# Jeremy Clarkson Anti-Green Stunt



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

In a "hilarious" move to parody the Greenpeace protest at Land Rover. Jeremy Clarkson & friends chained themselves to a bus in Hammersmith.


> Bystanders say Clarkson and his co-presenters Richard Hammond and James May shouted at people for 25 minutes about ''gas-guzzling monsters'' before police arrived at 7pm.
> 
> Graham Goodwin, a spokesman for Transport for London (TfL) said: "He caused considerable disruption in one of our busiest bus stations, at one of the busiest times of the day. They were there without authorisation, trespassing in a private-access area and putting themselves and our staff at risk.''
> 
> He added that buses emitted 79 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre compared with 145 grams for a saloon car. ''If there's a point to be made here, it's clearly not a serious way for a film crew funded by the licence fee to inconvenience the public.''


It's to be shown on Top Gear tommorow apparently ...

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/story.jsp?story=640091

The man is just becoming a pathetic parody of himself. Tosser.


----------



## Griff (May 21, 2005)

I love cars, and I love watching Top Gear, but Clarkson's continued attack of Green issues is becoming tiresome. Just drive Astons & Porsches round tracks Jeremy, and fuck all this Green bashing bollocks. Surely the man cannot condone driving huge 4x4s on school runs in London?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> In a "hilarious" move to parody the Greenpeace protest at Land Rover. Jeremy Clarkson & friends chained themselves to a bus in Hammersmith.
> It's to be shown on Top Gear tommorow apparently ...
> 
> http://news.independent.co.uk/media/story.jsp?story=640091
> ...




A bit like the tossers who chain themselves to Land Rovers then?

So, a saloon car with two people in is greener than a bus. Rather shows the gross ignorance and bias of the anti-car fraternity.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Top Gear used to be quite a good programme but there seems to be a lot of sneering environmental bashing, particularly from Clarkson. I remember a Top Gear from last year I think where he said "why should poor people get their own lane" when talking about bus lanes.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> So, a saloon car with two people in is greener than a bus. Rather shows the gross ignorance and bias of the anti-car fraternity.


Not if the bus is carrying more than two people. I'm not an expert but I think that happens quite a lot ...


----------



## X-77 (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> Top Gear used to be quite a good programme but there seems to be a lot of sneering environmental bashing, particularly from Clarkson. I remember a Top Gear from last year I think where he said "why should poor people get their own lane" when talking about bus lanes.


wow, what an ignorant prize tosser this man sounds!


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> Not if the bus is carrying more than two people. I'm not an expert but I think that happens quite a lot ...




Read your own post. Per passenger kilometer is the important fact.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Read your own post. Per passenger kilometer is the important fact.


Good point and so the saloon car stat is per passenger too ... err ... still makes the bus better doesn't it!


----------



## Matt S (May 21, 2005)

Yes, and one assumes that the figures are a comparison of both vehicles 
fully loaded. So, no, an average bus doesn't pollute more than a saloon car with two people in it. In fact, an average bus that is only 50% full would still pollute far less per passenger than a saloon car with two passengers (50% full).

Matt


----------



## Matt S (May 21, 2005)

P.S. Jeremy Clarkson is an absolute tosser.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> A bit like the tossers who chain themselves to Land Rovers then?
> 
> So, a saloon car with two people in is greener than a bus. Rather shows the gross ignorance and bias of the anti-car fraternity.



How is a saloon car greener than a bus?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Read your own post. Per passenger kilometer is the important fact.


And it should be an imprisonable offence for someone british to use american spellings   

Its kilometre. Spellingist!


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> How is a saloon car greener than a bus?



ever seen a bus with only one or two people on?


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2005)

Why not give emissions figures for the ol' Chelsea tractors, given that Clarkson's stunt was inspired by the Land Rover protest?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> ever seen a bus with only one or two people on?



Yes, but on average...


----------



## William of Walworth (May 21, 2005)

Matt S said:
			
		

> P.S. Jeremy Clarkson is an absolute tosser.



I'll give him the Isambard Kindom Brunel programme as a minor element of defence against that ... but in every other way, spot on ...


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Yes, but on average...



on average buses around my way are empty so you can see where I am coming from.



> 79 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre



for a full bus mind ya, buses are extremely ineficient at burning fuel, are poorly maintained etc etc wheras cars especially the newer diesels are extremely efficient and almost every one is well maintained.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> for a full bus mind ya, buses are extremely ineficient at burning fuel, are poorly maintained etc etc wheras cars especially the newer diesels are extremely efficient and almost every one is well maintained.


There's shit loads more cars than buses - therefore they contribute more as a group than buses.


----------



## Stigmata (May 21, 2005)

Six people each driving a car pollute more than six people on one bus.


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> Six people each driving a car pollute more than six people on one bus.




proof please


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> proof please


In the first post on this thread:

(79 x 6) < (145 x 6)


----------



## Stigmata (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> In the first post on this thread:
> 
> (79 x 6) < (145 x 6)



Also numerous cars increase the incidence of traffic jams, and the idle traffic will pollute.


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> In the first post on this thread:
> 
> (79 x 6) < (145 x 6)



sorry but that 79 figure is got by having the bus full, not by having 6 people on it as I previously stated

back to school


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 21, 2005)

Sorry, but that's funny


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> sorry but that 79 figure is got by having the bus full


proof please


----------



## EastEnder (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> sorry but that 79 figure is got by having the bus full, not by having 6 people on it as I previously stated
> 
> back to school


Just a wild thought here - maybe if more people got out of their cars and used the bus, that figure could be achieved.

It's hardly going to happen with millions of people driving around in single occupancy cars - which is what most commuters in London seem to do.


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> proof please



huge pdf mind 

and also remember that is for new engines, most buses are poorly maintained and have less efficient engines


----------



## snadge (May 21, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Just a wild thought here - maybe if more people got out of their cars and used the bus, that figure could be achieved.
> 
> It's hardly going to happen with millions of people driving around in single occupancy cars - which is what most commuters in London seem to do.



I agree, also the services should be improved, where I live if I want to go to my friends house there is one bus a day


----------



## EastEnder (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> In the first post on this thread:
> 
> (79 x 6) < (145 x 6)


It's more than that - "He added that buses emitted 79 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre compared with 145 grams for a saloon car."

79gms/passenger/km compared to 145gms/passenger/km.

Presumably the figures are based on both forms of transport being used in their most efficient form, i.e. full.

So whilst you'd need a full bus to achieve the figure, you'd also need a full car to do the same.

How many people take 4 passengers to work in their car? Not many. So the average car driving commuter is most likely only getting one fifth of that efficiency.

A London double decker bus can carry at least 80 people: 80*79 = 6320 gms/km. A family saloon car can carry 5 people: 5*145 = 725 gms/km.

Even a quarter full bus, carrying 20 people is over twice as efficient per passenger/km than a car with one person in it: 6320/20 = 316

A bus would need 8 or fewer people on board to be less efficient than a 1 person carrying car.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> huge pdf mind
> 
> and also remember that is for new engines, most buses are poorly maintained and have less efficient engines


That PDF doesn't appear to have that proof in it. Is there a particular page you had in mind?


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Need I say more? 

Slapping him makes me very happy actually. Now, where's me hoody.......


----------



## EastEnder (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> I agree, also the services should be improved, where I live if I want to go to my friends house there is one bus a day


The argument about buses being more efficient than cars only holds water in areas where there are lots of buses. I wouldn't moan at someone living in the wilds of Scotland for driving a car.

The anti-4x4 movement (which sparked this whole debate off) are usually referring to townies driving great big cars to work or taking the kids to school - in places where there are indeed lots of buses.

London is probably the worst of the lot - here it's unforgivable.


----------



## Griff (May 21, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> The anti-4x4 movement (which sparked this whole debate off) are usually referring to townies driving great big cars to work or taking the kids to school - in places where there are indeed lots of buses.
> 
> London is probably the worst of the lot - here it's unforgivable.



When I worked in SW London and had to get off at South Kensington tube, the amount of Range Rovers, Ceyannes, Jeeps, Volvos, Tourags etc that you'd see parked next to each other and being driven by women with one brat off to school was sickening.   

What the fuck is wrong with these people?


----------



## Dubversion (May 21, 2005)

i do think that the pro-car lobby (as if people trying to make the roads less mental are therefore intrinsically 'anti'-car  ) need to bear in mind that there HAVE to be distinctions made between London (and i guess Birmingham, Manchester etc) and other areas. if i lived in a small town or the suburbs or the country, i'd almost certainly have a car. whether i'd feel i'd need a 4x4 or SUV is another matter mind.

but in London, depending on how polarised your opinion is and whether it's a part of your employment, using a car veers from a luxury to sheer bloody selfishness, a Range Rover doubly so... so when the pro car mob start feeling all persecuted by anti-car activity in the capital they really need to get a sense of perspective


----------



## El Jugador (May 21, 2005)

It was recently suggested to that arrogant bullying prick Clarkson, that a major contribution to Rover's recent demise was played by his needlessly slagging off their cars on his programme for the past ten years (he seemed to be under the illusion that accusing them of being uncool, boring and for grandads somehow makes himself less so) ...Perhaps he's now trying to do the same to environmentalism.

I reckon it would be poetic justice if some fucker ran him over - ideally that odious mini-me version of him (wotsisname, the one who does the brainless yet utterly patronising hosting of that historic battle show).

And I bet he's a shit trannie too.


----------



## golightly (May 21, 2005)

El Jugador said:
			
		

> And I bet he's a shit trannie too.



Is Clarkson a trannie?


----------



## pinkmonkey (May 21, 2005)

Griff said:
			
		

> When I worked in SW London and had to get off at South Kensington tube, the amount of Range Rovers, Ceyannes, Jeeps, Volvos, Tourags etc that you'd see parked next to each other and being driven by women with one brat off to school was sickening.
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these people?



One of my friends recently had a baby and became friendly with a woman in her street who was also pregnant because they met at baby classes.

This woman sold her little hatchback and bought a massive landrover the minute she dropped, then moaned for months afterwards how she didn't really want to go back to work after having her sprog, but was going to have to do so to afford the repayments on the loan for her Chelsea Tractor.


----------



## golightly (May 21, 2005)

Is this because some people think that if they take their kids out in some huge beast of a car they're better protected if they have a prang?


----------



## Dubversion (May 21, 2005)

partly that, i think, and also about carrying pushchairs and toys and all the over nonsense that sprogs involve


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> Is this because some people think that if they take their kids out in some huge beast of a car they're better protected if they have a prang?



Not if they crash into someone else taking their kids out in some huge beast of a car because they think they're better protected if they have a prang. Where will it all end!!?


----------



## golightly (May 21, 2005)

obvious really


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Hey, careful now! You'll have Peebs using up his year's supply of Kleenex in 10 seconds flat.


----------



## EastEnder (May 21, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> obvious really


Are you the one riding the gun?


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> Are you the one riding the gun?


Isn't that Jeremy Clarkson?


----------



## pinkmonkey (May 21, 2005)

Some of them have feck all room inside though - my ex husbands sister bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee when she dropped her sprog - it was so small and cramped inside it was like a mini - and it drank petrol.  Thankfully they saw sense and sold it and bought an estate car instead.


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> obvious really



That's been painted all over in black recently


----------



## golightly (May 21, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> That's been painted all over in black recently




Yeah I noticed.  I'm hoping it's just an undercoat.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> Good point and so the saloon car stat is per passenger too ... err ... still makes the bus better doesn't it!



No, the car is per car. That is the CO2 emission figure for my car.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

EastEnder said:
			
		

> It's more than that - "He added that buses emitted 79 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre compared with 145 grams for a saloon car."
> 
> 79gms/passenger/km compared to 145gms/passenger/km.
> 
> ...




145 is a typical figure for a CAR, not per passenger.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Yes, and one assumes that the figures are a comparison of both vehicles
> fully loaded. So, no, an average bus doesn't pollute more than a saloon car with two people in it. In fact, an average bus that is only 50% full would still pollute far less per passenger than a saloon car with two passengers (50% full).
> 
> Matt




Wrong. Check car CO2 emissions.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> And it should be an imprisonable offence for someone british to use american spellings
> 
> Its kilometre. Spellingist!



