# Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

Been meaning for a little while to start a thread to collect links and info relating to my long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever.

There are some encouraging signs that there might even be slightly more appetite for this post covid - we will see - so now seems a good time to start.

To kick us off, here is a video that I didn't make (honest) but covers most of the main points for those unfamiliar with the arguments.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

Surly the correct thing to do is  not ban the car but  make  infrastructure good enough that the car is obsolete?









then ban the car


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Ok. Good idea. But how do I get to work, go shopping without a car? There’s no public transport here. The nearest supermarket is only a 15 minute walk, but I’d need to shop most days. Mrs Dess has developed arthritis in her hand so she can’t carry much. I can’t do that if I am at work too. My only option is a once a week big shop. That means using the car to transport everything. Supermarkets don’t do online here.

Work is a 45 minute drive away. How do I get there without a car? Just to remind you, there’s no public transport here.

I could move closer to work, but then my wife would have the drive. Or we could both work in the same town. But there isn’t enough work for both of us in either town.

Move somewhere else? Possibly, but who’s going cover the costs? Because of the lockdown we can’t afford to move somewhere else at the moment.

I welcome your suggestions.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Been meaning for a little while to start a thread to collect links and info relating to my long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever.
> 
> There are some encouraging signs that there might even be slightly more appetite for this post covid - we will see - so now seems a good time to start.
> 
> To kick us off, here is a video that I didn't make (honest) but covers most of the main points for those unfamiliar with the arguments.



Banning the private car, I note, but not the hired car, the taxi or minicab


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Banning the private car, I note, but not the hired car, the taxi or minicab


Another plot by the capitalist machine.  Remove the concept of ownership and replace it  with a service.

we must seize the means of locomotion.


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

I like the Dutch Train taxi. The taxis (minivan size) wait outside the train station until there are enough people to nearly fill the taxi and then drop everyone off where they want to go. Only in cities now, but with apps and things would work more widely.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)




----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Ok. Good idea. But how do I get to work, go shopping without a car? There’s no public transport here. The nearest supermarket is only a 15 minute walk, but I’d need to shop most days. Mrs Dess has developed arthritis in her hand so she can’t carry much. I can’t do that if I am at work too. My only option is a once a week big shop. That means using the car to transport everything. Supermarkets don’t do online here.
> 
> Work is a 45 minute drive away. How do I get there without a car? Just to remind you, there’s no public transport here.
> 
> ...


I've answered these questions a zillion times on other threads, and don't have time to go through it all again just now. I intend to use this thread mainly as a repository for information.

The concise answer is that the aim is a reduction in car dependency. Of course you can't just ban cars and do nothing to change the infrastructure. You also can't change the infrastructure without banning cars. The two have to happen in parallel. We start with big cities and work outwards. In cities it's easy in practical terms (although more difficult politically) and proven. In rural areas it is less easy but in opinion not impossible. But like I say you start in cities which is where the majority of people now live. You provide good public transport so that people can get to places easily without their own transport. You provide more facilities locally, like shops that are in walking distance. You make systems for home delivery efficient. Widespread private car ownership directly makes these changes harder to implement.


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

Just keep the lockdown going - massive reduction in car use.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)




----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> we must seize the means of locomotion.


That's pretty much exactly the concept of public transport.


----------



## platinumsage (May 8, 2020)

The most efficient form of transport in rural areas is surely car ownership, perhaps with car hire for those who travel infrequently with taxis as an alternative. Buses every ten minutes from every village to everywhere else are inevitably going to be almost entirely empty most of the time due to the low population density.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 8, 2020)

25 pages


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The most efficient form of transport in rural areas is surely car ownership, perhaps with car hire for those who travel infrequently with taxis as an alternative. Buses every ten minutes from every village to everywhere else are inevitably going to be almost entirely empty most of the time due to the low population density.



Autonomous driving for Electric Vehicles will help solve that - an app summons the car (or minibus or whatever) which means fewer people again need cars.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Ok. Good idea. But how do I get to work, go shopping without a car? There’s no public transport here. The nearest supermarket is only a 15 minute walk, but I’d need to shop most days. Mrs Dess has developed arthritis in her hand so she can’t carry much. I can’t do that if I am at work too. My only option is a once a week big shop. That means using the car to transport everything. Supermarkets don’t do online here.
> 
> Work is a 45 minute drive away. How do I get there without a car? Just to remind you, there’s no public transport here.
> 
> ...



Praise those without the wherewithal to learn to drive and buy a car, the more wallys they persuade to scale back their lives to the standards of Victorian peasants the more the roads will be nice and empty as they currently are, plus the skies are so much freer of pollution right now so there’s no reason not to go for that 5ltr AMG Mercedes


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's pretty much exactly the concept of public transport.


Mass transit is just another tool free to be misused by capitalism.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

You can have your car free cities, I don't want to go there anyhow. 

But the rural motorist will be a feature for many years to come, out of necessity. 

For the rural population, the car is freedom!


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

Not if you don't want to go anywhere


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> For the rural population, the car is freedom!


Seriously, go and tell that to someone who can't drive or can't afford to. 

It's freedom for those fortunate enough to have it as an option.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Seriously, go and tell that to someone who can't drive or can't afford to.
> 
> It's freedom for those fortunate enough to have it as an option.


which will be nobody under your draconian system!


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> which will be nobody under your draconian system!



You've not been reading this thread have you? 



Shippou-Sensei said:


> Surly the correct thing to do is  not ban the car but  make  infrastructure good enough that the car is obsolete?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which I think is the idea. Hth


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> We start with big cities and work outwards. In cities it's easy in practical terms (although more difficult politically) and proven. In rural areas it is less easy but in opinion not impossible. But like I say you start in cities which is where the majority of people now live. You provide good public transport so that people can get to places easily without their own transport. You provide more facilities locally, like shops that are in walking distance.


I'd like to see someone pick up a couple of chipboard flooring sheets and take it home by bus or tube.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Seriously, go and tell that to someone who can't drive or can't afford to.
> 
> It's freedom for those fortunate enough to have it as an option.



Tax city dwellers punitively for the extra pollution they cause and use the funds to supply private vehicles for those who don’t live in cities.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I'd like to see someone pick up a couple of chipboard flooring sheets and take it home by bus or tube.



Or even a tin of paint.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

two sheds said:


> You've not been reading this thread have you?
> 
> Which I think is the idea. Hth


I'll think you will find that i posed a question. One that nobody answered. 
Why should i think they support my position when they have not actually said that they do?

hth


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I'd like to see someone pick up a couple of chipboard flooring sheets and take it home by bus or tube.


As expected, this thread generates the usual parade of idiot objections.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As expected, this thread generates the usual parade of idiot objections.



Only idiotic if you are wealthy enough to employ tradespeople to undertake your menial tasks, try getting some empathy man.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As expected, this thread generates the usual parade of idiot objections.


People do DIY. You need to get hold of the materials somehow. Most people who do DIY do it because they can't afford to pay someone to come in and do it so may find it prohibitive to pay the stupid delivery charges most DIY stores charge.


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I'll think you will find that i posed a question. One that nobody answered.
> Why should i think they support my position when they have not actually said that they do?
> 
> hth



See posts #2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 - all giving partial solutions towards building the infrastructure.


----------



## two sheds (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As expected, this thread generates the usual parade of idiot objections.



Nope, carrying paint or chipboard is a valid need. "Building the infrastructure" means taking such things into account. Minibuses need storage space for things like that. Parents need to take childrens' prams and things with them. All needs discussing.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Seriously, go and tell that to someone who can't drive or can't afford to.


I don't think I could live where I do without access to a car. 
I couldn't get to work for a start. 

You are right of course that there are people who can't drive or afford to. But that doesn't negate the fact that for many people their cars are a piece of personal freedom.

As to people who can't afford it, a car is an investment (though can be had for a lot less than many might think) but you have to make a commitment, purchase price, insurance, tax, breakdown insurance, MOTs and tyres and servicing etc .. 



teuchter said:


> It's freedom for those fortunate enough to have it as an option.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

two sheds said:


> See posts #2, 6, 8, 11 and 14 - all giving partial solutions towards building the infrastructure.


I'll give you 11  but  I was addressing a person not a general thread consensus so I don't believe the others count.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

S☼I said:


> 25 pages


And a bun fight.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I'd like to see someone pick up a couple of chipboard flooring sheets and take it home by bus or tube.


It's not difficult to arrange delivery of bulky and heavy items if you don't drive. I've somehow managed to refloor two rooms in this house without any of us being able to drive.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Or even a tin of paint.


How big are your tins of paint? Again I somehow manage to regularly bring paint home, sometimes even on foot, without a car.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Instinctively I don’t think the majority of people live in cities. I think the densest concentrations are in cities, but doubt that this is a majority. Perhaps it could be true in the U.K. but the USA, China etc? Of course I might be proven wrong.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> How big are your tins of paint? Again I somehow manage to regularly bring paint home, sometimes even on foot, without a car.



Try boarding a bus with two 5ltr tins of paint and see how you get on. They get heavy after the first couple of miles of your walk.

Do you drivers allow passengers to take tins of paint with them?


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not difficult to arrange delivery of bulky and heavy items if you don't drive. I've somehow managed to refloor two rooms in this house without any of us being able to drive.





maomao said:


> How big are your tins of paint? Again I somehow manage to regularly bring paint home, sometimes even on foot, without a car.


But only possible if there’s a good alternative to the car, which often means some sort of petrol powered vehicle.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Ok. Good idea. But how do I get to work, go shopping without a car? There’s no public transport here. The nearest supermarket is only a 15 minute walk, but I’d need to shop most days. Mrs Dess has developed arthritis in her hand so she can’t carry much. I can’t do that if I am at work too. My only option is a once a week big shop. That means using the car to transport everything. Supermarkets don’t do online here.
> 
> Work is a 45 minute drive away. How do I get there without a car? Just to remind you, there’s no public transport here.
> 
> ...









Next.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not difficult to arrange delivery of bulky and heavy items if you don't drive. I've somehow managed to refloor two rooms in this house without any of us being able to drive.


Exactly. And delivery is not the only solution.
I don't own a car but I can drive.
I manage to move heavy and bulky things around London when I need to. Some people's minds will be blown. Impossible! What is this black magic that he employs! they say.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> The nearest supermarket is only a 15 minute walk, but I’d need to shop most days. Mrs Dess has developed arthritis in her hand so she can’t carry much. I can’t do that if I am at work too. My only option is a once a week big shop. That means using the car to transport everything. Supermarkets don’t do online here.


Jeezo, lots of people live a 15 minute walk from the supermarket and manage to do their shipping just fine without resorting to a car/public transport. And why would you need to shop most days? How much stuff are you buying? And a rucksack/trolley would solve Mrs D's problem.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

That is something of an abalist  trap you are walking into.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Try boarding a bus with two 5ltr tins of paint and see how you get on. They get heavy after the first couple of miles of your walk.
> 
> Do you drivers allow passengers to take tins of paint with them?


I've got a lot more than that on the bus before! I got three packs of underlay and other assorted tools on once. 

And yes, certainly, if unopened. Why wouldn't they? Taking a few things home from b&q is standard work for taxis. A couple of the S-Class drivers might moan I suppose.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> That is something of an abalist  trap you are walking into.











						Bike for disabled people
					

Van Raam produces special needs bicycles for people with a disability or a limitation.




					www.vanraam.com
				




Next.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> Jeezo, lots of people live a 15 minute walk from the supermarket and manage to do their shipping just fine without resorting to a car/public transport. And why would you need to shop most days? How much stuff are you buying? And a rucksack/trolley would solve Mrs D's problem.


No it wouldn’t. It would aggravate her back injuries. 

A normal weekly shop, at the weekend, would involve five or six bags. We don’t buy prepared foods and a weeks worth of fruit and vegetables is heavy. This problem with weight would be eased by shopping daily.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I'd like to see someone pick up a couple of chipboard flooring sheets and take it home by bus or tube.








Next.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> I've got a lot more than that on the bus before! I got three packs of underlay and other assorted tools on once.
> 
> And yes, certainly, if unopened. Why wouldn't they? Taking a few things home from b&q is standard work for taxis. A couple of the S-Class drivers might moan I suppose.




Tfl Conditions of Carriage


Which is why bus drivers routinely turn people away who are carrying tins of paint.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> No it wouldn’t. It would aggravate her back injuries.
> 
> A normal weekly shop, at the weekend, would involve five or six bags. We don’t buy prepared foods and a weeks worth of fruit and vegetables is heavy. This problem with weight would be eased by shopping daily.


So you do it with a backpack or whatever instead twice a week. Think of the fitness and environmental gains!

(That's a lot of food for a week though.  )


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tfl Conditions of Carriage
> View attachment 211402
> 
> Which is why bus drivers routinely turn people away who are carrying tins of paint.


You seem to be getting tins of paint mixed up with cruise missiles or something.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> So you do it with a backpack or whatever instead twice a week. Think of the fitness and environmental gains!
> 
> (That's a lot of food for a week though.  )



I buy a hell of a lot more than that; partner, two kids, plus we buy for elderly neighbours two doors down. A weeks worth would be >20 bags. Still I suppose I could devote a couple of days a week to trundling back and forth to Tesco four or five times, (2 busses, 90 mins each way, £12 round trip).


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Next.


How will that work with my damaged knees that make cycling difficult to impossible, and for a journey that takes 45 minutes by car?

this is ok if you are fit and healthy, unfortunately not everyone is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> You seem to be getting tins of paint mixed up with cruise missiles or something.




Paint is inflammable.









						Carrying stuff on buses
					

I just tried to get on a bus with a car battery (unused, brand new) and the driver wouldn't even open the doors.   Is this normal? Or was he just being a twat?   What else can you not take on buses (I mean apart from guns and grenades and things obviously)?




					www.urban75.net
				




And then we have dogs, at the drivers discretion to accept them, obviously all your drivers will welcome them, but I have only ever had one cab driver who allowed me to take a dog with me.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

I was a cyclist initially, which allowed me to get to the local cinema, meet my mates and visit the seaside.

Then I swore by motorbikes, I could visit my friends, the pub of a weekend, get to my various jobs about the place and tour around the place. Freedom was definitely the thing about a motorbike.

At first I didn't want to learn to drive a car, but eventually I had to admit to some advantages, I could carry more than one mate at a time, then how useful they are for carrying stuff, I could tow a trailer, and nice that they keep you dry.

So I am a fan of vehicles, they are useful, great and various!


----------



## Idaho (May 8, 2020)

A thread about public transport - wizard! Oh look, some people want more and better public transport. And yet some people think that lacks manliness and like cars. Goodness.. some videos of expensive cars. And some reasonable objections as to why we can't ban private cars. I can't wait to read on. So much new ground covered.


----------



## xenon (May 8, 2020)

Soon, we'll only be allowed out once safely ensconced in near hermetically sealed palanquins. Exchanging infrequent messages with passers by and the few remaining humans involved in retail via short range radio. receiving our food packages and medication through the builtin sanitising airlock system. Other than the collection of these vital provisions, there will be no legal reason for class C citizens to be outside anyway. Daily exercise will be induced by electric muscle stimulous and confined to the private citadels we shall call home.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I buy a hell of a lot more than that; partner, two kids, plus we buy for elderly neighbours two doors down. A weeks worth would be >20 bags. Still I suppose I could devote a couple of days a week t trundling back and forth to Tesco four or five times, (2 busses, 90 mins each way, £12 round trip).


I was remarking on that being a lot for two people.

Online delivery could be better for you, with the odd top-up shop? They seem to plan their routes so it's as environmentally-friendly as possible round here  Might save you time too.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> So you do it with a backpack or whatever instead twice a week. Think of the fitness and environmental gains!
> 
> (That's a lot of food for a week though.  )


Think of the already knackered knees, the already injured back. Think of the weight and size of ten litres of milk for the week. Think of 5kg of fruit, five kg of vegetables. Think of working till 9 at night, from 9 in the morning, except Saturday. think of the shops being closed for four hours at lunchtime, saturday afternoons, all day Sunday.

perhaps your idea might work in a UK town or city, but not here in rural Spain.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Paint is inflammable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Paint is inflammable. An unopened fucking tin isn't. Go to the bus stop outside your nearest b&q and see how many get refused. Oscar Pistorius could count them on his toes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> I was remarking on that being a lot for two people.
> 
> Online delivery could be better for you, with the odd top-up shop? They seem to plan their routes so it's as environmentally-friendly as possible round here  Might save you time too.




Online delivery, lol. The reason I shop for me neighbours is cos they can't get any fucking slots!


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> I was remarking on that being a lot for two people.
> 
> Online delivery could be better for you, with the odd top-up shop? They seem to plan their routes so it's as environmentally-friendly as possible round here  Might save you time too.


That´s great if you can have someone to be there for accepting the delivery. But it isńt always possible.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

Anyway, this is how you do it:

1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities 
3 - Segregated cycleways everywhere
4 - Daytime HGV/van delivery in cities banned. Overnight access allowed. Daytime cargo bike delivery encouraged where possible.
5 - Massively increased investment in both public transport capacity and fare subsidy, based on a fully nationalised, integrated transport network.
6 - Increase in fuel costs, a switch to per mile charging for private car use, mandatory dash cams and speed trackers.
7 - Changed light sequences at most junctions, with pedestrians and bicycles given default priority

There's more, but that would be a good start.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Surly the correct thing to do is  not ban the car but  make  infrastructure good enough that the car is obsolete?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah let's do something else first and then get rid of the poison-spewing, planet-killing, kiddie-maiming death machines. Because of priorities.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Think of the already knackered knees, the already injured back. Think of the weight and size of ten litres of milk for the week. Think of 5kg of fruit, five kg of vegetables. Think of working till 9 at night, from 9 in the morning, except Saturday. think of the shops being closed for four hours at lunchtime, saturday afternoons, all day Sunday.
> 
> perhaps your idea might work in a UK town or city, but not here in rural Spain.



Good lord, I think we need a thread on how many groceries people get through in a week! (Not being sarcastic or whatever, I'm just genuinely astonished. )


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Idaho said:


> A thread about public transport - wizard! Oh look, some people want more and better public transport. And yet some people think that lacks manliness and like cars. Goodness.. some videos of expensive cars. And some reasonable objections as to why we can't ban private cars. I can't wait to read on. So much new ground covered.


I love my car, I’m a petrol head, unashamedly. But if there was a proper, workable alternative, one that was affordable, I’d use it, or at least consider it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Paint is inflammable. An unopened fucking tin isn't. Go to the bus stop outside your nearest b&q and see how many get refused. Oscar Pistorius could count them on his toes.



You do it, my nearest B&Q is miles away, 15 mins by car, 3 hour round trip by bus, and that's ignoring the fact that today's a bank holiday. Please take an independent observer with you to verify your results or else we'll have to call chinny.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, this is how you do it:
> 
> 1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
> 2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities
> ...


You seem to have left out shooting all the Audi drivers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> You seem to have left out shooting all the Audi drivers.


That comes under "there's more..."


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, this is how you do it:
> 
> 1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
> 2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities
> ...


Pave over the greenfields in the name of improving the environment. Might not work that one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> People do DIY. You need to get hold of the materials somehow. Most people who do DIY do it because they can't afford to pay someone to come in and do it so may find it prohibitive to pay the stupid delivery charges most DIY stores charge.



I managed to get several nine-foot lengths of forby-two home on the tram. Raised a couple of eyebrows but meh.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I love my car, I’m a petrol head, unashamedly. But if there was a proper, workable alternative, one that was affordable, I’d use it, or at least consider it.


See my first answer to you.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You do it, my nearest B&Q is miles away, 15 mins by car, 3 hour round trip by bus, and that's ignoring the fact that today's a bank holiday. Please take an independent observer with you to verify your results or else we'll have to call chinny.


You could come and look at all the walls in my house all of which were painted with paint that came home on the bus. Or I'll have to 'call chinny'. I'm sure some jobsworth cunt somewhere has turfed some poor sod off a bus for it at some point but they probably just got on the next one.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, this is how you do it:
> 
> 1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
> 2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities
> ...




This is great, there will be no need for HGVs to enter cities, as they will only need to deliver to the out of town malls where all the shoppers will drive to. It's a win.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Pave over the greenfields in the name of improving the environment. Might not work that one.



I mean it's a widely used strategy that does actually work but whatever.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Pave over the greenfields in the name of improving the environment. Might not work that one.


Shall we calculate the percentage that would actually be needed to be paved over? I can try but I'm not sure I've got enough decimal places.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is great, there will be no need for HGVs to enter cities, as they will only need to deliver to the out of town malls where all the shoppers will drive to. It's a win.



People only want to go to places they can drive to. Which explains why, prior to the invention of cars, nobody ever went anywhere.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is great, there will be no need for HGVs to enter cities, as they will only need to deliver to the out of town malls where all the shoppers will drive to. It's a win.


Yet amazingly the reality of places where similar things have been tried/implemented show city centres thrive and see increased numbers of visitors and trade. Funny that, you make something built for people and people come to it. Well I never.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> You seem to have left out shooting all the Audi drivers.




Some wibble about cruise missiles, now advocating killing people. These kinds of irrational arguments are probably why the anti-car brigade are viewed as the loonspuds they are by right thinking folk.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> See my first answer to you.


See my response to that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yet amazingly the reality of places where similar things have been tried/implemented show city centres thrive and see increased numbers of visitors and trade. Funny that, you make something built for people and people come to it. Well I never.



You ever been to the US?


----------



## Brainaddict (May 8, 2020)

My god, I wonder if our civilisation with its low level of technology and wealth might be able to solve the problem of people with low mobility being able to get food without cars. Let's put our best minds on it. It's a tough one for sure, but if we work really hard we might be able to crack it. We might even work out a way of getting food to rural areas. Just a crazy dreamer here...

Love the people moaning that they might have to change their life a little bit if they didn't have a car. Diddums.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You ever been to the US?


Yep. It's a special kind of fucked.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> See my response to that.


It's an eBike. Try one, they're amazing.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


>



Please stick to the videos as it's easy not to press play whereas however fast I scroll past the shit you write I inevitably catch sight of some of it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> But if there was a proper, workable alternative, one that was affordable, I’d use it, or at least consider it.


I wouldn't. I live in Central London within 300 yards of 3 tube stations and about 40 bus routes. I keep the cars because I like driving them and I don't care about the emissions given that my overall footprint probably isn't much larger than most climate twat's and there are few better sounds than a twin turbo V6 kicking off down the road.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


>




'Carwow' is a title a child would reject as being too childish. So perfect for both the content and the target audience.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Instinctively I don’t think the majority of people live in cities. I think the densest concentrations are in cities, but doubt that this is a majority. Perhaps it could be true in the U.K. but the USA, China etc? Of course I might be proven wrong.


Depends what you mean by cities but the majority of people now live in urban environments, and that has been true for the US since early 1900s and the UK even earlier (approx 1850), China tipped over in ~2011


----------



## platinumsage (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, this is how you do it:
> 
> 1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
> 2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities
> ...



Park and Ride is old-school thinking, it’s now regarded as sucking custom from rural bus services and other public transport, meaning these get underdeveloped. P&R basically incentivises car use, and only benefits car owners and those city dwellers who don’t ever need to use out of town public transport.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It's an eBike. Try one, they're amazing.


Isn't it cheaper and more environmentally astute to continue using my car? Have you seen the environmental damage done creating the rechargeable batteries?


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I wouldn't. I live in Central London within 300 yards of 3 tube stations and about 40 bus routes. I keep the cars because I like driving them and I don't care about the emissions given that my overall footprint probably isn't much larger than most climate twat's and there are few better sounds than a twin turbo V6 kicking off down the road.


Unless it's a V8 or V12


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Unless it's a V8 or V12


When I was but a motorbiking youth a chef friend bought a V12 Jaguar XJS. It was a lovely thing but very unreliable and expensive to fix


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Unless it's a V8 or V12



Dick size thread is thataway ------->


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Park and Ride is old-school thinking, it’s now regarded as sucking custom from rural bus services and other public transport, meaning these get underdeveloped. P&R basically incentivises car use, and only benefits car owners and those city dwellers who don’t ever need to use out of town public transport.


On the scale of current ones, yes. But when placed into the context of the other measures I outlined they would be part of an overall solution.

The aim isn’t to get rid of cars entirely. Merely to get their use down to an absolute minimum.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Paint is inflammable. An unopened fucking tin isn't. Go to the bus stop outside your nearest b&q and see how many get refused. Oscar Pistorius could count them on his toes.


Paint tins can fall over and the lid might come off. Even water based paint is banned from buses here. Not because it's inflammable but because if it does fall over and open it makes a right mess.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

If paint is unsafe to carry on buses, it's unsafe to carry in cars. All this reveals is the different standards applied to different modes. Ban hazardous materials from carriage in private cars, or allow it on buses. Either option fine by me.


----------



## platinumsage (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> On the scale of current ones, yes. But when placed into the context of the other measures I outlined they would be part of an overall solution.
> 
> The aim isn’t to get rid of cars entirely. Merely to get their use down to an absolute minimum.



Not sure how building loads of new large car parks with special buses designed to serve car owners contributes to a strategy of reducing car use to a minimum. 

Looking at the rest of your strategy, it needs some measure enabling people to get to their nearest bus stop, not an encouragment to ignore that and drive to the city.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Isn't it cheaper and more environmentally astute to continue using my car?



Obviously not.



> Have you seen the environmental damage done creating the rechargeable batteries?



Rechargable. Clue's in the name. There is embodied energy in an e-bike yes, but if it results in petrol not getting burnt and new cars with vastly more embodied energy not being made then it's a net win.

Although I'm far from convinced that hybrid cars represent a significant net gain relative to efficient petrol-only cars once battery production and longevity is taken into account. But batteries in electric and hybrid cars are an order of magnitude larger than those in ebikes as they have to shift more weight at higher speeds over greater distances and they don't get any help from pedals.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah let's do something else first and then get rid of the poison-spewing, planet-killing, kiddie-maiming death machines. Because of priorities.


No. Its better to have the alternatives in place first.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If paint is unsafe to carry on buses, it's unsafe to carry in cars. All this reveals is the different standards applied to different modes. Ban hazardous materials from carriage in private cars, or allow it on buses. Either option fine by me.


Arriva say fine as long as it's a sealed tin in a bag. Stagecoach have a 5 litre limit on tin size no limit on tins. First have a three litre limit on tin size no limit on tins. That's the three biggest bus companies in the country. And that's if the driver even notices or can be arsed.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

A lot of the anti-car posts in this thread seem motivated by envy that car owners have freedoms non car owners don't have. While I get that that isn't fair, the way to resolve this inequity isn't to remove cars from car owners leaving everyone at the mercy of dirty and unhelpful buses, rather it could be to make car use more easy to access with sharing, easy hire etc services for people for whom buses will never suffice.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If paint is unsafe to carry on buses, it's unsafe to carry in cars. All this reveals is the different standards applied to different modes. Ban hazardous materials from carriage in private cars, or allow it on buses. Either option fine by me.


If you make a mess of your own car that's your problem and it's only you that is likely to get covered in paint sorting it out. If paint spills in a bus the passengers could get covered in it traipsing through it, or slip on it and then sue the bus company. The bus needs taking out of service to be cleaned.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> A lot of the anti-car posts in this thread seem motivated by envy that car owners have freedoms non car owners don't have.



I am free not to spend half my income on a car loan, insurance, fuel, road tax etc and I can go wherever I like on my £50 bike.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Even water based paint is banned from buses here.


Where's 'here'? Are all your bus services run by one company? What company?


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Where's 'here'? Are all your bus services run by one company? What company?


Chesterfield. One bus company - stagecoach.


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I can go wherever I like on my £50 bike.



Only if the places you like are reasonably close. What if you 'like' France?


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Chesterfield. One bus company - stagecoach.


Stagecoach's conditions of carriage:





__





						Conditions of Carriage
					

Conditions of carriage for Stagecoach UK Bus website




					www.stagecoachbus.com
				




You're talking out your arse again. You are able to carry paint.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> Only if the places you like are reasonably close. What if you 'like' France?



Then I would be able to find psychiatric assistance within easy cycling distance.

But seriously, well done for picking an example of a place you can't get to in a car without switching to another transport modality on account of your vehicle's woeful lack of buoyancy.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


>




Boring. This is a real full send.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Unless it's a V8 or V12


Unfortunately nowadays if you're after a twin turbo V12 you're looking at the likes of Astons and Ferraris. There are a few more V8s with the AMG Gt probably my pick of the bunch.


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then I would be able to find psychiatric assistance within easy cycling distance.
> 
> But seriously, well done for picking an example of a place you can't get to in a car without switching to another transport modality on account of your vehicle's woeful lack of buoyancy.



I only mentioned France because I don't know where you live. I could have said Cornwall but you might already live there. So let me rephrase. What if the place you 'like' is 250 miles away?


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2020)

The AMG GT is a good road car but has fuck all grip once it gets into boost.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> The AMG GT is a good road car but has fuck all grip once it gets into boost.


What would be your pick of the twin turbo V8s?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

Personalised transport is the way forward


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> I only mentioned France because I don't know where you live. I could have said Cornwall but you might already live there. So let me rephrase. What if the place you 'like' is 250 miles away?



They've got these big long, train-shaped things nowadays. They call them 'trains'. They'd be marvellous if they hadn't been run down for decades to prop up the car industry.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I am free not to spend half my income on a car loan, insurance, fuel, road tax etc and I can go wherever I like on my £50 bike.


I have never had a car loan. My first car cost £400 my second car cost perhaps £500. At the moment my current car is valued at £1,000 .. car ownership doesn't have to be expensive. 

My insurance is £230 pa. The most expensive cars I ever had were company cars, the company paid for those and the mileage was approximately 1,000 miles a week.

