"Any Ideas?"
Yup. Lead by example and quit motoring.
Or is it only every one else who should do this.
|
Consider emigration. Somewhere nice and sunny. Terrible \"trapik\" but you have a driver anyway, cheap gas, cold beer, beautiful women and live on £1,000 a month, pay no tax, have a night out with your squeeze for about 12 quid....start a business, IT consulting works well, or recruitment of skilled workers for overseas jobs.
Contact Growler Consultants. We can help.
|
I agree with stuartli.
I have found some old photos on the internet - about 20-35 years old - of the area where I live. What strikes me, is how beautiful it looks, not much has changed really, what is most striking is how little signage and street furniture there is.
A roundabout is just that, a big junction is just that, now it's a forest of poles and garish signs with PC messages such as ...
Cyclists dismount, new traffic signal phasing, right turners beware of oncoming traffic, bus lane enforced 24 hours, etc...... the road is covered in lines, chevrons, coloured swathes, symbols and orders.
It all looks like an industrial snakepit compared to the road on the old picrures that was just plain with white lines, and mice grass verges where there are now triangles of crumbling tarmac covered in broken glass and ballast, and a speed camera.
|
Its very simple, so simple that people miss it. There are more cars, considerably more cars on the road than there was 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. The problem is that land space hasnt increased to cope with them all.
More cars + same space = competing interests.
By all means look at old photographs of your pretty town and comment on the absence of road furniture and features, but dont miss one important fact, the photo has less cars in it
Why do we have more cars? because we can. we can afford them, more than one for each family. we have the money to use them as well.
|
Here Here.
More common sense and good words from RF.
Adam
|
Re cynical and sour....
Read some of the postings in the middle and towards the end of this thread and then reconsider...:-)
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=24...4
People have cars because they want to go where they want, when they want, both as individuals and for maximum convenience compared to public transport.
The government can implore us as much as possible to use public transport (in fact I have a free travel pass that covers buses, tains and ferries over a massive area) but if it doesn't go where you want, or takes six times longer than by car, you don't use it.
I do use my pass - usually when I'm having an evening out on the Guinness or to nip into the town centre - but many of the journeys I make are across, rather than along, the routes used by local buses.
So I use my car instead. It saves four bus journeys in most cases and takes a fraction of the time.
Moreover, if it's a shopping trip, I've no intention of lugging several heavy bags of shopping on and off buses.
|
|
|
|
>Cyclists dismount, new traffic signal phasing, right turners beware of oncoming traffic, bus lane enforced 24 hours, etc.....
In what bizarre corner of Daily Mail world do you live? How on earth could these be politically correct? Three of them offer very useful information and one of them is an instruction indicating the end of a cycle path.
As RF said: we have a lot of cars now and they take up a lot of space.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a simple answer which would, at a stroke, solve the problem of too many cars and rampant house price inflation in the South East while at the same time solving many of the unemployment problems in the North of England.
It will never be implemented. Why? Because it involves moving the seat of Government and government supporting civil servants to a location in say, North Yorkshire/North Lancashire or Northumberland/Cumberland.
The politicians and the chattering classes would fight tooth and nail to prevent their being banished to the "uncivilised" north !
"Oh my dear, how could one live north of Watford"!
Roger. (in the UK for 3 more weeks and then back to the sun! )
|
There are a number of government national services provided in the North of England, including the General Registry Office for England and Wales in my own home town. The work was moved there during the Second World War.
There are also a number of Government Offices in various regions around the country - this covers the work of the North West office:
www.go-nw.gov.uk/
No doubt others will mention other central government diversifications and more, of course, would be welcome other than talking shops; however, a personal view is that London should remain the main seat of government.
|
|
|
>>. After all, have you ever heard of anyone who's had a taste of motoring turning their back on it?<<
I did like this bit, because before I learnt to drive (as late as 24 years old) I was fervantly anti-car, and pro public transport for all.
Then I got a car and discovered the freedom I had suddenly gained.
It will always be difficult to get car-owners en-masse to stand up together, because we span such a huge section of society.
Combine that with the Great British mentality of "not making a fuss" and we'll carry on paying that extra few pence per litre.
|
I'm in the pro-motoring lobby, re. both private motoring and commercial road transport. But that doesn't stop me from being in favour of moving towards ever more efficient vehicles powered by a sustainable fuel source (biodiesel seems most promising).
Also I am in favour of reducing our overall transport needs. Things like more working from home one or two days a week (in jobs where that's possible), less long distance commuting, not using the car to drive half a mile to the corner shop for a loaf of bread etc., etc.