Sorry, amended from miles as I was scooting back to work after lunch.


----------



## golightly (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> 145 is a typical figure for a CAR, not per passenger.



Is that a fully laden car or just with a driver?


----------



## girasol (May 21, 2005)

Griff said:
			
		

> When I worked in SW London and had to get off at South Kensington tube, the amount of Range Rovers, Ceyannes, Jeeps, Volvos, Tourags etc that you'd see parked next to each other and being driven by women with one brat off to school was sickening.
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these people?



The huge, unecessary, 4x4s driving around town are my pet hate.  What is the point of having those massive fucking things in London???  Most of the streets are too narrow anyway.  

I hate them so much that whenever I'm out with my son and we see one of them, he gets on his little soap box and starts having a go at them too!  He's heard me slag them off so many times that now it's second nature to him.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

While we're on the subject of 4x4s ... this is a great idea: http://www.wastemonsters.org.uk/


----------



## girasol (May 21, 2005)

Oh, I like that, I think I'll be issuing some of those!


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Stigmata said:
			
		

> Six people each driving a car pollute more than six people on one bus.



Only marginally.

Looking more at this has made me realise what lieing cunts environmtal fascists are.

  Ranking
	Make
	Model 	
Engine
Capacity
cc

Trans-
mission

CO2
(g/km)

Fuel
Consumption
(mpg)

Fuel cost
of driving
12000 miles
1 	HONDA 	Insight 	995 	5MT 	80 	83.1 	525
2 	TOYOTA 	Prius 	1497 	E-CVT 	104 	65.7 	664
3 	PEUGEOT 	107 	998 	M5 	109 	61.3 	712
4 	TOYOTA 	Aygo 	998 	Multi5 	109 	61.4 	711
5 	SMART 	City Coupé Hatchback 	698 	SM6 	113 	60.1 	726
6 	DAIHATSU 	Charade 	989 	M5 	114 	58.9 	741
7 	VAUXHALL 	Corsa 	998 	MTA 	115 	58.8 	742
8 	SMART 	Roadster 	698 	A6 	116 	57.6 	758
9 	HONDA 	Civic IMA 	1339 	5MT 	116 	57.6 	758
10 	DAIHATSU 	Sirion 	998 	M5 	118 	56.5 	772


The third figure is CO2 emission level.

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/tables.asp#petrol


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> Is that a fully laden car or just with a driver?




Doesn't say, but it doesn't make a lot of odds, I get much the same loaded with all our camping gear etc on holiday as I do at home with just me. Foot weight is more important than load.


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato, what would you do to reduce CO2 emissions and/or congestion if you're so pro-car and environmentalists are "fascists"?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> huge pdf mind
> 
> and also remember that is for new engines, most buses are poorly maintained and have less efficient engines




Most of the buses with us shove out horrible black smoke, the police don't seem to bother them though.


----------



## El Jugador (May 21, 2005)

golightly said:
			
		

> Is that a fully laden car or just with a driver?


Good question. Looking to Magnese's original quote from the Independent:



			
				Graham Goodwin a spokesman for Transport for London said:
			
		

> ...buses emitted 79 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre *compared with* 145 grams for a saloon car...


So if what Sasaferrato says about his car's emissions is true, I think some confusion may have arisen through Graham Goodwin of TfL comparing things that are not like-for-like and thus are not actually comparable - I doubt if he is doing his cause many favours by ignorantly or deliberately misusing stats in this way - though one could argue that in this day and age stats are there for misusing and misleading and little else.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> Sasaferrato, what would you do to reduce CO2 emissions and/or congestion if you're so pro-car and environmentalists are "fascists"?



Nothing. Why would you want to? CO2 is not harmful to man nor beast, you breathe it out.


----------



## Matt S (May 21, 2005)

Surely original article is clearly comparing like with like - the figures *per passenger* for buses compared to the figures *per passenger* for a saloon car. Otherwise the comparison would be meaningless?

On the other hand, lazy journalists making up statistics wouldn't be the biggest shock in the known universe....

Matt


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Nothing. Why would you want to? CO2 is not harmful to man nor beast, you breathe it out.


 So you're quite happy for unlimited growth in car usage throughout the world?


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Only marginally.
> 
> Looking more at this has made me realise what lieing cunts environmtal fascists are.
> 
> ...




Er, that's a list of the ten best cars for low CO2 emission levels - search for a few common saloon vehicles here and you'll see a lot higher CO2 emissions than that


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

El Jugador said:
			
		

> Good question. Looking to Magnese's original quote from the Independent:
> 
> So if what Sasaferrato says about his car's emissions is true, I think some confusion may have arisen through Graham Goodwin of TfL comparing things that are not like-for-like and thus are not actually comparable - I doubt if he is doing his cause many favours by ignorantly or deliberately misusing stats in this way - though one could argue that in this day and age stats are there for misusing and misleading and little else.



Follow the link on the previous post, there are a couple of cars below even 79.

Lots of people making a good living being environmental doomsayers.



Ice sheet confounds climate theory
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 20/05/2005)

The world's largest ice sheet is growing due to increased snowfall caused by climate change, scientists announce today.

Dating

The study of the east Antarctic ice sheet will be seized on by sceptics to dispute claims made about sea level rises caused by global warming. However, scientists point out that melting glaciers in other regions, especially the smaller but more rapidly changing west Antarctic ice sheet and in Greenland, will more than offset the effects reported today.

The study, described in the journal Science by scientists from the Desert Research Institute and Universities of Missouri and Arizona in America, and Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, used satellite measurements to assess the thickness of ice from 1992-2003.

They also used weather forecast models and ice core data to study trends in snowfall during the same period.

Dr Hanna said: "We found that, while the west Antarctic ice sheet was thickening in places and thinning in others, the east Antarctic ice sheet showed significant thickening in many areas, specifically towards the centre.

"This thickening correlated very well with the snowfall modelling, showing that the increased snowfall is causing the ice sheet to grow in mass. We estimate that the ice sheet is holding an extra 45 billion tons of water each year, the equivalent of a sea level drop of 0.12mm a year.

"At the same time, the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet is contributing to a sea level rise of 0.2mm a year. This is being offset to some extent by the sea level drop caused by the thickening of the east Antarctic ice sheet.

"Global warming may mean a moister atmosphere and therefore a wetter climate that increases snowfall on the east Antarctic ice sheet," he said, adding that natural climate variations cannot be ruled out without more data.


----------



## comstock (May 21, 2005)

I fear we are going over old ground here.

However I would say this. To assume most car users are anti-public-transport is wrong. 

Personally (as someone who loves having the freedon of a car) I'm not just pro car but pro *transport*...ie I'd like to see more buses, more trains, more cycle paths etc. The only thing I'm against is anti-car measures like congestion charging. To actually be anti bus is mad, to my way of thinking.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Er, that's a list of the ten best cars for low CO2 emission levels - search for a few common saloon vehicles here and you'll see a lot higher CO2 emissions than that




Those were the ten best, that was why I included the link so people could look up their own vehicle.


----------



## Matt S (May 21, 2005)

Sas - are you aware of the rather bizarre way you are using cars like the Toyota Prius (brought about in part by popular demand by environmentalists) to prove that environmentalists are 'lying fascists'? THe Insight, Prius and others exist precisely because of the demand for low CO2 cars from environmentalists! I should know, we got the Lord Mayor of Oxford to buy one last year.

Matt


----------



## TeeJay (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> ...Why would you want to? CO2 is not harmful to man nor beast, you breathe it out.


Sasaferrato don't be stupid. Almost anything can be a "pollutant" if there is too much of it. The problem with CO2 isn't that it is toxic, it's that excessive levels alter the atmosphere, increase the greenhouse effect and lead to global warming and climate change. The fact that it is non-toxic is irrelevant.


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Those were the ten best, that was why I included the link so people could look up their own vehicle.




Er, which hardly backs up a case that "environmental fascists" are "lieing cunts"? When the emissions figure in post #1 is quoted as being for "a saloon car"?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> I fear we are going over old ground here.
> 
> However I would say this. To assume most car users are anti-public-transport is wrong.
> 
> Personally (as someone who loves having the freedon of a car) I'm not just pro car but pro *transport*...ie I'd like to see more buses, more trains, more cycle paths etc. The only thing I'm against is anti-car measures like congestion charging. To actually be anti bus is mad, to my way of thinking.



Quite. Public transport is not adequate, especially in rural or semi-rural areas.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Er, which hardly backs up a case that "environmental fascists" are "lieing cunts"? When the emissions figure in post #1 is quoted as being for "a saloon car"?




79g per bus passenger, 145 per car. More than one person in a car and it is greener than a bus, on average. Four in a car is twice as green as a bus.

Show me the environmentalist who tells you that. Supression of truth is equivalent to lieing.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Sasaferrato don't be stupid. Almost anything can be a "pollutant" if there is too much of it. The problem with CO2 isn't that it is toxic, it's that excessive levels alter the atmosphere, increase the greenhouse effect and lead to global warming and climate change. The fact that it is non-toxic is irrelevant.



Oh yea?



Ice sheet confounds climate theory
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 20/05/2005)

The world's largest ice sheet is growing due to increased snowfall caused by climate change, scientists announce today.

Dating

The study of the east Antarctic ice sheet will be seized on by sceptics to dispute claims made about sea level rises caused by global warming. However, scientists point out that melting glaciers in other regions, especially the smaller but more rapidly changing west Antarctic ice sheet and in Greenland, will more than offset the effects reported today.

The study, described in the journal Science by scientists from the Desert Research Institute and Universities of Missouri and Arizona in America, and Edward Hanna at the University of Sheffield, used satellite measurements to assess the thickness of ice from 1992-2003.

They also used weather forecast models and ice core data to study trends in snowfall during the same period.

Dr Hanna said: "We found that, while the west Antarctic ice sheet was thickening in places and thinning in others, the east Antarctic ice sheet showed significant thickening in many areas, specifically towards the centre.

"This thickening correlated very well with the snowfall modelling, showing that the increased snowfall is causing the ice sheet to grow in mass. We estimate that the ice sheet is holding an extra 45 billion tons of water each year, the equivalent of a sea level drop of 0.12mm a year.

"At the same time, the thinning of the Greenland ice sheet is contributing to a sea level rise of 0.2mm a year. This is being offset to some extent by the sea level drop caused by the thickening of the east Antarctic ice sheet.

"Global warming may mean a moister atmosphere and therefore a wetter climate that increases snowfall on the east Antarctic ice sheet," he said, adding that natural climate variations cannot be ruled out without more data.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the eco-fascists is it?


----------



## magneze (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Quite. Public transport is not adequate, especially in rural or semi-rural areas.


Yes, but car use in rural and semi-rural areas isn't really the problem is it? It's car use in big cities with half-decent mass-transport systems - that's the problem.


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> 79g per bus passenger, 145 per car. More than one person in a car and it is greener than a bus, on average. Four in a car is twice as green as a bus.
> 
> Show me the environmentalist who tells you that. Supression of truth is equivalent to lieing.



Actually I read that as 79g per bus passenger, 145 per car [passenger]

Which is it?


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Oh yea?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um, just scanned that and I may be wrong but....

Sea level drop = 0.12mm/yr

Sea level rise = 0.2mm/yr

Net sea level rise = 0.08mm/yr

 

Rising sea levels is one of the main detrimental effects of global warming, especially in marginal areas.

But they wouldn't be lying, would they, Sas?


----------



## TeeJay (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato, climate change could well have all sorts of different effects in different places - some regions might get colder and some warmer, some wetter and some drier. Sea level rise is only one potential risk of chaotic and rapid global climate instability - others include widespread failure of crops and destruction of whole ecosystems, flooding, spread of diseases such as malaria - along with human migration and conflicts in response to these issues.

Even some of the most sceptical oil businesses and right wing politicians are beginning to accept that the risks of continued uncontrolled fossil fuel use are unacceptable, although of course there continues to be a healthy debate about the correct modelling and prediction of climate change, the evaluating costs versus benefits in different scenarios, along with a debate about what alternative technologies and polices to adopt.


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Sas, CO2 emissions are only ONE of the possible negative impacts of the increasing reliance on cars. What's your response to the others?