As to going wherever you want, my vehicles (including motorcycles) have taken me all around the UK, to France frequently, to Germany Netherlands, Austria, Spain etc etc .. 

If it was cheaper to go by train I would consider it for weekends away, but generally when I have enquired about train tickets it has been cheaper to drive (even if it is only the driver in the car, for 3 or 4 people cars are way cheaper than train tickets). That just seems wrong no?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> If it was cheaper to go by train I would consider it for weekends away, but generally when I have enquired about train tickets it has been cheaper to drive (even if it is only the driver in the car, for 3 or 4 people cars are way cheaper than train tickets). That just seems wrong no?



Because the rail network was actively sabotaged to encourage car use.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I am free not to spend half my income on a car loan, insurance, fuel, road tax etc and I can go wherever I like on my £50 bike.


Sounds like your paper round's not paying too well, Francis.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because the rail network was actively sabotaged to encourage car use.


Go on then, explain, with evidence?


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> They've got these big long, train-shaped things nowadays. They call them 'trains'. They'd be marvellous if they hadn't been run down for decades to prop up the car industry.



So when you said you could go anywhere you like on your bike, you forgot to mention that you'd also take a train. I can walk anywhere I want in the world by walking to my car, driving to heathrow, flying there and walking off the plane.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> So when you said you could go anywhere you like on your bike, you forgot to mention that you'd also take a train. I can walk anywhere I want in the world by walking to my car, driving to heathrow, flying there and walking off the plane.



Most of the places I want to go on any kind of regular basis are within 20 miles of my house. If that were not the case I would move, and not simply spend three hours a day in a car like an idiot.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Obviously not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have missed my points.

Firstly, my car already exists. There's no more environmental impact from manufacture. Only from use. Which is the more damaging, creating new vehicles or using existing ones?

Whilst rechargeable batteries are in many ways good, mining the metals, smelting them, usually far from where they're mined, shipping the metals around the world to make the batteries, does not happen without significant environmental impact.

There needs to be a lot more thought put into the overall situation. Too often the wider picture is ignored. But it must be considered rather than leaping to simplistic solutions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> You have missed my points.
> 
> Firstly, my car already exists. There's no more environmental impact from manufacture. Only from use. Which is the more damaging, creating new vehicles or using existing ones?
> 
> ...



Is your car going to last forever? Does it run on fresh air and good intentions?


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is your car going to last forever? Does it run on fresh air and good intentions?


I addressed that point.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I addressed that point.



Not if you still think buying an ebike and mothballing your car would invole more environmental damage than however many years of driving around burning petrol.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> What would be your pick of the twin turbo V8s?



McLaren 600LT (with no ICE or AC) and a Panamera Turbo S for the school run.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 8, 2020)

Agree with banning private cars from cities, and ramping up the public transport infrastructure (with exemptions for disabled people and others as appropriate).  It would save a large number of lives every year, and make cities much more pleasant places to live. 

One incorrect thing about the video - think I spotted Gibraltar listed as a UK city.  

The local council here are planning to ban cars from part of a major road in the centre which is good news - hopefully that will be extended.  It was so much more pleasant when extinction rebellion took the road over last year, so no reason why this wouldn't work if buses could be rerouted.


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Most of the places I want to go on any kind of regular basis are within 20 miles of my house. If that were not the case I would move, and not simply spend three hours a day in a car like an idiot.



So anywhere you like is all within a 20 miles radius? That's ok for you. Some of us want to go a bit further. We can do that in our cars. You can stick to your local area.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 8, 2020)

I've managed to reach 40 without needing a car. The only time I wished I could drive was when my son broke his leg tbh as I then needed to rely on family to get him to school and the hospital. I'm thinking of getting an electric bike one day so that I can move to the country.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> So anywhere you like is all within a 20 miles radius? That's ok for you. Some of us want to go a bit further. We can do that in our cars. You can stick to your local area.



_On a regular basis _I said. I dunno if you're off to the alps every weekend but most of us aren't. And in any case, I've been to the alps and various other places without a car. It wasn't a problem. And if it was, I could hire a car for the short period of time when i needed to be somewhere far away and/or hard to get to by public transport. I wouldn't need to store or pay for that car the rest of the time, and other people could use it instead.

If there must be cars, and obviously there are numerous valid reasons to use a private car (and no, 'I like making zoom zoom noises' isn't a valid reason) but those cars could be used as a social, not a private resource.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> I've managed to reach 40 without needing a car. The only time I wished I could drive was when my son broke his leg tbh as I then needed to rely on family to get him to school and the hospital. I'm thinking of getting an electric bike one day so that I can move to the country.


Are you a city dweller CDL? I think it is much easier to live without a car in a city.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Surly the correct thing to do is  not ban the car but  make  infrastructure good enough that the car is obsolete?
> 
> then ban the car



Like we banned pulse-dial telephones...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

It's hilarious watching the usual frothing begrudgers describe in explicit detail exactly how envious they are of car owners. Well done teuchter


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> _On a regular basis _I said. I dunno if you're off to the alps every weekend but most of us aren't. And in any case, I've been to the alps and various other places without a car. It wasn't a problem. And if it was, I could hire a car for the short period of time when i needed to be somewhere far away and/or hard to get to by public transport. I wouldn't need to store or pay for that car the rest of the time, and other people could use it instead.
> 
> If there must be cars, and obviously there are numerous valid reasons to use a private car (and no, 'I like making zoom zoom noises' isn't a valid reason) but those cars could be used as a social, not a private resource.



But this theoretical hire car wouldn't exist according to Teuchter.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

8ball said:


> Like we banned pulse-dial telephones...


and drove the market underground.... yeah yeah I know the risks of  prohibition.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> But this theoretical hire car wouldn't exist according to Teuchter.



In his world I expect the buses would be a lot better though. The need to get places will not die with the private motor car.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As expected, this thread generates the usual parade of idiot objections.



What a fucking arrogant reply.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

At least we're not banning motorbikes. I prefer them to cars anyway. It's a bit silly having to spend £250,000 on a car that'll keep up with a decent bike. And think of all those empty, open roads. Bikers love empty, open roads.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Only idiotic if you are wealthy enough to employ tradespeople to undertake your menial tasks, try getting some empathy man.



Don't expect empathy from the transport Nazis.

It would be interesting to see a detailed account of Teuchter's movements for the last six months. It *WON'T* include a single mile travelled in a private car of course.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Next.



I must say that in my 67 years of life, the contraption pictured above does not resemble any bus or tube train I've ever seen.

Next.


----------



## tim (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> People do DIY. You need to get hold of the materials somehow. Most people who do DIY do it because they can't afford to pay someone to come in and do it so may find it prohibitive to pay the stupid delivery charges most DIY stores charge.



You must be doing a lot DIY to make delivery prices over a month exceed the running costs of having a car. I assume you're a bodger who can't get it right the first,second  or even third. Sell the car and use the money saved to get the jobs done by professionals. You'll be quids in and not have tiles that crack whenever you walk into the bathroom and paint splashes on your most cherished possessions.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Are you a city dweller CDL? I think it is much easier to live without a car in a city.


I live in the suburbs but I walk around 5 miles a day on average and catch the bus if going further than 7 miles. I never wanted to drive so I've made it work for me. Lockdown has proven that people could quite easily car share for weekly/fortnightly grocery shopping. A taxi once a fortnight is also lots cheaper than running a car.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Exactly. And delivery is not the only solution.
> I don't own a car but I can drive.
> I manage to move heavy and bulky things around London when I need to. Some people's minds will be blown. Impossible! What is this black magic that he employs! they say.



Lives in London. A city with one of the finest transport systems in the world.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> Sell the car and use the money saved to get the jobs done by professionals.


They arn't doing call out since they sold their van.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> How will that work with my damaged knees that make cycling difficult to impossible, and for a journey that takes 45 minutes by car?
> 
> this is ok if you are fit and healthy, unfortunately not everyone is.



Quite, but as I said before, don't expect empathy from the metropolitan living transport Nazis.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Stagecoach's conditions of carriage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny that. I know loads of people round here who have been refused travel because they were carrying paint.


----------



## tim (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> A lot of the anti-car posts in this thread seem motivated by envy that car owners have freedoms non car owners don't have. While I get that that isn't fair, the way to resolve this inequity isn't to remove cars from car owners leaving everyone at the mercy of dirty and unhelpful buses, rather it could be to make car use more easy to access with sharing, easy hire etc services for people for whom buses will never suffice.



The words of a deluded snob. 

What's to envy in paying double for a journey that takes twice as long and would leave me paying and displaying in a car-park much further from my destination than the nearest bus stop or station?  And are fume spewing asthma inducing drivers really in a position to feel superior to passengers  on the those dirty unhelpful buses?  You lot are just jealous because we can have a snooze on the way to work without murdering and maiming pensioners and primary school children with a vulgar status symbol.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> You must be doing a lot DIY to make delivery prices over a month exceed the running costs of having a car. I assume you're a bodger who can't get it right the first,second  or even third. Sell the car and use the money saved to get the jobs done by professionals. You'll be quids in and not have tiles that crack whenever you walk into the bathroom and paint splashes on your most cherished possessions.


No I'm short of money so can only do little bits at a time so can't afford the delivery charges on top. Of course if I could buy loads of building material at once then I can get free delivery but I can't afford to. Most of the DIY I've done on this house has been to correct the bodges done by so called professionals.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> And are fume spewing asthma inducing drivers really in a position to feel superior to passengers  on the those dirty unhelpful buses?


Absolutely.
Have fun dodging the coronavirus on a bus, while I'm sat in a nice, air-conditioned car.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

We're not envious - we just not interested in driving and wasting huge amounts of money on cars and driving


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

Some day I'll get round to doing a thread where I argue against the NHS or social housing using the same arguments people use against eliminating car dependency on these threads. 

_Oh well it's fine for you to sit there in your secure affordable housing telling the rest of us we should have the same, you housing Nazi. _


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Some day I'll get round to doing a thread where I argue against the NHS or social housing using the same arguments people use against eliminating car dependency on these threads.
> 
> _Oh well it's fine for you to sit there in your secure affordable housing telling the rest of us we should have the same, you housing Nazi. _


Off you pop. I'll join in.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 8, 2020)

Don't ban cars. Incentivise people to rideshare.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> We're not envious


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Funny that. I know loads of people round here who have been refused travel because they were carrying paint.


Or more likely you're just talking out your arse.


----------



## souljacker (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> The words of a deluded snob.
> 
> What's to envy in paying double for a journey that takes twice as long and would leave me paying and displaying in a car-park much further from my destination than the nearest bus stop or station?



In most situations I find myself in, cars are cheaper and quicker even with the cost of parking and maintenance.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


>



You just cannot imagine that some of us really just have no desire to be in a car, buy a car or drive a car. Envy is wanting what other people have.


----------



## tim (May 8, 2020)

Wolveryeti said:


> Don't ban cars. Incentivise people to rideshare.



Exactly, rideshare in nice long 30- 50 seater single and double decked cars.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Funny that. I know loads of people round here who have been refused travel because they were carrying paint.



Exactly. As always it is up to the driver whether you get let on or not. Roll up with tins of paint and it is nearly always a not.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> You just cannot imagine that some of us really just have no desire to be in a car, buy a car or drive a car. Envy is wanting what other people have.



Sounds like you’re jealous of others’ envy.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sounds like you’re jealous of others’ envy.


look it up


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> In most situations I find myself in, cars are cheaper and quicker even with the cost of parking and maintenance.


Cars don't have to stop at every bus stop or train station.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Absolutely.
> Have fun dodging the coronavirus on a bus, while I'm sat in a nice, air-conditioned car.


Except you're not driving anywhere because you're rarely sober enough.


Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Exactly. As always it is up to the driver whether you get let on or not. Roll up with tins of paint and it is nearly always a not.


You don't even get fucking buses. I not only get buses regularly, I've carried paint on them loads of times and have shown that most bus companies allow you to. Drivers aren't allowed to chuck people off willy nilly. My mate even got kicked off the buses for not letting a Chelsea pensioner on without a bus pass.

On top of which who are all these people getting kicked off for getting on buses with paint when it's appaesell known that you can't? You're just being a contrary twat cause you're bored. Go sing Rule Britannia on your doorstep with the other knob ends.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Except you're not driving anywhere because you're rarely sober enough.
> 
> You don't even get fucking buses. I not only get buses regularly, I've carried paint on them loads of times and have shown that most bus companies allow you to. Drivers aren't allowed to chuck people off willy nilly. My mate even got kicked off the buses for not letting a Chelsea pensioner on without a bus pass.
> 
> On top of which who are all these people getting kicked off for getting on buses with paint when it's appaesell known that you can't? You're just being a contrary twat cause you're bored. Go sing Rule Britannia on your doorstep with the other knob ends.



I used to get buses a lot, but since being priced out of London by gentrifiers like teuchter I now live in an area with almost none.
And as you are fully aware, paint is not permitted on TfL buses, you’re just desperately searching around other parts of the country to back up your non-argument.
So why don’t you go out on the street and sing It’s a Great Life on the Buses, Blakey? 
I’m busy washing my car this afternoon.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And as you are fully aware, paint is not permitted on TfL buses,


Paint isn't mentioned in any tfl terms of carriage and the only comment from any tfl account on Twitter about it says the opposite. You could at least have looked first.


----------



## platinumsage (May 8, 2020)

Why are people talking about paint? Who is advocating buses as a preferred method of obtaining DIY supplies?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Except you're not driving anywhere because you're rarely sober enough.


Driving is much more fun pissed.


----------



## Wolveryeti (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> Exactly, rideshare in nice long 30- 50 seater single and double decked cars.


If we are agreed on the ridesharing bit, why fixate on the size of vehicle? For some regions 30-50 will be optimal. For other (usually much more rural) areas it will be much less than that...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> You just cannot imagine that some of us really just have no desire to be in a car, buy a car or drive a car. Envy is wanting what other people have.


Oh I absolutely can imagine that being the case for some people. I just can't imagine that's the case with you.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

The "envy" argument is such shit 

I could go out tomorrow and buy pretty much any car I wanted. Not owning one is a positive choice I've made. I much prefer riding my bike.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

tim said:


> The words of a deluded snob.
> 
> What's to envy in paying double for a journey that takes twice as long and would leave me paying and displaying in a car-park much further from my destination than the nearest bus stop or station?  And are fume spewing asthma inducing drivers really in a position to feel superior to passengers  on the those dirty unhelpful buses?  You lot are just jealous because we can have a snooze on the way to work without murdering and maiming pensioners and primary school children with a vulgar status symbol.



I suggest that you have a wee look at bus emissions per passenger mile.



			http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads/Grams_CO2_transportmodesUK.pdf
		


A small car with two people in is less polluting than a coach.

We have a car, which is used as required. We are both over 65, and my respiratory health could be better, I've effectively got one lung. I drive to the park and ride, and use busses from there. A bus into Edinburgh takes over an hour for the nine miles. The drive to the park and ride on the outskirts of the city take ten minutes. As it happens, I have documentary proof of my car usage.





The 17/18 distance includes a three week trip down to Mestre (Venice) and back.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The "envy" argument is such shit
> 
> I could go out tomorrow and buy pretty much any car I wanted. Not owning one is a positive choice I've made. I much prefer riding my bike.


Of course there are exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

If money was no object, I _might_ get into motorcycling, but have never been interested in cars. I don't know why people find that hard to understand.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> We're not envious - we just not interested in driving and wasting huge amounts of money on cars and driving



If we lived in London, we wouldn't have a car.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

I love cars. The engineering, the performance, the thrill of driving. I've driven all sorts over the years and at some point will still get round to buying a Caterham 7 for having fun at weekends.

But that's all they should be now really, toys, used for occasional fun, preferably on a closed track. As a mass transportation device they're done. There are better ways of us doing things. It just requires people to let go a bit.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> If we lived in London, we wouldn't have a car.


what about other cities? I live in Leeds. It has shite and expensive public transport, and I'm not ever getting on a bus again anyway


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> As a mass transportation device they're done.


I'd have a small wager on that. When do you think it's going to happen?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure how building loads of new large car parks with special buses designed to serve car owners contributes to a strategy of reducing car use to a minimum.
> 
> Looking at the rest of your strategy, it needs some measure enabling people to get to their nearest bus stop, not an encouragment to ignore that and drive to the city.


Because you're not going to change everything overnight in one go. Offering people a relatively cheaply introduced compromise that gets cars out of a city centre is a first step. It's a lot easier to build a few carparks in key locations than it is to fix a nations crappy public transport network. Once you've fixed the latter you can hopefully start phasing out the former.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd have a small wager on that. When do you think it's going to happen?


Sorry, meant to type "mass urban transportation". Within 10 years for a significant change here in the UK. Other parts of the world it's already happened or is happening.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> If money was no object, I _might_ get into motorcycling, but have never been interested in cars. I don't know why people find that hard to understand.



If you do get around to trying a motorbike you will be hooked in no time flat. The acceleration of even a small bike is amazing.  

I'm too old and knackered now for it to be a realistic proposition (apart from the fact that Mrs Sas is most strongly opposed), but oh how I miss it still. I had a shot on a  Fireblade a few years back, it was astounding.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> what about other cities? I live in Leeds. It has shite and expensive public transport, and I'm not ever getting on a bus again anyway



It would depend on public transport provision. I'm not an envious person, I can admire without wanting, but I do envy London the tube. 

If the tube was up here, it would encompass both Glasgow and Edinburgh.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> It would depend on public transport provision. I'm not an envious person, I can admire without wanting, but I do envy London the tube.


Even now?


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> But this theoretical hire car wouldn't exist according to Teuchter.



Hire cars aren’t private cars.


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2020)

People should walk if they need to get somewhere.  Stop rushing all the time.
Get a donkey if you need to carry something heavy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

maomao seen recently...


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> maomao seen recently...
> 
> View attachment 211466


Fuck off, I'm Reg Varney. You're the jobsworth twat who thinks you can't bring a bit of paint home from B&Q on the bus.


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

When I lived in Surrey I still had a car. Sometimes I was required to work at very odd hours. It was a part of the job that I had full mobility and could go places on demand. This included call outs in the night, very early morning starts or finishes. I could be in Petersfield in the morning, Guildford at lunch and finish off in Slough. It was not unusual to do so. There were many others doing the same job. A car made it possible.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> When I lived in Surrey I still had a car. Sometimes I was required to work at very odd hours. It was a part of the job that I had full mobility and could go places on demand. This included call outs in the night, very early morning starts or finishes. I could be in Petersfield in the morning, Guildford at lunch and finish off in Slough. It was not unusual to do so. There were many others doing the same job. A car made it possible.



Don't think anyone's suggested no cars for business use or to provide essential services where it is most efficient to use cars to do so. They're just saying you can't use it to drive to Hooters on your day off.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Don't think anyone's suggested no cars for business use or to provide essential services where it is most efficient to use cars to do so. They're just saying you can't use it to drive to Hooters on your day off.


If he uses public transport, how is he supposed to knock on out on his way home from Hooters?


----------



## dessiato (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Don't think anyone's suggested no cars for business use or to provide essential services where it is most efficient to use cars to do so. They're just saying you can't use it to drive to Hooters on your day off.


It wouldn’t be possible. I can’t drive across the Atlantic. And the one in Nottingham is crap. Full of pisshead “lads.”


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> It wouldn’t be possible. I can’t drive across the Atlantic. And the one in Nottingham is crap. Full of pisshead “lads.”


El Hootero then I don't fucking know.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

But Dessi get his best ideas for his next hilarious 'accident' when driving...


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Even now?
[/QUOTE]

Not quite sure what you mean. The plague will pass, the tube endures. (Indeed it not only endures, it expands, there is more of it now than when I lived in Woolwich).


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Even now?



Not quite sure what you mean. The plague will pass, the tube endures. (Indeed it not only endures, it expands, there is more of it now than when I lived in Woolwich).
[/QUOTE]
I'd be surprised if many people, if given the choice, will use public transport again


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

8ball said:


> People should walk if they need to get somewhere.  Stop rushing all the time.
> Get a donkey if you need to carry something heavy.



It would save mowing the grass.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

souljacker said:


> In most situations I find myself in, cars are cheaper and quicker even with the cost of parking and maintenance.



I would agree, but as busses are free for me...


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Or more likely you're just talking out your arse.


One day when you're old enough you'll realise that what big companies say isn't always what they do.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 8, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> Not quite sure what you mean. The plague will pass, the tube endures. (Indeed it not only endures, it expands, there is more of it now than when I lived in Woolwich).


I'd be surprised if many people, if given the choice, will use public transport again
[/QUOTE]

I'd been thinking of that. I was planning some long bus trips post lock down, because you see much more from the bus than when you are driving, but on second thoughts I'll postpone it a while.

If I catch this thing, I'd be very lucky to survive.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> One day when you're old enough you'll realise that what big companies say isn't always what they do.


You're not claiming its what 'big companies do' though are you. You're claiming it's a rule applied by individual drivers against stated company policy. And you've said you pick your paint up by car. So what do you fucking know?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 8, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And as you are fully aware, paint is not permitted on TfL buses, you’re just desperately searching around other parts of the country to back up your non-argument.


That is the rest of the country - I don't care what TFL does.  Sorry you live in the desolate home counties with medieval levels of public transport.


----------



## tim (May 8, 2020)

Who would want this:



When they could have this:


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> That is the rest of the country - I don't care what TFL does.  Sorry you live in the desolate home counties with medieval levels of public transport.


Actually a large number of London buses are run by the same companies under the same terms of carriage as tendered by London buses.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> You're not claiming its what 'big companies do' though are you. You're claiming it's a rule applied by individual drivers against stated company policy. And you've said you pick your paint up by car. So what do you fucking know?


From experience of people I know and trust.

Also I live just outside the town center on a bus route and several times a week you will see people walking past with tins of paint.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> From experience of people I know and trust.
> 
> Also I live just outside the town center on a bus route and several times a week you will see people walking past with tins of paint.


Maybe it's the same fella on his way to work and he just has an interesting sandwich bag. You daft fucking cunt.


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

Several hundred people a year pass WouldBe 's House carrying tins of paint despite the clear and easily searchable policy of the bus company because despotic drivers have taken the law into their own hands. Do they not have the fucking internet in Chesterfield or something?


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why are people talking about paint? Who is advocating buses as a preferred method of obtaining DIY supplies?


I'm pretty sure that I've never transported paint by car. 

Cars are for people and dogs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 8, 2020)

We’ve given so much of our towns and cities over to cars, it’s really nice to see kids out playing again or families on bikes. Cars wreak the environment anyway, let’s just get rid.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

I remember my first car, I could fit all my worldly possessions into it in one go. 

And if I borrowed my Dad's trailer I could tow my motorbike at the same time. 

Simpler times, and perhaps better. 

These days I can fill a Luton, but it is mostly useless guff.


----------



## Athos (May 8, 2020)

I'd love not to have to drive a car, but, where I am, there would have to be an almost inconceivable improvement  to public transport before giving up my car wouldn't have a massive negative impact upon the quality of my life.  And I can't see that happening soon.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)




----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

We've had these set up at both ends of our road today and traffic has been coming through at a snails pace.

It seems to be about a thousand times more effective than speed bumps and fines


----------



## spanglechick (May 8, 2020)

xenon said:


> Soon, we'll only be allowed out once safely ensconced in near hermetically sealed palanquins. Exchanging infrequent messages with passers by and the few remaining humans involved in retail via short range radio. receiving our food packages and medication through the builtin sanitising airlock system. Other than the collection of these vital provisions, there will be no legal reason for class C citizens to be outside anyway. Daily exercise will be induced by electric muscle stimulous and confined to the private citadels we shall call home.


Sounds great! Sign me up.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

In fact, when I first left home I could fit all my worldly goods on my motorbike!!


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 8, 2020)

Imagine how nice it would be to not have town centres or cities full of car fumes, car accidents, queues of traffic and engine noise (and shit music from car stereos and cat callers from car windows) and road rage...or would you prefer to keep all that and you can all take turns to suck Jeremy Clarkson off while you're at It? 
It's up to you lads


----------



## Athos (May 8, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Imagine how nice it would be to not have town centres or cities full of car fumes, car accidents, queues of traffic and engine noise (and shit music from car stereos and cat callers from car windows) and road rage...or would you prefer to keep all that and you can all take turns to suck Jeremy Clarkson off while you're at It?
> It's up to you lads



As things stand, many wouldn't be able to get to town centres without a car.  There needs to be much more investment in public transport before people will wilingly give up their cars (or vote for a government that would ban them).


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

If it is either the towns and cities or sucking Clarkson off, you can have the towns and cities !!


----------



## Athos (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> If it is either the towns and cities or sucking Clarkson off, you can have the towns and cities !!



So you can have the 'sucking Clarkson off'?


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> So you can have the 'sucking Clarkson off'?


The choice CDL gave is either we have clean towns and cities or we have to suck Clarkson off... I voted for clean towns and cities. 

I am just surprised the choice hadn't been presented in such a clear way before !!


----------



## Athos (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The choice CDL gave is either we have clean towns and cities or we have to suck Clarkson off... I voted for clean towns and cities.
> 
> I am just surprised the choice hadn't been presented in such a clear way before !!



But you really want both, right?


----------



## maomao (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> If it is either the towns and cities or sucking Clarkson off, you can have the towns and cities !!


I really don't think you read this back before you posted it. You'll have to let Jezza know some other way though. All we have here is a couple of poundshop Richard Hammonds.


----------



## JimW (May 8, 2020)

Vast majority of the people in our village don't have a private car. Lots of electric trikes and bicycles, nearby wet markets, OKish public transport if you want to go to nearby towns or into the city. Lots of ride sharing options, we usually use a WeChat ride sharing group if we want to all go into town but not take the bus. Also Uber-a-likes that include a ride share option.
Obviously coming from a very different development trajectory than the UK but brings it home that it's larger material forces shaping the options and things could be pushed in other ways. Somewhat undermined by nearly everyone being desperate to get a car if they could, mind


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> All we have here is a couple of poundshop Richard Hammonds.



<demoted from poundshop Clarkson>


----------



## spanglechick (May 8, 2020)

When it boils down to it, for me And I imagine for most people, owning and driving a car was (before I became disabled), something I liked because it was more comfortable, convenient, safe, and private than the alternatives.
And those are hard things for public transport to compete with.  

If I want to leave at a moment’s notice; avoid potential sexual harassment, robbery, nasty smells, shit music etc; come away from any accident with minimal harm; carry more luggage in one go than my body could physically tote - plus a hand assortment of changes of footwear and jackets to adapt to changing weather; and  arrive at my destination warm, dry and unsweaty... then it’s going to be tough for me to give up my car.  It’s a huge sacrifice - albeit of inessential things.

These days I physically can’t do buses without it potentially becoming a _thing_ - I can’t stand long enough to wait for transport to arrive,or manage the stairs. I need a guaranteed seat, and I’m notstrong enough to carry very much at all with me. These days I have good reasons. 
But I remember the crap reasons too - and they were strong!


----------



## xenon (May 8, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> Sounds great! Sign me up.


 Was meant to be dystopian... 

Although yeah, it would actually be quite nice to trundle about in your own private bubble. Another reason why people like carrs of course. As Gary Numan so eloquently described.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 8, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Boring. This is a real full send.



Dead in a car crash aged 26.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 8, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I could be in Petersfield in the morning, Guildford at lunch and finish off in Slough. It was not unusual to do so. There were many others doing the same job. A car made it possible.


Slough’s a big place though dess. When you've finished with Slough, there’s Reading, Aldershot, Bracknell. Didcot, Yateley. You know. Winnersh. Taplow. Because you are your own boss. 

Burfield.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2020)

this is how I'll always imagine dessiato from now on


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> <demoted from poundshop Clarkson>



Could be worse, could always be a 99p Store Tiff Needel.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Boring. This is a real full send.



My mother drives faster than that. This is a biker, late for work.


----------



## fishfinger (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> My mother drives faster than that. This is a biker, late for work.



GTA Moscow edition.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

maomao said:


> Several hundred people a year pass WouldBe 's House carrying tins of paint despite the clear and easily searchable policy of the bus company because despotic drivers have taken the law into their own hands. Do they not have the fucking internet in Chesterfield or something?


As I said earlier what they say and what they do can be different. A bit like the gov saying they have plenty of PPE when they don't and what they do have 45% is out of date. But never mind eh.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> My mother drives faster than that. This is a biker, late for work.



That is a biker who won't survive very long riding like that imo.


----------



## T & P (May 8, 2020)

To be fair, 'ban all privately-owned cars' is at least a slightly reasonable suggestion that still gives drivers the chance to use cars and drive as they used to, provided car share clubs are widely available. In many cases it'd be cheaper for them as well.

But what if the scheme becames a bit too successful for its own good and only results in an overall reduction of 20%  or 30%, with most drivers who'd previously owned a car switching to using car share schemes? Would campaigners then demand a ban of all cars in areas where people live? A lot of anti-car campaigners regularly demand a complete ban of motor vehicles in towns and cities. If a significant percentage of car owners switch to car clubs, the only difference will be a slightly lower percentage of motor vehicles on the roads, and a fair amount more of parking space on streets. A Zipcar is still a 'killing machine', and its driver a selfish 'cager'. I predict a painful split in the anti-car community if a ban on privately owned cars came to be.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

The trouble with things like car sharing for people that currently have their own cars is that the majority of people use their cars at the same time, to go to and return from work for example. 

Yes while they are at work their cars are static in the car park and not utilised but the convenience of being certain of being able to drive to and from work on demand is of value to me and many others.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

A 20% to 30% reduction would still be a great improvement. Baby steps and all.