Cheers, SS
|
The statistic about lots of journeys being under 2 miles so the person could walk or cycle instead which has been bandied about recently: Has anyone checked who these people are as they could be old or disabled and therefore *unable* to walk to the nearest shop? The population is ageing and therefore there will be more short journeys by car, especially as if you're a little unsteady on your feet clambering up and down buses is not always easy. There will be some people that still do short journeys not in this category but again no one asks why and assumes laziness. It could easily be because they don't have the 30 minutes (shop 1 mile away, 3 mph walking pace) or so a round trip would take and 10 minutes by car is the only time they have to do the trip.
The government don't want us to stop using the car. Having a no car week where everyone just walked, cycled or got PT would cripple the economy. Perhaps motorists should threaten to do just that and see what happens! We could even be meaner and say in x months time we are all going to stop using cars altogether so the government jolly well ought to get the public transport capacity in place to take us to work/shopping etc. It wouldn't happen and we'll all be back to our cars within a fortnight!
Encouraging home working is a much more sensible solution but one that probably won't be adopted due to the nature of the british boss. They like to lord themselves over their work force so if the work force aren't present then their role becomes more difficult. IT staff could probably monitor remote staff productivity more easily and I am sure someone will write a ' management' program to chivy staff along and offer words of discomfort when required.
What I do find mystifying is that the government is happy to build our way out of a housing shortage, thus increasing pollution with all the extra energy and concrete required far in excess of the pollution created by building roads to combat that shortage and allowing for increased travel. Cars have become much more environmentallly friendly and now often put out cleaner air than they take in. If you remove them from the road then air quality could in fact worsen! The government relies on us using more of things to bring them the money they need. If we use less then the whole applecart is upset.
teabelly
|
>>Cars have become muchmore environmentallly friendly and now often put out cleaner air than they take in.
Ha Ha Ha. I hope you meant that as a joke, because the logic certainly is.
|
>>Ha Ha Ha. I hope you meant that as a joke, because the logic certainly is.">>
The joke's on you to some extent. At least 10 years ago Saab proved that its Trionic system actually produced cleaner air from the exhaust than taken in from the London atmosphere.
See this link www.autowire.net/1999-5.html for the words: "Saab, one of the smallest auto manufacturers, has never been short on innovation. Their latest development is the Trionic Engine Management System, a sophisticated form of combustion control operated by the industry's first 32-bit microprocessor, developed by Motorola and ingeniously applied by Saab. The degree to which clean emissions are produced is startling. When tested in London on a production Saab 9000 CS, it was found that the outside air entering the engine's intake system was dirtier than the stream coming out of the tailpipe."
I remember it well because I wrote a piece on it at the time, along with a photograph showing the test.
The fourth paragraph in this link will also prove a major surprise to you:
www.saab.co.uk/main/GB/en/pressreleases_archive.xm...e
Moreover, modern cars only produce about a fiftieth of unwanted emissions compared to five to 10 years ago.
|
Although a committed motorist, I would support a monthly (say 1st Sunday) 'car free day'.
Takes cover....
|
>>Although a committed motorist, I would support a monthly (say 1st Sunday) 'car free day'.>>
What on earth for?
Shutting down four coal fired power stations permanently would immediately remove the equivalent of all the cars' emissions on UK roads at a stroke on a day for day basis for both.
|
|
|
|
Where were they getting the two figures from? What temperatures were the two gases at? Is it an absolute measure or a percentage? Which metal oxides from the catalyst have replaced the NOX etc. and were they measured? Did they measure hydrocarbons? Is SAAB's press release a reliable and unbiased source for this information?
Just a few questions I'd like the answers to.
|
>Did they measure hydrocarbons?
Just noticed they did. Blame the vino.
|
I've often wondered about "Cyclists dismount" signs, why?? Just because a cycle lane ends doesn't mean I can't ride on the road, it's just clutter.
I notice that when planning permission is given for a new estate, or a shopping park, they don't upgrade the roads to cope, that's what causes congestion, building shops and houses without upgrading the infrastructure. Several new housing estates have been built in my area, and not one of them included a shop, pub, or even a bus stop. How are the residents supposed to get food, or go to work?
|
|
>>Just a few questions I'd like the answers to.>>
As the test was conducted, as I clearly stated, in the early 1990s, it's difficult to remember the exact details of the testing, but the RAC being involved seems to ring a bell.
Those were the days when the Internet was still a twinkle in most computer system owners' eyes, so finding out the exact test details would not be that easy.
It was only in the later part of the last decade that manufacturers' Press Relations departments began to use floppies, CD-ROMs and, even later, websites to provide digitally based information as well as on sheets of A4.