----------



## noodles (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> 79g per bus passenger, 145 per car. More than one person in a car and it is greener than a bus, on average. Four in a car is twice as green as a bus.
> 
> Show me the environmentalist who tells you that. Supression of truth is equivalent to lieing.



Well who knows what the truth is - it's not hard to find other sources (like this that paint a rather different picture; here they calculate a CO2 emission per passenger per kilometre of 90g for a bus of 20 people. If that was doubled to 40 people then that's 45g per passenger per kilometre. And I've been on buses that have been much busier than that in the mornings.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 21, 2005)

Well if we hadn't go rid of our Trolley buses and generated electricity from biomass/wind/tidal/ maybe even nuclear(unconvinced at minute) then there'd be no argument at all.

Trolley buses are fantastic... they accelerate and decelerate so smoothly the ride is one of best going.

FFF


----------



## Error Gorilla (May 21, 2005)

Ah yes. Jeremy Clarkson. Hated son of Doncaster. Once described Rover as 'a bunch of Brummies banging around in a shed.' Popular with people who enjoy Formula 1, slacks and side partings. Bit of a twat.

Although I did enjoy his documentary on Brunel for the Great Britons series in 2002.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 21, 2005)

There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the statistics here. You get a figure of Xg of CO2 per passenger kilometre by dividing total CO2 emitted by buses / cars by (the number of passengers in buses/cars x the number of kilometres travelled). It's an _average_, it talks about the relative pollution caused by a mode of transport compared to the amount they are actually achieving, and it takes into account - or *should* take into account if it's properly calculated - how well bus routes are planned, how many passengers each vehicle carries at what time of day, and how polluting the vehicles basically are. You can't use it to calculate how much CO2 an individual car will produce by multiplying the figure by the number of people in the car and the distance travelled. It doesn't work like that.

The point is, assuming the statistics are vaguely accurate (and even if they're not precisely correct, which is likely given how immensely complex the system is, all other evidence seems to point to similar conclusions) the bus network, despite busses being huge inefficient gas guzzlers, carries people around for less pollution. If all car drivers made sure they had four people in the car at all times then their efficiency would go up, which is what car sharing is about. But they _don't_. So that's the way it is right now.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> Um, just scanned that and I may be wrong but....
> 
> Sea level drop = 0.12mm/yr
> 
> ...




Possibly.  

( Very sceptical, and becoming more so. )

Awaits next years figures with bated breath.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> There's a lot of nonsense being talked about the statistics here. You get a figure of Xg of CO2 per passenger kilometre by dividing total CO2 emitted by buses / cars by (the number of passengers in buses/cars x the number of kilometres travelled). It's an _average_, it talks about the relative pollution caused by a mode of transport compared to the amount they are actually achieving, and it takes into account - or *should* take into account if it's properly calculated - how well bus routes are planned, how many passengers each vehicle carries at what time of day, and how polluting the vehicles basically are. You can't use it to calculate how much CO2 an individual car will produce by multiplying the figure by the number of people in the car and the distance travelled. It doesn't work like that.
> 
> The point is, assuming the statistics are vaguely accurate (and even if they're not precisely correct, which is likely given how immensely complex the system is, all other evidence seems to point to similar conclusions) the bus network, despite busses being huge inefficient gas guzzlers, carries people around for less pollution. If all car drivers made sure they had four people in the car at all times then their efficiency would go up, which is what car sharing is about. But they _don't_. So that's the way it is right now.




Per passenger kilometre is what the man said, there is nothing fuzzy about that.


Edited to add:

Clarkson is indeed an irritating twat.


----------



## sorter (May 21, 2005)

my wife and I for the record really like jeremy clarkson. he's an excellent motoring journalist, and we can't wait for the new series. 

anyone who thinks he's a twat takes him far too seriously. watch top gear for what it is, a bit of fun, and an opportunity to watch people drive cars you would never have a hope of owning.

keep up the good work jezza, long may you reign in the motoring world!


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> Well if we hadn't go rid of our Trolley buses and generated electricity from biomass/wind/tidal/ maybe even nuclear(unconvinced at minute) then there'd be no argument at all.
> 
> Trolley buses are fantastic... they accelerate and decelerate so smoothly the ride is one of best going.
> 
> FFF



Yes indeed. They had them in Hannover when we lived there. The drivers were bloody fierce though, if it was their right of way, they went. I saw one eating a moped ( sans rider.   ) one day.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

_pH_ said:
			
		

> Sas, CO2 emissions are only ONE of the possible negative impacts of the increasing reliance on cars. What's your response to the others?




As I made quite clear on a previous thread, we need to reduce emissions purely on the grounds of air quality, or rather the lack of it. Just because I think that rabid environmentalists should be put out of my misery doesn't mean that I feel that the internal combustion engine should be given unbridled license to shove all sorts of shit into what passes for air nowadays. 

CO2 from buses and cars is the least of our worries, micro particulates and the oxides of Nitrogen are what are causing asthma deaths to reach a new peak every year, especially the micro particulates, the major producer of which are diesel bus engines.


----------



## comstock (May 21, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> Well if we hadn't go rid of our Trolley buses and generated electricity from biomass/wind/tidal/ maybe even nuclear(unconvinced at minute) then there'd be no argument at all.
> 
> Trolley buses are fantastic... they accelerate and decelerate so smoothly the ride is one of best going.



Trolley buses or diesel buses, the problem remains that they can't offer the level of freedom of movement a car can.

Good point about electric power though...if the amount of effort that's gone into developing batteries for mobiles had been put into developing longer life batteries for cars, we'd not be having this dicussion. Even if the electrcity was coming from coal.

FACT. In 1900 petrol and electric cars were more or less neck and neck. If only we'd gone a different 'road' (no pun intended!)


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

noodles said:
			
		

> Well who knows what the truth is - it's not hard to find other sources (like this that paint a rather different picture; here they calculate a CO2 emission per passenger per kilometre of 90g for a bus of 20 people. If that was doubled to 40 people then that's 45g per passenger per kilometre. And I've been on buses that have been much busier than that in the mornings.




A bus has just passed my window with one person and the driver in it.

I take your point though. Maybe smaller busses at non busy times would help.


----------



## shandy (May 21, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> I agree, also the services should be improved, where I live if I want to go to my friends house there is one bus a day



Why not both get broadband and get a webcam, or walk half-way each and meet in the middle, or write letters to each other, or move closer, or phone each other, or both buy bicycles.  Or get a fucking life and stop moaning about there only being one bus a day. Hey! Why not get that bus and stay over and get the bus back the next day?


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2005)

Daily Telegraph said:
			
		

> *Ice sheet confounds climate theory*
> By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
> (Filed: 20/05/2005)
> 
> The world's largest ice sheet is growing due to increased snowfall caused by climate change, scientists announce today.



I'm assuming that anyone not blinded by their deep, indeed probably sexual, love of individualistic transport can see that the headline is contradicted by the first line of the story. 

Increased precipitation in *some* places - and deepening drought in others - is precisely what you'd expect of climate change.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that anyone not blinded by their deep, indeed probably sexual, love of individualistic transport can see that the headline is contradicted by the first line of the story.
> 
> Increased precipitation in *some* places - and deepening drought in others - is precisely what you'd expect of climate change.




Perhaps, but there is little suggest that man made CO2 is the primary factor. However, we have debated this one to death already.


----------



## comstock (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> CO2 from buses and cars is the least of our worries, micro particulates and the oxides of Nitrogen are what are causing asthma deaths to reach a new peak every year, especially the micro particulates, the major producer of which are diesel bus engines.



Agreed. Trucks are also a major contributor. The new LEZ rules for London should be expanded to all major conurbations. Maybe eventually we could have them nationwide.
http://www.london-lez.org/


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but there is little suggest that man made CO2 is the primary factor.



There is lot sugggest that.




			
				Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> have debated this one to death already.



While there is one person (not on appropriate medication for delusions) who prefers to decide how they would like their little corner of the world to be and then construct cockamamie "theories" to justify it, the debate is not finished.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 21, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> There is lot sugggest that.
> 
> 
> 
> While there is one person (not on appropriate medication for delusions) who prefers to decide how they would like their little corner of the world to be and then construct cockamamie "theories" to justify it, the debate is not finished.




Perhaps. You do become bored going over the same things again and again though, especially as it was only a few weeks since the last time it was debated in depth, I don't think much has changed in that time.


----------



## comstock (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Perhaps. You do become bored going over the same things again and again though, especially as it was only a few weeks since the last time it was debated in depth, I don't think much has changed in that time.



Indeed. Car-related threads on here do tend to go down the global warming route.

Going back to the orginal post then how stupid is it for Clarkson to be 'anti-bus' ....

I don't know any car drivers who want to see few buses on the road. Apart from anything else, with fewer buses we'd see more elderly motorists, who really should have packed up years ago.

On the flip side I don't know that many bus users who are 'anti-car' either.


----------



## madzone (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Perhaps. You do become bored going over the same things again and again though, especially as it was only a few weeks since the last time it was debated in depth, I don't think much has changed in that time.


You've got childbirth syndrome Sass. It was only about 10 days ago iirc.


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> As I made quite clear on a previous thread, we need to reduce emissions purely on the grounds of air quality, or rather the lack of it. Just because I think that rabid environmentalists should be put out of my misery doesn't mean that I feel that the internal combustion engine should be given unbridled license to shove all sorts of shit into what passes for air nowadays.
> 
> CO2 from buses and cars is the least of our worries, micro particulates and the oxides of Nitrogen are what are causing asthma deaths to reach a new peak every year, especially the micro particulates, the major producer of which are diesel bus engines.



But what of the other negative impacts of car use?


----------



## pooka (May 21, 2005)

But what about relative CO2 emmisions in manufacture?

This person claims to show that bicycles have higher life-cycle C02 emmisions than cars - but mainly cos of much lower milages per bicycle.

Fridgemaganet is right - it's the total emmision that is right. So if people currently using bicycles in town, and buses or trains between towns, switched to cars - the total CO2 emmision would go up.

An alternative way of looking at is to consider the _margina_l emmisions. That would tell you that if you unavoidably have a car (for visiting your folks in the back of beyond with kids in tow, or whatever) then don't go causing a bike to be made unless your going to commute every day. Rather catch full buses or, if that's not possible, drive round town in a car share.


----------



## TeeJay (May 21, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> ...This person claims to show that bicycles have higher life-cycle C02 emmisions than cars - but mainly cos of much lower milages per bicycle.


I haven't looked but presumably that is "higher CO2 emissions per passenger mile"?


----------



## _pH_ (May 21, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> But what about relative CO2 emmisions in manufacture?



That's one of the issues I'm hoping Sas will come back to me on   

Along with:


pollution and landtake caused by mining raw materials (e.g. bauxite, iron ore)
land take of new roads
environmental damage caused by extraction of materials for new roads
environmental damage caused by run off from roads
environmental damage from disposal of old cars beyond economic repair
social, political and environmental issues surrounding petroleum extraction and distillation

among others.

But he's not responded yet.......


----------



## laptop (May 21, 2005)

pooka said:
			
		

> This person claims to show that bicycles have higher life-cycle C02 emmisions than cars - but mainly cos of much lower milages per bicycle.



Someone needs to re-do those calculations. I haven't, but it looks to me as though they're reaching different conclusions in different tables. Anyway, the one they stress most is:



> in total, a car needs only 2.7 times more energy per passenger km than a bicycle



... and in one place they have *heavily-used* bikes (i.e. excluding fashion accessories cluttering up the hallways) using *one-thirteenth* as much energy per passenger km as an average car, and *one-forty-third* as much as a single-occupant Range Rover.


----------



## 888 (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> So, a saloon car with two people in is greener than a bus. Rather shows the gross ignorance and bias of the anti-car fraternity.



No the figures probably assume full occupancy of both vehicles. Edit: never mind...


----------



## TeeJay (May 21, 2005)

Not taking sides with any of the figures but surely it would be best not to assume full/half-full/empty occupancy and so forth - but instead use average figures from real life? In other words, look at the *average* car/bus, at *average* occupancy on average road conditions etc? Of course this may well point out plenty of room for improvement - in the vehicles and how they are used, but this is just as much part of the problem as the technology itself.