I guess I see car use like eating meat. Banning them completely wouldn't work but cutting down would be good both for individual people's health and for the environment in general.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The trouble with things like car sharing for people that currently have their own cars is that the majority of people use their cars at the same time, to go to and return from work for example.
> 
> Yes while they are at work their cars are static in the car park and not utilised but the convenience of being certain of being able to drive to and from work on demand is of value to me and many others.


This is why it's such a good idea, with all those people heading off to work at the same time. More chance of finding someone you can car share with.


----------



## weltweit (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> This is why it's such a good idea, with all those people heading off to work at the same time. More chance of finding someone you can car share with.


Oh, I didn't think that kind of car sharing was what you meant yes, giving lifts to people is good.


----------



## T & P (May 8, 2020)

Sue said:


> A 20% to 30% reduction would still be a great improvement. Baby steps and all.
> 
> I guess I see car use like eating meat. Banning them completely wouldn't work but cutting down would be good both for individual people's health and for the environment in general.


I don’t many people would disagree with that, whether drivers or not.


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2020)

T & P said:


> I don’t many people would disagree with that, whether drivers or not.



As long as it’s not them that have to give up their car.


----------



## Sue (May 8, 2020)

Winot said:


> As long as it’s not them that have to give up their car.


(I don't and never have owned a car. Someone  upthread did a 'hah, prove you haven't been in a private car in the last six months' thing and I can honestly say I haven't been. I did get a taxi in December with other people but that's it.)


----------



## T & P (May 8, 2020)

Winot said:


> As long as it’s not them that have to give up their car.


 Undoubtedly many would, but I reckon not as many you might think. For every car nut who worships his mk. 5 Golf or wealthy bloke who enjoys having a high performance car in his garage there 3x more at least who see their car as a practical tool. I don’t own one right now but have in the past, and if availability of car club cars is reliable I would have absolutely no issue with transitioning to a share car only world.


----------



## Hollis (May 8, 2020)

T & P said:


> Undoubtedly many would, but I reckon not as matas you might think. For every car nut who worships his mk. 5 Golf or wealthy bloke who enjoys having a high performance car in his garage there 3x more at least who see their car as a practical tool. I don’t own one right now but have in the past, and if availability of car club cars is reliable I would have absolutely no issue with transitioning to a share car only world.



There's also an element of designing the infrastructure so they become less attractive.  E.g. I've worked in London 30 years, and every other place I've worked everyone has commuted using public transport because there's no car park.  The place I'm at has a free car park.  I get it's useful and needed for a few people with families, but equally I'd say about 75% of the people who choose to drive don't need to and wouldn't if the free parking wasn't available.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 8, 2020)

You could maybe use of of those big shared cars that carries 50 people or so at a time.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 8, 2020)

Hollis said:


> There's also an element of designing the infrastructure so they come less attractive.  E.g. I've worked in London 30 years, and every other place I've worked everyone has commuted using public transport because there's no car park.  The place I'm at has a free car park.  I get it's useful and needed for a few people with families, but equally I'd say about 75% of the people who choose to drive don't need to and wouldn't if the free parking wasn't available.



A lot of stuff is physically built in a way that means it doesn't work without private vehicles. A lot of work happens in business parks and industrial estates that aren't well served by general radial/hub setup of public transport networks based on urban centres.


----------



## Tankus (May 8, 2020)

Never owned or used a car in the 30 years that I lived in the east end, coming back to Wales, bought a car to search for a house.

One main factor in choosing a house, was that it was within walking distance of a train station (and a beach) to the 'diff, as a backup to the car. But the cars the main form of transport in semi rural Wales. 

I may have to live without one eventually, when I'm doddery, but I ain't there yet!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> My mother drives faster than that. This is a biker, late for work.



That's basically weltweit the fucking wrong 'un    Bad as Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse in their fucking twat cars


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

Seattle will permanently close 20 miles of residential streets to most vehicle traffic
					

The streets had been closed temporarily to through traffic to provide more space for people to walk and bike at a safe distance apart during the coronavirus pandemic.




					www.seattletimes.com
				




_Even in America _they are starting to get it. So our home-grown transport dinosaurs should start to worry.



> Nearly 20 miles of Seattle streets will permanently close to most vehicle traffic by the end of May, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced Thursday.
> 
> The streets had been closed temporarily to through traffic to provide more space for people to walk and bike at a safe distance apart during the coronavirus pandemic.
> 
> Now the closures will continue even after Gov. Jay Inslee’s stay-at-home order is lifted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Seattle will permanently close 20 miles of residential streets to most vehicle traffic
> 
> 
> The streets had been closed temporarily to through traffic to provide more space for people to walk and bike at a safe distance apart during the coronavirus pandemic.
> ...


Yeah, let's all copy America, because they've proven themselves over and over to be at the forefront of sane ideas.


----------



## teuchter (May 8, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> A lot of stuff is physically built in a way that means it doesn't work without private vehicles. A lot of work happens in business parks and industrial estates that aren't well served by general radial/hub setup of public transport networks based on urban centres.


There are various planning authorities, mainly outside of London who are still allowing this nonsense. They should be rounded up, and sent off to a boot camp where they are taught that it's not the 1970s any more. The boot camp should be located in one of these estates and they should all be forced to get there using public transport or on foot. Each day.


----------



## WouldBe (May 8, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You could maybe use of of those big shared cars that carries 50 people or so at a time.


Last place I worked the busses weren't running at times needed to get to or from work for some shifts.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 8, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah, let's all copy America, because they've proven themselves over and over to be at the forefront of sane ideas.




Seattle is in no way reflective of the rest of the USA. Lots of left history in the background of the NW. Mate is a cycling journo who lives there - a closing of streets to cars is not untypical of a seattle viewpoint


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Last place I worked the busses weren't running at times needed to get to or from work for some shifts.


An argument for more buses, not cars.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> Seattle is in no way reflective of the rest of the USA. Lots of left history in the background of the NW. Mate is a cycling journo who lives there - a closing of streets to cars is not untypical of a seattle viewpoint


They've even been doing it in California









						Oakland to open up 74 miles of city streets to pedestrians and cyclists
					

The mayor’s ‘slow streets’ initiative will allow the California city’s residents to enjoy the outdoors ‘free of cars’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 9, 2020)

Sue said:


> A 20% to 30% reduction would still be a great improvement. Baby steps and all.
> 
> I guess I see car use like eating meat. Banning them completely wouldn't work but cutting down would be good both for individual people's health and for the environment in general.


For journeys of 1-2 miles over 60% are by car currently.


----------



## Sue (May 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> For journeys of 1-2 miles over 60% are by car currently.


Which is obvs nonsense. I'm always amazed by colleagues who baulk at walking 15 minutes to get somewhere. (And young, healthy, able-bodied types, not people with mobiIity issues or whatever.)


----------



## WouldBe (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> An argument for more buses, not cars.


That would still mean 3.5 hours traveling time added on to a 12 hour shift instead of just under an hour by car.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> That would still mean 3.5 hours traveling time added on to a 12 hour shift instead of just under an hour by car.


Make sure you keep fighting for your right to your 2.5 hour privilege over those who don't have a car.


----------



## scifisam (May 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's not difficult to arrange delivery of bulky and heavy items if you don't drive. I've somehow managed to refloor two rooms in this house without any of us being able to drive.



Those items come to your house in a van, or sometimes a car. They don't get carried to your door on public transport.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> Bike for disabled people
> 
> 
> Van Raam produces special needs bicycles for people with a disability or a limitation.
> ...



I know people are well-meaning when they suggest this sort of thing, but it's really dismissive to post up one type of adapted bike and act as if that solves the problem - "next." Lots and lots of people with disabilities can't use adapted bikes. Many of the adaptations seem to assume that everyone with a disability is paraplegic due to a car crash and otherwise fine.

My knees can't bend well, my feet can't push the pedals, and my hands can't control the brakes. There's no adapted bike in the world that can adapt for that. And this is due to arthritis, not exactly an uncommon condition. I also occasionally phase out due to a sleep disorder, which is when cycling first started to become risky for me. My daughter has autism and can't focus well enough to cycle safely - we cycled a lot when she was a kid and I was mobile (cycling was my main mode of transport until I was 35), so it's not like she hasn't tried. Even with only other bikes on the road, she'd be a danger to herself and others. My stepdad had a stroke and is half blind and has dementia.

Your adapted bike solution is not the be all and end all, so please think again before posting that link and "next."



beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, this is how you do it:
> 
> 1 - Ban all private cars from city centres, with limited exceptions for some blue badge holders
> 2 - Build large park and ride areas on the outskirts of cities
> ...



Agreed with 3, with caveats, 5, 6 and 7. 2 is already happening, isn't it? Not sure why you'd say "some" blue badge holders should be allowed into the city - how do you choose which ones? And, um banning daytime delivery would be utterly shit for the workers and the people getting deliveries. Most supermarket deliveries to homes are in HGVs or vans. Don't think you've thought that one through.



teuchter said:


> Make sure you keep fighting for your right to your 2.5 hour privilege over those who don't have a car.



Also keep fighting for your privilege of being able to not need private transport ever.



maomao said:


> Don't think anyone's suggested no cars for business use or to provide essential services where it is most efficient to use cars to do so. They're just saying you can't use it to drive to Hooters on your day off.



Teuchter has.

And I know I'm playing to his tune, like we all are. We're all bored.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Make sure you keep fighting for your right to your 2.5 hour privilege over those who don't have a car.


Or you could sell your nice house and buy cars for lots of people.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 9, 2020)

Athos said:


> As things stand, many wouldn't be able to get to town centres without a car.  There needs to be much more investment in public transport before people will wilingly give up their cars (or vote for a government that would ban them).


Yep. But we can all reduce our use of environment damaging things if we really give a shit right?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There are various planning authorities, mainly outside of London who are still allowing this nonsense. They should be rounded up, and sent off to a boot camp where they are taught that it's not the 1970s any more. The boot camp should be located in one of these estates and they should all be forced to get there using public transport or on foot. Each day.



Apart from anything else, 'business parks' are such desperate places. There are some currently being built round here in green belt land, miles from anywhere. Madness.


----------



## platinumsage (May 9, 2020)

The most equitable solution is obviously a mandatory tracking device in every car linked to HMRC and to a database containing your medical records and other personal information. Then the government could punitively tax people for unnecessary journeys, as the system would know whether you could have feasibly made the journey by public transport. There would be an appeals system of course, with an opportunity to provide documentary evidence to prove necessity, and there would also be Revenue & Customs agents conducting surveillence to make sure e.g. you weren't bunking off your GP appointment to go to a house party across the road.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Bike for disabled people
> 
> 
> Van Raam produces special needs bicycles for people with a disability or a limitation.
> ...



As somebody whose work involves helping less able people to use bicycles and adapted bicycle-based machines I can confirm that, sadly, there is not a bike for everyone. With some training and practice you can take a blind person for a ride on a tandem, but it's never going to be solution for their independent, day-to-day transport needs. There are bikes and trikes you can power with hands rather than feet but they require a fair bit of strength. 

Bikes are only ever going to be part of a solution. People here have posted in some detail about why they need to use private vehicles, and there's no reason a much reduced fleet of cars, vans etc can't remain in use without the unacceptable risks to public health and the environment they currently represent.

But 'I want three cars because I like driving' is not good enough. Cars that go at 150mph without breaking a sweat are not acceptable. It is time we behaved like a society of adults.


----------



## maomao (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> As I said earlier what they say and what they do can be different. A bit like the gov saying they have plenty of PPE when they don't and what they do have 45% is out of date. But never mind eh.


Stagecoach is a multinational company running thousands of routes and their published terms of carriage carry legal weight. If you or your imaginary friend feel you have been refused carriage unfairly please contact your local customer services department at yorkshire.enquiries@stagecoachbus.com (I'm aware Chesterfield is in Derbyshire but 'Stagecoach in Chesterfield' is a trading name of Stagecoach Yorkshire) as you are entitled to an apology and an explanation and in some cases compensation (don't get too excited, I once managed to get a score out of tfl but it was all oyster credit).

You might want to get the above information printed on a leaflet to hand to the throngs of people marching up your road carrying paint tins.


----------



## WouldBe (May 9, 2020)

maomao said:


> Stagecoach is a multinational company running thousands of routes and their published terms of carriage carry legal weight.


Like airlines are legally required to issue full cash refunds if a flight is cancelled yet a lot are trying to fob customers off with credit notes which will be worth jackshit if they go bust.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Yep. But we can all reduce our use of environment damaging things if we really give a shit right?



Yes, to a point.  Then we can't without better infrastructure.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Those items come to your house in a van, or sometimes a car. They don't get carried to your door on public transport.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose no-one's actually watched the video in the first post, but it very specifically says that exceptions should be made for those with disabilities, as does pretty much every single proposal along these lines. 

Of course the ideal system is one that provides proper access for people with disabilities whether or not they own a car. 

If you want to reduce the number of people driving around to collect heavy items then something like a cargo bike can be part of the solution. Obviously it can't be the only solution but maybe it can make a significant dent in the amount of trips, which in turn can allow things that make things in general better for those with disabilities, like streets that are easier to cross, or wider pavements. Just beacause a cargo bike is not the solution for everyone, doesn't mean it's not a potential solution for quite a lot of people. 

Let's talk about elderly people. They'll often have reduced mobility. You can provide them with a car and a shop 5 miles away. Then they become unable to drive, and there's no supermarket deliveries in their area. They become totally dependent on others (with cars) to bring them their basic needs. Or you try and build a system where there is a shop 5 minutes walk away. When they can no longer drive, it might well be that it's still possible for them to do at least some of their shopping on foot maybe with a trolley. Maybe that's not possible for them and they still need help. But they don't need an able bodied person to do a ten mile round trip - they just need someone who can walk 5 or 10 minutes, maybe even someone can do it with a cargo bike. It all helps to keep traffic off the roads and it helps people stay independent as long as possible. The reason local shops have disappeared in many places is that 90% of their former customers own cars and drive miles to a big supermarket. The other 10% make do with rubbish public transport or rely on help from others. And that's a direct result of us giving up and letting private car ownership drive what's offered not just to those who do own one, but a massive degradation in what's offered to those who don't.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> . It is time we behaved like a society of adults.


No, it isn't 👉👌 💩


teuchter said:


> Let's talk about elderly people. They'll often have reduced mobility. You can provide them with a car and a shop 5 miles away. Then they become unable to drive, and there's no supermarket deliveries in their area. They become totally dependent on others (with cars) to bring them their basic needs. Or you try and build a system where there is a shop 5 minutes walk away. When they can no longer drive, it might well be that it's still possible for them to do at least some of their shopping on foot maybe with a trolley. Maybe that's not possible for them and they still need help. But they don't need an able bodied person to do a ten mile round trip - they just need someone who can walk 5 or 10 minutes, maybe even someone can do it with a cargo bike. It all helps to keep traffic off the roads and it helps people stay independent as long as possible. The reason local shops have disappeared in many places is that 90% of their former customers own cars and drive miles to a big supermarket. The other 10% make do with rubbish public transport or rely on help from others. And that's a direct result of us giving up and letting private car ownership drive what's offered not just to those who do own one, but a massive degradation in what's offered to those who don't.


What's your plan? Build a supermarket within 5 minutes walk of (next door to) every old person's house? That's a lot of supermarkets.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

Local shops wouldn't provide the range if goods, and would likely be significantly more expensive.  At the end of the day, for most people the loss of a car would be a big hit to their quality of life (even with improvements to public transport).  It's a hard sell.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

Athos said:


> Local shops wouldn't provide the range if goods, and would likely be significantly more expensive.  At the end of the day, for most people the loss of a car would be a big hit to their quality of life (even with improvements to public transport).  It's a hard sell.


Have you ever actually met or talked to a human who doesn't own a car - and/or visited a place where it's quite straightforward to live without one?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

A hard sell. Note how people who want to drive cars don't have to 'sell' the idea to anyone, depsite the costs to public health. It is the assumed position, the default setting, and not for reasons relating to the general public good.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

Imagine coming up with the idea of privately owned cars now.

“Got a great idea for getting us all about. You can go anywhere you want, anytime. Freedom! No drawbacks at all. Apart from you’ll need to pay a huge amount of money for it. And then constantly more money to run it. Oh, and it will sit unused for most of the time. Ah, also we’re going to need to give up most of the public space in our cities for it. Plus there’s the tiny issue of the poisonous fumes that come out the back. Which are generated from burning oil. Oh, nearly forgot, they’ll kill over a million people every year”

You’d be laughed out the room.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You’d be laughed out the room.



Interesting thought experiment. Could capitalism have developed in anything like the way it has without autonomous, effort-free private transportation?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you ever actually met or talked to a human who doesn't own a car - and/or visited a place where it's quite straightforward to live without one?


I don't want to live somewhere where it's 'quite straightforward' to live without a car. I want to live where I live, with no neighbours and no traffic, especially big polluting buses.
I can't get my head around why anybody would want to live in a city. I prefer to wake up to the sound of birds singing, not police sirens and traffic.



SpookyFrank said:


> A hard sell. Note how people who want to drive cars don't have to 'sell' the idea to anyone, depsite the costs to public health. It is the assumed position, the default setting, and not for reasons relating to the general public good.


A lot of things which aren't good for the planet are considered acceptable, like transporting foods half way around the planet because rich Westerners like the taste. Flying half way around the world for your jollies, etc. That's not changing any time soon.


----------



## spanglechick (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you ever actually met or talked to a human who doesn't own a car - and/or visited a place where it's quite straightforward to live without one?


In my late twenties I got rid of my car in favour of a Vespa, and when that was written off, didn’t have motor transport for a couple of years.  I lived in Balham.  It was okay, but quite limiting. Getting a cab back from Sainsbury’s etc wasn’t too bad, nor was public transport into the centre,  but I was supply teaching  (and occasionally acting) at the time, which involved travelling to different suburban places every morning at short notice.  

I tried cycling but I hated it. Just hated every aspect of it. Hated getting wet and dirty and sweaty. Lugging round a change of clothes. Living in anxiety of a puncture that would make me late of worse, strand me somewhere when all I wanted to do was go home. So I used buses and trains and tubes and walked a lot, but also had to turn down a lot of offers for jobs because I wouldn’t be able to get there within forty mins of getting the call from the agency. So in the end I bought a car again. It was gloriously easy with a car.

You can justifiably say that I should probably have stuck at cycling, because comfort isn’t actually as important as the environment. You’d be right - but knowing myself I think I’d have stubbornly just become a shut-in if the choice was that or cycling. The point isn’t really what I could or should have done. The point was that despite being an able-bodied non-car owner in a city with public transport many areas could only dream of, I wasn’t happy without a car, and after a couple of years I decided to buy one - which made me much happier.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

spanglechick said:


> In my late twenties I got rid of my car in favour of a Vespa, and when that was written off, didn’t have motor transport for a couple of years.  I lived in Balham.  It was okay, but quite limiting. Getting a cab back from Sainsbury’s etc wasn’t too bad, nor was public transport into the centre,  but I was supply teaching  (and occasionally acting) at the time, which involved travelling to different suburban places every morning at short notice.
> 
> I tried cycling but I hated it. Just hated every aspect of it. Hated getting wet and dirty and sweaty. Lugging round a change of clothes. Living in anxiety of a puncture that would make me late of worse, strand me somewhere when all I wanted to do was go home. So I used buses and trains and tubes and walked a lot, but also had to turn down a lot of offers for jobs because I wouldn’t be able to get there within forty mins of getting the call from the agency. So in the end I bought a car again. It was gloriously easy with a car.
> 
> You can justifiably say that I should probably have stuck at cycling, because comfort isn’t actually as important as the environment. You’d be right - but knowing myself I think I’d have stubbornly just become a shut-in if the choice was that or cycling. The point isn’t really what I could or should have done. The point was that despite being an able-bodied non-car owner in a city with public transport many areas could only dream of, I wasn’t happy without a car, and after a couple of years I decided to buy one - which made me much happier.


And this is why I'd like to see them banned outright (for the able bodied) in London. It might make life worse for you, but better for lots of other people. And there would be more equality in who those jobs you describe would be available for.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

Has anybody noticed how it's the oldies, close to or past retiring age, who are so keen on preventing others from travelling? It's like an episode of One foot in the grave


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Imagine coming up with the idea of privately owned cars now.
> 
> “Got a great idea for getting us all about. You can go anywhere you want, anytime. Freedom! No drawbacks at all. Apart from you’ll need to pay a huge amount of money for it. And then constantly more money to run it. Oh, and it will sit unused for most of the time. Ah, also we’re going to need to give up most of the public space in our cities for it. Plus there’s the tiny issue of the poisonous fumes that come out the back. Which are generated from burning oil. Oh, nearly forgot, they’ll kill over a million people every year”
> 
> You’d be laughed out the room.


You really think so? Like we live in more enlightened, socialist times or something - yeah right. We are the ideal society to popularise the car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> You really think so? Like we live in more enlightened, socialist times or something - yeah right. We are the ideal society to popularise the car.


Imagine someone coming up with the idea of Fracking now?
Got a great idea, let's pump loads of deadly chemicals into the water table... etc.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> You really think so? Like we live in more enlightened, socialist times or something - yeah right. We are the ideal society to popularise the car.


Do you know of any places in 'developed' countries where there's been a move to reduce car use/dependancy, and improve public transport, cycling and walking facilities, and where aside from any initial backlash, there has been a popular pressure to reverse those changes?


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Has anybody noticed how it's the oldies, close to or past retiring age, who are so keen on preventing others from travelling? It's like an episode of One foot in the grave


Time for you to go back to wind-up school I think, or change career altogether. You're an amateurish version of Bahnhof Strasse which is no great compliment, I can assure you.


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Do you know of any places in 'developed' countries where there's been a move to reduce car use/dependancy, and improve public transport, cycling and walking facilities, and where aside from any initial backlash, there has been a popular pressure to reverse those changes?


Is this a rhetorical question?

I'm not saying the car can't be stopped. But the idea that the modern model of individual transport would now be automatically ridiculous is false. It's based on an at least implicit idea that society until now was simply naive about the car. Nah. It is and remains consistently popular and were we to somehow lack it it would be immediately embraced again as part of our strongly individualist leanings. The economic cost argument is largely wrong - cars/motoring are individually cheap and accessible - and the vast majority are not sufficiently bothered about the rest to actually pass it up.


----------



## Sue (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> A lot of stuff is physically built in a way that means it doesn't work without private vehicles. A lot of work happens in business parks and industrial estates that aren't well served by general radial/hub setup of public transport networks based on urban centres.


Years ago, I worked in a business park that was on the outskirts of a large town which had terrible traffic. There was a free shuttle bus from the station/centre of town that ran extremely frequently. Once it got past a certain point, there was a bus lane so it was faster going by bus than by car. Yet many of my colleagues would still drive to work from the centre of town and then moan about the traffic.  

Made absolutely no sense to me but when I asked a colleague why he didn't take the bus, he said he'd have to walk ten minutes to get to the bus stop. I pointed out that driving took him more than an extra ten minutes given the bus lanes and he looked at me like I was mad. Until you can get past attitudes like that, I've no idea what you do (apart from possibly ban/reduce car parking space for places like that that are well served by public transport).


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> It's based on an at least implicit idea that society until now was simply naive about the car.


I think the negative effects are largely ignored and for many, not visible until they are removed. In urban areas at least. That's why I asked if there are places that have made the decision to limit the freedom to use individual transport, and then decided, nah, this is rubbish, let's go back to how it was before. As I understand it, the changes usually turn out to be quite popular.

The places that are tearing up tram tracks, relocating central rail stations, building superhighways into city centres and so on tend to be developing countries where public transport is associated with old regimes. In my opinion they are simply making the town planning mistakes we made post-war, and will regret it in 10-20 years time when they realise that everyone getting a car and then having perfect freedom simply doesn't work.

What happens as we come out of the Covid crisis is something I'm certainly going to be watching with intense interest, in any case.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

Sue said:


> I've no idea what you do (apart from possibly ban/reduce car parking space for places like that that are well served by public transport).


That's what you've got to do, yes. There's a fair bit of research that shows that simply providing alternatives doesn't work. You do have to make sure you provide the alternatives, but then you have to actively discourage private car use.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Is this a rhetorical question?
> 
> I'm not saying the car can't be stopped. But the idea that the modern model of individual transport would now be automatically ridiculous is false.


Coming back to this...

This is from the construction of the Westway. People's houses were bulldozed for it, and many people ended up living metres from a motorway. There were protests back then, of course. But would you even be able to do this at all, now?







I think, back then, many people might have thought, well, yes, shame we have to bulldoze homes, but in return we get a super modern, fast and efficient way to get in and out of town. We can speed off to the countryside with greater freedom than ever before. That would be the cost/benefit calculation.

But now, we know that's not what you get. You get a clogged motorway that blights the surrounding areas and which becomes logjammed when everyone wants to use it. (There are other negative effects which are less immediately visibly related, but I'll ignore them for now). So if you proposed something like the Westway in most European cities now, I think you'd be laughed at.

This is not quite the hypothetical scenario of us never having had cars, and then being offered them in in 2020, along with all that infrastructure, without any hindsight being available. But in a version of that hypothetical scenario where we are offered a view of a parallel universe where it did happen - I think that maybe people would think of it as ridiculous. They wouldn't just be shown the shiny car in front of their house, or the happy family holiday by the seaside. They'd be shown the massive motorway service area built where they currently go walking in woodland. They'd be shown a horribly degraded rail and bus network. They'd be shown the numbers of respiratory illnesses and the helicopters flying from RTIs to hospitals with ICUs. They'd be shown the substantial portions of their urban environments, historic or otherwise that simply would not exist, having been replaced with parking and other infrastructure. They'd be shown a life where they sit in a car for 2 or 3 hours a day just to get to work, and much of that time not even moving.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you ever actually met or talked to a human who doesn't own a car - and/or visited a place where it's quite straightforward to live without one?



Yes, of course.  And for many people in many areas, it suits their lifestyle.  For many others, it'd be a significant dimmunition of their quality of life.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Time for you to go back to wind-up school I think, or change career altogether. You're an amateurish version of Bahnhof Strasse which is no great compliment, I can assure you.


Coming from a trainee Victor Meldrew, I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> A hard sell. Note how people who want to drive cars don't have to 'sell' the idea to anyone, depsite the costs to public health. It is the assumed position, the default setting, and not for reasons relating to the general public good.



Private car ownership being lawful is the default, here and now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Coming back to this...
> 
> This is from the construction of the Westway. People's houses were bulldozed for it, and many people ended up living metres from a motorway. There were protests back then, of course. But would you even be able to do this at all, now?
> 
> ...


Do you think roads were built specifically for people to get to Blackpool easier? Or is it possible that moving goods around the country with greater ease could have been the main objective?
The problem with traffic in the UK is there aren't enough roads.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> ..
> The problem with traffic in the UK is there aren't enough roads.


IMO the issue with roads in the UK is that everyone wants to use them at the same times! 08:00 and 17:00 - the rest of the time UK roads are pretty passable.


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Coming back to this...
> 
> This is from the construction of the Westway. People's houses were bulldozed for it, and many people ended up living metres from a motorway. There were protests back then, of course. But would you even be able to do this at all, now?


You probably wouldn't be able to build the Westway now. But would you be able to bulldoze people's houses? Yeah. HS2 is going to do it, and HS2 is not special in this respect because it's rail. New road building got harder but not impossible after obstructions in the 90s and it's arguably easier again now.

And ask yourself the inverse - can the road protest movements of the 1990s be replicated now?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 9, 2020)

cars are not just a utility for many.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> IMO the issue with roads in the UK is that everyone wants to use them at the same times! 08:00 and 17:00 - the rest of the time UK roads are pretty passable.


This is, unfortunately, the case, but it's exacerbated by the fact that the UK ranks terribly on the 'motorway provision vs population' list.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> cars are not just a utility for many.


Cars are freedom for the individual and the family .. 
Cars permit you to take jobs that otherwise wouldn't be possibly to take. 
Cars save you loads of money compared to public transport if it even is available.
Cars permit you to live where you would like rather than being restricted to city centres.
Cars allow you to visit friends and family at a time of your choosing.
Cars let you go on holiday at home and abroad in the most flexible way possible. 
Passing a driving test and getting a full driving licence is a rite of passage to adult life!


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think the negative effects are largely ignored and for many, not visible until they are removed. In urban areas at least. That's why I asked if there are places that have made the decision to limit the freedom to use individual transport, and then decided, nah, this is rubbish, let's go back to how it was before. As I understand it, the changes usually turn out to be quite popular.
> 
> The places that are tearing up tram tracks, relocating central rail stations, building superhighways into city centres and so on tend to be developing countries where public transport is associated with old regimes. In my opinion they are simply making the town planning mistakes we made post-war, and will regret it in 10-20 years time when they realise that everyone getting a car and then having perfect freedom simply doesn't work.
> 
> What happens as we come out of the Covid crisis is something I'm certainly going to be watching with intense interest, in any case.


You're right about all of this, but if people get a binary choice, personal benefit in the form of the car versus societal benefit in the form of not having it, a load of them would (and do) select the car, thus the car is still not a ridiculous idea. I think the majority, with some exception as you get into ultra-urban. The experiences of C19 will give pause for thought in a lot of ways, but it's not change in itself, only a catalyst that would have to be used by something else.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Coming back to this...
> 
> This is from the construction of the Westway. People's houses were bulldozed for it, and many people ended up living metres from a motorway. There were protests back then, of course. But would you even be able to do this at all, now?
> 
> ...