However, the tests attracted considerable publicity at the time and, as Saab has continued to gradually improve its Tionic systems, it can only be presumed that similar tests today may well prove even more satisfactory.
|
|
Of course engines are much cleaner than they were, but I doubt many chemists would agree that taking some air and combining hydrocarbons with it can ever leave you with cleaner air overall. As with many of these things I think it's smoke and mirrors: clever selection of the target chemicals (what's considered bad, and what ok?) and (I suspect) measuring the gases under different conditions. For example, measuring the ambient air at average temperatures (say 15 deg C) and then at exhaust pipe temperatures will result in different concentrations of impurities for a given volume of air assuming the pressure stays the same. I'll bet the exhaust gases were measured at a much higher temperature than the ambient air. Just guessing of course, but this is all about marketing after all. If petrol engines could be used to clean air we'd be attaching exhaust pipes to airconditioning units and my eyes wouldn't hurt when I visit London or LA.
|
I'll bet the exhaust gases were measured at a much higher temperature than the ambient air.>>
As far as I remember the tests were carried out on the road. Naturally the exhaust gases would be at a higher temperature than the ambient air.
Why be so pessimistic? At least car manufacturers have been working on cleaning up exhaust emissions for some considerable time now and the vastly reduced levels indicate a considerable measure of success.
It's only the politically correct and the do-gooders contriving to have our cars perceived as evil monsters destroying the world, that makes those unaware of these vast improvements blaming cars for all the world's ills.
Buses, trucks, planes, ships and power stations (especially poorly maintained diesel powered buses and trucks), along with the horrendous pollution from some third world countries, contribute far more unwanted emissions overall.
|
when I visit London or LA.>>
LA? Considering that California has the most strict pollution control laws/rules in the world - you virtually can't even have a cigarette anywhere - I'm surprised at that....
|
> At least 10 years ago Saab proved that its Trionic system actually produced cleaner air from the exhaust than taken in from the London atmosphere.<
No science required here I think.
Next backroom poll: Would you prefer to stand in a closed room full of London air, or a closed room full of Trionic system exhaust gases?
i.e who wants to be naturally deselected.
Motorists have only motors in common, so diverse are they. That is just not enough to bring a nation of individuals together because all to often the topic (even if clear cut) will be high-jacked for political purposes , everyone will smell that and walk away. In any case, it?s a world wide problem.
There is something that industry can and should do right now, and that is encourage people to work from home where possible and if required. That needs a change of mindset on having a work place, will have insurance, working hours and other implications but it can be done. The commute could be halved.
|
|
The analogy with being indoors is irrelevant as the situation would not arise.
|
>> when I visit London or LA.>> LA? Considering that California has the most strict pollution control laws/rules in the world - you virtually can't even have a cigarette anywhere - I'm surprised at that....
LA had the reputation for the worst pollution from vehicles of any city in the USA. The huge number of vehicles on the road and the geographic layout combined to give a virtually permanent smog.
"Situated in a basin surrounded by mountains and sea, wind speeds are low on average due to frequent temperature inversions = pollutants do not readily dispense. Breeze just cause trapped pollutants to be circulated around the basin. Plenty of sunshine causes photochemical reactions such as ozone formation."
It was largely the plight of LA that drove the introduction of the very strict pollution laws in California.
I haven't been for some years now but from the hills around LA you could always see the yellow cloud over the San Fernando valley. I am going again next month so it will be interesting to see if there is any improvement.
|
I'm not pessimistic about this Stuart--internal combustion engines are far cleaner than they used to be and will get cleaner. But that's partly because cleaning up emissions is the only target the car industry reasonably can follow if they want to be seen to be doing something; anything else means fewer car sales and poorer results for share holders. Hence they play up their achievement and play down the inherent limitations of the technology. They'll continue to do that until legislation combined with competition forces change and then they'll go as far as they have to and no further--that's business. Great strides have been made, but reducing tailpipe emissions is not the whole answer I'm afraid.
As for LA, well I ve been there a few times in recent years and it varies depending on the weather. I'm a country bumpkin so maybe I notice bad air more than hardened urban dwellers, but I usually find it pretty bad for the first day or so--must be rough on asthmatics. The reasons are partly geographical as Cardew said, plus the area of the LA conurbation is roughly the same size as the island of Eire, so you're never out of it. We're also talking about a lot of cars in California: last time I drove into San Francisco from the north (a couple of years ago now) I sat in a crawling jam that was 120 miles long, the equivalent of a jam from the northern end of the M5 right into central London. We don't have a problem by those standards.
|
my eyes wouldn't hurt when I visit London or LA
>>
its the clean air that is hurting your eyes! :: ;-) ::
seriously though, as i said in another thread, even if britain cut down its use of oil to zero, it would make virtually no impact on the world climate or oil resources.
see
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=24...5
|
|
Is SAAB's press release a reliable and unbiased source for this information?
"When scientists from the Government's Warren Spring environmental research laboratory at Stevenage drove a Saab through the City of London,..."
(my emphasis)
Looks kosher enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