----------



## 888 (May 21, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> Lots of people making a good living being environmental doomsayers.



Far more people want to continue making their good living by denying any possibility that their good living is causing envronmental damage.


----------



## jacobs steel (May 21, 2005)

This is all about statistics isn't it


----------



## jacobs steel (May 21, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> Someone needs to re-do those calculations. I haven't, but it looks to me as though they're reaching different conclusions in different tables. Anyway, the one they stress most is:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and in one place they have *heavily-used* bikes (i.e. excluding fashion accessories cluttering up the hallways) using *one-thirteenth* as much energy per passenger km as an average car, and *one-forty-third* as much as a single-occupant Range Rover.



I think it's more like one-fourteenth and one-forty-seventh imo, a lot depends upon the weather


----------



## snadge (May 22, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> That PDF doesn't appear to have that proof in it. Is there a particular page you had in mind?



page 16-24, gives emissions per engine including micro particulates and NO etc.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

To the anti-car lot, if there was a car that showed better emissions standards than a bus packed with people would you still have a problem with it?


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

Buses also suffer the same problem as cars for mostly not being used to capacity, at least they most certainly do in Cornwall. Obviously in London this apparently isnt the case, but the majority of Briton doesnt have the same infrastructure as London does.

Buses round here are rarely half full, if that, aside from the school buses. The routes are unbelievably inadequate, and due to this I cant imagine its more ecologically sound for me to catch two less than half full buses that are nowhere near new in a route thats nowhere near direct and takes over an hour on the bus, and thats excluding a 20 minute walk at the start to get a bus in the first place. Versus a 20min ride on my Motorbike.


----------



## chooch (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> I cant imagine its more ecologically sound for me to catch two less than half full buses that are nowhere near new in a route thats nowhere near direct and takes over an hour on the bus, and thats excluding a 20 minute walk at the start to get a bus in the first place.


If you did choose the bus, its efficiency per passenger mile would go up. If enough did likewise, perhaps more bus routes would be viable.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> To the anti-car lot, if there was a car that showed better emissions standards than a bus packed with people would you still have a problem with it?



I'd wonder why buses couldn't be made more efficient as well


----------



## William of Walworth (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> To the anti-car lot, if there was a car that showed better emissions standards than a bus packed with people would you still have a problem with it?






			
				FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> I'd wonder why buses couldn't be made more efficient as well



Exactly. Tw1ggy5's was a false hypothesis.


----------



## moose (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Buses also suffer the same problem as cars for mostly not being used to capacity, at least they most certainly do in Cornwall. Obviously in London this apparently isnt the case, but the majority of Briton doesnt have the same infrastructure as London does.


I'd be interested in figures for the country as a whole - round here it's normal to see buses with absolutely no passengers at all, trawling up and down every hour, and sitting at empty bus stops for 10 minutes (with the engine idling) so they don't get ahead of schedule in the remote hope that someone might want to get on.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

Didnt say the efficiency of bus's couldnt be improved, just wanted to see whether the position of being anti-car was based solely on ecological concerns or whether it was a general dislike of them anyway and that just a convenient way to attack them.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> Exactly. Tw1ggy5's was a false hypothesis.



It wasnt a hypothesis it was a question, which I note you've avoided answering.
Obviously there is room in improvement in engine design and efficiency, doesn't mean the improvement is as easily implemented in both of these forms of transport due to the general differences in how they are used. The engine type, massive differences in weight and other factors.

Bus engines are more inefficient than most cars and the only thing that makes them seem efficient is due to the capacity for people they hold. If that capacity isnt being utilised then the apparent efficiency drops, very quickly. 

Gas hybrid and electric cars have the potential to be as efficient as a bus. However it seems more like you aren't really interested in what improvements can be made to cars, as in the end its still a car. Which should be ignored in the favour of buses, aswel as any other associated factors that make their usage impractical or inappropriate for the situation.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Didnt say the efficiency of bus's couldnt be improved, just wanted to see whether the position of being anti-car was based solely on ecological concerns or whether it was a general dislike of them anyway and that just a convenient way to attack them.



Ok heres my reasons (no real order) of why I don't particularly like cars:

pollution (done to death above)
The amount of space they take up. eg car parks on road parking etc
The noise from them when loads on a road
The amount of deaths caused by them
The amount of resources in their manufacture
The way people think they free them but really they are slaves to them due to cost of buying them and maintainence etc. 

ermmm probably others too 

As you can see alot of my objections are reduced, though not entirely removed,  when motorbikes are used, thats why I'm not fussed either way when it comes to bikes and if I moved somewhere rural I'd definitely buy a bike - can you run em on alcohol???

FFF


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

chooch said:
			
		

> If you did choose the bus, its efficiency per passenger mile would go up. If enough did likewise, perhaps more bus routes would be viable.



I was totally reliant on the bus services around here for 7 years before I got a motorbike, which severely restricted nearly every aspect of my life. The week I got it all direct bus services were cut to the village totally, only way to get one now is to book a shuttle bus to to take you a mile and a half to the nearest stop. Which must be booked well in advance.

Obviously their is the option of walking there, which while viable for me, wasnt much help for the elderly people in the village who used the service.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

pollution (done to death above) - with improvements to drive systems etc this could be reduced to the level of buses. Would you then have a problem with the buses and cars equally? If not then what would you suggest as an alternative to cars for those for which the bus service isnt sufficient?

The amount of space they take up - well the carparks are already built, short of destroying those at the usage of even more resources what alternative is there? People still need to move around.

The amount of deaths caused by them - Well to be fair with this point the number of deaths has more to do with the person driving the car than being an inherent thing associated with the car. If pedestrians for example only cross the road at cross points and car drivers simply dont run them over when they are crossing then the number of deaths becomes much lower.

Road safety is important, simply blaming the metal box as the cause is oversimplifying. With better standards of driving and proper care when doing so the death toll can be greatly reduced. Introducing a repeated testing routine every x number of years would be appropriate so we dont have unsafe drivers on the road. 

The amount of resources in their manufacture - Resources are used in the manufacture of everything, plenty are used in the production of the computer you are typing at. Short of not producing anything anymore theres no way to avoid resources being used. 

However this doesnt mean that those resources cant be better reused and recycled. Or the manufacturing techniques used to create them in the first place improved. Proper management and usage of waste materials and usage wherever they can be used is important to reduce environmental impact.



> The way people think they free them but really they are slaves to them due to cost of buying them and maintainence etc.



Comes down to personal choice I suppose, the example earlier in the thread of the mother buying a Chelsea tractor then having to take up work again earlier than she wanted to afford the repayments is an obvious one. Seems ridiculous to me to buy something in the first place that you are obviously unable to afford given the income you have. Let alone something so useless.

That can be applied to a lot of things tho. Anything which needs maintenance can be made to seem like it owns you, but purchasing decisions based upon knowing that this is going to be a factor means this can be reduced. 

Unsure if you can run a motorbike on alcohol lol, suppose it depends what type of engine etc. Presume at least some can with a converter or some kind. 
Worth looking into.

However I wouldnt imagine this was that implementable on a large scale. Unless massive production of alcohol is economically and ecologically viable, in which case feel free to prove me wrong


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

Im waiting for the programmable nanorobots to be viable so we can simply use them as a filter to convert waste materials into something useful.

However Im not holding my breath.


----------



## laptop (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Short of not producing anything anymore theres no way to avoid resources being used.
> 
> ...
> 
> Comes down to personal choice I suppose...



This is the actual argument. 

There are actual choices to be made about *what* is produced for *whose* need or benefit with *what* effects and downsides. 

Those who start from the position "I like my car" and proceed to construct an argument by selecting facts (or in some cases making them up) that suit are in practice saying "my choice counts above all else - there is no such thing as society". 

For some, liking their car is itself based on antipathy to the idea of a public service. Public service is all about collective choices. They defend their personal choice by arguing that they must have their personal choice to value personal choices over all else.   

If the sum of personal choices within the current system is leading to massive ill effects - especially ill effects for others who don't *have* those choices - isn't it time for some collective decisions? 



I'm not arguing that someone who lives in an area where there is no public transport at present should have their car seized right now. I'm arguing that there *must be* public transport, or reduced need for transport - e.g. bringing local services back to rural areas. 

A large part of the cause of climate change, pedestrian deaths, probably asthma and emphysema, and other ills is due to people making the personal choice to run cars where there is no need. Society has made the collective choice - with which these people appear quite happy - that I should not be able to exercise *my* personal choice to torch these destructive vanity symbols. Maybe  it's time to re-think that collective choice


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> and also remember that is for new engines, most buses are poorly maintained and have less efficient engines


Proof please.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (May 22, 2005)

You can interpret figures in a variety of ways but the one thing Clarkson and his gang never want to address is their philosophy of car use and ownership; they're not offering any counterpoint to the car industries' model of limitless expansion.  The idea that everybody in Britain could own their own car is such a crazy idea when we're nowhere near saturation atm and look at our problems.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> with improvements to drive systems etc this could be reduced to the level of buses. Would you then have a problem with the buses and cars equally? If not then what would you suggest as an alternative to cars for those for which the bus service isnt sufficient?



Where public transport is not sufficient then some sort of personal transport is necessary. However I think public transport could be made sufficient to many many more people. But things like Ambulances would still be needed



> The amount of space they take up - well the carparks are already built, short of destroying those at the usage of even more resources what alternative is there?.


Ermmm I'd like to see those places removed and re-used as community open spaces or something else that benefits the whole populace



> The amount of deaths caused by them - Well to be fair with this point the number of deaths has more to do with the person driving the car than being an inherent thing associated with the car. If pedestrians for example only cross the road at cross points and car drivers simply dont run them over when they are crossing then the number of deaths becomes much lower.



Hang on thats like saying "if there was less deaths, there'd be less deaths". There are many deaths on the roads caused by cars compared to public transport such as buses or trains and private transport such as bicycles



> Road safety is important, simply blaming the metal box as the cause is oversimplifying. With better standards of driving and proper care when doing so the death toll can be greatly reduced. Introducing a repeated testing routine every x number of years would be appropriate so we dont have unsafe drivers on the road.



You have to agree that roads are well fuckign dangerous these days. Many people can pass a test with ease but are such arrogant bastards when driving that they soon become dangerous again. If you ask someone how they rate their drivign very few will say "i'm a shit driver" most seem to say " i'm above average" - sheer arrogance and that causes deaths. 



> The amount of resources in their manufacture - Resources are used in the manufacture of everything, plenty are used in the production of the computer you are typing at. Short of not producing anything anymore theres no way to avoid resources being used.



Ofcourse theres no way to avoid using resources. I just think that resources should be used in items that have longer life spans and are useful to more people.

For instance buses tend to be operated for many more years on average than the average car. In the past even when scrapped the engines wouldbe sold to be used in Dhows (Stagecoach and First bus now wreck the engines prior to sale for scrap so that their competitors can't reuse them which obviously stops their re-use as boat engines  )

As for my computer it is second hand and is available to anyone in my small block of flats to use if they knock on my door. 2 people regularly take me up on the offer. In this way I'm making it more useful to more people so trying to minimise its impact. 



> That can be applied to a lot of things tho. Anything which needs maintenance can be made to seem like it owns you, but purchasing decisions based upon knowing that this is going to be a factor means this can be reduced.


Exactly this is why community owned transport would be far superior 



> However I wouldnt imagine this was that implementable on a large scale. Unless massive production of alcohol is economically and ecologically viable, in which case feel free to prove me wrong



I agree it couldn't replace our oil consumption but if we significantly reduced consumption then for people like first responders I don't see why not. But even without that it'll be fun experimenting with and finding out 

FFF


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> To the anti-car lot, if there was a car that showed better emissions standards than a bus packed with people would you still have a problem with it?



Good point. I certainly think it would be easier to create a small 2 seater electric car with say a 100 mile range (enough for most people) than an electric bus-large and needing a much larger range.

Even with todays technolgy 3 or 4 small fuel efficient cars are better than a nearly empty bus. And to give anything like the flexiblity of the car, there'd need to be *loads* of buses- and beyond the big cities most them would be nearly empty most of the time.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> It wasnt a hypothesis it was a question, which I note you've avoided answering.
> Obviously there is room in improvement in engine design and efficiency, doesn't mean the improvement is as easily implemented in both of these forms of transport due to the general differences in how they are used. The engine type, massive differences in weight and other factors.
> 
> Bus engines are more inefficient than most cars and the only thing that makes them seem efficient is due to the capacity for people they hold. If that capacity isnt being utilised then the apparent efficiency drops, very quickly.
> ...



