|
Ive had enough of us having to 'defend' the car against the anti-car lobby. Yes the car is still useful. I'd even stretch to still essential for most of us and these are things the anti-motoring lobby Guardian reading car-hating cycling idealists dont seem to realise. Sorry if this sounds like another rant but there has been a heavy 'war on the motorist' so to speak and all bodies set up to supposedly promote public transport and improve it etc if you look through their material (Campaign for Better Transport springs to mind) 80% of their reading materials is about how we should 'get people out of their cars.' The sort of people who are delighted with any scheme which prevents people driving or parking in a certain place because they view cars as needless clutter which mess up their wonderful view.
The car is useful, it is still the best, most efficient, most versatile mode of transport available. You can go where you want, when you want, carry stuff with you, carry passengers, not wear yourself out or ruin your trousers, not catch death from cold or arrive at your destination covered in rain. I'd like to see all these car hating cyclists try and be an electrician, builder, plumber, or carry a weeks shop home from the supermarket, or as Bobbin said take things to the tip without a car. Cycling and using buses/trains limits you so heavily in your freedoms of what you can do, where you can go, when you can go there and what you can take with you/bring back. Theres alot of people out there now who hate the fact the car makes you independant, and view traffic as 'needless' (why do they think we're all on the road? for funsies? for the scenery?) but with over 30million of us soldiering on, on Britains roads despite the war to stop us, we're still here.
Motorists, commuters, car lovers among you, all join with me now and salute..THE MOTORCAR! Which will still be around for a damn long time to come i can assure you!
*walks off to land of hope and glory playing*
Edited by jamie745 on 30/07/2011 at 16:39
|
I'd like to see all these car hating cyclists try and be an electrician, builder, plumber
As a tradesman, thank you! I use my motorbike at the moment, with luggage and it just about works, but I do need a van. Insurance for a van is three times the price of my motorbike - which is about the same performance as an Impreza WRX, and has a couple of grands worth of mods.
Absolutely insane.
|
|
QUOTE:...""The car is useful, it is still the best, most efficient, most versatile mode of transport available. ""
I've recently made some long journeys and I've found travelling by train much more pleasant than driving on the motorway - particularly the M25. For one person travelling alone, it doesn't cost that much more either - £65 as opposed to £50 of diesel. Despite several train changes and waits, the journey time by rail was about the same as by road.
OK, there's always the risk of anti-social passengers on the train, but that's preferable to being closely tailgated by White Van Man in his Mercedes Sprinter at 70 mph on the M3 or similar.
QUOTE:...""Cycling and using buses/trains limits you so heavily in your freedoms of what you can do, where you can go, when you can go there and what you can take with you/bring back.""
Yes, but when you don't need to use the car the alternatives can sometimes be better. Like going to the corner shop for a jar of coffee - better to walk. Going virtually anywhere in London - Underground is better.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 02/08/2011 at 00:51
|
|
Ok for certain people the train may work fine for their needs, thats great, i wont deny that but nothing you've described there counters my argument of it being versatile. To transport you from place a to place b may mean the Train is best for you, but it doesnt mean it works for everyone, aforementioned White Van Man for example, why do you think self employed couriers, plumbers, builders, electricians etc dont use the bus or trains? Would you of been able to go to a supermarket and do a fortnights shop on your train and lug 16 bags back yourself? Would you of been able to travel somewhere where you wanted to go instead of when the train wanted to go there? What if you were disabled and cannot step on and off of buses, or stand on trains when theres no seating etc? What if you worked in a place not well served by such a method of transport or worked awkward times? What if you needed to be able to go somewhere not served by the bus/train at that moment at the drop of a hat with no pre-planning? Thats what i mean by public transport not being the answer for the vast majority of people, for the few who it works for thats great, more power to them. But my point is the constant attack on the motorcar and the motorist by road safety organisations, militant cycling groups, public transport campaigners etc, people who feel the car is needless clutter ruining the silence of their street, that its not required, that nobody needs it and that all motorists are ignorant baby killers are people who have a more blinkered view of life than the motorists they hurl the very same allegation at, are wrong in their approach. The sorts of people who say the roads arent for cars they're for all of us so pedestrians should have the right to walk in front of moving vehicles, they wouldnt swim in front of the QE2 and claim 'the water was here before boats' would they? Theres alot of anti-car propaganda which needs fighting.
Those Ford Transit ads calling it the backbone of Britain were right, everything you buy in a supermarket, everything you order off the internet, all the things you own, the carpet you walk on, the house you live in etc can all trace their roots back to motoring in one form or another, for it being the best mode of transport available. If for that trip you take the train is preferable then great, but for most trips, the car will still be best.
