say having a car is a right or about personal freedom - please show me whch of the Commandments sets that out in stone. We have no absolute rights and many of those we are lucky enough to take for granted now we are only able to do so at the expense of future generations. So buy as many cars as you can afford and drive them all at the same time if you wish but realise that someone else is ultimately paying the price - your children for example. Yes we could build more and more roads to faciltate our obsession with movement on 4 wheels but who'd want that new road near their large detached house with drive and several large cars on it. Will that person still demand and defend the absolute right to drive when the value of their property has been halved due to the a proposed new road? I think not!
Kidding yourself into believing that problems such as these only affect townies is just as stupid and shortsighted as the view that the Stock Market collapse only affected fat cat directors and champagne guzzling stockbrokers! If things continue the way they are we'll all lose our freedom to drive when/where we like. When you want to drive from your contry retreat to that shopping centre you'll be forced to park miles away and get on a bus!
Those who argue for total freedom in these matters really are playing into the hands of the environmentalists and extremists who'd like us to return to the Stone Age. I don't want that and have decided that if I can make a few journeys by bus, train or on foot I will. I do this every day and I'm proud to be making a small contribution. That's all that's required isn't it - a relatively small contribution from all of us which would add up to a lot - free up roads, save money, save resources, improve the environment, improve our health etc. etc. etc.
I really can't understand the mindset of those who are only happy when they can do what they like, when they like, how they like. Many of these same people complain loudly when the rights of others start to impinge on their lives but seem oblivious to the fact that they've been selfishly doing the same to others for years!
Make a choice people, act responsibly or let the state decide for you and lose your freedom !
|
My view on why people drive when they shouldn't is a combination of M.M's and VMs. In other words I think people should think more carefully about what journeys they use the car for, partly because it isn't always the best way of making that journey and partly because if everyone exercises their choice completely thoughtlessly then we will have permanent congestion as VM says. But as MM points out we have built developments that are accessible only by car. I think that was a huge mistake, done largely because it was cheaper for the large corporations operating from those developments--they realised that by doing it that way they could cut their costs, but the effect was really only to shift the costs involved in city centre sites onto us through the extra fuel we buy, vehicle wear and tear and so on. We were suckered into that one and we continue to be suckered into it.
So back to the thread subject. When there was no choice in where one's kids went to school schools tended to be more mixed. Now they are separating into schools for those who can afford to live near them/travel to them and figure out some way of wangling it and schools for those who can't. I work a bit in higher education and I agree genius will out, often quite late in life. I also find that the kids from mixed backgrounds tend to be more open to new ideas and the most competent socially; if I were an employer it's them I'd pick not the one-track "too posh to talk" types (though if I was looking for drones...). (Incidentally statistics gathered by Oxford University show in fact that if you take two kids with the same A-levels, one from a private school and one from a state school, the state school kid will on average do better at university.) But we've been fed this line about more choice (in the case of education it is a choice about which few people can make a truly informed decision), which makes us more anxious and more willing to put ourselves out by travelling unfeasible distances in ever bigger, "safer" cars (the large corporations that encourage this are of course just looking after our freedom). Yet all it does is create more traffic, more congestion and thus less, not more, freedom--and the corporations will no doubt find ways around that problem, for a price. Suckers is what we are.
|
As they said in the war (or so my dad told me):
Is your journey really necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