I don't know the scientific/technical ins and outs, but I find it VERY hard to imagine a scenario where an improvement in car engine efficiency would not be applicable (no doubt with modicfications) to buses as well..

That's why I didnt answer it ....


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I find it VERY hard to imagine a scenario where an improvement in car engine efficiency would not be applicable (no doubt with modicfications) to buses as well..



For a start petrol engines are *fundamentally* different to diesel engines.

Secondly petrol engines can be converted to LPG ...as a rule diesel can not

Thridly see my remark above about electric cars (no internal combustion engine at all)


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Even with todays technolgy 3 or 4 small fuel efficient cars are better than a nearly empty bus. And to give anything like the flexiblity of the car, there'd need to be *loads* of buses- and beyond the big cities most them would be nearly empty most of the time.


Right. So you're a firm advocate of increased noise pollution, endless motorway/bypass expansion, further use of non-renewable resources, extra pollution and permanently congested roads, then?


----------



## laptop (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> petrol engines can be converted to LPG ...as a rule diesel can not



6 seconds with a well-known search engine:

Diesel engines can be converted to run partly on LPG, partly on diesel.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. So you're a firm advocate of increased noise pollution, endless motorway/bypass expansion, further use of non-renewable resources, extra pollution and permanently congested roads, then?



Hey hey one insult at a time  

I've just advocated electic cars above, and I don't generally support more road expansion ( a few small single carriwagy sections to take traffic away from bottlenecks might still be viable but certainly no more motorways)

I still maintain that to have a level of bus provision which gives us a level of freedom of movement similar to the car would increase pollution, certainly of diesel particaulates. More buses would be good, but there are limits to what PT can do. You live in Inner London, Ed, and it simply isn't typical of the rest of the UK.


----------



## lintin (May 22, 2005)

London buses can only be seen as a stop gap measure. Walk up Wood Green High ST any day of the week and you can see why that is so. THey are noisy, polluting, slow,  and destroy the street ambience. Agree that they are needed at this point, other wise we woudl have gridlock but I would prefer to see better forms of public transport. They could start by designing the buses better and doing something about those screeching brakes.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

laptop said:
			
		

> 6 seconds with a well-known search engine:
> 
> Diesel engines can be converted to run partly on LPG, partly on diesel.



Exactly. 30% LPG 70% Diesel to be exact. That is not 'running on LPG' is it??


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> I still maintain that to have a level of bus provision which gives us a level of freedom of movement similar to the car would increase pollution, certainly of diesel particaulates.


So do you believe people have some sort of inalienable right to burn up the earth's resources at will and with no thought given to the environment, or the impact that their driving has on the communities and countryside they noisily thunder through?

If you don't advocate further road expansion, where are all the new cars going to go?


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Good point. I certainly think it would be easier to create a small 2 seater electric car with say a 100 mile range (enough for most people) than an electric bus-large and needing a much larger range.
> .



*COUGH* trolley buses - the basic technology 100 years old! and because they don't carry bateries/fuel they far more efficient .

Obviously this is really only applicable to Urban routes.  But its not all about London, Bradford was one of the first and last cities in the UK to use them... and they are fucking excellent up hills!

Most UK cities could use them... and over 90% of UK population is in urban areas


FFF


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So do you believe people have some sort of inalienable right to burn up the earth's resources at will and with no thought given to the environment, or the impact that their driving has on the communities and countryside they noisily thunder through?




You have made plenty of the downside of cars , now here is some of the upside.

My point is simply that buses cannot replace the car, for freedom of choice, for practicality, for load carrying, for night time transport, for transport on Sundays and Bank hols, to give independance to women, for taking kids out.

Massive numbers of buses are only good if they go were people want to go.

Personally I do around 7-8,000 miles a year in a 1 litre car and am heartly sick of being labelled the devil incarnate for doing so.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> *
> <talking about trolley buses>
> 
> Most UK cities could use them... and over 90% of UK population is in urban areas



90%?? Are you sure? Definition of urban aera, please, and a source for this figure of 90%


----------



## Jo/Joe (May 22, 2005)

but something has to be done doesn't it?


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Personally I do around 7-8,000 miles a year in a 1 litre car and am heartly sick of being labelled the devil incarnate for doing so.



would it be possible to cut those journeys/car share? What if you didn't own a car but had shared one with the community thus freing you from havign to get it fixed etc. But would also mean less cars needed???

FFF


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> 90%?? Are you sure? Definition of urban aera, please, and a source for this figure of 90%



No I'm wrong its 89%  The figure I said was from memory but found this House of Commons research paper:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Page 13 (or 14 on PDF)


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> My point is simply that buses cannot replace the car, for freedom of choice, for practicality, for load carring, for night time transport, for transport on Sundays and Bank hols, to give independance to women, for taking kids out.


So do you have any problem with single occupant cars?
How about 4x4 SUVs?
Do you think there should be no restrictions on who can drive what, where, including issues of occupancy, road space, congestion and efficiency?

Here's a rather large downside to the increasing use of cars:


> Cars risk Europe's climate cuts
> The European Union and many member states will probably fail to meet their promises on cutting greenhouse gases, the European Environment Agency says.
> It blames a huge growth in transport emissions, especially by road vehicles.
> "The transport sector, responsible for just over one-fifth of the EU's greenhouse gases, poses by far the biggest challenge to the Kyoto targets, largely because of fast-growing emissions from road transport...
> ...


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

Some more 'downsides' to car usage: 


> Car use rise causes UK pollution level failure
> 
> DTI predicts that UK will miss carbon dioxide targets as vehicle emissions overtake level of factory pollutants
> 
> ...





> Road traffic is the biggest source of air pollution in Bristol.
> Over 150,000 people in Bristol live in areas where air pollution exceeds health-based standards. http://www.bristol-city.gov.uk/traffic/tt_pol_aq_drivepollution.html


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> No I'm wrong its 89%  The figure I said was from memory but found this House of Commons research paper:
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
> 
> Page 13 (or 14 on PDF)


 and globally half of the worlds population lives in an urban environment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4561183.stm
3billion living in urban areas in 2002.


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

Doesnt the production of cars produce more polution than buses etc?

with buses lasting (or bieng used) for longer they must require less Energy and resources to build than the number of cars neccesary to produce the same number of passenger journeys.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> "Total emissions from transport are projected to be 34% above 1990 levels in 2010. This does not include rapidly increasing emissions from international air travel, which is not covered by Kyoto."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3253476.stm :



Fucking hell!! Air travel not covered! But isn't that one of the worst offenders...

FFF


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> No I'm wrong its 89%  The figure I said was from memory but found this House of Commons research paper:
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
> 
> Page 13 (or 14 on PDF)



That document doesn't give a definition of an urban area.

Would you consider a community of 5000 to be an urban area, for example?


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> How about 4x4 SUVs?
> Do you think there should be no restrictions on who can drive what, where, including issues of occupancy, road space, congestion and efficiency?



Where have I condoned the use of SUVs   

And I'm not doing global warming again. On that issue I refer the honourable Editor to the answer I gave some posts ago.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> That document doesn't give a definition of an urban area.
> 
> Would you consider a community of 5000 to be an urban area, for example?



Depends if its in the middle of a connurbation or if its 100 miles from anywhere.

What would you consider an urban area and what would you say the urban population of UK is?


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> That document doesn't give a definition of an urban area.
> 
> Would you consider a community of 5000 to be an urban area, for example?






			
				UN said:
			
		

> Three billion people - nearly every other person on earth - already live in cities. Today the planet hosts 19 cities with 10 million or more people; 22 cities with 5 to 10 million people; 370 cities with 1 to 5 million people; and 433 cities with 0.5 to 1 million people. By 2030, over 60 percent of the world's population (4.9 billion out of 8.1 billion people) will live in cities.



all from the beeb article and the links there in, but urban is deifined as city when considering population, which is very different from the definition of urban in terms f socio-economic growth, education etc. based purely on numbers.
some interesting stuff, including the Uk
http://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/statereport.htm


----------



## Funky_monks (May 22, 2005)

As a bit of an aside - it looks like I'm going to have to get a 4 x 4 pick-up for my work. I dont seem to find anywhere online where I can compare fuel consumption (I'd like to try and be as economical as possible - both for the environment and my pocket). Any Ideas? At the moment, I'm looking at a 2-seater HiLux 2.4D.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Where have I condoned the use of SUVs


Where have I suggested that you did?

I simply asked you some questions, most of which you don't appear to be willing to answer.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> That document doesn't give a definition of an urban area.
> 
> Would you consider a community of 5000 to be an urban area, for example?



On this list http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html

I would consider towns as small as Exeter, Gloucester and Scarborough to be suitable.. theres a  lot of towns with bigger populations on that list which I'd bet is a fair few million people.

FFF


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> Depends if its in the middle of a connurbation or if its 100 miles from anywhere.



 If the 5000 people were in the middle of a conurbation, it wouldn't be a urban aera of 5000 would it? By community I meant village/town of 5000. Would that be classed as an urban aera.



> What would you consider an urban area and what would you say the urban population of UK is?



Don't know(maybe 100,000 plus) and haven't a clue in that order.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> On this list http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html
> 
> I would consider towns as small as Exeter, Gloucester and Scarborough to be suitable.. theres a  lot of towns with bigger populations on that list which I'd bet is a fair few million people.
> 
> FFF



Yeah they are alll 100,000 plus, so we are in the same ball park. Personally I doubt they all add up to 89% of the total UK poplutation (which IIRC is 60 million or so)


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

officially an urban area is catagorised based on size. nothing else.

however when looking beyond population density, one of the most interesting factors is the occurence of so called "urban problems" in rural areas. Crime is one notable one, education another. and gridlock is also a known phenomenon (with all the polution caused) think about all the small towns in the UK with there cobble streets designed for horse and cart, and the carsand buses trying to get past in tourist season. all a bit of a laugh really. 

anyway, the point of that was that "urban" is a word with no real definition, it changes depending who you are asking and why you are asking it.


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

oh and on urban polution, from the UN
http://www.unchs.org/Istanbul+5/68.pdf

a very interesting article, worth reading by all sides of the arguement here.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Where have I suggested that you did?
> 
> I simply asked you some questions, most of which you don't appear to be willing to answer.



Which questions. I've had people firing stuff at me from all sides   


I've done global warming to death. I've said I don't support more motorways (and I'm not conviced of the need). I'm not gonna knock single occupancy cars cos mine rarely has a passenger in it (and therfore it would be hypocritcal of me to do so).

And you haven't answered my points about the upside of cars.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Which questions. I've had people firing stuff at me from all sides
> 
> 
> I've done global warming to death. I've said I don't support more motorways (and I'm not conviced of the need). I'm not gonna knock single occupancy cars cos mine rarely has a passenger in it (and therfore it would be hypocritcal of me to do so).
> ...


But the two are linked: if you're happy with single occupancy cars and are against any form of restriction to the use of cars, you will inevitably need more motorways, or you will create yet more congestion, more pollution and more noise pollution.

What am I supposed to answer about your 'point'? There is no denying that cars can be useful things, but there's more important issues at stake than a polluting car giving people the  (ahem) 'independence' to drive 500 yards to the supermarket and back.


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> You have made plenty of the downside of cars , now here is some of the upside.
> 
> My point is simply that buses cannot replace the car, for freedom of choice, for practicality, for load carrying, for night time transport, for transport on Sundays and Bank hols, to give independance to women, for taking kids out.



well why not?

and lets combine buses and trains here, becasue it doesnt really matter which form of mass transportation you use. 

family outings on the train? a great British tradition, and mch more fun than being stuck in a car in a jam on the M4. 

independence to women? eh? i dont follow that at all. 
sundays/bank holidays. well maybe the privatised service is a bit reduced, only 1 bus every 10 mins on the weekends, but lets just wait for it. theres no rush its only a few minutes. for the majority of us we dont have brain surgery to perform so can wait a while. 

practicality? well, thats a cost issue, parking, insurance, age, convenience etc. that is down to the individual. as an Englisher it is not practical for me to have a car. i have no where to keep it, and i can get everywhere on foot, by bus or by train. 