Edit (in response to edit)
Yes, but when you don't need to use the car the alternatives can sometimes be better. Like going to the corner shop for a jar of coffee - better to walk. Going virtually anywhere in London - Underground is better.
I agree, but you said 'when you dont need the car' but unfortunatley alot of the time you do, so ideas to do away with it are misguided and impractical. I dont use my car to go everywhere, i live 150 yards from a corner shop, if im popping up there i walk. Theres a post office opposite, i use that too, saves trying to park a big car (or any car for that matter) elsewhere. But if i have alot of parcels to take to a post office, that i couldnt carry them i'd load up the car and drive to a different post office which i could park at, for example. Ive not been in London very much but the small amount i have done i really dont like it as a City, i try and avoid ever having to get too close to London if i can help it. So i cannot speak from much experience of the underground, but people who live in London, read the Guardian and drink that 'good bacteria' are the ones who tell the rest of the country we dont need cars, well you're well served by public transport in London but for the rest of us thats not so much the case.
Edited by jamie745 on 02/08/2011 at 01:08
|
|
Well said Jamie. Always the metro typres who knit their own tofu who are telling the rest of the country how to live. Well imo electric cars may be fine for them but are utterly useless for me.
|
|
Unless you want to spend most of your day cycling or walking long distances then a car is essential where we live in the sticks. No trains, very infrequent bus service and our nearest supermarket is twelve miles away. My wifes commute to work at the Hospital is a 56 mile round trip. Only possible by car.
|
|
|
|
I've recently made some long journeys and I've found travelling by train much more pleasant ................ For one person travelling alone, it doesn't cost that much more either - £65 as opposed to £50 of diesel.
That's because you are not paying the true price. If train passengers had to pay the true cost of their tickets we would rapidly see the lines converted to roads. Car passengers subsidise trains as some of the motoring taxes are vired to pay for stupid projects like the West coast line....main beneficiaries are those who claim their tickets on expenses.
If railways did not exist and someone came along with the daft idea of ..'hey, let's put down some iron rails about 5ft apart and run them from one 'station' to another, and then string miles of copper wire overhead, and then put big coaches with electric motors in ...and see if anyone will pay what it'll cost to travel in them......' they'd be thought mad.
|
|
No railway network has ever made a profit.
I've got an even better idea. Since high speed worked so well for hovercraft and concorde, let's spend £30+ billion building an ultra high speed railway. Given the relatively short distance between stops, the high speed element will shave at least 748 ms off the Edinburgh to london journey time...
|
No railway network has ever made a profit.
Nonsense! They made millions for the railway barons of the US and major shareholders. Like canals 100yrs earler, they were developed using venture capital.
Admittedly, progress - e.g. Channel tunnel or big dams, which serve everyone, - cannot be driven by pure 'capitalism' as such projects will never provide a return for the initial investors but the service benefit of railways arguably now exceeds their vast expense. Apart from their usefulness for heavy bulky freight from specific point a to point b [e.g.dock to power station] they are a superb example of benefiting a small section of the middle classes from the taxes of everyone. In terms of numbers of people moved per day per acre they are an utter waste of space compared to the average A or M road.
|
|
I think most railway networks rely on government subsidy to stay solvent. Individual lines can of course be profitable, but not the whole netwok.
Railways were profitable when there was no competition from the road.
|
|
Research from the Taxpayers Alliance last year showed the Treasury gained around 4p for every mile travelled by car but lost 21p per mile travelled by Train. I cant remember the figure for bus off the top of my head but i believe it was around a 5p per mile loss for the Treasury. Not entirely sure on the mechanics of how it was worked out but its interesting none the less.
Edited by jamie745 on 05/08/2011 at 15:14
|
|
I wouldn't trust anything from the Taxpayers' Alliance, they might claim to be a "grassroots" campaign but they're really a right-wing pressure group funded by business.
|
I wouldn't trust anything from the Taxpayers' Alliance, they might claim to be a "grassroots" campaign but they're really a right-wing pressure group funded by business.
To be honest the Taxpayers Alliance's accounts show somewhat modest sums of money so i doubt they're bankrolled by anybody with significant weight. They're certainly not raking it in from the conglomerates i can assure you.