You could apply that hypothetical to most other facts of modern life- there is no doubt that cars can have a detimental impact upon society, as does smoking, lager, doing drugs, owning a cat in a city etc.it is possible to maintain or create a balance that supports both POV. I would be over the moon to see  public transportmassively boosted to include comprehensive trams/ rail/ whatever and take it on the chin as a car "enthusiast" but prohibition has never worked  wherever it gets rolled out. Not all car owners have a planetary death wish.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Has anybody noticed how it's the oldies, close to or past retiring age, who are so keen on preventing others from travelling? It's like an episode of One foot in the grave


We’re similar ages to you fella


----------



## deeyo (May 9, 2020)

JimW said:


> Vast majority of the people in our village don't have a private car. Lots of electric trikes and bicycles, nearby wet markets, OKish public transport if you want to go to nearby towns or into the city. Lots of ride sharing options, we usually use a WeChat ride sharing group if we want to all go into town but not take the bus. Also Uber-a-likes that include a ride share option.
> Obviously coming from a very different development trajectory than the UK but brings it home that it's larger material forces shaping the options and things could be pushed in other ways. Somewhat undermined by nearly everyone being desperate to get a car if they could, mind



This post captures a lot of what this discussion could/should be about. 
There were 73.4 millions cars produced in 2017 (and 23.8 mill commercial vehicles). Production has roughly doubled every 20 years since the fifties, The number of cars, buses and trucks in the world was estimated at 1.32 billion in 2016, compared to 670 million in -96 and 346 mill in -76.
About a 100 mill of these are some kind of alt fuel/advanced tech.
The western market might be saturated, with around 55-65 vehicles per 100 people in europe and 80 in the us and a yearly growth of 1-2% . Worldwide its about 18 - less than US in the 1930s (22). 

The major growth is in countries like india and china, where vehicles/100 ppl 2006-2016 went from 2.6 to 14. 

Since the fifties/sixties most investments in infrastructure in the west has gone into roads and 'car associated' structures, while railway upkeep have been neglected/minimized for decades. Same goes for inner city tubes/trams/etc. Shopping and living habits have changed accordingly.

Cars are immensely practical, even if theres a free bus to your work you have to drop off and pick up the kids, and if you need to bring mum on the other side of town her meds after work, a car lets you stop for groceries on the way.
Of course all jims neighbours want one. Around 1990 there was a man who used to fly his helicopter to his office every morning in the town where i lived, used to see it from my bike, i'd like one of those...

But most of the cars in the world stands unused most of the time, in parking lots outside workplaces and homes. When in use they mostly transport 1 or 2 persons and no cargo. 

This is not sustainable. But, like the almost identical statistics for meat consumption, individual choices on ethical/health basis matters little except (possibly) for said individuals. Demands for 'bans' might feel necessary, but are politically extremely unlikely if not impossible almost everywhere in the world. 
Its very possible that this kind of problems cant be solved under the 'current world order' and might bring an end to modern western style capitalism. The question is what comes in its stead? What do we want it to be? And where to put your own little lever to change the direction of the wheel of history...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

This is an interesting article. It's a little out of date, so the figures will likely be much worse, but it clearly shows that rather than fewer cars, more motorways is the answer.


			https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/roads%20and%20reality%20-%20bayliss%20-%20what%20pattern%20of%20motorway%20network%20is%20needed%20-%20051208%20-%20background%20paper%206.pdf


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> Not all car owners have a planetary death wish.



Not all, but for those of us that do I fail to see why allowances for us can't be made by these neo-fascists.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> This is an interesting article. It's a little out of date, so the figures will likely be much worse, but it clearly shows that rather than fewer cars, more motorways is the answer.
> 
> 
> https://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/roads%20and%20reality%20-%20bayliss%20-%20what%20pattern%20of%20motorway%20network%20is%20needed%20-%20051208%20-%20background%20paper%206.pdf


There might be a tiny problem with the impartiality of the organisation behind that you know.

More roads equal more traffic, not less congestion. We’ve known this since the 60’s.









						What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse
					

The concept is called induced demand, which is economist-speak for when increasing the supply of something (like roads) makes people want that thing even more. Though some traffic engineers made note of this phenomenon at least as early as the 1960s, it is only in recent years that social...




					www.wired.com


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Has anybody noticed how it's the oldies, close to or past retiring age, who are so keen on preventing others from travelling? It's like an episode of One foot in the grave


Listen Jeremy, some might fall for your poorly disguised edgy trolling but not all. Get a fucking horse then cowboy.


----------



## JimW (May 9, 2020)

Few interesting factors here include the ubiquity of online shopping which has outpaced car ownership so maybe the out of town hypermarket might not prevail.
Carrefour and a few others did arrive earlier but not sure they ever became the almost one stop weekly shop like at home.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There might be a tiny problem with the impartiality of the organisation behind that you know.
> 
> More roads equal more traffic, not less congestion. We’ve known this since the 60’s.
> 
> ...


All that proves is they weren't building roads fast enough to keep up with the demand for them.


----------



## mhendo (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> All that proves is they weren't building roads fast enough to keep up with the demand for them.


You're one of those guys who believes that a company that is losing money on every unit it sells should simply produce more so they can make it up in volume, aren't you?


----------



## platinumsage (May 9, 2020)

Surely new roads are built so as to carry more traffic. If they led to less traffic and were largely empty, they’d be a failure.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There might be a tiny problem with the impartiality of the organisation behind that you know.


From a different source.



> This is all consistent with generally inferior transport infrastructure provision in comparison with our European peers. Our principal airports are in much the same position as our main roads, with the runways at Heathrow and Gatwick having twice the passenger throughput of any of those in Europe’s busiest 11 airports (Figure 22). Moreover, this phenomenon is not confined to transport. If we look at power generation and flood and coastal defences, similar messages are to be heard.





			https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/Fifty%20years%20of%20motorways%20-%20how%20did%20we%20get%20there%20and%20where%20to%20we%20go%20next.pdf
		


Basically, the UK needs to spend a lot more money on its infrastructure, not least on its motorways.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Surely new roads are built so as to carry more traffic. If they led to less traffic and were largely empty, they’d be a failure.


Or carry the same traffic with less congestion?


----------



## deeyo (May 9, 2020)

JimW said:


> Few interesting factors here include the ubiquity of online shopping which has outpaced car ownership so maybe the out of town hypermarket might not prevail.
> Carrefour and a few others did arrive earlier but not sure they ever became the almost one stop weekly shop like at home.


That is interesting. Suppose it will be the same in india and africa, internet quicker than cars. How does online shopping work in china? What do you buy, where is it from, where do you pick it up?

Saul Goodman when we all get our helicopters, existing motorways will be sufficient.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Cars are freedom for the individual and the family ..
> Cars permit you to take jobs that otherwise wouldn't be possibly to take.
> Cars save you loads of money compared to public transport if it even is available.
> Cars permit you to live where you would like rather than being restricted to city centres.
> ...



I chose not to choose cars.
I chose something else.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I chose not to choose cars.
> I chose something else.


A choice which limits your options.


----------



## JimW (May 9, 2020)

deeyo said:


> That is interesting. Suppose it will be the same in india and africa, internet quicker than cars. How does online shopping work in china? What do you buy, where is it from, where do you pick it up?
> 
> Saul Goodman when we all get our helicopters, existing motorways will be sufficient.


Various big web portals that do almost anything plus a few direct businesses. Big ones have their own courier network then theres three or four other couriers cover even here. They fetch up in village about three times a day, phone you and you go and fetch your packages. We use them for things like bulk rice and soy sauce etc but wife Also sometimes gets meat and fish and even river crabs. Then they do all the Amazon type stuff like hardware and white goods too. No problem sending stuff back either.
Theyve kept going during lockdown when village was closed, just park up beyond one of the barriers and pass stuff over.


----------



## JimW (May 9, 2020)

Should add portals like taobao are lots of small independent sellers alongside big boys.and have pretty much everything, some of it even not fake


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

If you compare Germany to the UK, they have a  similar population density and similar land mass, yet Germany has much cleaner air, despite having considerably more cars. Could this be due to the fact that Germany has a much better motorway system, so vehicles aren't in a constant state of gridlock, unnecessarily spewing fumes into their surroundings?

One thing that getting rid of cars will definitely achieve is to make Jeff Bezoz immensely richer, although I somehow doubt that would bother teuchter. Indeed, it may well be part of his plan, as he likely has shares in the company.


----------



## souljacker (May 9, 2020)

Sue said:


> Years ago, I worked in a business park that was on the outskirts of a large town which had terrible traffic. There was a free shuttle bus from the station/centre of town that ran extremely frequently. Once it got past a certain point, there was a bus lane so it was faster going by bus than by car. Yet many of my colleagues would still drive to work from the centre of town and then moan about the traffic.
> 
> Made absolutely no sense to me but when I asked a colleague why he didn't take the bus, he said he'd have to walk ten minutes to get to the bus stop. I pointed out that driving took him more than an extra ten minutes given the bus lanes and he looked at me like I was mad. Until you can get past attitudes like that, I've no idea what you do (apart from possibly ban/reduce car parking space for places like that that are well served by public transport).



In Reading, there has been a lot of talk about charging companies for their parking spaces in an effort to deal with this issue. Cue mass moaning from the drivers. 

Loads of the out of town office parks have free shuttle buses from the station but they are rarely used because they also have massive car parks. There is also the rather odd thing where the shuttle buses won't make stops en route so if you live on the shuttle bus route, you still need to go to the station to get on it. All it needs is a bit of joined up thinking IMO.


----------



## Sue (May 9, 2020)

souljacker said:


> In Reading, there has been a lot of talk about charging companies for their parking spaces in an effort to deal with this issue. Cue mass moaning from the drivers.
> 
> Loads of the out of town office parks have free shuttle buses from the station but they are rarely used because they also have massive car parks. There is also the rather odd thing where the shuttle buses won't make stops en route so if you live on the shuttle bus route, you still need to go to the station to get on it. All it needs is a bit of joined up thinking IMO.


This was in fact in Reading -- I was working at TVP -- in the mid/late 2000s. The buses were always busy but you never needed to wait very long to get on one. 

As I said though, even people who lived in central Reading (and the buses at that point did make a few stops en route) would still drive which I found quite incredible. And moan about the traffic.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 9, 2020)

Athos said:


> A choice which limits your options.


Options for what exactly? 

And like why is it only people who refuse to drive and those who genuinely need to (lack of mobility etc) that are asked to fight their cause and explain their motivations? 
How would you justify your car usage to yourself and future generations? And could you see a way to change your lifestyle to suit a car free life? Cos it is possible, we're doing it, but it is a lifestyle choice for sure. 

The second half isn't aimed purely at athos of course...I just wondered how you thought us not driving limited our options specifically.


----------



## souljacker (May 9, 2020)

There is no way the traffic problems in Reading will ever be resolved if they continue to build massive car parks every time they build an office park. The funniest thing is the most vocal anti-car park charging people are also the most vocal traffic moaners. They just don't seem to get that they are part of the problem.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

souljacker said:


> In Reading, there has been a lot of talk about charging companies for their parking spaces in an effort to deal with this issue. Cue mass moaning from the drivers.
> 
> Loads of the out of town office parks have free shuttle buses from the station but they are rarely used because they also have massive car parks. There is also the rather odd thing where the shuttle buses won't make stops en route so if you live on the shuttle bus route, you still need to go to the station to get on it. All it needs is a bit of joined up thinking IMO.



The logic of business parks is pretty mad when you break it down. Transport networks are centered on urban hubs, making these the easiest places to get to. Because lots of people can get to city centres, there are lots of customers and lots of workers, both good for businesses. Because of these two things, property values in urban centres go up. Then some clever sod goes, if we run our business on this brownfield site on the edge of nowhere, we can have more space for less money. Doesn't matter that there's no public transport, because people can drive there. You can't drive into the city centre these days anyway, because there's too much traffic. So everyone's a winner. Eventually so many businesses cotton on to this (including retail businesses which have learned to cluster together around vast car parks so they can share footfall) that city centres start to shrivel up, but they're still at the centre of the increasingly moribund public transport networks because roads and train lines and bus stations are tricky things to relocate. Any time property values in city centres start to drop gentrification kicks in to bump them up again, without necessarily providing anything useful in terms of jobs or services, but helping to maintain the pressure on businesses to gtfo to the suburbs, and thus keep workers and customers both dependent on cars.

The business parks we already have could serve a useful purpose though. They're ideally placed to served as distribution hubs for everything that needs to come to the city via HGV, allowing lower-impact 'last mile' logistics to take over from there. Businesses could still operate from traffic-reduced city centres, jobs could return to them, and everyone could have access to everything, not just those with cars.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Options for what exactly?
> 
> And like why is it only people who refuse to drive and those who genuinely need to (lack of mobility etc) that are asked to fight their cause and explain their motivations?
> How would you justify your car usage to yourself and future generations? And could you see a way to change your lifestyle to suit a car free life? Cos it is possible, we're doing it, but it is a lifestyle choice for sure.
> ...



Well, people without access to a car don't have the option to travel long distances as quickly, conveniently, and comfortably, relatively cheaply.  In normal times, if I want to, I can jump in the car and visit a mate an hour's drive away; it just wouldn't be possible by public transport, so I'd lose that option.  Similarly, going fishing, or lots of away games with football.

I've not asked anyone to explain their motivations.

I'd explain it that I avoided driving when it was easy to do so, but drove when it wasn't. I'd explain that was because I enjoy the freedom and convenience of driving, notwithstanding that it does have some social cost (like pretty much everything we do).

I could live without a car. But it'd be a less good life.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

The only vehicles that should be allowed in city centres are Tuc Tucs, which would pick people up from a park 'n' ride at the outskirts of town, then race into the centre, with a minimum of 2 passengers and a maximum of 17. All other forms of transport should be banned from the centre, including buses and bicycles. If you don't want to walk in the centre of town, it's a Tuc Tuc, no other options. 
No Tuc Tuc may exceed 400cc engine capacity, yet may be tuned to a maximum of 100bhp, while electric variants can be up to 1000W.
All buses/cars/bicycles, etc, must remain outside the town centre.
Minimum speed limits will apply to Tuc Tucs.


----------



## dessiato (May 9, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> The most equitable solution is obviously a mandatory tracking device in every car linked to HMRC and to a database containing your medical records and other personal information. Then the government could punitively tax people for unnecessary journeys, as the system would know whether you could have feasibly made the journey by public transport. There would be an appeals system of course, with an opportunity to provide documentary evidence to prove necessity, and there would also be Revenue & Customs agents conducting surveillence to make sure e.g. you weren't bunking off your GP appointment to go to a house party across the road.


Define what a necessary journey is please.


----------



## WouldBe (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Coming back to this...
> 
> This is from the construction of the Westway. People's houses were bulldozed for it, and many people ended up living metres from a motorway. There were protests back then, of course. But would you even be able to do this at all, now?


HS2?


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 9, 2020)

Athos said:


> Well, people without access to a car don't have the option to travel long distances as quickly, conveniently, and comfortably, relatively cheaply.  In normal times, if I want to, I can jump in the car and visit a mate an hour's drive away; it just wouldn't be possible by public transport, so I'd lose that option.
> 
> I've not asked anyone to explain their motivations.
> 
> ...


So someone who lives an hour's drive away is entirely inaccessible to you otherwise? I think I'm missing something here. 

It's not just social cost though is It? Though that is huge- The car has enabled a selfish elitism that has costs to communities and local business. We all want to get places so quickly we dont stop to smell the roses, build connections and invest in our communities. It has massive environmental costs as well as political. Wars are waged for oil and petroleum and many lives are lost.

 I'm pretty sure with a bit of creativity that your life could be just as good without a car.


----------



## Athos (May 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> So someone who lives an hour's drive away is entirely inaccessible to you otherwise? I think I'm missing something here.
> 
> It's not just social cost though is It? Though that is huge- The car has enabled a selfish elitism that has costs to communities and local business. We all want to get places so quickly we dont stop to smell the roses, build connections and invest in our communities. It has massive environmental costs as well as political. Wars are waged for oil and petroleum and many lives are lost.
> 
> I'm pretty sure with a bit of creativity that your life could be just as good without a car.



Yes, entirely inaccessible - there's no buses or trains in my village or his.

I stop to smell ther roses.  I have connections and investment in my community. It's just that I have other options, too.

The environment is polluted and wars are waged for the fuel that produces electricity.  Of which I'm sure you could use less. But, I daresay, you don't want to, because your life would be worse for it. Same thing.

It's great that, never having had a car, you don't miss one.  But, knowing my lifestyle, I can say that my life definitely wouldn't be nearly as good without a car (as things stand): I'd have to give up gigging; wouldn't be able to shoot or fish; would get to a lot fewer football and cricket matches; see fewer bands; see a lot less of family and friends; not have the freedom to go where I want, when I want; shopping, medical appointments, etc. would be less convenient; I wouldn't be able to take and pick up my kids from their activities and friends.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> We’re similar ages to you fella


I'd say you're definitely younger than me, but you're an outlier. You fall into that weird "I hate cars because mnerr" category.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd say you're definitely younger than me, but you're an outlier. You fall into that weird "I hate cars because mnerr" category.


I think most of us on here are of a similar age. Your reasoning is faulty.
Yours, 
A 47 year old smug cyclist (but not a MAMIL)


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> I think most of us on here are of a similar age. Your reasoning is faulty.
> Yours,
> A 47 year old smug cyclist (but not a MAMIL)


47 is relatively young. Most car haters have seats reserved for them at the front of the bus.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> 47 is relatively young. Most car haters have seats reserved for them at the front of the bus.


42 here


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Cars are freedom for the individual and the family ..
> Cars permit you to take jobs that otherwise wouldn't be possibly to take.
> Cars save you loads of money compared to public transport if it even is available.
> Cars permit you to live where you would like rather than being restricted to city centres.
> ...


Fucking hell - are you on a retainer from the RAC or something?

Anyway, it's selfish attitudes like that that lead to the health and environmental problems that we're all facing.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Fucking hell - are you on a retainer from the RAC or something?


I just thoughts I would list some things that are good about car ownership without saying that cars themselves are great, which otherwise could also be said. 



farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyway, it's selfish attitudes like that that lead to the health and environmental problems that we're all facing.


Quite right .. cars can cause congestion and pollution and accidents deaths and injury and more .. they aren't wholly benign things, there are two sides to the story but it would be unfair to deny the benefits.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I just thoughts I would list some things that are good about car ownership without saying that cars themselves are great, which otherwise could also be said.
> 
> 
> Quite right .. cars can cause congestion and pollution and accidents deaths and injury and more .. they aren't wholly benign things, there are two sides to the story but it would be unfair to deny the benefits.


The health of the population and protecting the environment automatically trump so-called benefits of owning a car.  That's why they should be banned for most people, with appropriate exemptions.  There are benefits to using asbestos, but nobody would seriously suggest that convenience of using it outweighs the impact on health.


----------



## Hollis (May 9, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Quite right .. cars can cause congestion and pollution and accidents deaths and injury and more .. they aren't wholly benign things, there are two sides to the story but it would be unfair to deny the benefits.



There are benefits, but alot of those are reflective of the current transport system - alot would still exist with reduced car usage and better public transport.

Also I thinks its useful to distinguish between car ownershp and car usage... if certain types of journey were targeted then this would still reduce congestion, travel times for both cars and buses, and improve the environment.


----------



## Aladdin (May 9, 2020)

The current covid 19 crisis has left me thinking I will never board a plane, train, tram, ship or bus ever again. As walking is not an option anymore,  I will get a small electric car and be perfectly happy with that. It wont cause congestion and it will not emit poisonous and dangerous gases.


----------



## Winot (May 9, 2020)

The benefit to the individual of driving (in some circumstances) is unarguable. It’s also unarguable that _everyone_ driving damages the environment, either locally (congestion) or on a wider scale (pollution). Essentially, driving a car is a selfish act. Not every journey, but overall. 

Accordingly, leaving it up to the individual isn’t going to work. Humans are not very good at taking decisions which are personally awkward but are for the greater good. That is why the state has to intervene.

What needs to happen is fairly straightforward. The difficulty is political. How does the state do what is needed without getting voted out?

What I find interesting is that even on Urban 75 (which has more socialists than anywhere else I know), people are so against the state intervening for the greater good.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> What I find interesting is that even on Urban 75 (which has more socialists than anywhere else I know), people are so against the state intervening for the greater good.



A lot of those people sold out for a set of heated wing mirrors a while ago it seems.

This is a place where the statement 'I don't give a shit about future generations, I just like making vroom vroom noises in a densely populated area' is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## deeyo (May 9, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> So someone who lives an hour's drive away is entirely inaccessible to you otherwise? I think I'm missing something here.
> 
> It's not just social cost though is It? Though that is huge- The car has enabled a selfish elitism that has costs to communities and local business. We all want to get places so quickly we dont stop to smell the roses, build connections and invest in our communities. It has massive environmental costs as well as political. Wars are waged for oil and petroleum and many lives are lost.
> 
> I'm pretty sure with a bit of creativity that your life could be just as good without a car.



Our society is built around the car. Its central to the western way of living. Global car production continues to rise.
Things haven't always been this way, it's not the same all over the world, (see JimW s posts) and it won't be forever, but to change this would mean to change the structure of society radically.
There is neither popular nor political support for any radical restrictions on car usage.
That would have to be created. I don't think shaming people is the way to go. Its more likely to cause guilt, irritation and defiance.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

deeyo said:


> Our society is built around the car. Its central to the western way of living.



I guess I must be dead then because I live in the west and I don't have a car. Much of my generation doesn't.


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2020)

I'd like to know what sort of utopian state some people envisage and how they envisage it coming about in the context of 30 years of cuts in public transport, especially in rural areas, and how these 'appropriate exemptions' are going to be made available in the light of the current situation where e.g the current PIP mobility allowance has been cut back to the point of if you have the ability to drive a car, you probably don't need one (and so almost certainly won't get one).

I live in a rural area. My nearest local shop is 2 miles away. My nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. Buses are extremely limited, ridiculously limited, fantastically expensive. My commute to work since being made redundant from my last job 3 years ago is now a 60 mile round trip. Nobody here has talked about the need for making employment availabilities more local, not that that is even possible where I live. I can't walk more than 400m, slowly, without serious pain that leaves me unable to go further. I don't qualify for PIP. I don't even qualify for a disabled badge. So how are we to magically move to 'appropriate exemptions' when the current rules are so draconian. 

What faith are people drawing from recent government that makes them feel these views are anything other than metropolitan based pie-in-the-sky?

As one further example, a new cycle track has long been promised near me. Leaving aside the fact that personally I have a disability that makes it impossible for me to cycle long distances (any distances) anyway, this cycle track, long proposed, is intended to cover 16 miles between my nearest town and the next big town. In the last 12 months they have built 750m of this track. Farmer's objections are expected to take up to 5 more years before anything like completion can be envisaged.

After reading this you may think I am an appropriate exemption. Where am I supposed to draw faith from that anyone outside of Urban will ever think this?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> A lot of those people sold out for a set of heated wing mirrors a while ago it seems.
> 
> This is a place where the statement 'I don't give a shit about future generations, I just like making vroom vroom noises in a densely populated area' is perfectly acceptable.



I’ll bite; how exactly is owning a car saying that you don’t give a shit about future generations?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> The benefit to the individual of driving (in some circumstances) is unarguable. It’s also unarguable that _everyone_ driving damages the environment, either locally (congestion) or on a wider scale (pollution). Essentially, driving a car is a selfish act. Not every journey, but overall.
> 
> Accordingly, leaving it up to the individual isn’t going to work. Humans are not very good at taking decisions which are personally awkward but are for the greater good. That is why the state has to intervene.
> 
> What needs to happen is fairly straightforward. The difficulty is political. How does the state do what is needed without getting voted out?


Just ban the fuckers and let them squeal - it would be fun to see the petrolhead twats whinge about it 

Or make it so expensive that people will change their behaviour.  Perhaps an escalating 'death tax' for selfish drivers pegged at the number of miles they cover.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 9, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I’ll bite; how exactly is owning a car saying that you don’t give a shit about future generations?


Because your a selfish cunt who doesn't care about the future environmental health of the planet.  It's quite straightforward.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I’ll bite; how exactly is owning a car saying that you don’t give a shit about future generations?



It's not, but people here have actually said 'I don't give a shit about future generations' in pretty much those exact words.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> I'd like to know what sort of utopian state some people envisage and how they envisage it coming about in the context of 30 years of cuts in public transport, especially in rural areas, and how these 'appropriate exemptions' are going to be made available in the light of the current situation where e.g the current PIP mobility allowance has been cut back to the point of if you have the ability to drive a car, you probably don't need one (and so almost certainly won't get one).
> 
> I live in a rural area. My nearest local shop is 2 miles away. My nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. Buses are extremely limited, ridiculously limited, fantastically expensive. My commute to work since being made redundant from my last job 3 years ago is now a 60 mile round trip. Nobody here has talked about the need for making employment availabilities more local, not that that is even possible where I live. I can't walk more than 400m, slowly, without serious pain that leaves me unable to go further. I don't qualify for PIP. I don't even qualify for a disabled badge. So how are we to magically move to 'appropriate exemptions' when the current rules are so draconian.
> 
> ...



The solution is to find a culturally vibrant area of a big city with good public transport and wave a wad of cash around to move in and force out the locals. It’s teuchtertastic.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not, but people here have actually said 'I don't give a shit about future generations' in pretty much those exact words.



You did, in those exact words, doofus


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Because your a selfish cunt who doesn't care about the future environmental health of the planet.  It's quite straightforward.



You say that like it’s a bad thing


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You did, in those exact words, doofus



I know you are but what am I.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> As one further example, a new cycle track has long been promised near me. Leaving aside the fact that personally I have a disability that makes it impossible for me to cycle long distances (any distances) anyway, this cycle track, long proposed, is intended to cover 16 miles between my nearest town and the next big town. In the last 12 months they have built 750m of this track. Farmer's objections are expected to take up to 5 more years before anything like completion can be envisaged.



Are you saying the cycle track shouldn't get built? Would you rather that some people who aren't as car-dependent as you switch to bikes, creating less traffic for you to deal with and cleaner air for everyone?

I do understand, well probably I don't understand but I recognise, the concerns you have about restrictions on cars not being applied fairly. It's not something I can solve with a soundbite here. But if there's good faith then solutions can be found. The current status quo is not based on good faith, nor is it fair to the many people whose lives could genuinely be improved by having a car, but who cannot afford one.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 9, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You say that like it’s a bad thing


Self confessed selfish cunt.


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Are you saying the cycle track shouldn't get built? Would you rather that some people who aren't as car-dependent as you switch to bikes, creating less traffic for you to deal with and cleaner air for everyone?



Absolutely bemused where your first question comes from. Of course it should get built, I'm outlining the modern day practicalities, down to the dominant culture, of why it isn't getting built.

Second question, of course I would.

I don't believe the good faith exists, and is completely overrun by the politics of especially the last 30 years. I thought I was pretty clear in my view that what is being expressed by some here ignores the realities of the last 30, if not more years.

How are you going to change that? I don't expect soundbites. But it's soundbites I'm seeing in expressing those simplistic views.

Thanks for at least approaching what I've said though. Others don't seem so keen to.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Self confessed selfish cunt.


It isn't a selfish act to own and use a car. My use of a car, here in the sticks, creates hardly any damage for others and were I to give it up I wouldn't benefit others in the slightest, I would just damage my own life chances and those of my family. 

If you are a city dweller, suffering under pollution, and with good public transport options then the equation is different, In city centres there is often a genuine public transport alternative. 

Just putting up blanket statements like yours above don't really advance the discussion imo.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> ..
> .. nor is it fair to the many people whose lives could genuinely be improved by having a car, but who cannot afford one.


Being able to afford a car is also about one's priorities at the time. Second hand cars can be had for £500 and insurance and road tax can be spread out, petrol depends on how many miles you do as does maintenance. During a recent period of unemployment on JSA (I was unemployed for more than a year) I continued to run my car and although it was tight I managed to pay my bills and keep my car on the road. It was a priority for me as I knew it would be unlikely I would win a job without one. And that proved to be the case in the end.


----------



## WouldBe (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then some clever sod goes, if we run our business on this brownfield site on the edge of nowhere, we can have more space for less money.


The main problem is where do you find a large plot of land big enough in the middle of a congested ( building wise) town or city to build a large factory or warehouse? And then it would depend if the council granted planning permission.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> The main problem is where do you find a large plot of land big enough in the middle of a congested ( building wise) town or city to build a large factory or warehouse? And then it would depend if the council granted planning permission.



I was thinking about offices, service sector stuff, as well as retail and leisure more than factories. Again, anything that needs HGVs coming and going is better off on the edge of a city. Getting workers to work in those factories is another challenge again. 

There are however industrial and commercial buildings being converted to overpriced housing in many urban centres, which is daft and easy to change with proper planning rules. Basically if it's not providing ordinary folk with housing or work it shouldn't get built.

The traditional industrial heart of my city is half empty nowadays because the many beautiful buildings there are in too trendy a part of town for their own good and nobody can afford to use them. The luxury housing market is hypersaturated already, and it's cheaper to build new shit than convert listed buildings so they just gather dust. It's a fucking mad situation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Blah, blah...cleaner air for everyone?



Utterly ignoring the rapid march towards electric vehicles. Of course once everyone is gliding around in them the hand wringing liberals who never managed to get it together to join the adult car owning population will still moan like fuck.


----------



## Aladdin (May 9, 2020)

If this covid19 becomes a regular thing we may all be working differently . Many of  us may work from home. And transportation wont be required for work. 
No more junket trips for meetings in other countries. No more flying. 
Surely that will have a huge effect on global warming.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> I'd like to know what sort of utopian state some people envisage and how they envisage it coming about in the context of 30 years of cuts in public transport, especially in rural areas, and how these 'appropriate exemptions' are going to be made available in the light of the current situation where e.g the current PIP mobility allowance has been cut back to the point of if you have the ability to drive a car, you probably don't need one (and so almost certainly won't get one).
> 
> I live in a rural area. My nearest local shop is 2 miles away. My nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. Buses are extremely limited, ridiculously limited, fantastically expensive. My commute to work since being made redundant from my last job 3 years ago is now a 60 mile round trip. Nobody here has talked about the need for making employment availabilities more local, not that that is even possible where I live. I can't walk more than 400m, slowly, without serious pain that leaves me unable to go further. I don't qualify for PIP. I don't even qualify for a disabled badge. So how are we to magically move to 'appropriate exemptions' when the current rules are so draconian.
> 
> ...