Routes/Night buses etc. well they go where there is a demand. its not really an arguement to be saying that cars are better because there isnt a bus route that i can use.


----------



## exosculate (May 22, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> In a "hilarious" move to parody the Greenpeace protest at Land Rover. Jeremy Clarkson & friends chained themselves to a bus in Hammersmith.
> It's to be shown on Top Gear tommorow apparently ...
> 
> http://news.independent.co.uk/media/story.jsp?story=640091
> ...




He's an utter twunt.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

What is the suggested solution for someone who currently is frequently in a single occupancy situation in a car then? Assuming that this situation has been brought about by the public services being unable to provide whats needed.

Not what could be done if public services were different, what can be done now, cos thats the situation they are being attacked for.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

> its not really an arguement to be saying that cars are better because there isnt a bus route that i can use.



Well surely if there isnt a bus route then for that journey a car is better?
Being as its the only option for the journey.


----------



## exosculate (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> Well surely if there isnt a bus route then for that journey a car is better?
> Being as its the only option for the journey.




Surely a holistic approach to transportation is needed what with an impending oil crisis upon us and all of that jazz.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> What is the suggested solution for someone who currently is frequently in a single occupancy situation in a car then? Assuming that this situation has been brought about by the public services being unable to provide whats needed.
> 
> Not what could be done if public services were different, what can be done now, cos thats the situation they are being attacked for.


Get a bike/moped/motorbike/folding bike.
Walk. 
Car share. 
Share lifts.
Cycle to nearest bus stop/station.
Take bus.
Take train.

Gadzillions of people managed to shop/get about/go on holidays before car ownership soared, you know!


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> But the two are linked: if you're happy with single occupancy cars and are against any form of restriction to the use of cars, you will inevitably need more motorways, or you will create yet more congestion, more pollution and more noise pollution.




Single carriagway bypassess are enough in most cases to solve a small scale local gridlock problem. Are you suggesting more motorways would reduce pollution  I'm sure you are not but if you re-read the pargraph above.

I'm not suggesting we need loads more cars on the road- I think car ownership is reaching saturation point anyway.



> What am I supposed to answer about your 'point'? There is no denying that cars can be useful things, but there's more important issues at stake than a polluting car giving people the  (ahem) 'independence' to drive 500 yards to the supermarket and back.



Five hundred yards? From where my parents live it's 5 miles each way! Buses 1 an hour, none on Sundays. And that is an 'urban aera' of 7000 people. Even from here in Derby it's nearly a mile to the nearest 'proper' supermarket. I often walk, but I defend my choice to use my car if I've got lots to carry.

Anyway not everyone can walk even 500 yards with a bag of shopping (IIRC blue badge entitlement requires not able to walk 100 yards, no mention of shopping)


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> What is the suggested solution for someone who currently is frequently in a single occupancy situation in a car then? Assuming that this situation has been brought about by the public services being unable to provide whats needed.
> 
> Not what could be done if public services were different, what can be done now, cos thats the situation they are being attacked for.


 well, it depnds on the situation, 

the automobile alteredthe world completly. all cities, all conurbations, and almost all sociies are based around swift communcations, so without a sea change in the way that we operate as a global society (or until that chang occurs) then we must act in such a way as to reduce the detrimental effect that our actions have upon our environment.

in terms of transportation, then use the vehicle that is the most efficient, the new hybrid engines are a case in point, cheaper to run, less poluttion. 

If there is no public transport in the area, then work with othes to introduce it. there has been some very interesting developments in terms of cimmunity based bus services, in a large number of instances these have developed from services for the elderly/infirm, but they have been developed in areas where companies like Arriva where taking the piss, charging extortinate fares for short (often unreliable) journeys. 

Like all things it comes down to whether you really do need to make that journey. And for a large number of people it is essential, but it doesnt mean you have to use a 4x4


----------



## Stobart Stopper (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Walk
> Car share.
> Share lifts.
> Cycle to nearest bus stop/station.
> ...


But most of these will mean having contact with smelly people, don't like that at all. Not here in Essex, we like our Lexus's and BMW's!   With air conditioning.


----------



## exosculate (May 22, 2005)

Stobart Stopper said:
			
		

> But most of these will mean having contact with smelly people, don't like that at all. Not here in Essex, we like our Lexus's and BMW's!   With air conditioning.




I knew you were wrong.


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Five hundred yards? From where my parents live it's 5 miles each way! Buses 1 an hour, none on Sundays. And that is an 'urban aera' of 7000 people. Even from here in Derby it's nearly a mile to the nearest 'proper' supermarket. I often walk, but I defend my choice to use my car if I've got lots to carry.
> 
> Anyway not everyone can walk even 500 yards with a bag of shopping (IIRC blue badge entitlement requires not able to walk 100 yards, no mention of shopping)



And in situations like that why not consider getting groceries delivered. more economical by far if it is an option. (ok, so not everyone can get that.)

But perhaps this highlights another issue, that we choose to live in areas where we can only survive with the car. which does make things difficult. 

This is now getting beyond the scope of this thread, but it is an arguement for the return to community based existence, with local shops where it is possible to walk to whereever one needs to go.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

> if you're happy with single occupancy cars and are against any form of restriction to the use of cars, you will inevitably need more motorways, or you will create yet more congestion, more pollution and more noise pollution.



Surely its possible to make cars designed specifically for single occupancy that are efficient. Whilst combining this with a better public transport system for the areas that its appropriate for. Therefore the higher density areas where the traffic is the biggest problem could be provided with affordable public transport links, taking a large proportion of the traffic off the road in the first place. 

A big problem with public transport at the moment is its prohibitively expensive, often late and very inflexible. We need to give people an option thats better than using a car instead of simply punishing them for the lack of reasonable public in their area.

Then for those areas or specific routes where the system is ineffective people could use private transport. Thus enabling the roads to be clearer and also enable people to have the personal freedom to travel where they wanted. 

Why cant there be a compromise?

High speed train links for longer journeys and to take some of the traffic away from flights within the country. Think Roadkill mentioned this at some point much better than I have.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

Kinsales said:
			
		

> .
> sundays/bank holidays. well maybe the privatised service is a bit reduced, only 1 bus every 10 mins on the weekends, but lets just wait for it. theres no rush its only a few minutes. for the majority of us we dont have brain surgery to perform so can wait a while.



1 bus every 10 mins on the weekend?

Where do you live Kinsales? Most places would love that sort of frequency on a weekday leave alone a Sunday!


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Surely a holistic approach to transportation is needed what with an impending oil crisis upon us and all of that jazz.



Theoretically yes, but when you have to be somewhere and cant get there by any means other than a car then things seem rather different.

Obviously with better public transport this wouldnt be so much of an issue, however at the moment it isnt better and people have to do what they can with whats available.


----------



## jacobs steel (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> There is no denying that cars can be useful things, but there's more important issues at stake than a polluting car giving people the  (ahem) 'independence' to drive 500 yards to the supermarket and back.



Did they forget about their kids


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> 1 bus every 10 mins on the weekend?
> 
> Where do you live Kinsales? Most places would love that sort of frequency on a weekday leave alone a Sunday!


 well, thats london, 

but when i was out in the styx with one an hour, i would then just gear my day around catching the bus. so the price i paid for living somewhere rural was crap transport. But thats the way of things.

if i missed the last bus i would walk the 10 miles home or sleep behind the counter at work. 

I didnt have a car so thats what i had to do. same with a large chunk of the population who cant actualy afford to run a car.


----------



## Wee Beastie (May 22, 2005)

I'd expect no more from such a fuckwit.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Gadzillions of people managed to shop/get about/go on holidays before car ownership soared, you know!



Well yeah but no   

Back then most housholds had a woman who shopped and a man who worked. Are you seriously suggesting we go back to that? No I'm sure not.

People also worked near where they lived. Nothing wrong with that, but people didn't have the choice of career they have now. For instance if you were born in a Welsh pit village (I don't know what part of Wales you are from , Mike?), you worked in the pit- end of- no chance of that web design job in Swansea, or the local govt position in Cardiff.


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

Wee Beastie said:
			
		

> I'd expect no more from such a fuckwit.


 eh?


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Get a bike/moped/motorbike/folding bike.
> Walk.
> Car share.
> Share lifts.
> ...



Personally I have a motorbike, never owned a car.

Walking is only an option for short distances, a 25 mile commute to work walking isnt really an effective option.

Sharing lifts again is only possible if you have people going the same way at somewhere near the same time, this isnt always possible.

Cycling to a bus station is only useful if when you get to the bus station you have somewhere to leave your bike which means it wont get nicked. Additionally the bus service has to be of some actual use to you when you get there, if it means your journey is twice as long in miles travelled and 3 times longer in duration thats not effective.

Trains have a very limited scope outside of big cities.



> Gadzillions of people managed to shop/get about/go on holidays before car ownership soared, you know!



Ah yes but then that was before the massive downturn in local services and jobs being available, if you are in an area where there arent local jobs available then you will have to commute there. Especially now with rents being so high that often commuting is the only way to get a job that pays enough to enable you to live there.

If the big supermarket 10 miles away has meant the local shops have closed then theres little choice about where you can go. Some of these places put on bus services to them, but these are generally far from good enough.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> Five hundred yards? From where my parents live it's 5 miles each way! Buses 1 an hour, none on Sundays. And that is an 'urban aera' of 7000 people. Even from here in Derby it's nearly a mile to the nearest 'proper' supermarket. I often walk, but I defend my choice to use my car if I've got lots to carry.


You see to be assuming that everyone's circumstances and needs are the same as yours. They're not.

45% of all car journeys are under two miles and the situation is set to get worse:



> The numbers of vehicles on the roads of Great Britain have increased steadily. In 1970 there were just under 10 million private cars; in 2002 there were over 24 million (Figure 2).
> 
> Road transport accounted for 92% of UK passenger travel in 2002. Over the past two decades, the number of car journeys that we make have increased while those by foot, bus and cycle have decreased (Indicator: Passenger travel).
> 
> ...


Those are the facts, yet you seem to think people should be encouraged to drive wherever and whenever they want, without a care in the world for the enivronmental damage they cause, both locally and globally.

You may think car ownership is reaching saturation, but the facts simply don't agree with you: so what do you propose should happen?


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

> If there is no public transport in the area, then work with othes to introduce it.



How exactly? The bus services were withdrawn in the first place because they werent financially viable. 



> For a large number of people it is essential, but it doesnt mean you have to use a 4x4



Very true.


----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 22, 2005)

Kinsales said:
			
		

> eh?



Think his comment was aimed at Clarkson....


----------



## Dante (May 22, 2005)

tw1ggy5 said:
			
		

> How exactly? The bus services were withdrawn in the first place because they werent financially viable.



I was doing some research into Arriva a couple of weeks back (had to come up with a way of improving thie profitability   ) but what was intersting was the findings where they had seriously screwed up with high fares and reductions in routes, local groups had got together and formed community bus services. 

Ok, this is not a solution for the individual, perhaps, however it might be a way of addressing the more global issue.

from what i remmber (i'll get some more exact stats later)
groups within a locale group together to identify where they need to get too, and where from (a village perhaps, to a local shopping area). then in some cases would purchase a vehicle as a community project or would badger the local authority into making the funds available for it to take place.

the end result being that a large chunk of Arriva's loses are coming out from these community services expanding. After all, how often does Stagecoach, Arriva or First actually ask people where they want to go to, and where from? 

fair enough, your question was what you could do now, so this is perhaps out of that. but it is perhaps an interesting development if it becomes more wide spread.


----------



## comstock (May 22, 2005)

Kinsales said:
			
		

> well, thats london,


Yes I suspected as much. 

I *said* above London is different to the rest of the UK. If I ever live there (and it's a long-term possibility) I would proberbly ditch the car.



> but when i was out in the styx with one an hour, i would then just gear my day around catching the bus. so the price i paid for living somewhere rural was crap transport. But thats the way of things.
> If i missed the last bus i would walk the 10 miles home or sleep behind the counter at work.
> 
> I didnt have a car so thats what i had to do. same with a large chunk of the population who cant actualy afford to run a car.
> .