But thats not even relevant, the report im referring to used the Department for Transports own figures. If you dismiss everything because its 'funded by business' or because of who runs something you'd never believe anything. Most campaign groups have an agenda of some sort, or they wouldnt have anything to campaign on, obviously. Theres plenty of campaign groups funded by the Government themselves with the interest of peddling misleading facts to support any ill-advised idea the Government has. And as such if those campaign groups stop supporting a certain idea, their funding gets removed. That sort of thing has to stop.
The stats about revenue per mile by each form of transport probably does add up if you think about it, and it would tie in to the various pro-bus anti-car movements the previous Government (and now local councils with too much power) funded as a means to put up taxes on motorists to pay for non-profitable public transport ventures.
|
|
"To be honest the Taxpayers Alliance's accounts show somewhat modest sums of money so i doubt they're bankrolled by anybody with significant weight."
The TPA gets £1 million a year to play with plus free use of a suite of offices in Westminster worth £100,000 pa. Amongst their donors: Sir Anthony Bamford (of JCB fame), Malcolm MacAlpine, Sir John Craven and Sir Rocco Forte. Support their drive for lower taxes if you want but don't get taken in by any talk of it being a "grassroots" movement. It's about getting a better deal for business even at the expense of ordinary folk like you and me.
|
|
|
The fact no railway operator records profits vindicates the decision taken 20 years ago to get them off the public's payroll but you're right if someone came up with the idea of trains now people would say its mad. Just the same as if someone today floated the idea of making a big metal box which people sit in, with a steering wheel in front of them, full of flammable liquid which explodes in an engine and propels you along at high speed it would never be allowed on health and safety grounds.
|
|
QUOTE:..""That's because you are not paying the true price. If train passengers had to pay the true cost of their tickets we would rapidly see the lines converted to roads. ""
If all the railways were closed, that would lead to lots more cars on the roads. Everybody, I would have thought, except for car manufacturers, would like to see less cars on the roads - even petrolheads would welcome emptier roads.
I suppose it depends where oune gets statistics from, but I've certainly heard it said that motorists don't pay the full costs of providing a road network, they're subsidised by council taxpayers - OK, they're often the same people.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 03/08/2011 at 17:20
|
|
What i want to see is a vastly improved road network with the aim of reducing congestion, pulling us out of the dark ages and up to the level of vastly superior European nations so as if there were more cars, they could move around freely and more efficiently and perception of 'how many cars on the road' would change greatly. If the roads could handle the traffic levels, we wouldnt be spouting on about wanting less cars on the road. This tactic of 'force cars off the road so as we dont have to admit our failings of road building' is not the right approach. The European nations like the Netherlands who's public transport system and culture of cycling we keep being told we should attempt to mimic, have four times more motorway length per square mile of land than Britain does (and before anybody says it, the Netherlands isnt covered in concrete, tarmac with no room for greenery, so the argument of having no space to build more roads is a non-starter, no money to do it is a different issue) yet we seem to show no interest in improving our roads to their level at the same time. Very strange.
And right now the railways carry 6% of the commute of Britain, and it buckles under that and has to close on a hot day because power lines droop so the flip side should be if you force people out of their cars the railway couldnt cope either.
Edit: And before anybody says it, these are not ideas of mine purely aimed at wanting the car to flourish, obviously i love cars but whats so often lost in anti-car media is how a better road system benefits ALL types of road users. Cyclists, Buses, Motorcyclists etc. Nobody would miss out by sensible upgrades.
Edited by jamie745 on 03/08/2011 at 17:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a tradesman, thank you! I use my motorbike at the moment, with luggage and it just about works, but I do need a van. Insurance for a van is three times the price of my motorbike - which is about the same performance as an Impreza WRX, and has a couple of grands worth of mods.
Absolutely insane.
Some may have mentioned this already and perhaps you've already thought of it so i apologise if im suggesting something you've already looked into but what about an estate car? Even for business insurance a car will typically be less than a van, and if you could bare selling the bike to pay for it you could be making a good fiscal decision.
Edited by jamie745 on 03/08/2011 at 18:06
|
Some may have mentioned this already and perhaps you've already thought of it so i apologise if im suggesting something you've already looked into but what about an estate car? Even for business insurance a car will typically be less than a van, and if you could bare selling the bike to pay for it you could be making a good fiscal decision.
I have thought about it, or a little Transit Connect, but I really need a full size van. :o(
|
|
I intend to drive cars for as long as i can,i enjoy it,the trouble with public transport is its full of other people.
|
|
|
I have thought about it, or a little Transit Connect, but I really need a full size van. :o(
What about a Renault Scenic!? Thats Van-Like! Kind of!