You've just described the horrendous damage car dependancy does. You are describing a world that has been created by the car. What caused 30 years of public transport cuts? Would they have happened if everyone had been dependant on public transport, instead of being able to bypass it? 

For the record, I am not in any way unfamiliar with the issues in rural areas; I said early on that they are harder to solve and we should tackle urban areas first.  

What are the views that you think are metropolitan pie-in-the-sky? Do you think people are seriously proposing to ban cars outright in rural areas without doing anything about providing alternatives?


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

By the way, can we establish the fact that moving from petrol/diesel to electric, whenever it happens, solves maybe 10% of the problems caused by individual, privately owned vehicles. If we are being generous. Some people seem to still be underbthe illusion that this is the get-out-of-jail-free card.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

planetgeli said:


> I live in a rural area. My nearest local shop is 2 miles away. My nearest bus stop is 2 miles away. Buses are extremely limited, ridiculously limited, fantastically expensive. My commute to work since being made redundant from my last job 3 years ago is now a 60 mile round trip. Nobody here has talked about the need for making employment availabilities more local, not that that is even possible where I live. I can't walk more than 400m, slowly, without serious pain that leaves me unable to go further.


Again, this is why I don't think cars should be banned completely. There are places/situations/individuals they were well. If we get the numbers down by significant amounts it frees up roads/spaces for those left with no other reasonable option. Everyone wins.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Utterly ignoring the rapid march towards electric vehicles. Of course once everyone is gliding around in them the hand wringing liberals who never managed to get it together to join the adult car owning population will still moan like fuck.


Electric cars solve fuck all.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

Anyway, some more propaganda


----------



## deeyo (May 9, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I guess I must be dead then because I live in the west and I don't have a car. Much of my generation doesn't.


Yeah, as i wrote before, the western market shows signs of being saturated, UK license holders between 21-29 dropped from 75 to 63 % 92/94 to 2014. The numbers of households with no access to cars stopped falling round 2000 and have stayed at 19 % since then. Cars per capita and per household is still rising.(Census figures, mostly, gov.uk). 85 % of all distance travelled are by car - stable numbers since 86.

Signs of stagnation, sure. But very few signs of decline. And stagnation on around .62 vehicles per capita compared to .18 worldwide.
For other aspects planetgeli said enough.

farmerbarleymow (and others) who's gonna ban cars? What western government (or influential opposition) would dare (or want) to do that? Is there anywhere there's broad popular support for such action? Maybe a more fascist style government, like the chinese could pull it of, but would they want to?


----------



## WouldBe (May 9, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Electric cars solve fuck all.


Why?


----------



## chilango (May 9, 2020)

It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of driving eh?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Why?


Because the toxic shit coming out of the exhaust of a car is but one tiny part of the problems they cause.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

Here's an american having his mind blown by groningen.

More than ten years ago now. Way ahead of most other places.


----------



## chilango (May 9, 2020)

For the record I've reached 47 without ever learning to drive.  I've lived in cities, towns and the middle of nowhere. ln places with great public transport and places with none.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Why?


If you have to ask this question, you need to educate yourself.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, some more propaganda



And look - _It still has cars_. But...


Also - not one helmet, no lycra, no special clothing. Just a normal, practical way to get a round a city that's been designed around the needs of _people_.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> What I find interesting is that even on Urban 75 (which has more socialists than anywhere else I know), people are so against the state intervening for the greater good.


Offer them some real world socialism where they might have to adjust their life a little and they bottle it. 
Easier just to bang on about nationalising the railways (whilst scabbing on them in your car).


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

Teuchter, no, I didn't watch the video - I never watch that sort of video. They tend to spend ten minutes saying what could be written in a minute's worth of text. 

Can't be arsed carrying on arguing with you though. There really is no point. You think you know everything and will never actually pay attention to anything anyone else says, just respond with your own spiel and ignore anything that contradicts it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And look - _It still has cars_. But...
> 
> 
> Also - not one helmet, no lycra, no special clothing. Just a normal, practical way to get a round a city that's been designed around the needs of _people who don't drive cars, and are so selfish that they'd begrudge anyone else driving one._


FTFY


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Teuchter, no, I didn't watch the video - I never watch that sort of video. They tend to spend ten minutes saying what could be written in a minute's worth of text.
> 
> Can't be arsed carrying on arguing with you though. There really is no point. You think you know everything and will never actually pay attention to anything anyone else says, just respond with your own spiel and ignore anything that contradicts it.


You don't have to argue with him, because he's wrong. He likes to think he's right but so did Hitler, when he tried to force his ridiculous opinions on people.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Has anyone else noticed that it's the worst road users (cyclists) who want to dictate who should be allowed to use the roads?I
Who would have thought that such a selfish bunch of people could be so selfish.


----------



## Sue (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You don't have to argue with him, because he's wrong. He likes to think he's right but so did Hitler, when he tried to force his ridiculous opinions on people.


Ah, the Hitler comparison. The ultimate sign of WTF are you even talking about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Sue said:


> Ah, the Hitler comparison. The ultimate sign of WTF are you even talking about.


Hitler was a fascist dictator. His way was the only way. No compromise. Have you seen similar attitudes anywhere on this thread?


----------



## Sue (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Hitler was a fascist dictator. His way was the only way. No compromise. Have you seen similar attitudes anywhere on this thread?


Oh Saul Goodman. Have some brackety hugs. I think you might need them(((Saul Goodman )))


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Sue said:


> Oh Saul Goodman. Have some brackety hugs. I think you might need them(((Saul Goodman )))


Thanks for the offer but I'm all hugged out.

Just occasionally, I allow fascists to annoy me. Fortunately, this isn't one of those times. I'll just laugh at them instead, and revel in the knowledge that I'll never be so spiteful as to suggest that someone should be deprived of their means of transport... Not even cyclists.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Next.



Absolutely no good when it’s pissing down, blowing a gale etc.

Even on a good weather day that contraption is not appealing compared to the convenience and comfort of a car.


----------



## JimW (May 10, 2020)

deeyo said:


> Maybe a more fascist style government, like the chinese could pull it of, but would they want to?


They've already imposed major restrictions to buying/using a private car in some of the big metropolises like here in Beijing. Not massively familiar with how it works as a non-driver but there's a lottery to get a new license plate that means lengthy waits if you do want to buy or buying/leasing an existing one, then IIRC there's odd and even number days where the final digit of your license determines whether or not you can enter the city inside the sixth ring road that day. Probably more, would have to look it up. Of course it's set up in a way that anyone with money or connections can get round it.
I think the boom in private care ownership really took planners here by surprise, they thought demand would grow more slowly plus never admitted to themselves that the size of the grey economy meant far more people had the money even to pay the early exorbitant cost of a new car when headline household income stats suggested they couldn't. But the appeal was so strong and encouraging domestic consumption was another facet of strategy. Another factor is the way massive infrastructure projects have been used to stimulate the economy and thousands of kilometres of new roads have been a big part of that.
Sorry, not much of a coherent overview there, just a few things I've noticed. The old work unit system was well on the way to disappearing by the time I first got here but even then seen a massive shift in urban areas from people living right by their places of work and bus/tube/cycling being the main means of personal transport to gridlock that competes with anywhere in the world in about thirty years.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

tim said:


> Exactly, rideshare in nice long 30- 50 seater single and double decked cars.



Personally, I hate using buses.  First job I had after leaving school took me 45mins to an hour travelling by one bus into city centre then another bus to where I worked.

In the summer you got baked inside due to large greenhouse windows, sometimes had a wiffy smell, was loud, could hear people’s mind numbing conversations etc.  In bad/freezing weather standing in the bus queue was miserable especially if it was pissing down.

So I learnt to drive, bought a car and whizzed to work in 15mins - 12mins if roads were clear.  Grinning ear to ear in my own environment, music playing and a lot less stress.  Want to go somewhere?  No more waiting for slow buses, just get in the car and go.  There’s no comparison


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Teuchter, no, I didn't watch the video - I never watch that sort of video. They tend to spend ten minutes saying what could be written in a minute's worth of text.
> 
> Can't be arsed carrying on arguing with you though. There really is no point. You think you know everything and will never actually pay attention to anything anyone else says, just respond with your own spiel and ignore anything that contradicts it.


This is why the best response to threads like this is to take the piss.  They're just cycle-twat wankfests with SpookyFrank and Bees tugging each other off like crazy whilst Orang Utan sticks his fingers up their bums like Sooty and Sweep, and Teuchers scoffs the soggy biscuit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> So I learnt to drive, bought a car and whizzed to work in 15mins - 12mins if roads were clear.



If the roads were clear. How often are the roads clear, at the times most people need to get to work?


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

JimW said:


> IIRC there's odd and even number days where the final digit of your license determines whether or not you can enter the city inside the sixth ring road that day. Probably more, would have to look it up. Of course it's set up in a way that anyone with money or connections can get round it.


I know not terribly rich people (school teachers) who have two cars to get round this.  Private cars were just kicking off big time when I lived there but seemed pointless inside Beijing itself. Even in 2002 the whole city was just a big traffic jam. Smell the freedom eh.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Has anyone else noticed that it's the worst road users (cyclists) who want to dictate who should be allowed to use the roads?I
> Who would have thought that such a selfish bunch of people could be so selfish.



It's like the troll that trolls itself.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Even on a good weather day that contraption is not appealing compared to the convenience and comfort of a car.


Working for a living isn't nearly as appealing as burgling some houses and then spending the day gouching out on some strong fucking drugs. For some reason society has decided that I'm not allowed to live like that though.


----------



## JimW (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I know not terribly rich people (school teachers) who have two cars to get round this.  Private cars were just kicking off big time when I lived there but seemed pointless inside Beijing itself. Even in 2002 the whole city was just a big traffic jam. Smell the freedom eh.


Out here in the sticks you can also use a provincial plate so long as you stay outside the city proper or pay loads for a one off permit to drive in. So e.g. Inner Mongolian one like our mate has is fine for going to nearby towns but not into Beijing proper.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Working for a living isn't nearly as appealing as burgling some houses and then spending the day gouching out on some strong fucking drugs. For some reason society has decided that I'm not allowed to live like that though.


Ah, but that's because to do so you'd be in a minority with little power to oppose the societal mores that prevent it.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or carry the same traffic with less congestion?



Yup, they’ve recently added an extra lane North & Southbound on the A1 near the Metrocentre in Gateshead to reduce congestion and it’s worked very well.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, but that's because to do so you'd be in a minority with little power to oppose the societal mores that prevent it.


Well society needs to start valuing life as highly as it values property then.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, but that's because to do so you'd be in a minority with little power to oppose the societal mores that prevent it.


Not long before you lot are in the minority too though. I can smell the fear in the tone of the posts from the petrolhead clique. Kidding themselves it's all a bit of a laugh. Thread's already at 13 pages - panic is setting in.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Imagine coming up with the idea of privately owned cars now.
> 
> “Got a great idea for getting us all about. You can go anywhere you want, anytime. Freedom! No drawbacks at all. Apart from you’ll need to pay a huge amount of money for it. And then constantly more money to run it. Oh, and it will sit unused for most of the time. Ah, also we’re going to need to give up most of the public space in our cities for it. Plus there’s the tiny issue of the poisonous fumes that come out the back. Which are generated from burning oil. Oh, nearly forgot, they’ll kill over a million people every year”
> 
> You’d be laughed out the room.


What an absolute load of nonsense.  As if people consider the negative aspects of everything they or others do. If that were the case cigarettes and alcohol would have been banned decades ago and Class A narcs wouldn't exist. All things which kill and maim exponentially more people than private motoring but are engaged in with gusto by your average U75 cycle wally.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Electric cars solve fuck all.



Will press ahead with the purchase of an RS6 then


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Not long before you lot are in the minority too though. I can smell the fear in the tone of the posts from the petrolhead clique. Kidding themselves it's all a bit of a laugh. Thread's already at 13 pages - panic is setting in.


That's because for the last 10 it's mainly been you lot polishing each others helmets!


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Well society needs to start valuing life as highly as it values property then.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

I’m noticing a lot more Tesla’s on my travels these days.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Working for a living isn't nearly as appealing as burgling some houses and then spending the day gouching out on some strong fucking drugs. For some reason society has decided that I'm not allowed to live like that though.




A van is useful for a burglar. Not sure what TfL’s rules are on carrying swag on buses...


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A van is useful for a burglar. Not sure what TfL’s rules are on carrying swag on buses...


It's allowed as long as you wear a stripey jumper and have SWAG written on the bag in six inch letters.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> FTFY


This... doesn’t even work. The example city _still lets people use cars_. Yet very few do, because the alternative for most journeys is easier, more efficient and better for all involved.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Absolutely no good when it’s pissing down, blowing a gale etc.
> 
> Even on a good weather day that contraption is not appealing compared to the convenience and comfort of a car.


Are you allergic to water? Must make life terribly difficult.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are you allergic to water? Must make life terribly difficult.



Pneumonia.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

It's funny how people who usually drive everywhere are actually enjoying walking since lockdown. It's almost as if it's an enjoyable activity. But don't let that put you off calling people Hitler for suggesting cities might be much improved with less cars.


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> It's allowed as long as you wear a stripey jumper and have SWAG written on the bag in six inch letters.



No stolen paint allowed though.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Not long before you lot are in the minority too though. I can smell the fear in the tone of the posts from the petrolhead clique. Kidding themselves it's all a bit of a laugh. Thread's already at 13 pages - panic is setting in.



I'm not a petrolhead; I don't like cars _per se_, but appreciate their utility. And I'd love to see public transport improved to the extent that people choose not to use cars (I'd be one of them). But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential, and for almost all it massively enhances their quality of life. And let's not forget that, of the remainder, many still benefit from the use of a car e.g. cadging lifts etc., and many more would have a car if they could afford one.  The Idea that we're anywhere near a public or political will to do away with private car ownership is crackpot stuff.  And, frankly, there's other things we could do to reduce emissions that'd provide more gain for less pain e.g. banning diesel, moving to green energy including household production, better insulation, tree planting.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's funny how people who usually drive everywhere are actually enjoying walking since lockdown. It's almost as if it's an enjoyable activity. But don't let that put you off calling people Hitler for suggesting cities might be much improved with less cars.



When your not allowed to go anywhere, it's easier to get there on foot!

But, being serious, of course it'd be good if people walked more, and of course a city with no cars and good public transport is the ideal.  But banning private car ownership (which is what's proposed in this thread) wouldn't work outside those urban areas, or even for many within them.  Which is why there's almost no political or social will to make it happen (outside a crackpot lycra-clad fringe).


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because the toxic shit coming out of the exhaust of a car is but one tiny part of the problems they cause.


From what I have seen on this thread the pollution is the main objection to cars. Electric, hydrogen or hybrid would sort that wouldn't it?


----------



## tim (May 10, 2020)

Four wheels bad, two wheels worse.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And look - _It still has cars_. But...
> 
> 
> Also - not one helmet, no lycra, no special clothing. Just a normal, practical way to get a round a city that's been designed around the needs of _people_.


How on earth are no helmets a good thing? You can still come off a bike even with no cars on the road.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's funny how people who usually drive everywhere are actually enjoying walking since lockdown. It's almost as if it's an enjoyable activity.


Walking's ace. I'm averaging 18,457 steps a day! 

I'm still not about to stop driving though.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I'm not a petrolhead; I don't like cars _per se_, but appreciate their utility. And I'd love to see public transport improved to the extent that people choose not to use cars (I'd be one of them). But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential, and for almost all it massively enhances their quality of life. And let's not forget that, of the remainder, many still benefit from the use of a car e.g. cadging lifts etc., and many more would have a car if they could afford one.  The Idea that we're anywhere near a public or political will to do away with private car ownership is crackpot stuff.  And, frankly, there's other things we could do to reduce emissions that'd provide more gain for less pain e.g. banning diesel, moving to green energy including household production, better insulation, tree planting.



'For almost all it massively enhances their quality of life' is a huge assumption, and is only relevant if there isn't an alternative. It's a financial burden. It's a pain in the arse in many ways. As it happens I think we're still some way from the technology needed to completely get rid of cars as they are now - that would require a kind of EV self-drive grid transit system. But there are interim things you can as you move toward that goal... Change models of car ownership. Encourage WFH (or local shared office space). And yeah, encourage cycling, improve public transport.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Walking's ace. I'm averaging 18,457 steps a day!
> 
> I'm still not about to stop driving though.


I thought you were looking sexier. You sure you wanna chuck all that away?


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> When your not allowed to go anywhere, it's easier to get there on foot!
> 
> But, being serious, of course it'd be good if people walked more, and of course a city with no cars and good public transport is the ideal.  But banning private car ownership (which is what's proposed in this thread) wouldn't work outside those urban areas, or even for many within them.  Which is why there's almost no political or social will to make it happen (outside a crackpot lycra-clad fringe).


An out and out ban isn't feasible or desirable I agree. But a scaling down of car use and creating car free parts of cities is. Perhaps a nice start would be creating car free routes to schools for those who are able to walk or cycle. When I lived in Holland as a kid it was a joy to have car free routes to cycle, walk or sled to school. Safer, cleaner and healthier.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Walking's ace. I'm averaging 18,457 steps a day!
> 
> I'm still not about to stop driving though.


Was that measured with one of those things you put round your wrist? Cause if so I'm not sure all that movement was 'walking'.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Was that measured with one of those things you put round your wrist? Cause if so I'm not sure all that movement was 'walking'.


Apple are trialing a new model of these but SpookyFrank and Teuchter keep wearing them out.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

Sometimes my cheapo version of a  fit bit says I've walked over a hundred steps in my sleep. As far as I'm aware I'm not a somnambulist so its clearly recording out of body experiences.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> An out and out ban isn't feasible or desirable I agree. But a scaling down of car use and creating car free parts of cities is. Perhaps a nice start would be creating car free routes to schools for those who are able to walk or cycle. When I lived in Holland as a kid it was a joy to have car free routes to cycle, walk or sled to school. Safer, cleaner and healthier.



The problem with saying that areas are car free except for disabled people, which is what a lot of people say, is that it's not actually physically possible - the area ends up being arranged in such a way that driving a car is extremely slow and dangerous. 

I know this is what some people want, of course, it being extremely inconvenient to drive, and to them it really doesn't matter if the inconvenience affects everyone, not just wasteful bastards. 

Ghent is the same as other Dutch and Belgian cities - fantastic for cyclists, absolutely fucking shit for people in wheelchairs. 

I don't know why they decided to just completely fuck over people with mobility problems when changing to priority for cycles, but they did.

But everyone holds those cities up as examples to follow.

Majorly improving public transport is the main change to make. There's not much point talking about banning cars or even massively discouraging them until there's a viable alternative on offer. The cost of driving lessons, fuel, etc is already a pretty major disincentive.


----------



## JimW (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Majorly improving public transport is the main change to make. There's not much point talking about banning cars or even massively discouraging them until there's a viable alternative on offer. The cost of driving lessons, fuel, etc is already a pretty major disincentive.


Yes, this seems right, plus I'd add looking at making working from home the default and a company maybe having to prove it couldn't set you up there for most work (maybe a one day a week in the office for the social side etc) and some sort of community delivery service so people with mobility issues could have stuff brought to them if they wanted, maybe tied to a general welfare check for e.g. elderly and isolated/ Bit pie in the sky I realise and probably issues haven't occurred to me but we need to be thinking of different ways of doing stuff.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> How on earth are no helmets a good thing? You can still come off a bike even with no cars on the road.


Because when proper infrastructure exists they’re not needed. Go to Amsterdam or Ghent and tell the people there they should wear a helmet. I’ll hear the laughter from here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Ghent is the same as other Dutch and Belgian cities - fantastic for cyclists, absolutely fucking shit for people in wheelchairs.


Can you expand on this or give a few links to read? AFAIK people with adapted vehicles or whatever the Belgian equivalent of our blue badge is can register and take their car into the city. And then with areas pedestrianised/no cars everywhere it’s easier to get around in a chair?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> From what I have seen on this thread the pollution is the main objection to cars. Electric, hydrogen or hybrid would sort that wouldn't it?


Well that electricity has to be generated somewhere. But no, pollution is but one part of a bigger picture of how cars strangle our spaces.


----------



## bmd (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> I thought you were looking sexier. You sure you wanna chuck all that away?



That's the haircut.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> 'For almost all it massively enhances their quality of life' is a huge assumption, and is only relevant if there isn't an alternative. It's a financial burden. It's a pain in the arse in many ways. As it happens I think we're still some way from the technology needed to completely get rid of cars as they are now - that would require a kind of EV self-drive grid transit system. But there are interim things you can as you move toward that goal... Change models of car ownership. Encourage WFH (or local shared office space). And yeah, encourage cycling, improve public transport.



Yes, my post was specifically predicated on the state of the existing infrastructure.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because when proper infrastructure exists they’re not needed. Go to Amsterdam or Ghent and tell the people there they should wear a helmet. I’ll hear the laughter from here.


Head injury is the single most common cause of of death and disabilty in the under 40s and car accidents are the leading cause of head injuries. Making all car drivers and passengers wear full crash hemets would prevent approx 150,000 hospital admissions due to aquired brain injury in the UK every year.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> An out and out ban isn't feasible or desirable I agree. But a scaling down of car use and creating car free parts of cities is. Perhaps a nice start would be creating car free routes to schools for those who are able to walk or cycle. When I lived in Holland as a kid it was a joy to have car free routes to cycle, walk or sled to school. Safer, cleaner and healthier.


I completely agree. But sensible voices like ours get lost amongst the lions like Plank, Bees, and Toutcher.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Head injury is the single most common cause of of death and disabilty in the under 40s and car accidents are the leading cause of head injuries. Making all car drivers and passengers wear full crash hemets would prevent approx 150,000 hospital admissions due to aquired brain injury in the UK every year.


All cars should be painted with hi-viz too, apparently it’s magic and keeps you safe


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I completely agree. But sensible voices like ours get lost amongst the lions like Plank, Bees, and Toutcher.


That’s literally the sort of things I’m arguing for


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> All cars should be painted with hi-viz too, apparently it’s magic and keeps you safe


Any cyclist who's against hi-viz and proper lights is a fucking moron. 

Unfortunately that seems to be most of them in London.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> If the roads were clear. How often are the roads clear, at the times most people need to get to work?



If I had to go in for a few hours on a Sunday.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Any cyclist who's against hi-viz... is a fucking moron.


Or perhaps they’re simply capable of reading statistics.

Lights in the dark? Obviously. Hi-viz does fuck all.


----------



## fishfinger (May 10, 2020)

tim said:


> Four wheels bad, two wheels worse.


Yes. Let's all get together and beat up the unicyclists! Those self-entitled, circus twats


----------



## bimble (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Instinctively I don’t think the majority of people live in cities. I think the densest concentrations are in cities, but doubt that this is a majority. Perhaps it could be true in the U.K. but the USA, China etc? Of course I might be proven wrong.


You are, wrong I mean. Though it’s fairly recent that we crossed that line globally.





__





						68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
					





					www.un.org


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Or perhaps they’re simply capable of reading statistics.
> 
> Lights in the dark? Obviously. Hi-viz does fuck all.


You need to spend less time reading silly cycle-twat propaganda and more time getting some genuine experience.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> You need to spend less time reading silly cycle-twat propaganda and more time getting some genuine experience.


I ride over 200 miles a week.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.
> 
> View attachment 211807


Is there one wearing headphones? It’s not a great idea on a bike ride.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Is there one wearing headphones? It’s not a great idea on a bike ride.


Clearly that person will be dead by mid morning.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I ride over 200 miles a week.


Big deal. Try _driving_ where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little _obvious_ proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

JimW said:


> Yes, this seems right, plus I'd add looking at making working from home the default and a company maybe having to prove it couldn't set you up there for most work (maybe a one day a week in the office for the social side etc) and some sort of community delivery service so people with mobility issues could have stuff brought to them if they wanted, maybe tied to a general welfare check for e.g. elderly and isolated/ Bit pie in the sky I realise and probably issues haven't occurred to me but we need to be thinking of different ways of doing stuff.



Can also do stuff along the lines of those desk rental spaces. I am _slightly_ appalled at myself for saying that, as they are so transparently a part of the rental economy... But in principle having some office spaces in residential areas isn't a bad idea... help maintain work-life balance, get you out of the house, even if it's a 10 minute walk rather than a long commute. Also gives you the ability to provide some services that might be more difficult for WFH.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Big deal. Try _driving_ where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little _obvious_ proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.


I spent nearly 20 years driving vans and trucks as part of my job. I’m based in the second largest city in the country, one that’s famous for being designed almost entirely around the needs of cars.

I think I have a fair idea of what does and doesn’t work for keeping cyclists safe. A little yellow jacket isn’t it. The stats back me up.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Big deal. Try _driving_ where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little _obvious_ proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.



Yeah, I mean I love the way high vis stuff just magically appears in my blind spot. Works brilliantly.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I'm not a petrolhead; I don't like cars _per se_, but appreciate their utility. And I'd love to see public transport improved to the extent that people choose not to use cars (I'd be one of them). But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential, and for almost all it massively enhances their quality of life. And let's not forget that, of the remainder, many still benefit from the use of a car e.g. cadging lifts etc., and many more would have a car if they could afford one.  The Idea that we're anywhere near a public or political will to do away with private car ownership is crackpot stuff.  And, frankly, there's other things we could do to reduce emissions that'd provide more gain for less pain e.g. banning diesel, moving to green energy including household production, better insulation, tree planting.





WouldBe said:


> From what I have seen on this thread the pollution is the main objection to cars. Electric, hydrogen or hybrid would sort that wouldn't it?


Electric doesn't entirely fix air pollution (in fact it may not even fix the larger part of it) because of dust from brakes, tyres and general constant motion.

But both of you are really not understanding the main point, which is that car dependancy does not only create pollution, it creates a load of massive social issues because of the type of world that gets built around it.

This is the hardest thing to get across to many people, because they don't want to see it. It's like they can't actually imagine a world (an urban world, at least) that can function without people being primarily dependent on cars.

You might of course simply not agree but I think if you want to engage in the wider discussion you have to try and understand what these points are, about the structural issues that result from car dependency. I will try and post things to read on this thread as time goes by, for those who have a genuine interest in understanding that viewpoint.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I spent nearly 20 years driving vans and trucks as part of my job. I’m based in the second largest city in the country, one that’s famous for being designed almost entirely around the needs of cars.


You couldn't have been paying attention then because you're talking unmitigated, brainwashed bollocks and sounds like as a driver you were a large part of the problem that you're now railing against. Typical of cyclists though so you're far from alone.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> But, currently, 80-odd% of people in the UK have household access to a car; for many of them it's essential,



See, I get weary of people coming back with statements like this, as if I've not realised this. Of course I realise this. This is the whole point.  That a large proportion of 80% of people are dependant on owning a car is the problem. That's the problem that needs to be solved. It's not a reason to dismiss attempts to change it.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Can you expand on this or give a few links to read? AFAIK people with adapted vehicles or whatever the Belgian equivalent of our blue badge is can register and take their car into the city. And then with areas pedestrianised/no cars everywhere it’s easier to get around in a chair?



The pavements except in a few central areas are very, very narrow, and then people park their bikes on them so if you're walking you have to squeeze past, and in a wheelchair you have to go into the cycle lane, which is about as unsafe as stepping into slow moving traffic, and there weren't many dropped kerbs so you can get off the pavement safely. Sometimes there's even a municipal bin or concrete flower pot blocking the pavement, or cafes allowed to use the entire pavement for seating, which you can walk through as a pedestrian but have to ask for things to be moved to fit through in a chair - it's very odd town planning. 

Oh and those beautiful cobbled streets aren't that great on a bike, but are actually painful in a wheelchair, hard to be pushed on, and can end up getting the wheel stuck and tipping you over. That wouldn't be a problem if the pavements were usable, but they're blocked by those parked bikes, with the assumption being you'll just go on the cobbles.

Haven't experienced a car there personally, but if it's like the "shared" spaces here, the car has to drive extremely slowly in the little bit of road left to it, and that means people who do actually have to use cars have a much longer journey. I'm not sure what to do about that apart from encouraging pedestrians to step aside on the occasion a car does go through. And obviously some adaptations mean a car can't get down a road at all, so there's a fair amount of travel after parking. 

Public transport in Holland and Belgium is not great for wheelchairs. The trams usually have one accessible entrance, but there's no priority for wheelchairs, so whereas people walking can squeeze on, in a wheelchair you just have to wait. The buses are mostly not accessible. In Holland, because of the double decker trains, they require a ramp to be brought out by station staff, so you have to book and check in in person an hour ahead in Holland, 24 hours in Belgium. That's not really practical for everyday use, commuting for work or going for a night out. At least our trains would be better than that, although the tube is unlikely to ever be fully accessible. 

You see lots of people with wheeled walkers, but you pretty much never see anyone in a wheelchair (and no mobility scooters), because it's so difficult to get around in one. 