Been there, done that. I've been in *exactly* that situation. 

And when I could afford to do so, I brought a car so I no longer had to gear my day around catching the bus. And I could actually have a life and go out in the evening after the last bus finished. And on Sundays when there were no buses at all.

And that is exactly why I advocate *more* buses, at the same time as having no time for those who are 'anti-car'.

And that 'I'm pro-bus , pro-car and above all pro-*transport* 'is about what I said in my first post to the thread. 

And with that I bid you all good night


----------



## editor (May 23, 2005)

comstock said:
			
		

> And that 'I'm pro-bus , pro-car and above all pro-*transport* 'is about what I said in my first post to the thread.


So you want yet more cars on the roads and therefore must want more environmental destruction with extra road building, yes?

"As road transport has increased, so has the number of roads. In 1970 there were 44,900km of major roads in Great Britain, just over 2% of which were motorways. In 2002, there were 50,142km of major roads, and 3, 477km of motorways."


----------



## comstock (May 23, 2005)

Btw Editor I'm not ignoring your post above (& post#178)

You raise some good points in them, and I'd like to debate them, but not tonight


----------



## IMeMine (May 23, 2005)

I can remember when all this was roads.


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Proof please.



follow any bus in london on yer' pushbike for half a mile eh  

called living ( and spluttering ) proof.


----------



## editor (May 23, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> follow any bus in london on yer' pushbike for half a mile eh
> 
> called living ( and spluttering ) proof.


It may suit your argument, but I don't think your one opinion counts as absolute proof that most "most buses" across the UK are "poorly maintained and have less efficient engines".

I've ridden through more car fumes than I care to recollect.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 23, 2005)

Cars and driving licences should be earned, not given away willy-nilly to bad drivers.


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> It may suit your argument, but I don't think your one opinion counts as absolute proof that most "most buses" across the UK are "poorly maintained and have less efficient engines".
> 
> I've ridden through more car fumes than I care to recollect.



It suits the argument, after privatisation corners have been cut to save money and servicing budgets were cut to the bone, buses are not maintaned untill they need laying up for other repairs, then servicing and repairs are done, usually well outside the recommended guidelines, as for asking me for proof that older engines are less efficient than newer engines.

black/grey smoke coming from a diesel engine, either the air filter is fully clogged ( well past it's change by date)  or the engines on it's last legs, that is personal observation by myself and quite a few other posters on these boards even HGV vehicles have more stringent tests than buses ( MOT scrutiny every 3 months with emission tests) .


----------



## editor (May 23, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> It suits the argument, after privatisation corners have been cut to save money and servicing budgets were cut to the bone, buses are not maintaned untill they need laying up for other repairs, then servicing and repairs are done, usually well outside the recommended guidelines, as for asking me for proof that older engines are less efficient than newer engines


How many large cities in the UK are served by privatised bus services?


----------



## ernestolynch (May 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> How many large cities in the UK are served by privatised bus services?




All of them? They were 'deregulated' in the mid-90s, and Stagecoach, Arriva and FirstBus took the lot, driving out small operators.


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> How many large cities in the UK are served by privatised bus services?



Quite a bloody few I would expect, mine is ( Newcastle ), Sunderland is, Middlesbrough is, most rural areas are.

That's just in my area, several bus companies vying for fares all the time.

Heres one for ya, Edingburghs several bus companies all vie for the lucrative Seton Sands/ Mussleburgh/ Edingburgh route, so at the allocated times you have three buses racing each other to pick up the prime stops, when the season stops you have three buses racing to pick up about ten passengers, ( remember if they want to compete on these routes they have to do the route all year long).

explain to me what would be more efficient and have less enviromental impact.

My turbo diesel audi giving me at least 65mpg with just me in, or three 12 year old buses with a grand total of say 15 passengers between them, giving approx 12  ( very generous here ) mile to the gallon and spewing out  it's badly maintaned black smoke.

BTW I know in London your buses aren't privatised but the UK doesn't mean just London and there are a lot of us that have experiences from "outside London" and that is applicable to this debate


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> All of them? They were 'deregulated' in the mid-90s, and Stagecoach, Arriva and FirstBus took the lot, driving out small operators.



Thanks ern, I couldn't be bothered looking for more proof for people that want it presented as a powerpoint presentation with toytown pictures and don't know how to use a calculator.


----------



## ernestolynch (May 23, 2005)

Londno buses are privatised anyway - they are tendered out to Arriva and the usual suspects, but carry the red livery, and the timetables and routes are still under Livingstone's control.


----------



## _pH_ (May 23, 2005)

Here is good example of the kind of community bus service being discussed.

Edit: similar schemes can be found on the 'links' page


----------



## comstock (May 23, 2005)

Now then ,where were we  



			
				editor said:
			
		

> You see to be assuming that everyone's circumstances and needs are the same as yours. They're not.



To be honest I have to say thats rubbish, Mike.  Yes I've made reference to my own circustances to justify car use.

But If you look though my postings to this thread, I've also made reference to those with kids, women travelling at night, those who work Sundays, those in remote parts of the country....

Do you think *your* circumstances and needs are typical, Mike?

My whole point is that there is no such thing as typical circumstances. That is *exactly* why anti car measures are so unfair- they don't take account of indvidual circumstances.



> you seem to think people should be encouraged to drive wherever and whenever they want, without a care in the world for the enivronmental damage they cause, both locally and globally



Encouraged? Not further increasing a tax which already accounts for 80% of the cost of petrol is a funny definition of 'encourage' 

As for environmental damage 'globally'...you mean global warming. We aren't going to agree on that, so lets not even bother going over it again.

'Locally' much has already been done to cut pollution. Cat convertors have already made a massive difference. There is proberbly less pollution from cars (in total) now than 40 years ago. (we'll look at numbers of cars and amount of roads in a mo) But more needs to be done. LPG and hybrid-electrics will cut pollution still further. It's been a long time coming but eventually all-electric cars will reduce local pollution to zero. (we then need to clean up the leccy plants of course...but already that is happening)


----------



## comstock (May 23, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> So you want yet more cars on the roads and therefore must want more environmental destruction with extra road building, yes?


No, not more cars. I still maintain ownership is reaching saturation point.


> The numbers of vehicles on the roads of Great Britain have increased steadily. In 1970 there were just under 10 million private cars; in 2002 there were over 24 million



There are 42 million 16-74 year olds (IMHO in an ideal world people wouldn't drive after 75) 
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/uk.asp

So about 18 million potential extra drivers. But it's nowhere near that bad. By the time you take out those who can't drive (and some who could never (blind people for instance, or those with other severe handicaps)) those who happily share a car with a husband or wife, those who don't work, students etc and those who simply don't want a car I doubt we would ever see more than 30 million cars on Britians roads. 



> "As road transport has increased, so has the number of roads. In 1970 there were 44,900km of major roads in Great Britain, just over 2% of which were motorways. In 2002, there were 50,142km of major roads, and 3, 477km of motorways."



OK so car ownership is 2.4 times what it was,it's been a while since I did any maths, is that a 140% increase? road network has increased by....12% It won't seem like it living in London, but there is actually quite a bit of spare capacity outside the South-east, but even if car ownership reaches 30 million...a further 25% rise *and* we build roads in the same proportion you are only looking at a further road expansion of 2%.or so.


----------



## Dante (May 23, 2005)

re road expansion. 

the problem with more roads is that any spare capacity is in areas of low population density, where there will not be a large increase in the car numbers. However the areas that will get more roads will be the cities, and it will be ring road schemes etc that will be used to reduce congestion. 


so that will be some more green space gone unecesarily.

and it is quite clear that the number of ca users increases to fill up the available space . (i know, its only an observational statistic, but its quite telling)


----------



## Giles (May 23, 2005)

Maybe they should REALLY put up the price of petrol, or other taxes on car ownership. 

Get all the poor people off the road, leaving loads more space for the rich. That would be really popular.

Giles..


----------



## Dante (May 23, 2005)

i think a tax on engine size might work slightly better...

but with tax so high now, the increase will happen due to the inevitable oil-barrel price hike.


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

Kinsales said:
			
		

> i think a tax on engine size might work slightly better...
> 
> but with tax so high now, the increase will happen due to the inevitable oil-barrel price hike.



well it was said that fuel efficient cars would be better off, then they decided to tax diesel fuel more than unleaded, strange, at the minute diesel is about 6p a litre more than unleaded when it used to be 6p cheaper????

really strange when you realise diesel ( heavy ) oil  is a by product of petrol manufacture so in other words cheap to make.

buying a fuel efficient car isn't as beneficial as it used to be, just wait untill the critical mass have converted their cars to LPG and kaboom, the price of that will rise ridicoulosly quick, anybody care for a tenner on that?


----------



## Giles (May 23, 2005)

Kinsales said:
			
		

> i think a tax on engine size might work slightly better...
> 
> but with tax so high now, the increase will happen due to the inevitable oil-barrel price hike.



Given that 80% of the price of road fuel is tax, all this talk of increased vehicle taxes based on engine size is silly.

The tax on fuel is already a near "perfect" tax with every incentive to buy fuel-efficient cars: 

If you drive a car that does 20mpg then you pay twice as much tax as you do for a car doing 40mpg.

If you drive everywhere, using your car when you could have walked or taken the bus, etc, then you pay more.

If anything, they should get rid of the "tax disc" and raise the equivalent sum from fuel tax - its fairer. I mean, if you have a car, but only use it when you REALLY need to, you are producing less pollution that if you drive 20,000 miles a year, so why have the fixed price tax on haivng a car? Put it all on fuel, makes far more sense. Also, its pretty hard to evade paying fuel taxes, so they could get rid of the whole bureaucracy and admin cost of chasing non-payers, sending out reminders, queueing in post offices for tax discs, etc, saving more money and effort.

Giles..


----------



## El Jugador (May 23, 2005)

Of course there is also the argument that it is very foolish to create a system where we depend on things that are bad in order to generate the tax that we need for public spending. After all, that way we lose while the taxation is ineffective and we lose again when it succeeds. And as usual the fat cats win every time.


----------



## comstock (May 23, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> If anything, they should get rid of the "tax disc" and raise the equivalent sum from fuel tax - its fairer. I mean, if you have a car, but only use it when you REALLY need to, you are producing less pollution that if you drive 20,000 miles a year, so why have the fixed price tax on haivng a car?



In theory I'd agree with you, as long as it really is revenue neutral, and not just an excuse to raise taxes on motorists *again*.


----------



## layabout (May 23, 2005)

Griff said:
			
		

> I love cars, and I love watching Top Gear, but Clarkson's continued attack of Green issues is becoming tiresome. Just drive Astons & Porsches round tracks Jeremy, and fuck all this Green bashing bollocks. Surely the man cannot condone driving huge 4x4s on school runs in London?



Mr Clarkson isn't attacking Green issues.

He's attacking people who call themselves "green" but are in fact NOT green.


----------



## comstock (May 23, 2005)

El Jugador said:
			
		

> Of course there is also the argument that it is very foolish to create a system where we depend on things that are bad in order to generate the tax that we need for public spending. After all, that way we lose while the taxation is ineffective and we lose again when it succeeds. And as usual the fat cats win every time.



Another good point. Whatever its merits, that is one of the fudamental problems with the current congestion charging model...the more successful it is at cutting traffic the less successful it is as a tax, IYSWIM


----------



## Matt S (May 23, 2005)

Clarkson strikes back....

Craig Simmons is pretty chuffed to be personally singled out by our Jeremy actually - "If Jeremy Clarkson is attacking me I must be doing something right!"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1622006,00.html

Matt


----------



## layabout (May 23, 2005)

Magneze said:
			
		

> There's shit loads more cars than buses - therefore they contribute more as a group than buses.



There are shit loads more busses than aeroplanes. Therefore they contribute more as a group than aeroplanes.