How much are you getting quoted for van insurance anyway if i may ask?
|
What about a Renault Scenic!? Thats Van-Like! Kind of!
How much are you getting quoted for van insurance anyway if i may ask?
It might yet come to buying an MPV and ripping the seats out!
Quotes of about £800 TPFT on a Toyota Hiace worth £1500 - £2000
|
|
Ive seen much worse quotes than that mate. Have you run quotes for an estate car on business use? Things like Pug 406 HDi's and Mondeo estates TDCi's etc are all going pretty cheap now even for pretty decent examples. Surely it'd be better than a bike! :)
|
Ive seen much worse quotes than that mate. Have you run quotes for an estate car on business use? Things like Pug 406 HDi's and Mondeo estates TDCi's etc are all going pretty cheap now even for pretty decent examples. Surely it'd be better than a bike! :)
Oh yeah, a Micra would be better :-D but if I'm buying a vehicle it might as well be one that will suit my line of work immediately! I won't buy a car too, I will just have the van for if I need it, and use the bike the rest of the time anyway.
|
|
Is the bike worth much? Or is selling that a strict non-option?
|
Is the bike worth much? Or is selling that a strict non-option?
\are we not getting a bit away from the original post? I drove from west wales to london today, door to door, 207 miles, 2 of us, in 3 hours 15 minutes. train would take longer, cost more, then need to lug stuff fromm paddington to baker street then another train to rickmansworth then lug stuff from the staion another 500 yards home. cost by car 207 miles @ 25p a mile about £52 for both of us and lots of stuff. train at least double each + taxi in london between paddington and marylebone + £11 each for 6 zone pass.
whatever the car haters say, car for me.
Edited by OldRoverboy on 05/08/2011 at 17:31
|
207 miles, 2 of us, in 3 hours 15 minutes. train would take longer, cost more, then need to lug stuff fromm paddington to baker street then another train to rickmansworth then lug stuff from the staion another 500 yards home. cost by car 207 miles @ 25p a mile about £52 for both of us and lots of stuff. train at least double each + taxi in london between paddington and marylebone + £11 each for 6 zone pass.
train £74 each and 7 hours travelling and railway prices for drinks in paper cups and cardboard sandwiches!
whatever the car haters say, car for me.
To add to
|
|
Thanks OldRoverboy, your post illustrates very well why the car is still the best form of transport for most people. It also illustrates why the last decade of anti-car propaganda based on questionable mangled statistics by biased organisations with a clear agenda has been counter productive for the UK economy. What made it worse was the previous Government embraced it so clearly, which was bizarre as 'New' Labour removed itself from many of its old left-wing platforms and took on a more common sense approach on many things yet not in the area of Transport.
Our drivers are some of the most heavily taxed and penalised in the world, i cant imagine all of Britains 33million motorists are pleased with it, but the apathy to ever stand up and do anything about it is quite alarming. Have we all just given up? Your title of this thread said alot 'in defence of the car' why should we be defending it? Who are we defending it from and on what grounds do we need to? I personally am sick of having to justify the existance of the motorcar.
Edited by jamie745 on 05/08/2011 at 20:11
|
|
Jamie's Tax Alliance figures entirely support my argument - they are indeed an astounding illustration of the generosity of the taxpayer and the consumer [many rail travellers have their tickets paid for by companies whose services and commodities we pay for out of taxed income.]
I had to go to Cardiff from the East Midlands recently, for one night. Someone else was paying my travel expenses, so I thought I would go by train - I love railways and enjoy rail travel. But - no direct line, best part of four hours just to and from places [stations] I did not want to go to and would have to pay to get to and from. Ticket around £100 return, much more first class [which I usually use on the rare occasion I entrain and which would have been reimbursed without question].
Car? Less than 2.5hrs total travel time, 260 miles return, reimbursed 40something p per mile.
No brainer - especially as was able to take wife at no extra charge.
This scenario must be widespread and typical - although if I was an employee and the travel was counted as part of my working week, I would probably have taken the train!
|
|
This is true! What I can't understand is that they'll boast about £15 each way tickets from manchester to London if you book four Sundays in advance, but not before the first full moon after Easter and travel after 10.04 am but before 13:46pm etc etc. But if you rock up on the day, they'll relieve you of £150 or more. Now I know rush hour services are in greater demand but what is the sense in ripping off one passenger to subsidise another? Wouldn't it make more sense to charge both passengers a fair rate? And why is a return only 47 pence more than a single? Obviously anything on rails can't be as flexible as a car, but they could get rid of the ridiculous pricing structure.
|
........., but they could get rid of the ridiculous pricing structure.