There are an awful lot of faults, basically - they're not ideal examples to hold up. And these competing needs are frequently a problem in urban planning, as far as I can see. The expansion of cycle routes in East London has mostly been good, but sometimes on smaller streets it's meant getting rid of bus routes. I'm not sure I'd prioritise a cycle lane over a bus route, not if discouraging car use is one of the aims.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I mean, look at these utter maniacs. Clearly they’ll all be dead by lunchtime.
> 
> View attachment 211807



Yeah, that’s not a good picture - looks congested, nobody seems to wearing helmets, someone is wearing headphones, not a good advert for cycling.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The stats back me up.


The stats do nothing of the sort. You are just choosing to interpret them in a way that suits you. As per usual. HV saves lives.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Yeah, that’s not a good picture - looks congested, nobody seems to wearing helmets, someone is wearing headphones, not a good advert for cycling.


Nice try.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nice try.



Im not trying anything - it’s a perfectly legitimate response to the picture you posted in favour of cycling.

I do enjoy cycling, only I do it at my local country park or putting bikes in back of van and travelling to Hamsterley Forest for their mountain bike trails - and I always wear a helmet, never headphones.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Big deal. Try _driving_ where cyclists are often almost invisible. We've done the hi-viz and helmet arguments to death on here and the simple fact is that just because there's little _obvious_ proof or stats that HV prevents injuries, that's because it's asking for proof of stuff that didn't happen. Cyclists are the last people whose views should be considered on this because most of them are single issue, agenda monkeys like you and others on here. Anyone who's spent time driving around cyclists knows that HV works.



If you can't see then you shouldn't be driving. Road position is more important than clothing for the visibility and safety of cyclists, but people like you start whinging like even younger, even more spoilt infants than usual when they see cyclists using primary position.

And for the four hundredth time, 'cyclist' is not a job title, or a religion, or an ethnic group or a political affiliation. I know this may be hard to grasp if you have a car instead of a personality, but people's chosen transport modalities are not actually their defining features.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Electric doesn't entirely fix air pollution (in fact it may not even fix the larger part of it) because of dust from brakes, tyres and general constant motion.
> 
> But both of you are really not understanding the main point, which is that car dependancy does not only create pollution, it creates a load of massive social issues because of the type of world that gets built around it.
> 
> ...



I understand those problems. But the solution you propose - banning private cars - is worse.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> See, I get weary of people coming back with statements like this, as if I've not realised this. Of course I realise this. This is the whole point.  That a large proportion of 80% of people are dependant on owning a car is the problem. That's the problem that needs to be solved. It's not a reason to dismiss attempts to change it.



I agree.  But aren't you proposing doing away with cars before that problem is solved?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you can't see then you shouldn't be driving. Road position is more important than clothing for the visibility and safety of cyclists ...


More typical cycle-twat deflection. Road position is important, nobody has suggested otherwise but so is being seen in good time. We've argued this umpteen times before on here and you lot always go back to that sub-playground guff that CyclingUK released about Hi-Viz a few years ago that any respectably competent cyclists would instantly dismiss as embarassing bollocks. Do we need to do it all over again?


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> Can also do stuff along the lines of those desk rental spaces. I am _slightly_ appalled at myself for saying that, as they are so transparently a part of the rental economy... But in principle having some office spaces in residential areas isn't a bad idea... help maintain work-life balance, get you out of the house, even if it's a 10 minute walk rather than a long commute. Also gives you the ability to provide some services that might be more difficult for WFH.



Yeah, those are definitely a good supplement to working from home. I've been in a couple and they seem really good, much better than most ordinary offices because they have to make an effort to encourage the users to _want_ to be there.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> ... people's chosen transport modalities are not actually their defining features.



Surely it can't be a coincidence that so many of them are such pricks, though?


----------



## Crispy (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Surely it can't be a coincidence that so many of them are such pricks, though?


I'm afraid this might just be people in general


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Im not trying anything - it’s a perfectly legitimate response to the picture you posted in favour of cycling.
> 
> I do enjoy cycling, only I do it at my local country park or putting bikes in back of van and travelling to Hamsterley Forest for their mountain bike trails - and I always wear a helmet, never headphones.


Yes. Criticising a picture of how people ride in what is generally regarded as one of the best places in the world to cycle and has some of the lowest cycling related injury rates is definitely the way to go. Well done.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I agree.  But aren't you proposing doing away with cars before that problem is solved?


No.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No.



Oh, I thought you were (from the quote below).  But, if you're saying that the infrastructure should be improved such that the alternatives are better than car ownership before cars are banned, that's slightly less bonkers.



teuchter said:


> You also can't change the infrastructure without banning cars.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

I’m sure beesonthewhatnow used to use exactly the same arguments the petrolheads are using here, so there is hope after all. Can’t wait for Spymaster ’s Damascene conversion and subsequent bragging about being KOTM on Strava and posting pics of himself in tight Lycra


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

KOTM?


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because when proper infrastructure exists they’re not needed. Go to Amsterdam or Ghent and tell the people there they should wear a helmet. I’ll hear the laughter from here.


The whole point of a helmet is to protect your head if you come off your bike regardless of what you run into or what runs into you.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> KOTM?


King of the Mountain, fastest time in a given segment of road.  It’s something Stravabores seem desperate to attain, sometimes endangering themselves and others in the process


----------



## blairsh (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> KOTM?


King of the mum's?


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well that electricity has to be generated somewhere. But no, pollution is but one part of a bigger picture of how cars strangle our spaces.


At the moment that pollution is release well above ground level usually in non built up areas so it has a chance to dissipate unlike in town and city centers. Of course if the electricity produced was green then there wouldn't be any pollution at all.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

bmd said:


> That's the haircut.


Tbf everyone is looking sexier rn. On account of being unable to fuck anyone senseless. 


scifisam said:


> The problem with saying that areas are car free except for disabled people, which is what a lot of people say, is that it's not actually physically possible - the area ends up being arranged in such a way that driving a car is extremely slow and dangerous.
> 
> I know this is what some people want, of course, it being extremely inconvenient to drive, and to them it really doesn't matter if the inconvenience affects everyone, not just wasteful bastards.
> 
> ...


Then accessibility for everyone must be a priority. Is this a road surface issue? As I do know how difficult it was simply to wheel my son to the shop in his wheel chair.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> KOTM?



It's an acronym for the group of people who use pushbikes.

Kid Or Twatty Man.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> The whole point of a helmet is to protect your head if you come off your bike regardless of what you run into or what runs into you.



Off road cycling and cycling in heavy traffic aside head injuries are very rare in bicycle accidents. They're a very common consequence of car accidents though. IF I start commuting by bike in London again I will be wearing a helmet but I won't be listening to advice from any motorist who isn't wearing a full crash helmet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Off road cycling and cycling in heavy traffic aside head injuries are very rare in bicycle accidents. They're a very common consequence of car accidents though. IF I start commuting by bike in London again I will be wearing a helmet but I won't be listening to advice from any motorist who isn't wearing a full crash helmet.



And who doesn't paint their car hi-vis yellow.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> And who doesn't paint their car hi-vis yellow.


There's a direct correlation between car colour and accidents and they still let people drive around in black and grey cars.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes. Criticising a picture of how people ride in what is generally regarded as one of the best places in the world to cycle and has some of the lowest cycling related injury rates is definitely the way to go. Well done.



If you check your post you’ll notice that you didn’t mention where that photo was taken from.

Regardless, wherever that is - the streets must be paved with cotton wool for all those cyclists not to bother wearing helmets, or is not wearing helmets something you condone?


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Tbf everyone is looking sexier rn. On account of being unable to fuck anyone senseless.
> 
> Then accessibility for everyone must be a priority. Is this a road surface issue? As I do know how difficult it was simply to wheel my son to the shop in his wheel chair.



Road surface, pavement width, lack of drop kerbs, and obstructions. Plus obviously there are arrogant twat cyclists just as much as there are drivers and bikes can still hurt you. 

The "shared space" outside South Ken tube is lovely for pedestrians now and fine for wheelchairs (ironically, since the station isn't accessible), but in practice it's useless for anything else, even bikes, because, well, it's full of pedestrians.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> And who doesn't paint their car hi-vis yellow.


Logical fallacy again. Cars are 4 or 5 times the width of cycle-twats and therefore significantly easier to spot. Modern ones even have lights that come on automatically at dusk to make them even easier for incompetent morons to spot. Personally I couldn't give a toss whether or not cyclists wear helmets. It's your head. Hi Viz should definitely be made compulsory though as it enables me to spot you drunken stoners well in advance, anticipate your impending maladroit manoeuvres, and avoid damaging my paintwork with your iPod-stuffed lycra wear.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> If you check your post you’ll notice that you didn’t mention where that photo was taken from.
> 
> Regardless, wherever that is - the streets must be paved with cotton wool for all those cyclists not to bother wearing helmets, or is not wearing helmets something you condone?


Do you drive your van without head protection?


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Do you drive your van without head protection?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> I’m sure beesonthewhatnow used to use exactly the same arguments the petrolheads are using here, so there is hope after all. Can’t wait for Spymaster ’s Damascene conversion and subsequent bragging about being KOTM on Strava and posting pics of himself in tight Lycra



You can’t wait to see spy in tight Lycra? Queue up behind Clair De Lune


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Oh, I thought you were (from the quote below).  But, if you're saying that the infrastructure should be improved such that the alternatives are better than car ownership before cars are banned, that's slightly less bonkers.



Here is the full quote:


teuchter said:


> The concise answer is that the aim is a reduction in car dependency. Of course you can't just ban cars and do nothing to change the infrastructure. You also can't change the infrastructure without banning cars. The two have to happen in parallel.



here is another quote from this thread:


teuchter said:


> There's a fair bit of research that shows that simply providing alternatives doesn't work. You do have to make sure you provide the alternatives, but then you have to actively discourage private car use.


----------



## Hollis (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> I’m sure beesonthewhatnow used to use exactly the same arguments the petrolheads are using here, so there is hope after all. Can’t wait for Spymaster ’s Damascene conversion and subsequent bragging about being KOTM on Strava and posting pics of himself in tight Lycra



Yes all while shouting loudly about the _amazing_ taste and nutritional benefits of the latest meat-subtitute beanburger.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here is the full quote:
> 
> 
> here is another quote from this thread:



But what does that mean in practice?  At what point, practically, do you propose banning private cars?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You can’t wait to see spy in tight Lycra? Queue up behind Clair De Lune


Happily, fnerk


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> But what does that mean in practice?  At what point, practically, do you propose banning private cars?



I imagine it’ll happen in central London first.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Regardless, wherever that is - the streets must be paved with cotton wool for all those cyclists not to bother wearing helmets, or is not wearing helmets something you condone?


Cotton wool streets, Yep, that _must_ be the Dutch secret. Can’t possibly be anything else.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2020)

Clearly some posters spent their formative years finding used copies of Autotrader in the bushes....


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

First, they came for the Audis....


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> Clearly some posters spent their formative years finding used copies of Autotrader in the bushes....


A SpyDessStrasse yesterday:


Spoiler: RUDE












						Man fucking a car
					

27432 views on Imgur




					imgur.com


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Logical fallacy again. Cars are 4 or 5 times the width of cycle-twats and therefore significantly easier to spot. Modern ones even have lights that come on automatically at dusk to make them even easier for incompetent morons to spot. Personally I couldn't give a toss whether or not cyclists wear helmets. It's your head. Hi Viz should definitely be made compulsory though as it enables me to spot you drunken stoners well in advance, anticipate your impending maladroit manoeuvres, and avoid damaging my paintwork with your iPod-stuffed lycra wear.



Yellow cars have nearly 50% less accidents black and grey cars do. What colour is your car? Driving a car any other colour than white, yellow or orange is pure vanity and endangers lives.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


>


Why wouldn’t you? Protects your head in an accident.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


>


Covering your face with your hand won't offer the same level of protection and may cause an additional hazard. Why are you taking head injury so lightly? It's the second most common injury while driving after neck injury, can cause death and serious disablement and does to thousands a year. Why don't you wear a helmet?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> First, they came for the Audis....



And nobody spoke up for the audi drivers because, well, everyone fucking hated them anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> It's an acronym for the group of people who use pushbikes.
> 
> Kid Or Twatty Man.



Those lockdown evenings must just be flying by over at your gaff.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yellow cars have nearly 50% less accidents black and grey cars do.


And I bet that's absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are hardly any yellow cars on the roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Of course, all those of you championing hi viz and helmets on _safety_ grounds are 100% behind blanket 20mph speed limits in city centre/urban areas, right? Because it’s all about safety, nothing else


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> And I bet that's absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are hardly any yellow cars on the roads.


Per car. And it's been unfashionable (unbless you're an American cab driver or a cunt in a lambro) for a couple of decades but cars used to be a much wider variety of colours. And white ones, orange ones and yellow ones have less accidents per car.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Of course, all those of you championing hi viz and helmets on _safety_ grounds are 100% behind blanket 20mph speed limits in city centre/urban areas, right?


Totally. 

Not sure why you would think otherwise.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> But what does that mean in practice?  At what point, practically, do you propose banning private cars?


We're pretty close to a point where it would be practical to do it in central (maybe up to zone 2) London, for example. In fact, it's already the case that "car free" housing developments where you are not given any parking place are commonplace.

How long it will be in other UK cities depends on how quickly politics allows progressive, incremental restrictions to be introduced.

Here's an example of a small city in Germany which did it a quite a few years back.









						What can we learn from this thriving, car-free German neighborhood? Get rid of parking spaces
					

In Freiburg, Germany, a neighborhood called Vauban made it unnecessary to own a car–and very difficult to do it even if you wanted to. After 20 years of success, it could be a model for how we design future walkable neighborhoods.




					www.fastcompany.com


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Why don't you wear a helmet?



Because I have a seatbelt, airbags, front crumple zone to dissipate front collision energy, not to mention the fact I’m sealed inside metal bodywork of the van.

Aside from my travel to my delivery route, I’m rarely higher than third gear so, low speeds.

Now compare all that to a cyclist and I’m sure you’ll agree that wearing a helmet for cycling is really a must.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2020)

I've been to a fair few places where cars are either banned outright (towns and villages in the Alps for example) or legally restricted (Mexico City) or socially engineered to be pretty pointless (Milan).

Enjoy them while you can boys. Their days are numbered.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

By the way, I'd be happy with providing state-subsidised racetracks in any area where car use was widely restricted. On compassionate grounds, like methadone is provided. No problem really who want to race around and get off on being in semi-control of something very powerful - I can even see the attraction myself. Just, let's not do it on the public streets please.

At the racetracks there could be social events on Sundays where they all go and wash their cars, polish their hubcaps and that. Even whatever that guy in the GIF was doing to the exhaust pipe. Honestly I've not got any problem with people having hobbies like this.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Now compare all that to a cyclist and I’m sure you’ll agree that wearing a helmet for cycling is really a must.


When off road certainly.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Because I have a seatbelt, airbags, front crumple zone to dissipate front collision energy, not to mention the fact I’m sealed inside metal bodywork of the van.


And yet car accidents remain the second highest cause of head injury going. How strange.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Totally.
> 
> Not sure why you would think otherwise.


You're clearly not quite the full Clarkson then. Every time it's proposed/implemented the motoring brigade have a tendency to wail somewhat.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> We're pretty close to a point where it would be practical to do it in central (maybe up to zone 2) London, for example. In fact, it's already the case that "car free" housing developments where you are not given any parking place are commonplace.
> 
> How long it will be in other UK cities depends on how quickly politics allows progressive, incremental restrictions to be introduced.
> 
> ...



City centres will be realtively easy; the vast majority of people who live there don't have cars, and would prefer safer roads and cleaner air, and they have excellent public transport.  But, they're very atypical of how and where most people in the Uk live.

Vaubun might be ok, if served by excellent public transport.  But it's important ti remember that people voluntarily moved there knowing it has (almost) no cars; that's different from telling peole who want to keep their cars that they can't.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Tbf everyone is looking sexier rn. On account of being unable to fuck anyone senseless.
> 
> Then accessibility for everyone must be a priority. Is this a road surface issue? As I do know how difficult it was simply to wheel my son to the shop in his wheel chair.



Ghent is medieval cobbled streets, café furniture on pavements, in the city centre anyway. And it stinks, but that's just the river.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

I believe that HV works, from my observations of it. Reflective vests work too. What I don't understand are the cyclists/walkers who wear HV and reflective gear then put on a back pack or similar and cover it up.

As someone who used to cycle many miles,  and who, until lock down, drove many kilometres I don't understand how cyclists/walkers can't understand how important it is to be seen.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I believe that HV works, from my observations of it.


What colour is your car? And am I correct in remembering you drive a convertible? Do you wear a helmet when driving?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I believe that HV works, from my observations of it. Reflective vests work too. What I don't understand are the cyclists/walkers who wear HV and reflective gear then put on a back pack or similar and cover it up.
> 
> As someone who used to cycle many miles,  and who, until lock down, drove many kilometres I don't understand how cyclists/walkers can't understand how important it is to be seen.



Again, road position is more important than clothing for visibility.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You're clearly not quite the full Clarkson then. Every time it's proposed/implemented the motoring brigade have a tendency to wail somewhat.


Where limits make sense they should be implented. On roads near schools or heavily built-up areas 20mph, or maybe even slower, often makes sense. Conversely, 70 mph on many stretches of motorway is too slow. Some studies show that where speed limits are removed, drivers will travel at lower speeds than they do with speed limits. On 30mph roads most drivers will drive at 30mph, whereas if the limit is removed they tend to drive at what they consider reasonable for the piece of road, which in built up areas may be 20mph. Contrary to U75 belief, drivers don't want to have accidents.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, road position is more important than clothing for visibility.


Nonsense.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> But, they're very atypical of how and where most people in the Uk live.


Actually, there is a large proportion of the UK population living in quite similar streets to what you find in much of zone two london. Victorian terraces and edwardian semis.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> I believe that HV works, from my observations of it.


Of course it does. These tubes are going on a ridiculously flawed study by Cycling UK which said that HV didn't make any difference to how close cars passed the cyclists. Like that was all that matters. They also state that cyclists who wear hi viz put cyclists who don't wear hi-viz at a disadvantage. This is because Cycling UK are mainly a bunch of fucking bell-ends.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually, there is a large proportion of the UK population living in quite similar streets to what you find in much of zone two london. Victorian terraces and edwardian semis.


Nearly 85% of the UK population is urban but Athos is using cheap sophistry to try and claim the interests of the suburban population of cities are the same as those of the rural popultion. Personally, I think cars are a bit like shotguns. Very dangerous but probably have a place in the countryside.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually, there is a large proportion of the UK population living in quite similar streets to what you find in much of zone two london. Victorian terraces and edwardian semis.



Yes, but that's different from e.g. Vaubun, which is why 80% of UK households have at least one car.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Nearly 85% of the UK population is urban but Athos is using cheap sophistry to try and claim the interests of the suburban population of cities are the same as those of the rural popultion. Personally, I think cars are a bit like shotguns. Very dangerous but probably have a place in the countryside.



Yet 80% of households choose to have a car (and more would if they could afford one).  Becuase public transport is nowhere near the point where not having a car wouldn't mean a significant dimunition in their quality of life for an enormous number of people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> I've been to a fair few places where cars are either banned outright (towns and villages in the Alps for example) or legally restricted (Mexico City) or socially engineered to be pretty pointless (Milan).
> 
> Enjoy them while you can boys. Their days are numbered.



I didn't notice a shortage of cars in Milan. The trams and trains are good though, particularly those ancient steampunky trams driven by an old bloke spinning a load of little brass valves back and forth.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Yet 80% of households choose to have a car (and more would if they could afford one).  Becuase public transport is nowhere near the point where not having a car wouldn't mean a significant dimunition in their quality of life for an enormous number of people.


I don't think anyone on these boards has seriously suggested that banning private cars across the board without a significant change in basic infrastructure was doable or desirable but you constantly whine as if someone's going to come and take your fucking tractor off you by force.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually, there is a large proportion of the UK population living in quite similar streets to what you find in much of zone two london. Victorian terraces and edwardian semis.



And Victorian terraces, particularly the higher-density versions so common in the midlands and the north of England, are usually too closely packed and on streets too narrow for every house to have a car, all those cars to be parked on the street and both the street and the pavements to remain passable. Generally it is the pavement that is sacrificed to resolve this equation, to the detriment of wheelchair users etc. This was not a decision that was ever made at a policy level, just a consequence of the accumulated, self-reinforcing, self-interested acts of car owners.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Yes, but that's different from e.g. Vaubun, which is why 80% of UK households have at least one car.


Once again, you are describing the problem that needs to be addressed, yet presenting it as a reason why we shouldn't try and solve it.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> And Victorian terraces, particularly the higher-density versions so common in the midlands and the north of England, are usually too closely packed and on streets too narrow for every house to have a car, all those cars to be parked on the street and both the street and the pavements to remain passable. Generally it is the pavement that is sacrificed to resolve this equation, to the detriment of wheelchair users etc. This was not a decision that was ever made at a policy level, just a consequence of the accumulated, self-reinforcing, self-interested acts of car owners.


Yes.
Victorian housing (and to some extent Edwardian) of course was built before private cars existed, and the urban grain that results is designed to work with public transport and foot traffic. It's not entirely a coincidence that these streets are often rather popular.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Once again, you are describing the problem that needs to be addressed, yet presenting it as a reason why we shouldn't try and solve it.



Almost as if he preferred the status quo to any situation that involved him making any kind of change in his behvaiour for the general public good. 

I wouldn't support unilaterally getting rid of cars with zero public involvement or support, even if that were possible. But some people will have to be told 'no' in some form or other at some point. And it will require telling, not asking.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> The problem with saying that areas are car free except for disabled people, which is what a lot of people say, is that it's not actually physically possible - the area ends up being arranged in such a way that driving a car is extremely slow and dangerous.
> 
> I know this is what some people want, of course, it being extremely inconvenient to drive, and to them it really doesn't matter if the inconvenience affects everyone, not just wasteful bastards.
> 
> ...


As always, people with disabilities are shat upon. But it's hardly surprising that cyclists couldn't care less, is it.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Yet 80% of households choose to have a car (and more would if they could afford one).  Becuase public transport is nowhere near the point where not having a car wouldn't mean a significant dimunition in their quality of life for an enormous number of people.



This is the point.  I live in a city that is very well-served by public transport and didn't have a car for nearly 2 decades living here (was very lucky to be given one at a time when it became useful due to personal circumstances).

Where I live at the moment, I'd happily move to a model where you can pay a reasonable subscription or fee or whatever and jump in a nearby car to pick up something heavy, go off for a bit or whatever, but transferring that to rural areas (or even a shitload of urban areas) isn't easy.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it does. These tubes are going on a ridiculously flawed study by Cycling UK


University of Bath
European Journal of Public Health
University of Nottingham
Rode et al 2018 - Does a yellow jacket enhance conspicuity?


----------



## Doodler (May 10, 2020)

A small contribution to your thread, teuchter. Many historical accounts record how people often walked considerable distances around Britain using the roads. They didn't do so for fun, but because they were journeyman artisans or were seeking seasonal work in different parts of the country. The point is that they were able to do so - roads weren't particularly dangerous to walk along, at least not from traffic. As a child I remember that seeing people walking along the sides of country roads was uncommon but not very rare, the same with hitchhikers. Today many country roads and lanes are dangerous to walk along because of the increased volume of traffic and, at times, its speed. There is a certain irony in the way a traditional aspect of rural life has been obliterated, that of being able to walk along a country lane, by those who are often keen to buy into the image of country living by inhabiting 'The Old Smithy' or 'The Old Stables' and driving a big 4WD vehicle.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> As always, people with disabilities are shat upon. But it's hardly surprising that cyclists couldn't care less, is it.


Let's not forget car accidents are a leading cause of disability in the first place eh.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Doodler said:


> A small contribution to your thread, teuchter. Many historical accounts record how people often walked considerable distances around Britain using the roads. They didn't do so for fun, but because they were journeyman artisans or were seeking seasonal work in different parts of the country. The point is that they were able to do so - roads weren't particularly dangerous to walk along, at least not from traffic. As a child I remember that seeing people walking along the sides of country roads was uncommon but not very rare, the same with hitchhikers. Today many country roads and lanes are dangerous to walk along because of the increased volume of traffic and, at times, its speed. There is a certain irony in the way a traditional aspect of rural life has been obliterated, that of being able to walk along a country lane, by those who are often keen to buy into the image of country living by inhabiting 'The Old Smithy' or 'The Old Stables' and driving a big 4WD vehicle.


Absolutely.
Many country lanes are essentially footpaths that have been appropriated by cars and are now largely inaccessible to pedestrians (especially at night). This leads to more vicious circle scenarios, and drink driving to rural pubs is one of them. I would have any road where there's not space for a proper footpath alongside it designated 10mph 'shared space'. There are many places in the countryside where there's a shop (or could be a shop) within 10 minutes walk of many houses and yet people don't feel safe doing that walk because there's no footpath.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I don't think anyone on these boards has seriously suggested that banning private cars across the board without a significant change in basic infrastructure was doable or desirable but you constantly whine as if someone's going to come and take your fucking tractor off you by force.



Well, some people do seem to imply they'd like to see private cars banned before the completion of the replacement infrastructure (albeit they resile from saying so explicitly).  If what's being proposed is that the infrastrcuture is improved to the extent that many people willingly forego car ownership, I'm all for that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Well, some people do seem to imply they'd like to see private cars banned before the completion of the replacement infrastructure (albeit they resile from saying so explicitly).  If what's being proposed is that the infrastrcuture is improved to the extent that many people willingly forego car ownership, I'm all for that.


They kinda have to happen in tandem. You can't create certain bits of infrastructure without removing others etc.

There will inevitably be times in the transition where it's all a mess and a pain in the arse for everyone. But so what?


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Once again, you are describing the problem that needs to be addressed, yet presenting it as a reason why we shouldn't try and solve it.



I'm not saying we shouldn't try to solve it; I'm just not sure we agree on the best way to do so.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Well, some people do seem to imply they'd like to see private cars banned before the completion of the replacement infrastructure (albeit they resile from saying so explicitly).


So you're not actually taking part in a discussion you're replying to arguments that you think some (unnamed of course) posters have implied? Maybe you could start another thread just for that because it sounds special enough to deserve one.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They kinda have to happen in tandem. You can't create certain bits of infrastructure without removing others etc.
> 
> There will inevitably be times in the transition where it's all a mess and a pain in the arse for everyone. But so what?



True enough, but in rural areas there's a LOT more that needs to be done to iprove public transport before any attempt to disuade people from using their cars would have any impact.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> University of Bath
> European Journal of Public Health
> University of Nottingham
> Rode et al 2018 - Does a yellow jacket enhance conspicuity?


All been done here before. All of them state that HV improves perception of the cyclists at a distance and they say that there was an insignificant difference in collision rates. What they can't say is how many drivers who spot the cyclists at distance changed their behaviours to avoid the collisions as a result. There's another one that says reflective clothing (rather than HV) should be worn at night. Surprised you din't wheel that one out as well.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> So you're not actually taking part in a discussion you're replying to arguments that you think some (unnamed of course) posters have implied? Maybe you could start another thread just for that because it sounds special enough to deserve one.



I explicitly challanged teuchter on that pont, but the answer was still unclear.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> True enough, but in rural areas there's a LOT more that needs to be done to iprove public transport before any attempt to disuade people from using their cars would have any impact.


Absolutely. That's why I believe we need to sort the cities first. Then as I said earlier in the thread, you create facilities for those arriving from out of town to transfer onto local transport links in for the final miles - be these local buses, trains, trams or even Boris style hire bikes.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Per car. And it's been unfashionable (unbless you're an American cab driver or a cunt in a lambro) for a couple of decades but cars used to be a much wider variety of colours. And white ones, orange ones and yellow ones have less accidents per car.



This orange one was responsible for quite  a lot of accidents....


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> And for the four hundredth time, 'cyclist' is not a job title, or a religion, or an ethnic group or a political affiliation. I know this may be hard to grasp if you have a car instead of a personality, but people's chosen transport modalities are not actually their defining features.


Then why is it that such an overwhelming majority of cyclists are bereft of the same qualities? Surely that can't be a coincidence?


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If what's being proposed is that the infrastrcuture is improved to the extent that many people willingly forego car ownership, I'm all for that.



You are effectively saying that you are happy for cars to be banned once there is no longer a desire for them. That’s too high a bar.

Infrastructure/public transport is never going to provide an equivalent experience to an individual’s journey in his own car. It’s why we need to act to dissuade car use by making it more difficult/expensive (at the same time as making the alternative more attractive).


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I explicitly challanged teuchter on that pont, but the answer was still unclear.


No it wasn't, my answer was dead clear in that the alternatives have to be provided. I gave you two quotes form earlier in the thread where I say that.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> You are effectively saying that you are happy for cars to be banned once there is no longer a desire for them. That’s too high a bar.
> 
> Infrastructure/public transport is never going to provide an equivalent experience to an individual’s journey in his own car. It’s why we need to act to dissuade car use by making it more difficult/expensive (at the same time as making the alternative more attractive).



I think it'd make sense if the financial costs to motorists refect the true social cost of chosing to drive when there are trutly adequate alternatives.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No it wasn't, my answer was dead clear in that the alternatives have to be provided. I gave you two quotes form earlier in the thread where I say that.



Hmmm... still seems a bit light on any real detail.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yellow cars have nearly 50% less accidents black and grey cars do. What colour is your car? Driving a car any other colour than white, yellow or orange is pure vanity and endangers lives.


So you admit that hi-vis makes a difference?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> ...create facilities for those arriving from out of town to transfer onto local transport links in for the final miles - be these local buses, trains, trams or even Boris style hire bikes.



So that the untrained yokels get poleaxed by a 16-wheeler at the first junction...