----------



## Dante (May 23, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> There are shit loads more busses than aeroplanes. Therefore they contribute more as a group than aeroplanes.


 not the comparison being made, differnt types of engines for a start. different journey types, different rate of passenger-journeys. not a reasonable comparison by any stretch

one of the little things i dont think anyone has mentioned. when it comes to the levels of polution cars vs buses 
a bus can have up to 96 passengers, lets say it has 40 on average. 
a car can take 5 people, lets say 2 on average 
that means for one bus there are 20 cars. even with the disparity in engine sizes thats a lot more polution per mile, and then factor in the factors linked to building the vehicles. it all adds up. again this is hardly scientific, but it made me chuckle, as is my wont.


----------



## snadge (May 23, 2005)

layabout said:
			
		

> There are shit loads more busses than aeroplanes. Therefore they contribute more as a group than aeroplanes.



add the hgv gas guzzling monsters v rail freight eqaution and you'll be correct


----------



## laptop (May 23, 2005)

Matt S said:
			
		

> Clarkson strikes back....
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1622006,00.html
> 
> ...



Engineers know how to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics?   

Clarkson should be refused his degree purely for this amazing display of ignorance. It certainly illustrates where he's coming from about technology - "hey boys, anything is possible!". No it isn't...


----------



## lintin (May 23, 2005)

Really muddled thinking from Clarkson -- yet again!! 

He seems to be confused -- he thinks that enviromentalism and engineering are somehow opposed ! In reality good engineering is essential to enviromentalism. Although I agree with him on engineering having a degraded status in the UK as opposed to Italy etc, where engineers are held in high esteem !


----------



## laptop (May 23, 2005)

Thinking about it - for only a little longer than the boy racer merits - I think his understanding of "engineering" comes from adverts, and means "toy-making".

Not that wave energy devices aren't really cool toys - but he doesn't get to show off in one. Or. Maybe. Could he be persuaded?


----------



## lintin (May 23, 2005)

Reading that article where he implies enviromentalism and engineering are opposites, I can understand why engineering sometimes gets a bad name.

Picking up on the last post, perhaps he would get a kick out of being strapped to a wind turbine in a high wind.


----------



## FifthFromFront (May 24, 2005)

lintin said:
			
		

> Really muddled thinking from Clarkson -- yet again!!
> 
> He seems to be confused -- he thinks that enviromentalism and engineering are somehow opposed ! In reality good engineering is essential to enviromentalism. Although I agree with him on engineering having a degraded status in the UK as opposed to Italy etc, where engineers are held in high esteem !




In germany can't engineers call themselves Engineer So-andSo like Dr so and so?? 

As you say engineering is the only way we gona get ourselves out of theis mess. We just need to focus our brains on more environmentally friendly stuff - like trolley busses (yes I have a one track mind) once we sorted out our energy supplies (ie renewable!).

FFF


----------



## _pH_ (May 24, 2005)

> This means I’m in the same boat as Margaret Thatcher, who was snubbed by Oxford University for stealing milk or something,


----------



## Bob_the_lost (May 24, 2005)

FifthFromFront said:
			
		

> In germany can't engineers call themselves Engineer So-andSo like Dr so and so??
> 
> As you say engineering is the only way we gona get ourselves out of theis mess. We just need to focus our brains on more environmentally friendly stuff - like trolley busses (yes I have a one track mind) once we sorted out our energy supplies (ie renewable!).
> 
> FFF


 I heard that somewhere, of course in europe the Meng degree takes five years (we do it in four, more intensive years).

He's amusing on Top gear, but he's not exactly my nominee for most unbiased person on the planet.


----------



## pk (May 24, 2005)




----------



## tw1ggy5 (May 30, 2005)

El Jugador said:
			
		

> Of course there is also the argument that it is very foolish to create a system where we depend on things that are bad in order to generate the tax that we need for public spending. After all, that way we lose while the taxation is ineffective and we lose again when it succeeds. And as usual the fat cats win every time.



Of course it is, but thats what were left with at the moment. They wont tax the corps what they should so the gap has to be made up by the general population somehow. Putting up taxes on things people have to have or have to pay for is unpopular, so they demonise certain things, then use that as an excuse to ramp tax on them to fill the funding gaps. Alcohol, fags, etc.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 30, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> add the hgv gas guzzling monsters v rail freight eqaution and you'll be correct



The old BR lost a lot of freight traffic because of price and inefficiency ( downright bloody mindedness in some cases ) and it has never returned to the railways. 

An illustration was the fish trade out of Mallaig, the railway refused to carry fish because it was too much trouble to clean the waggons, the result ( at the peak of the trade ) was a waggon leaving Mallaig every 20 minutes, day and night, up the single track road to Fort William. Not a problem now, they finally caught all the fish.


----------



## _pH_ (May 30, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> The old BR lost a lot of freight traffic because of price and inefficiency ( downright bloody mindedness in some cases ) and it has never returned to the railways.
> 
> An illustration was the fish trade out of Mallaig, the railway refused to carry fish because it was too much trouble to clean the waggons, the result ( at the peak of the trade ) was a waggon leaving Mallaig every 20 minutes, day and night, up the single track road to Fort William. Not a problem now, they finally caught all the fish.



Have you any proof of that? Because it sounds like pro-Tory anti-pre-privatisation-BR propaganda to me.


----------



## Roadkill (May 30, 2005)

Sasaferrato said:
			
		

> The old BR lost a lot of freight traffic because of price and inefficiency ( downright bloody mindedness in some cases ) and it has never returned to the railways.



The railways have always been ambivalent towards fish traffic: perishable freight is expensive to handle and a pain on the network because it usually needs the same priority as a passenger train.  That's pretty much always been the case, so fish is a fairly poor example.

Price - and the regulation of prices by government under BR - was one reason for the railways' loss of freight traffic.  Others were beyond their control, such as the decline of heavy industries which depended on the railways and the reluctance of newer light industries to use them, although this is beginning to change.  Moreover, in the 1950s and 1960s the railways were obliged by law to act as 'common carrier' and handle any freight offered, even if it was loss-making.  They were also obliged to publish a scale of charges.  All of this gave road hauliers an inbuilt advantage.  Effectively, the denationalisation of road haulage in 1953 freed lorry operators to act in their best interests, whilst the railways were saddled with legal obligations dating back in some instances to the first world war. 

Road hauliers, and the car lobby as a whole, are a powerful and well organised lobby group, who effectively have had everything they want from the government (freeze on fuel duties, larger lorries, light regulation), whilst public transport - passenger and freight - has been neglected.  Railway fares are rocketing (I'm not now going to Strawberry Fair because the price of a ticket has *doubled* since last year), service is improving very slowly, bus transport is still crap and most cities still prioritise car use.

Meanwhile, most of the car lobby seem to me to have a persecution complex.  On the road I live on, a new crossing was set up last year.  A taxi driver grumnbled to me about how the council 'hates motorists' and put it there solely to annoy drivers on the main road.  Granted, it does block one lane: on the other hand, as I pointed out to said cabby, the junction it's on used to be very dangerous (I saw more than one accident there) and it also makes life a lot easier for pedestrians.  He didn't seem to think this mattered.  As if anything could be more important than saving drivers two minutes waiting at lights!


----------



## isvicthere? (May 30, 2005)

Clarkson = even more of a twat than before.   Utter utter wanker.


----------



## IMeMine (May 30, 2005)

"The environmentalists are always getting on at us for not featuring energy efficient transport and we agree with them. So tonight we have on the show a green car, and here it is (Camera pans to a pea green Lambourghini).


----------



## HarrisonSlade (May 30, 2005)

I feel that it does have to be picked up that there is a poor, vindictive and counter productive attitude towards motorists form the Councils. It is a great source of revenue to fine motorists, and it is now turning from being a penalty for dangerous driving and inconvenient parking to just on the spot tax. No one is actually being fined for guzzling loads of gas or for driving dangerously. People are being fined for going 55 in 50 lanes on motorways straight after they have past 70 mph zones they are not ready for passing. The law is now there to pick up people who are convenient to pick up, and letting people go if it were to cause to many problems. 

As for the car versus public transport arguement. The car is simple, you don't have to pander to the kind of obnoxious twat who drive buses, pay extortionate prices on the trains, and you know for a fact that the only delays you will get will be in traffic jams with other motorists; of which have not been helped with the increase in public transport at peak as well as off peak time.

In a Country where many are ready to accept that there isn't something wrong with the Transport system at present, it is refreshing that we have a man who is willing to shout at the people who make the laws, and it is interesting to hear such individualist of which I have heard voice such dissapproval at such protest.


----------



## IMeMine (May 30, 2005)

Public transport is often an unpleasant experience.
Work towards making the buses, taxis and trains safe and enjoyable for people before you go around telling people to ditch their cars. The first step would be putting conductors back on buses to keep order, this would make the 3pm to 4:30pm timetable bearable at least. Sheppards leave the gate open before they direct the sheep into the pen.


----------



## editor (May 30, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> Public transport is often an unpleasant experience.


Getting a faceful of stinking fumes from a traffic queue predominantly made up of single occupant drivers is often an unpleasant experience.

Waiting ages to cross the road while cars roar by is often an unpleasant experience

Hearing the endless roar of cars thundering by while you're in the countryside is often an unpleasant experience

Seeing great chunks of the landscape destroyed for a new bypass is  often an unpleasant experience

Being held up by massive traffic queues when you're in a bus is  often an unpleasant experience

Need I go on?


----------



## oryx (May 30, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> Public transport is often an unpleasant experience.
> Work towards making the buses, taxis and trains safe and enjoyable for people before you go around telling people to ditch their cars. The first step would be putting conductors back on buses to keep order, this would make the 3pm to 4:30pm timetable bearable at least. Sheppards leave the gate open before they direct the sheep into the pen.



I think you & editor are both right.

I've just started using public transport to get to work after years of driving & apart from a few Oyster card nightmares, & the overland train resembling the poster for "Shaun of the Dead", I've found it surprisingly OK. (So far). 

However, public transport is often dangerously overcrowded (luckily my journey doesn't involve the Northern Line), late (all my colleagues who get the Jubilee were coming into work cursing one day last week!), & unbearably hot (which buses blow hot air out on hot days - is it the bendy ones?). 

I think it's got better since I last regularly went to work on public transport in 1991, especially the buses. It needs to improve further before more people will use it more willingly as an alternative to a car. I have noticed that the majority of the people getting the Tube at overcrowded times are mostly young-ish & look fit. Elderly people & mums with pushchairs would have a nightmare on the tube at rush hour.


----------



## Dante (May 31, 2005)

IMeMine said:
			
		

> Public transport is often an unpleasant experience.
> Work towards making the buses, taxis and trains safe and enjoyable for people before you go around telling people to ditch their cars. The first step would be putting conductors back on buses to keep order, this would make the 3pm to 4:30pm timetable bearable at least. Sheppards leave the gate open before they direct the sheep into the pen.


 Conductors aint going to happen. The role of the conductor is increasingly being subsumed by the driver, and the phasing out of the old "jump-on-jump-offs" mean that there is no role for them beyond the tour market. 

Intersting to look at the figures for the Bendy Buses where the Driver's role is purely that of driving the bus. no ticket check, board wherever you want. That seems to be common in a lot of continental services. and is a model that should be adopted.

A better plan to keep order during that school run time would be school buses. no? dedicated services perhaps? provided free to all children. at all schools? 

The bus companies all have gone through a period of rationalisation (lay-offs) so the only employees left are managers, drivers and engineers. so they wont introduce a policing (small p) service as well. besides of course, the differential between boisterous behaviour and violent. 
when i was teaching this year, the transport police had to put a couple of uniforms on the trains to deal with the kids (there was only so much i was prepared to do.) but since they have no other way of traveling... perhaps the dedicated service is best... thread perhaps for a different forum.

Black cabs are safe, at least as long as you dont want to go south after midnight...


----------



## Dante (May 31, 2005)

Giles said:
			
		

> Given that 80% of the price of road fuel is tax, all this talk of increased vehicle taxes based on engine size is silly.
> 
> The tax on fuel is already a near "perfect" tax with every incentive to buy fuel-efficient cars:
> 
> ...


 yes, but an engine size tax would further penalize the SUV 4x4. perhaps it needs to be a city road/engine size tax. 

but whilst the larger the engine the larger the fuel payments, the larger the tax etc. its a bout polution. persuade people it is not economical to run an SUV when they could get a Volvo, and then, there we are, less polution. which is the aim.


----------