Absolutely. During the last ten years I have been fortunate to enjoy several short breaks visiting European cities and travelling between them, often by train. Without exception their ticketing arrangements are far more sensible and user-friendly than the UK. The trains were usually better, too. Although enjoyable, it has actually been rather disappointing to make comparisons. [comparing Stuttgart to Coventry is particularly disappointing......although the motoring and bike/bicycle museums around Coventry are very interesting]
|
|
Its because they keep taxing the motorist in order to pump money into such ridiculous non viable rail ventures. They bang on about adding more lines etc but you pay an extra premium for travelling on the day if you use a train. If i decide at 9am i need to use my car at 9.15 it doesnt charge me double for not booking does it? Thats why the rail system is overpriced and impractical and fails to offer the flexibility of the car. But because politicians and councils are blind to this fact they just keep taking money off of the motorist to plunge into such ridiculous schemes which dont work.
|
Is the bike worth much? Or is selling that a strict non-option?
Wash your mouth out young man! :-P
|
|
I mustve said something filthy!
|
I am fully in the car camp here. It is essential for me and my wife to use our cars and public transport just isn't a viable option. The thing is though if the government were serious about getting us out of our cars they would put a decent infrastructure in place. Taking the Netherlands as an example they have fantastic facilities for bikes and public transport. that isn't to suggest that they don't drive cars , just they have a viable alternative. the sad reality of the matter is that the government make far to much money out of the motorist to really want us all to get on bikes and buses.
Diggresing slightly from the original thread the comments about the transit being the back of Britain, I have no issue with that at all, But it does annoy me how the general public have no idea how the goods got to the transit van. 95% of all goods arriving in Britain come via sea yet most people's perception of a ship when asked is a cruise ship or oil tanker. Whilst transits keep Britain moving they wouldn't be there without the ships bringing the goods in, or incidentally in the case of so e vans , the vans themselves! Rant over!!!
|
|
Britain has the sixth busiest Port in Europe and its not a million miles from where i live so im fully aware of the volume of goods brought into the country by sea.
The Netherland is a terrific example for many reasons. For too many years here in Britain we've let Government policy be dictated by the odd Nimby, Green campaigner and other very narrow minded but noisy minority. We're told building extra roads will mean more people driving cars. We're told higher speed limits means more deaths (Germany has unrestricted dual carraigeways yet has no more/less fatalities than a typical British A Road) and various other one-size-fits-all nonsense by people with a single agenda - to stop us driving.
The Netherlands, whilst having good public transport and cycling facilities etc also has four times more motorway per square mile of land to what Britain has. In fact no matter which mathematical formula you use to calculate roadspace in Britain compared to other European nations we come out pretty near the bottom, THAT is why theres severe congestion. But the 'tax the motorist to get them out of their cars under the guise of saving the planet' is a convenient method of not having to admit our road network needs £40billion of improvements just to clear the backlog from Thatcher's 'Roads for Prosperity' plans which never got built.
Theres alot of people out there who hate progress, hate individual freedom and like to blame the car for all ills in the World, unfortunately our last Government listened to these people too much. The car is blamed for everything from obesity to terrorism. It is now politically incorrect to drive a car, the default answer for everything has to be 'cycle or public transport' because if it isnt you're obviously in the pay of Oil companies *rolls eyes* What Guardian readers dont get is Public Transport can never be as good as the car, and for most people its not viable. Only people with no life would say otherwise. Ive met people who dont drive, say they dont need to, then they learn, then find it impossible to go back to buses. Investing in Public Transport isnt financially viable for the Government, they wont make their investment back so its pointless but at the same time they need to keep up the anti-car message or else very loud villagers will complain so they just keep cashing in on the motorist to subsidise ridiculous Busways (see Cambridgeshire). The Anti car movement is based out of idealism rather than realism.
Even the pollution argument doesnt wash. Even if you believe the frankly suspect UN's climate change figures they state the UK is responsible for less than 2% of the Worlds manmade co2 emissions, and only 20% of that is from road travel. Yet its the motorist who coughs up £45billion to the treasury every year whilst Airline fuel still goes exempt from fuel duty and VAT. Independant scientific investigations has shown Buses are more polluting than cars, especially with their outputs of PM10's of which it kicks out SEVENTYFIVE times more than a typical small petrol car per km travelled, yet to 'combat air pollution' cities ban cars and put more buses on instead. Proving its nothing to do with science, its all about car hate. Cars have gotten cleaner over the years whilst public transport's been let off the hook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