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> This is the point.  I live in a city that is very well-served by public transport and didn't have a car for nearly 2 decades living here (was very lucky to be given one at a time when it became useful due to personal circumstances).
> 
> Where I live at the moment, I'd happily move to a model where you can pay a reasonable subscription or fee or whatever and jump in a nearby car to pick up something heavy, go off for a bit or whatever, but transferring that to rural areas (or even a shitload of urban areas) isn't easy.



In less densely populated areas it makes more sense to use the money that currently gets spent on cars to fund a pool of drivers/vehicles covering a particular area. You phone up, someone comes and picks you up and either takes you wherever you're going or drops you off at a place where you can access the wider public transport network. These services, formal and informal versions, exist for older people and disabled people already. It's just a question of scale.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> In less densely populated areas it makes more sense to use the money that currently gets spent on cars to fund a pool of drivers/vehicles covering a particular area. You phone up, someone comes and picks you up and either takes you wherever you're going or drops you off at a place where you can access the wider public transport network. These services, formal and informal versions, exist for older people and disabled people already. It's just a question of scale.



I believe taxis also take the young and/or able-bodied.

edited last bit due to sleepiness


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I think it'd make sense if the financial costs to motorists refect the true social cost of chosing to drive when there are trutly adequate alternatives.



Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.



Certainly easier than making public transport cheaper.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> So you admit that hi-vis makes a difference?


I haven't commented on high viz, I've been talking solely about car safety. There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Yes this should absolutely be the case. Social and environmental costs. It would see the cost of motoring rocket.



But it's important that it only applies when people choose to drive over a viable alternative. And it's not unproblematic insofar as the inequality it would exacerbate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> I believe taxis also take the young and/or able-bodied.
> 
> edited last bit due to sleepiness



They're cripplingly expensive in rural areas and unreliable. Exactly what kind of thing works would depend very much on the area. If you've got lots of people going to a certain workplace for example, it would make sense for there to be a dedicated service, with pick up points based on where the people who need that service live rather than where 'people in general' live.


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> But it's important that it only applies when people choose to drive over a viable alternative. And it's not unproblematic insofar as the inequality it would exacerbate.



That was quick


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Electric doesn't entirely fix air pollution (in fact it may not even fix the larger part of it) because of dust from brakes, tyres and general constant motion.


I don't know what bike brakes are made of but I think you'll find that busses, lorries, trams and trains all have brakes.

Busses, lorries and bikes all have tyres. They also tend to move.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.


Nah. There's a whole cycle chat thread and others that are left completely alone. It's only these trolling ones that get the treatment.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I don't know what bike brakes are made of but I think you'll find that busses, lorries, trams and trains all have brakes.
> 
> Busses, lorries and bikes all have tyres. They also tend to move.



Can you think of any kind of difference in scale, both of material use and energy transfer, that might apply to the tyres and brakes of bicycles relative to those of cars?


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Hmmm... still seems a bit light on any real detail.


You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can you think of any kind of difference in scale, both of material use and energy transfer, that might apply to the tyres and brakes of bicycles relative to those of cars?


In any case, if you can electrify cars you can also electrify buses etc. So the change of energy type (whilst welcome in both cases) doesn't give the car any additional advantage over the bus, compared to how things currently stand.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I haven't commented on high viz, I've been talking solely about car safety. There's no point talking about cycling on these boards because three or four posters use it as an excuse to sling abuse.


I don't think they really detract, they just provide caricatures alongside those who try to argue those kinds of points in all seriousness, and help them lose the argument.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Let's not forget car accidents are a leading cause of disability in the first place eh.


Seriously? Can you back this up with empirical evidence, please?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

dessiato said:


> Seriously? Can you back this up with empirical evidence, please?



Possibly _acquired_ disability not related to long-term illness.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> IF I start commuting by bike in London again I will be wearing a helmet but I won't be listening to advice from any motorist who isn't wearing a full crash helmet.


I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> They're cripplingly expensive in rural areas and unreliable. Exactly what kind of thing works would depend very much on the area. If you've got lots of people going to a certain workplace for example, it would make sense for there to be a dedicated service, with pick up points based on where the people who need that service live rather than where 'people in general' live.



Work buses you mean?  That's certainly a reasonable idea if a lot of people live in one place and work in another.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> What colour is your car? And am I correct in remembering you drive a convertible? Do you wear a helmet when driving?


Yes I drive a convertible. I don't wear a helmet. Instead I have a windscreen which is higher than the top of my head and which has a built in roll over bar for my protection.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Possibly _acquired_ disability not related to long-term illness.


we are all 'disabled' at some point in our lives


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.



It's also true that if car occupants were required to wear helmets the amount of serious long-term injury from car accidents would be massively reduced.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> we are all 'disabled' at some point in our lives



True (and kind of interesting in terms of how we view things), but nitpicking in terms of the assertion made.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Possibly _acquired_ disability not related to long-term illness.


Erm, rather obviously.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You weren't asking about detail - you were claiming that my suggestion was that we should just ban private cars without thinking about and providing alternatives. Your claim was wrong. We can talk about detail if you want. It's already been done in many towns and cities and you can look at those examples if you have a genuine interest in what effective strategies are, in detail terms.



No, but I suspect we disagree about sequencing of banning cars v providing alternatives, but whatever.  Ok, let's talk specifics; what do you propose for rural areas, and what measure will be the trigger for banning cars there?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

One nice thing about moving away from cars is that it would free up a hell of a lot of space.
I guess Amazon would need to deliver all their shit by air, though, which would have some environmental impact..


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I think you'll find that cars have seat belts and air bags to limit injury to the driver and occupants.


People die in cars from head injuries daily.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Of course, all those of you championing hi viz and helmets on _safety_ grounds are 100% behind blanket 20mph speed limits in city centre/urban areas, right? Because it’s all about safety, nothing else


I agree with that, possibly even lower than 20mph.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> People die in cars from head injuries daily.



Still safer per mile travelled than a pushbike, by a massive margin.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Erm, rather obviously.



Good to be specific if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Still safer per mile travelled than a pushbike, by a massive margin.


Pushbike where? My understanding is that pushbikes are considerably safer when cars are removed from the road.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Possibly _acquired_ disability not related to long-term illness.


That, however, isn't what was said: 


maomao said:


> Let's not forget car accidents are a leading cause of disability in the first place eh.



I can accept your post more easily


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Good to be specific if you want to be taken seriously.


I don't think anyone thought I was claiming car accidents caused disability from birth. How would that even work?


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Pushbike where? My understanding is that pushbikes are considerably safer when cars are removed from the road.



So are cars, when other cars are removed from the road.  But it's completely pie-in-the-sky to think that the current infrastructure is anywhere near good enough to remove cars from the road for the vast majority of people.  Which is why this nonsense has no mass support; it remains a crank view.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Driving is certainly a lot nicer at the moment.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I don't think anyone thought I was claiming car accidents caused disability from birth. How would that even work?



Perhaps some kind of evidence for your assertion, even on the terms it was meant, would be useful.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> So are cars, when other cars are removed from the road.  But it's completely pie-in-the-sky to think that the current infrastructure is anywhere near good enough to remove cars from the road for the vast majority of people.  Which is why this nonsense has no mass support; it remains a crank view.


Yes but you can have a lot of pushbikes without being more dangerous. 

And just  at the rest.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Which is why this nonsense has no mass support; it remains a crank view.



Removing all cars from the road is obviously a crank view (I figured this was intended as a crank thread in the first place), but reducing car use and numbers on the road is worth discussing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Work buses you mean?  That's certainly a reasonable idea if a lot of people live in one place and work in another.



Sticking to rural areas, one of the key issues with getting enough workers to pick fruit and veg is transport. There's no viable way to get people to work that doesn't pay people enough to run a car and happens in the middle of nowhere, so you get people brought in from Romania and Poland and warehoused on site in not-great conditions, while even people who live (by rural standards) nearby can't find work. A more socialised rural transport model, which would involve good paid work for drivers, could be customised according to need and could enable farmers to get work. Stuff like this could help make the countryside a more viable place for younger people to live.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Yes but you can have a lot of pushbikes without being more dangerous.



Why not go further, and ban pushbikes, too?  No vehicle accidents then.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Perhaps some kind of evidence for your assertion, even on the terit was meant, would be useful.


Look up any year's road accident figures. Subtract fatalities from KSI and you have people who had to spend more than forty eight hours in hospital. If you want to prove that the proportion of these that didn't end up with a life changing disability is somehow insignificant you'll have to find proof for that.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

'pushbikes' lol. are you over 80 or summat?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> 'pushbikes' lol. are you over 80 or summat?



<resolves to _always_ use "pushbike" from here on in...>


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sticking to rural areas, one of the key issues with getting enough workers to pick fruit and veg is transport. There's no viable way to get people to work that doesn't pay people enough to run a car and happens in the middle of nowhere, so you get people brought in from Romania and Poland and warehoused on site in not-great conditions, while even people who live (be rural standards) nearby can't find work. A more socialised rural transport model, which would involve good paid work for drivers, could be customised according to need and could enable farmers to get work. Stuff like this could help make the countryside a more viable place for younger people to live.



Have you fallen off and banged your head?  Becasue this is uncharacteristically coherent.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why not go further, and ban pushbikes, too?  No vehicle accidents then.


Let's see what the annual road fatality rates are like after we get rid of cars eh. If they're still in the thousands, or even hundreds, we could certainly consider that.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Look up any year's road accident figures. Subtract fatalities from KSI and you have people who had to spend more than forty eight hours in hospital. If you want to prove that the proportion of these that didn't end up with a life changing disability is somehow insignificant you'll have to find proof for that.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Let's see what the annual road fatality rates are like after we get rid of cars eh. If they're still in the thousands, or even hundreds, we could certainly consider that.



Don't hold your breath.  The car is here for the foreseeable future.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Have you fallen off and banged your head?  Becasue this is uncharacteristically coherent.



One car crash away from genius.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> View attachment 211857


Are you seriously doubting that thousands of people a year are left with permanent disabilities because of road accidents?


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> I don't think anyone thought I was claiming car accidents caused disability from birth. How would that even work?



I thought you meant disability overall (it's not like there's only acquired disability and disability from birth, either). I mean, you just said disability, so that makes it look like you meant disability, and it looked like a slightly outlandish claim. 

Not that it really matters anyway, since car accidents do lead to _some_ disabilities, including to pedestrians and cyclists, and probably not a negligible amount. Though it'd be hard to find stats to either prove or disprove how common it was.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> One car crash away from genius.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Are you seriously doubting that thousands of people a year are left with permanent disabilities because of road accidents?



"Leading cause of disability".
Well?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Don't hold your breath.  The car is here for the foreseeable future.


we have no forseeable future if we insist on keeping with them


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> we have no forseeable future if we insist on keeping with them



Fossil-fueled cars to be phased out by what?  2050?
No future, then.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sticking to rural areas, one of the key issues with getting enough workers to pick fruit and veg is transport. There's no viable way to get people to work that doesn't pay people enough to run a car and happens in the middle of nowhere, so you get people brought in from Romania and Poland and warehoused on site in not-great conditions, while even people who live (be rural standards) nearby can't find work. A more socialised rural transport model, which would involve good paid work for drivers, could be customised according to need and could enable farmers to get work. Stuff like this could help make the countryside a more viable place for younger people to live.



Does look very reasonable.  Would need some data on the economics to flesh it out, obviously.


----------



## dessiato (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Look up any year's road accident figures. Subtract fatalities from KSI and you have people who had to spend more than forty eight hours in hospital. If you want to prove that the proportion of these that didn't end up with a life changing disability is somehow insignificant you'll have to find proof for that.


But since you are making the claim, surely the onus is on you to back it up?


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> "Leading cause of disability".
> Well?


Well I'll admit to a bit of fuzzy phrasing but it's such an obvious thing I didn't expect quite this level of pedantry. 

Firstly, there are all kinds of disabilities but the ones that are most relevant to our discussion are disabilities affecting mobility and particularly those needing a wheelchair. Funnily enough noone needed this clarified in the post I was replying to. 

Anyway, road accidents are a leading cause of spinal injuries and spinal injuries are a leading cause of needing a wheelchair to get around. Clear enough?


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> we have no forseeable future if we insist on keeping with them



What about cars that don't use fossil fuel?  Would they rob us of a future?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> What about cars that don't use fossil fuel?  Would they rob us of a future?


some of us, yes


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> some of us, yes



Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.


but still made out of much bigger lumps of metal


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.


Self driving cars are potentially part of the solution. But only if they’re part of a centralised, shared system, not if they’re privately owned.

Also, they’re a lot longer off yet than some people seem to think. There’s huge leaps still to be made.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> but still made out of much bigger lumps of metal



No, could be carbon fibre.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Self-driving cars will soon be safer than pushbikes.



Unless they're now making cars that are both lighter and slower than bicycles then the laws of physics beg to differ.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2020)

I think we should ban cars and move to another form of personal transport.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

A380 said:


> I think we should ban cars and move to another form of personal transport.
> 
> View attachment 211862


one for every person


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Self driving cars are potentially part of the solution. But only if they’re part of a centralised, shared system, not if they’re privately owned.
> 
> Also, they’re a lot longer off yet than some people seem to think. There’s huge leaps still to be made.



Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?

Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.

With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Unless they're now making cars that are both lighter and slower than bicycles then the laws of physics beg to differ.



No, if the driving tech means they avoid collisions then speed and mass are irrelevant.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?
> 
> Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.
> 
> With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.



It becomes somewhat pointless to own your car. Already most of the more solvent tradespeople I know are switching to lease arrangements* - means you have a single monthly outgoing with service, tax etc included in that price. You are effectively arguing away your own point on this one, because having efficient self-drive systems will make huge changes to infrastructure more viable (e.g you can have a small, modular 'car' that links into a much faster intercity transport system).

*business hire contract systems which are substantially different from a consumer buying a car on a lease basis.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> It becomes somewhat pointless to own your car. Already most of the more solvent tradespeople I know are switching to lease arrangements* - means you have a single monthly outgoing with service, tax etc included in that price. You are effectively arguing away your own point on this one, because having efficient self-drive systems will make huge changes to infrastructure more viable (e.g you can have a small, modular 'car' that links into a much faster intercity transport system).
> 
> *business hire contract systems which are substantially different from a consumer buying a car on a lease basis.



I think you're splitting hairs with the distiction between owned and leased vehicles; the significant point is having sole control.  But, maybe if there was a sufficently large fleet of shareable vehicles that one was always near instantly available, and the relative costs made sense, that model would make sense.  And yes, an integrated system of cars (for local travel particularly in rural settings) that meshes well with other solutions for longer distance travel might be a solution.  My point is that, with a bit of imagination, cars can be part of the answer; they're not necessarily the problem - particularly as they become safer and greener.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> In less densely populated areas it makes more sense to use the money that currently gets spent on cars to fund a pool of drivers/vehicles covering a particular area. You phone up, someone comes and picks you up and either takes you wherever you're going or drops you off at a place where you can access the wider public transport network.


Wouldn't that result in more pollution? Someone has to drive from wherever they are to come and pick you up, then take you to where you want to go, then dive back to where they came from. When you want to go home the same has to happen resulting in more miles traveled and more pollution than if you were to drive yourself.


----------



## deeyo (May 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> I've been to a fair few places where cars are either banned outright (towns and villages in the Alps for example) or legally restricted (Mexico City) or socially engineered to be pretty pointless (Milan).
> 
> Enjoy them while you can boys. Their days are numbered.


Milan has about .5 cars per capita, compared with .3 for london. Italy is one of the most motorized countrys in the world at .72
Mexico has a expanding motor fleet .3 growing at about 7 %/year. Greater Mexico city, pop 21 mill, has gone from about 3.1 mill cars 2000 to 9.6 mill 2018 - thats a yearly growth around 16.7 %. Mexico city is considered the most traffic-congested town in the world. Milan is one of europes most polluted cities.
These are car crashes, not good examples - although i suppose its possible to learn from disasters and the handling of them.
I couldnt find any reliable statistics on car-free towns and cities in the alps...



teuchter said:


> See, I get weary of people coming back with statements like this, as if I've not realised this. Of course I realise this. This is the whole point.  That a large proportion of 80% of people are dependant on owning a car is the problem. That's the problem that needs to be solved. It's not a reason to dismiss attempts to change it.


Your long term goal is to ban private cars from the planet. I can agree with that, property is theft and so on. I suppose we still will need some vehicles - ambulances, fire squads, trucks, buses etc. Where would that leave us re cars per capita? .18 - the worldwide number of today? More? Less?
What would be your short and medium term goals, for the UK and the world? Starting from today with 73 million cars produced yearly and 1.3 billion vehicles on the roads, car travel making up 85 % of all distance travelled in UK, .62 cars per capita - where will we be in 5, 10, 20 years?

And how do you intend to get there?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why not privately owned, if technology allowed them to safely travel extremely fast with little space between then, and with shared real- time data allowing optimal route planning?
> 
> Fully automated would mean we could use that time, too, to work or watch tv, or surf the web, whilst safely, comfortably, efficiently, cleanly, and quickly travelling door-to-door.
> 
> With the ever increasing rate of technological advancement, it won't be long. Just think how we've surpassed what seemed inconceivable, say, 20 years ago.


Because if they're privately owned and single occupancy you're not reducing the numbers. So we still have the same issues around parking them, storing them, providing roads for them that takes away space for other use.

Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Wouldn't that result in more pollution? Someone has to drive from wherever they are to come and pick you up, then take you to where you want to go, then dive back to where they came from. When you want to go home the same has to happen resulting in more miles traveled and more pollution than if you were to drive yourself.



If they're only driving you, then maybe. But they might be taking you and several others, or they might take you just part of the way, to somewhere you can access other forms of transport. Flexibility is the key. If it's two people, send a car and if it's ten send a minibus. Chuck a bike rack on the back if someone just wants taking to a point at which they can safely or comfortably cycle the rest of the way.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can you think of any kind of difference in scale, both of material use and energy transfer, that might apply to the tyres and brakes of bicycles relative to those of cars?


What about the scale difference between a bike and a bus?


----------



## T & P (May 10, 2020)

I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths _evah._


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.



Certainly if you have thousands on the roads each with one person in making the same trip back and forth five times a week.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> What about the scale difference between a bike and a bus?



Well the differences between a car and a bus work out in favour of the bus when you divide by the number of people transported. And for single-occupant journeys, bikes obviously beat cars for environmental impact. There's not much sense in comparing a bus to a bicycle because they serve entirely different purposes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

T & P said:


> I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths _evah._


Ah yes, the old "we can't eliminate all deaths so let's not bother eliminating any of them" argument. Excellent.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

T & P said:


> I like how the millions of hire cars, car club vehicles, taxis, minicabs, buses, and commercial vehicles in the UK are so technology advanced they no longer conform to the laws of physics and have no measurable mass, meaning they cause no harm whatsoever in case of a collision, to either their occupants or other road users. If only we could banish privately-owned cars from cities, there’d be no more road injuries and deaths _evah._



I like how nobody said anything of the sort.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because if they're privately owned and single occupancy you're not reducing the numbers. So we still have the same issues around parking them, storing them, providing roads for them that takes away space for other use.
> 
> Shared autonomous vehicles could be part of the solution. But only if they're more akin to buses or large taxis. The moment you have a single person sat in one for the majority of trips it's failed.



If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem.  You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space.



I think the chance of such tech emerging before a major immediate environmental crisis is negligible.


----------



## T & P (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I like how nobody said anything of the sort.


Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

T & P said:


> Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.



Surely its only the impression an idiot might get.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Stuff like this could help make the countryside a more viable place for younger people to live.


Biggest problem is rich twats buying main houses or worse still holiday homes pricing the locals out of the market.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem.  You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.


In other words, you need high speed roads that by definition will cut off areas from pedestrian/cycle/mixed access. And you have large numbers of vehicles that require storage space, not everyone has a driveway. You're papering over cracks.

So yes, think what cars _could_ be. Rather than simply removing the flesh bag behind the wheel of what we currently have.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Biggest problem is rich twats buying main houses or worse still holiday homes pricing the locals out of the market.



I'm hopeful this current shitshow will at least throw a temporary spanner in the works of the holiday let market.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

T & P said:


> Well, that’s the impression one might get giving the numerous posts going on about (privately owned cars) causing so much death, injury and disability about, in a thread that advocate ban of privately owned cars.



I'm thinking about ways to reduce the number of cars on the roads in aboslute terms, without leaving anyone stranded. Or rather, leaving fewer people stranded than the current car-centric orthodoxy already does. It's not just mass and velocity that affects accident risk, it's also traffic density. It's the amount of space where cars are the default and which are therefore inherently dangerous to any human not in a car.

Also a reduced number of cars reduces air pollution, nose pollution, and what I'll call 'space pollution' for the sake of completing the set; basically arseholes parking on the pavement and similar phenomena.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> In other words, you need high speed roads that by definition will cut off areas from pedestrian/cycle/mixed access. And you have large numbers of vehicles that require storage space, not everyone has a driveway. You're papering over cracks.
> 
> So yes, think what cars _could_ be. Rather than simply removing the flesh bag behind the wheel of what we currently have.



They could cruise around less busy areas; wouldn't need static storage space.

Technology might well solve a lot of the problems of the current system, without the downside of the lack of flexibility and convenience of public transport.  To rule out privately owned cars as part of the solution at this stage is crazy.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm hopeful this current shitshow will at least throw a temporary spanner in the works of the holiday let market.


I wasn't thinking of holiday let's I was thinking of the holiday home that's occupied for a couple of weeks a year and is stood empty the rest of the time.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem.  You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.



This isn't an effective parody of the anti private car position because all the solutions already exist.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Self-drive vehicles should be able to rely on engine braking to a much greater extent than a normal car incidentally. Effectively the brakes would only be there for emergency stops... I'm not actually that averse to some degree of private unit incidentally. But I'd probably envisage it as something on the order of a smart car, with a motor designed for peak efficiency at ~20mph. It's main purpose being to get you to a mass transit unit, perhaps even slotting in for seamless transitions. Perhaps an expensive option in a city, but cheaper in dispersed rural communities, or for people with mobility issues.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> They could cruise around less busy areas; wouldn't need static storage space.
> 
> Technology might well solve a lot of the problems of the current system, without the downside of the lack of flexibility and convenience of public transport.  To rule out privately owned cars as part of the solution at this stage is crazy.


What if cars were small individual pods capable of carrying 1 occupant and a small amount of luggage or shopping? You would be able to fit several pods in the space of 1 car reducing the 'density' on the roads.

Technology is already looking at 'linking' vehicles together so a driver can drive a lorry and several others can follow closely behind. So if you wanted to go somewhere as a family you could 'link' several pods together and travel together.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> What if cars were small individual pods capable of carrying 1 occupant and a small amount of luggage or shopping? You would be able to fit several pods in the space of 1 car reducing the 'density' on the roads.
> 
> Technology is already looking at 'linking' vehicles together so a driver can drive a lorry and several others can follow closely behind. So if you wanted to go somewhere as a family you could 'link' several pods together and travel together.



Yeah, this is what I've been talking about. When it eventually happens I can sit in a pub and moan that I came up with that ages ago while all the young people avoid me.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Technology is already looking at 'linking' vehicles together so a driver can drive a lorry and several others can follow closely behind. So if you wanted to go somewhere as a family you could 'link' several pods together and travel together.



Sounds like a ridiculous pipe dream on a few levels, but it would keep the kids from fighting in the back.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Lots of possibilities for the private car to be an important part of a transport solution.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> They could cruise around less busy areas; wouldn't need static storage space.
> 
> Technology might well solve a lot of the problems of the current system, without the downside of the lack of flexibility and convenience of public transport.  To rule out privately owned cars as part of the solution at this stage is crazy.


No, privately owned cars are what's crazy. If you can create an fully autonomous vehicle network the need for private vehicles goes away.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Sounds like a ridiculous pipe dream on a few levels, but it would keep the kids from fighting in the back.



The thing is it genuinely isn't much of an engineering challenge. The difficult part is fully developing the AI systems.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Lots of possibilities for the private car to be an important part of a transport solution.



Communal pushbikes, though.  They are light and cheap enough that you could pretty easily leave them within walking distance of a great many people.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

When we've invented teleportation on demand from any point to any point at zero energy cost no one's going to want your smelly cars anyway.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, privately owned cars are what's crazy. If you can create an fully autonomous vehicle network the need for private vehicles goes away.



What about self-employed vehicles?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> The thing is it genuinely isn't much of an engineering challenge. The difficult part is fully developing the AI systems.



I'm not sure what degree of modularity you're looking at, but if you're just talking about a few cars going to same destination, I'd be inclined to agree.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Yeah, to come briefly back down to earth... Park and ride systems for outside commuters. Nationalised national transit system (busses and trains, electric). National standard for electric busses. Until driverless is fully developed, then look at more sophisticated systems.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem.  You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.


You could develop this idea a little further... bumper to bumper at high speed... you could make them run on metal rails for greater energy efficiency...you could couple them together to make the technology less complex and avoid wasted space used up in multiple crumple zones...you could have a "sub pod" which is comprises of a human plus a bag. The chains of coupled-rail-cars could travel at high speed in between hubs, and at the hubs the "sub pods" could emerge from the coupled-rail-cars and dock into other vehicles optimised for the slower speed portion of the journey at each end. You could have a look around, and see if there is any existing infrastructure that could be used to employ this concept.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You could develop this idea a little further... bumper to bumper at high speed... you could make them run on metal rails for greater energy efficiency...you could couple them together to make the technology less complex and avoid wasted space used up in multiple crumple zones...you could have a "sub pod" which is comprises of a human plus a bag. The chains of coupled-rail-cars could travel at high speed in between hubs, and at the hubs the "sub pods" could emerge from the coupled-rail-cars and dock into other vehicles optimised for the slower speed portion of the journey at each end. You could have a look around, and see if there is any existing infrastructure that could be used to employ this concept.


That'll never catch on.


----------



## chilango (May 10, 2020)

deeyo said:


> Milan has about .5 cars per capita, compared with .3 for london. Italy is one of the most motorized countrys in the world at .72
> Mexico has a expanding motor fleet .3 growing at about 7 %/year. Greater Mexico city, pop 21 mill, has gone from about 3.1 mill cars 2000 to 9.6 mill 2018 - thats a yearly growth around 16.7 %. Mexico city is considered the most traffic-congested town in the world. Milan is one of europes most polluted cities.
> These are car crashes, not good examples - although i suppose its possible to learn from disasters and the handling of them.
> I couldnt find any reliable statistics on car-free towns and cities in the alps...
> ...



Mexico City has terrible pollution from cars. I t noticeably improved when I was living there as they a) had a rota for which license plates could drive on which days b) had regular car free days when manor highways were opened up only for cyclists and runners etc. and c) were desperately working on improving public transport infrastructure.

I didn't know many people in Milan who owned cars. Not in the centre anyway. There was no parking and it was quicker, easier and cheaper to use the excellent public transport or walk or scooter everywhere.

You're a little fluid  - shall we say - with your Mexican stats slipping easily from country wide to "Greater Mexico City" (perhaps overlay population growth with car growth there andd see what happens?) and then to Mexico City (the Distrito Federal) itself. Three very different entities.

Note also that both Milan and DF have geographical factors that really exacerbate their pollution. It was this high pollution that forced DF into action. Milan I believe is taking more steps now.

Of course, they're not "poster children" for a car-free city. They're examples of places where the continued James May mentality as shown by some on here has literally ground to a halt.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If the tech allows them to drive bumper to bumper at high speed, they'd take up nothing like the same space. And if you knew you'd be at work for eight hours, you could send it home, to park on your drive until you need it for the return journey. If it's using clean renewable energy, the extra mileage wouldn't be a problem.  You need to think about what cars could be, rather than just what they are now.


LOL what's the point in that. You may as well just be on the bus.

I know there have been experiments with such technology enabled traffic formations. Road Train but it's not actually an argument in favour of single occupancy private transport, rather a way of managing it.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, privately owned cars are what's crazy. If you can create an fully autonomous vehicle network the need for private vehicles goes away.


What about people who may need to go out at a moment's notice like district nurses or carers?


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

A future where you could hale a driverless self driving car from a central secure urban storage point would be pretty cool though. I'd be well up for that.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Communal pushbikes, though.  They are light and cheap enough that you could pretty easily leave them within walking distance of a great many people.


They have tried that in some places and the bikes end up getting trashed.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> When we've invented teleportation on demand from any point to any point at zero energy cost no one's going to want your smelly cars anyway.


You wouldn't need public transport or bikes either.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> One nice thing about moving away from cars is that it would free up a hell of a lot of space.
> I guess Amazon would need to deliver all their shit by air, though, which would have some environmental impact..



Death by drone may become a thing in that scenario - imagine a drone falling onto you trying to lug a 15kg Amazon hamper box full of cans of beer.

Noise pollution would also be insane by drones - think of how many drones would be wizzing around carrying single parcels compared to vans that contain hundreds.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> What about people who may need to go out at a moment's notice like district nurses or carers?



Clearly for exceptional cases you just make sure they have a vehicle on hand.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> What about people who may need to go out at a moment's notice like district nurses or carers?


what about what about what about what about

Just maybe if you get ride of the vast majority of private cars there's plenty of room left for the vanishingly small number of people that may have a genuine need?


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You could develop this idea a little further... bumper to bumper at high speed... you could make them run on metal rails for greater energy efficiency...you could couple them together to make the technology less complex and avoid wasted space used up in multiple crumple zones...you could have a "sub pod" which is comprises of a human plus a bag. The chains of coupled-rail-cars could travel at high speed in between hubs, and at the hubs the "sub pods" could emerge from the coupled-rail-cars and dock into other vehicles optimised for the slower speed portion of the journey at each end. You could have a look around, and see if there is any existing infrastructure that could be used to employ this concept.





beesonthewhatnow said:


> That'll never catch on.


Sounds a bit like Eurostar for transporting cars.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That'll never catch on.


Certainly not in this country it won't. The UK has, over about 150 years, proved itself entirely incapable of delivering such a system that works properly at a reasonable cost to its customers.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> They have tried that in some places and the bikes end up getting trashed.



It's a good point.  All solutions proposed really need to take account of the fact that c. 39% of people are cunts.


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

xenon said:


> LOL what's the point in that. You may as well just be on the bus.


Except this 'bus' can go to multiple destinations at the same time.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> What about people who may need to go out at a moment's notice like district nurses or carers?


And they are totally reliant on their own car which they get into and it doesn't start and then there's no other readily available option. Nuts.


----------



## deeyo (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> I think you're splitting hairs with the distiction between owned and leased vehicles; the significant point is having sole control.  But, maybe if there was a sufficently large fleet of shareable vehicles that one was always near instantly available, and the relative costs made sense, that model would make sense.  And yes, an integrated system of cars (for local travel particularly in rural settings) that meshes well with other solutions for longer distance travel might be a solution.  My point is that, with a bit of imagination, cars can be part of the answer; they're not necessarily the problem - particularly as they become safer and greener.


For now, and the forseeable future, cars are expensive machines. That most vehicles spend most of their existence standing idle or running more or less empty of passengers and cargo is a major waste of resources. You'd want these miracles of technology to run 24/7 with 5 passengers and a full load. 
Fully automated vehicles could work while you were working and sleeping, driving other persons and stuff around. To expect the same vehicle that took you to work to drive you home would be naive.
Moving further into sci-fi/posadist territory, the sky is the limit. Your own car, your own skyship, your own space station... by then of course machines will be sentinent and may choose to do other stuff than driving us around...


----------



## WouldBe (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> what about what about what about what about
> 
> Just maybe if you get ride of the vast majority of private cars there's plenty of room left for the vanishingly small number of people that may have a genuine need?


But you said there would be no need for private vehicles yet clearly there are.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> Except this 'bus' can go to multiple destinations at the same time.



Yeah, another reason why it doesn't really solve any of the issues with cars. If they all break off to park at work places separately and in Athos idea, make twice as many trips between workplace and homes, with all the obvious problems and wastage that implies


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, privately owned cars are what's crazy. If you can create an fully autonomous vehicle network the need for private vehicles goes away.


Will there be an autonomous vehicle parked outside every house?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Will there be an autonomous vehicle parked outside every house?


Oh noez, people might have to wait a whole 5 or even 10 minutes or - gasp - possibly even longer before going somewhere, how will they ever cope?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Is there really a need for privately owned pushbikes? Boris Bikes make much more sense.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

xenon said:


> Yeah, another reason why it doesn't really solve any of the issues with cars. If they all break off to park at work places separately and in Athos idea, make twice as many trips between workplace and homes, with all the obvious problems and wastage that implies



If they can run on, say, solar, then that becomes less of a problem.

I can't help but think that people are so wedded to having their own cars that a solution which allows for that is more likely to suceed than one that is predicated on the elimination of the private car, because car companies will invest (as there'd be a return), and there'd be far more chance of popular and political will.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

8ball said:


> Communal pushbikes, though.  They are light and cheap enough that you could pretty easily leave them within walking distance of a great many people.





WouldBe said:


> They have tried that in some places and the bikes end up getting trashed.



Eh? Do the dozens of successful cycle hire schemes not count as communal pushbikes? 

Car share schemes really need encouraging too. London at least helps by having some parking spaces just for car clubs, but a lot of people don't join because they're really expensive. They might well need to be expensive to cover costs, though, so the govt could help out there with subsidies like they give train companies.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Eh? Do the dozens of successful cycle hire schemes not count as communal pushbikes?



Yes, and they're the reason there's no privately owned pushbikes now.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Is there really a need for privately owned pushbikes? Boris Bikes make much more sense.


For most trips, yes they kinda do 

Keep the nice carbon race bike for the weekend club runs, perfect 

The gotcha moment you think is coming doesn’t work by the way.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

Some of us don't fit on them. I'd love to be able to use them.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> Some of us don't fit on them. I'd love to be able to use them.


How tall are you?


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How tall are you?


6'7" with dodgy knees so need a very high seat.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

#BiggerBorisBikes


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 10, 2020)

maomao said:


> 6'7" with dodgy knees so need a very high seat.


Wow, yeah I can see how that must be an issue 

Tern make a really clever single frame/bike that can cover a range from below 5’ to 6’4”, but even that would be too small by the sounds of it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> For most trips, yes they kinda do
> 
> Keep the nice carbon race bike for the weekend club runs, perfect
> 
> The gotcha moment you think is coming doesn’t work by the way.


Bees' Cars for getting to work. Keep the hydrocarbons and carbon for the weekend.
See, we can probably reach a middle ground here.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> But you said there would be no need for private vehicles yet clearly there are.



I think you're under the mistaken impression that people who want to overhaul the transport system are dogmatically attached to one system or another. These things will take decades to fully develop, will involve trial and error, extensive testing and technologies that are still in their infancy (and I imagine technologies we just haven't imagined yet). The goals are: Make the roads safer, eliminate as much pollution as possible, get people from A to B as efficiently as possible. How you get to those points is going to be debatable. Getting rid of as much private vehicle ownership as possible is one factor in that; it's probably an important one, but there are many, many other things to consider. No one who cares about these things is going to give a solitary fuck that there will have to be compromises along the way.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> I think you're under the mistaken impression that people who want to overhaul the transport system are dogmatically attached to one system or another.



Teucher is dogmatically attached to one system.  His aim isn't just to overhaul the transport system (of which reducing private car use might be a part); he has an admitted "long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever".


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> If they can run on, say, solar, then that becomes less of a problem.
> 
> I can't help but think that people are so wedded to having their own cars that a solution which allows for that is more likely to suceed than one that is predicated on the elimination of the private car, because car companies will invest (as there'd be a return), and there'd be far more chance of popular and political will.



Come on man, it's rediclously wasteful to have empty cars returning from workplaces. From a traffic level PoV, wear and tare. The energy wastage would hardly be negledable either. It takes a lot of juice to move steal boxes around. I think hydrogen would be a better bet in the medium term anyway. With a Cars as a Service Model, they could algorithmically pick the best route to serve someone's journey so they pick someone else up on the way back.


----------



## Mation (May 10, 2020)

This looks nice 









						moveE world's most affordable cargo trike
					

The widespread use of cargo trikes in cities would have a transformative effect on our collective quality of life




					www.eta.co.uk


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Athos said:


> Teucher is dogmatically attached to one system.  His aim isn't just to overhaul the transport system (of which reducing private car use might be a part); he has an admitted "long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever".



Er... in that specific case... no comment...


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Death by drone may become a thing in that scenario - imagine a drone falling onto you trying to lug a 15kg Amazon hamper box full of cans of beer.
> 
> Noise pollution would also be insane by drones - think of how many drones would be wizzing around carrying single parcels compared to vans that contain hundreds.


I think you should be more concerned by being replaced by a more efficient drone with better politics tbh.


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> I think you should be more concerned by being replaced by a more efficient drone with better politics tbh.



Huh?


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

I don't understand how anybody who drives isn't already convinced of the need to reduce or eliminate car reliance tbh, having to battle across a roundabout or spend half an hour trying to find somewhere to park, and there is nothing shitter than being stuck in traffic. Its bollocks. Too many fucking cars everywhere


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't understand how anybody who drives isn't already convinced of the need to reduce or eliminate car reliance tbh, having to battle across a roundabout or spend half an hour trying to find somewhere to park, and there is nothing shitter than being stuck in traffic.


Probably because most of the time it's absolutely nothing like that and even on the occasions when it is you're sat there in big comfortable seats and air conditioning, listening to tunes or a book, doing a bit of work or catching up with mates in other countries. I like being sat in the car chilling out. To listen to you lot anyone would think British roads are gridlocked 24/7 and only 3 parking spaces exist. It's pure fantasy, and I'm in Central London!


----------



## deeyo (May 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> Mexico City has terrible pollution from cars. I t noticeably improved when I was living there as they a) had a rota for which license plates could drive on which days b) had regular car free days when manor highways were opened up only for cyclists and runners etc. and c) were desperately working on improving public transport infrastructure.
> 
> I didn't know many people in Milan who owned cars. Not in the centre anyway. There was no parking and it was quicker, easier and cheaper to use the excellent public transport or walk or scooter everywhere.
> 
> ...


Sorry about any fluid facts. Never been to mexico city. Aware of contributing geography, though. Found a couple of articles you might get more out of than me; the one with most of the figures: Number of vehicles in 12 Mexico City municipalities has soared 600% since 2000
And:








						The geography of car ownership in Mexico City: a joint model of households’ residential location and car ownership decisions
					

Suburbanization and car-ownership have increased rapidly in developing-world cities over the past half-century. This study examines the relationship b…




					www.sciencedirect.com
				




...but i still se no signs of motorization slowing down globally and no signs of anything else than stagnation in the west. I might be more pessimistic than most on the thread, i seriously doubt that our society can adapt fast enough, i think change will be forced upon us, which might not be bad in itself. But the sort of change i want springs from the people and its collective action, and i see very little of that. We are weak and sundered, which leaves room for strong leaders to enforce the bans 'we need' whether we want them or not...


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Probably because most of the time it's absolutely nothing like that and even on the occasions when it is you're sat there in big comfortable seats and air conditioning, listening to tunes or a book, doing a bit of work or catching up with mates in other countries. I like being sat in the car chilling out. To listen to you lot anyone would think British roads are gridlocked 24/7 and only 3 parking spaces exist. It's pure fantasy, and I'm in Central London!



Presumably you just go for sunday drives with leather gloves on and the power of love blasting out, cos driving round anywhere outside of the country at peak hours is a fucking irritating crawl surrounded by dickheads. As for enjoying being sat in traffic just cos you've got leather seats and aircon, well I'd wager more people hate it than get some weird pleasure from it like you but it's subjective I suppose. For me I'd rather be doing something productive or spending time with my family but different folks different strokes


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Should genuinely try cycling btw spy, if you think being sat in your car is fun then you will shit your pants with joy to be whizzing past cars with your blood pumping and the wind in your ears


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Presumably you just go for sunday drives with leather gloves on and the power of love blasting out, cos driving round anywhere outside of the country at peak hours is a fucking irritating crawl surrounded by dickheads.


Er, no. You just haven't got a clue  what's genuinely going on.


> For me I'd rather be doing something productive or spending time with my family but different folks different strokes



I do that too though.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Should genuinely try cycling btw spy, if you think being sat in your car is fun then you will shit your pants with joy to be whizzing past cars with your blood pumping and the wind in your ears


When I want to do that I do it on a motorbike.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Er, no. You just haven't got a clue  what's genuinely going on.
> 
> 
> I do that too though.



Don't really get your first comment, makes no sense. But anyway, you'd have more time to do that.

And cycling is not like biking, feels completely different. Give it a try.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> And cycling is not like biking, feels completely different.


2 wheeled transport for children and incompetent adults.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2020)

The road space isn't there for everyone to drive to work anyway, plus you're just spewing out more pollutants and weakening the lungs of people trying to cope with covid.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> When I want to do that I do it a motorbike.


One of us OneOfus ONE OF US

I rarely cycle tbf but saul is really selling the idea to me so I may take it up again


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> 2 wheeled transport for children and incompetent adults.



Road cycling is the riskier of the two so don't agree on the issue of competency but it's alright. I understand you're scared of trying new experiences, it's ok, no judgement here pal


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2020)

chilango said:


> Of course, they're not "poster children" for a car-free city. They're examples of places where the continued James May mentality as shown by some on here has literally ground to a halt.


In fairness to James May, he is a keen cyclist:









						The mixtures were full of sh*t
					

The bicycle is living in troubled times. Cycling, once merely a means of transport for the poor and those too small to operate cars safely,




					drivetribe.com
				





> Riding a bicycle feels good.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

I sometimes want to do it a motorbike too mind.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I don't understand how anybody who drives isn't already convinced of the need to reduce or eliminate car reliance tbh, having to battle across a roundabout or spend half an hour trying to find somewhere to park, and there is nothing shitter than being stuck in traffic. Its bollocks. Too many fucking cars everywhere


You need to move. I have none of those problems.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Driving can be fun at times, biking is fun, but cycling gives the same fun of speed etc with the endorphins or whatever it is that kick in when you exercise, it's like double dropping


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Road cycling is the riskier of the two so don't agree on the issue of competency but it's alright. I understand you're scared of trying new experiences, it's ok, no judgement here pal


Lol, as I say, it's a competency issue. I'm perfectly comfortable on two or four motorised wheels but I completely understand why someone like you would rather stick to a pushbike.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You need to move. I have none of those problems.



Again I don't really understand this, there is no magic trick, you either need to go from a to b at a certain time or you don't. It's just driving on a road mate, it's not an art or even that hard is it


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Lol, as I say, it's a competency issue. I'm perfectly comfortable on two or four motorised wheels but I completely understand why someone like you would rather stick to a pushbike.



I barely cycle and until lockdown drove every day. Necessity. Would like social changes that ended or reduced that necessity.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> I barely cycle and until lockdown drove every day. Necessity. Would like social changes that ended or reduced that necessity.


As Saul says, you need to move then if that's really what driving is like for you. I think you're exaggerating though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> As Saul says, you need to move



What does this mean though


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Should genuinely try cycling btw spy, if you think being sat in your car is fun then you will shit your pants with joy to be *whizzing past cars* with your blood pumping and the wind in your ears





Proper Tidy said:


> Driving can be fun at times, *biking is fun, but cycling gives the same fun of speed* etc with the endorphins or whatever it is that kick in when you exercise, it's like double dropping


Really? 
I might have got a thrill from it when I was a kid, but once you've topped 200mph on a grown-up's bike, going back to pedal power just doesn't cut it anymore 🤣


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I might have got a thrill from it when I was a kid, but once you've topped 200mph on a grown-up's bike, going back to pedal power just doesn't cut it anymore 🤣



Should try a carbon frame


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Should try a carbon frame


How fast will that take me round the Isle of Man?


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Driving can be fun at times, biking is fun, but cycling gives the same fun of speed etc with the endorphins or whatever it is that kick in when you exercise, it's like double dropping



I know what you mean - flying down a steep winding incline on a mountain bike definitely gets the blood pumping and sharpens your alert.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I know what you mean - flying down a steep winding incline on a mountain bike definitely gets the blood pumping and sharpens your alert.



Relative isn't it, have done 60+mph coming down hills on a road bike and feels like the speed of light, pure thrill, with an engine it would just feel average. Mind you if you hit a pebble at that speed cycling on two inches of rubber then you're fucked so there is that


----------



## Hollis (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Probably because most of the time it's absolutely nothing like that and even on the occasions when it is you're sat there in big comfortable seats and air conditioning, listening to tunes or a book, doing a bit of work or catching up with mates in other countries. I like being sat in the car chilling out. To listen to you lot anyone would think British roads are gridlocked 24/7 and only 3 parking spaces exist. It's pure fantasy, and I'm in Central London!



Hmm, taken from 'fleetworld' the average driving speed in Central London in 2017 was just over 5mph.

Average driving speeds plummet in UK’s major cities


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Hollis said:


> Hmm, taken from 'fleetworld' the average driving speed in Central London in 2017 was just over 5mph.
> 
> Average driving speeds plummet in UK’s major cities


Well that's because an average is errr, an average. If you don't drive along Embankment at 8-9am, the North Circluar ever, and a few other roads in rush hours, that all goes out of the window. Sure you're going to get caught every now and then but it's usually avoidable in the main. Obviously we also use our cars _outside_ London. We are not forced to stay within the M25!


----------



## NoXion (May 10, 2020)

I did some driving on the public roads for the first time in my life a few years back, when I managed to get some free lessons for completing a course I got sent to by the Jobcentre. I don't recall it being bad on the roads for a newbie like me.

Can't say that I'm at all fond of this notion of eliminating personal motor vehicle usage, whether it's coming from the small-world cyclist nutters or the creepy Silicon Valley lot and their automated cars. Since the latter have more money and influence than the former, I have a terrible feeling that the next few decades is going to see some unholy fusion of the two in which the latter steals the rhetoric of the former to make the world that extra bit more fucked up and anodyne.

Thankfully if some clever-dick comes up with a way of manufacturing batteries that provide Lithium-Polymer performance or better without requiring Rare Earth Elements (graphene is looking promising), then it's more likely that the less batshit and weird views about personal locomotion will prevail.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> We are not forced to stay within the M25!



You've not been reading a lot of newspapers lately I take it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> You've not been reading a lot of newspapers lately I take it.


If you mean this lockdown nonsense, the traffic in Central London had been whizzing around for the last 8 weeks. I've had some great drives straight through the city and it's been like a ghost town.


----------



## scifisam (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> I sometimes want to do it a motorbike too mind.



To? With? On?


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Probably because most of the time it's absolutely nothing like that and even on the occasions when it is you're sat there in big comfortable seats and air conditioning, listening to tunes or a book, doing a bit of work or catching up with mates in other countries. I like being sat in the car chilling out. To listen to you lot anyone would think British roads are gridlocked 24/7 and only 3 parking spaces exist. It's pure fantasy, and I'm in Central London!



Wow, you really love being in your car.

Ive never heard of anyone loving chilling out in their car tho.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's because an average is errr, an average. If you don't drive along Embankment at 8-9am, the North Circluar ever, and a few other roads in rush hours, that all goes out of the window. Sure you're going to get caught every now and then but it's usually avoidable in the main. Obviously we also use our cars _outside_ London. We are not forced to stay within the M25!


Around 20 years ago, I used to drive 60 miles to work in Galway city centre. It used to take me as long to complete the last 5 miles as it took to travel the first 55. Then I decided to do it on the bike, and it cut the journey time in half.
I certainly don't envy anyone living and driving in a city.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Ive never heard of anyone loving chilling out in their car tho.


That's because you probably only know utility drivers (people who drive to get from a to b and simply use their cars as tools). There's a whole other group of people who drive for the love of cars and driving as well as all the other stuff.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Wow, you really love being in your car.
> 
> Ive never heard of anyone loving chilling out in their car tho.


Really? There's nothing more comfortable than sitting in proper nice seats in a proper nice car, and if you add open roads and decent music to that, it's a joy to behold.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

scifisam said:


> To? With? On?


Oh..I was mocking spy


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Relative isn't it, have done 60+mph coming down hills on a road bike


I once had a speedometer like that


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> That's because you probably only know utility drivers (people who drive to get from a to b and simply use their cars as tools). There's a whole other group of people who drive for the love of cars and driving as well as all the other stuff.



No, when I had my wholesale business I knew a lot of business suppliers/acquaintances who were into cars.  I’ve been in a few of them the most memorable being an Aston Martin convertible (can’t remember the model).

Another guy who was a customer of mine at the time had some American import Shelby - he eventually blew the engine by constantly upping the bhp.

But yeah, I understand enjoying cars, maybe I’ve misunderstood your definition of chilling in one, I’ve never heard of that before.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's because an average is errr, an average. If you don't drive along Embankment at 8-9am, the North Circluar ever, and a few other roads in rush hours, that all goes out of the window. Sure you're going to get caught every now and then but it's usually avoidable in the main. Obviously we also use our cars _outside_ London. We are not forced to stay within the M25!



Yep, as long as you don't have to commute in your car, commuting in your car is a doddle.

I don't particularly mind sitting in traffic, listen to some music or a podcast. But if you drive in the UK during anything like normal working hours, in a city, there is _definitely_ a lot of sitting in traffic. I'm now weirdly sceptical of your driving experience.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Cid said:


> Yep, as long as you don't have to commute in your car, commuting in your car is a doddle.
> 
> I don't particularly mind sitting in traffic, listen to some music or a podcast. But if you drive in the UK during anything like normal working hours, in a city, there is _definitely_ a lot of sitting in traffic. I'm now weirdly sceptical of your driving experience.


 It's quite simple really. I don't drive to work in rush hours.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I once had a speedometer like that



That's below average on a sharp down, I get up to a decent speed and get cautious, plenty of average road cyclists will hit 70 odd coming down. Its a hill, it does the work for you, that's how hills work


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's quite simple really. I don't drive to work in rush hours.



You're a weird one you know. You start moaning cos I said I don't see how anybody who has to drive wouldn't want to reduce car reliance, made some weird remarks about how I should move (?) and here we are with you going it's ok I don't rely on my car so don't have to drive at peak times. Knob.


----------



## Cid (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's quite simple really. I don't drive to work in rush hours.



I mean that's nice for you, but given the length of rush 'hour' in London, and the extent, I imagine you're not a normal case.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 10, 2020)

Defo not a normal case


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're a weird one you know. You start moaning cos I said I don't see how anybody who has to drive wouldn't want to reduce car reliance, made some weird remarks about how I should move (?) and here we are with you going it's ok I don't rely on my car so don't have to drive at peak times. Knob.



You're the only one who's been moaning. I've just pointed out that not everyone's driving experiences are like yours and stroked my chin at your account a bit. Of course there are such things as traffic jams. They're just not the end of the world for everyone. Interesting sign off you've got there too, but better than _Tidy_ I suppose.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> That's below average on a sharp down, I get up to a decent speed and get cautious, plenty of average road cyclists will hit 70 odd coming down. Its a hill, it does the work for you, that's how hills work


You're Lance Armstrong and I claim my £5
Or... You're Walter Mitty and I claim my £5
Hmmm, decisions decisions


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 10, 2020)

It's a shame Willy waving isn't a valid means of locomotion really.


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> That's below average on a sharp down, I get up to a decent speed and get cautious, plenty of average road cyclists will hit 70 odd coming down. Its a hill, it does the work for you, that's how hills work



Really? Average road cyclists hit 70 odd downhill?


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

I flew down a steep section of a trail once on my MB - probs wasn’t going that fast - maybe 30mph max? - but it was bumpy as hell, thought my teeth were going to fall out.  All I was thinking was - fuck, if I fall off I’m going to be fucked.

70mph on a bike would probs feel like warp speed and if you fell off you’d probs die.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's a shame Willy waving isn't a valid means of locomotion really.


Isn't it... I wouldn't need the Hayabusa! 🤣


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Isn't it... I wouldn't need the Hayabusa! 🤣



Had to google - but one of these?


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> When I want to do that I do it on a motorbike.



Said this before but if I could drive, I'd totally have a van and a motorbike. My dad used to do sidecar racing with a Norton Dominator, sold it, once he had kids.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Had to google - but one of these?


----------



## Marty1 (May 10, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


>



I know nothing about bikes but - looks like a missile  - what’s 0-60?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> what’s 0-60?


it means you will lose control and crash into a concrete bollard in 0-60 seconds


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I know nothing about bikes but - looks like a missile  - what’s 0-60?


I've no idea, but it's probably nearly as fast as Proper Tidy's carbon push bike


----------



## Athos (May 10, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> I know nothing about bikes but - looks like a missile  - what’s 0-60?



Less than 2.5 seconds. So quicker than a £2M Bugatti!


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> It's a shame Willy waving isn't a valid means of locomotion really.



I once nearly hit a bloke riding my chopper... Welll TBF he stuck his hand out and stopped me hitting him. 


Soz but seriously yeah, just reminded me. That's when I realised my sight was deteriating enough, I should give up bike riding circa 1990. Proper 70's chopper bicycle from a junk shop. I had a motorbike mirror on it, just cos it looked cool...


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 11, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> Again I don't really understand this, there is no magic trick, you either need to go from a to b at a certain time or you don't. It's just driving on a road mate, it's not an art or even that hard is it



Cycling has made me a more considerate and possibly safer driver.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

Athos said:


> Less than 2.5 seconds. So quicker than a £2M Bugatti!


I think the Veyron is around £3M now. It's a bit shit when a £3M car can't keep up with a £15k bike.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> Cycling has made me a more considerate and possibly safer driver.


----------



## JimW (May 11, 2020)

Mation said:


> This looks nice
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These and electric versions are ubiquitous here. Also larger versions and a bit smaller like ours which just has a small bench seat at the back. Took a busted armchair up the tip on it yesterday, to give an idea of the size.
ETA Didn't notice this is an electric version! Had the link open in another tab. So above should say we have pedal versions too


----------



## deeyo (May 11, 2020)

Avoid rush hours. Go in your roots time instead.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You need to move. I have none of those problems.


Let's all move to Saul Goodman 's rural idyll. I expect you can probably buy a field for the price of a one bed london flat with some cash left over to buy a couple of cars each. Buy the fields on the other side of his house from wherever the main town is, so that we can all drive past each morning. Many of us will work from home but just go for a drive each morning for fun. I'll get one of those cars that makes a stupid noise when you change gear. 
If a few thousand londoners can move there, that'll be several thousand people who don't have to go on buses again and we can all be enjoying the freedom of the open road every day.


----------



## Cid (May 11, 2020)

Proper Tidy said:


> That's below average on a sharp down, I get up to a decent speed and get cautious, plenty of average road cyclists will hit 70 odd coming down. Its a hill, it does the work for you, that's how hills work



I think you may be confusing kph and mph. Even 60mph is fucking ludicrous, particularly on a public road.


----------



## mauvais (May 11, 2020)

The top recorded speed in the Tour de France is 63.1mph, so...

I managed 40 once, I think. Couldn't really see.


----------



## Cid (May 11, 2020)

mauvais said:


> The top recorded speed in the Tour de France is 63.1mph, so...
> 
> I managed 40 once, I think. Couldn't really see.



With a riding position like this:



Closed roads and... y'know. Actual mountains to go down.


----------



## mauvais (May 11, 2020)

Yeah, something like that. And I remember the pony now.



mauvais said:


> I once got up to about 40mph on my mountain bike, brakes from a workable car and all, and then very shortly after, had to avoid a wild pony. About a mile in the distance. You could have planned it on a calendar and plotted the stopping distance on a globe, ideally taking in a shop that sold trousers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2020)

I've done over 50mph on my bike on a long, steep descent. It feels a bit like when the Millennium Falcon jumps to light speed. You are _very_ aware that if something goes wrong there's nothing between you and the tarmac but some very thin lycra 

120kph/75mph is generally accepted as the fastest you're likely to ever get on a standard road bike, given their aerodynamics and the roads available.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

I think Proper Tidy has been confused all these years and is actually a motorcyclist rather than a cyclist. 

An easy mistake to make.

Tidy; if your machine has a button on the right handlebar and the whole thing makes _vroom vroom_ noises when you press it, that's called a motorbike. If it has none of that and you feel your IQ drop significantly when you sit on it, it's a pushbike.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Let's all move to Saul Goodman 's rural idyll. I expect you can probably buy a field for the price of a one bed london flat with some cash left over to buy a couple of cars each. Buy the fields on the other side of his house from wherever the main town is, so that we can all drive past each morning. Many of us will work from home but just go for a drive each morning for fun. I'll get one of those cars that makes a stupid noise when you change gear.
> If a few thousand londoners can move there, that'll be several thousand people who don't have to go on buses again and we can all be enjoying the freedom of the open road every day.


Please don't. It's hard enough putting up with your incessant whining when there's the width of two countries and a body of water between us.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 11, 2020)

8ball said:


>




I am being serious here- my spacing and awareness is much better- still like to thump it along Autobahns tho'


----------



## Marty1 (May 11, 2020)

Interesting that in this current pandemic climate the official advice is to avoid public transport as much as possible and travel ideally by solo means ie car, van, motorbike, bicycle.

Obviously if you require to travel reasonable distances eg to work etc, then a car/ motorbike is the most advisable methods for practical reasons, especially cars/vans as you are within your own environment compared to bicycles where you are in an open air environment potentially infecting or being infected.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> I am being serious here- my spacing and awareness is much better- still like to thump it along Autobahns tho'


Part of every driving test should involve cycling along a road while several cars pass you too close and at speed, so everyone knows what it feels like.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2020)

I'm sure Proper Tidy  meant Kilometres per hour and just got a bit confused. And that everyone else's boasts about having done 200mph on a motorbike or whatever are 100% true as well.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm sure Proper Tidy  meant Kilometres per hour and just got a bit confused. And that everyone else's boasts about having done 200mph on a motorbike or whatever are 100% true as well.


Everything Spymaster writes about him and his car is also 100% true.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Everything Spymaster writes about him and his car is also 100% true.


At least 200% true.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Everything Spymaster writes about him and his car is also 100% true.



In his defence, it probably is true _as far as he's aware._ He's got no way of knowing that the car fakes 90% of its orgasms.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm sure Proper Tidy  meant Kilometres per hour and just got a bit confused.


Yeah. That's what I reckon too. Happens all the time.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Part of every driving test should involve cycling along a road while several cars pass you too close and at speed, so everyone knows what it feels like.


And part of every cycling test should .... oh, hang on ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah. That's what I reckon too. Happens all the time.


Yeah, I often use it as an excuse. Oh, I'm sorry officer. The speedo on my bike reads in mph. I thought they were the same as kilometres, just spelt differently.
Easy mistake to make.


----------



## Marty1 (May 11, 2020)

Is there anyone on here who likes fast/powerful luxury cars and cycling?

Or are the two mutually exclusive?🧐

😂


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Is there anyone on here who likes fast/powerful luxury cars and cycling?
> 
> Or are the two mutually exclusive?🧐
> 
> 😂


Not so bothered about “luxury” cars, but I love fast/lightweight sports cars and generally anything performance related, be it 4 wheels or 2.

I just happen to know where the place for each lies


----------



## Cid (May 11, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Is there anyone on here who likes fast/powerful luxury cars and cycling?
> 
> Or are the two mutually exclusive?🧐
> 
> 😂



No, not mutually exclusive at all. Tbh a vast number of hardcore roadies with full on lycra and £8k+ bikes are also the kind of people who own Audis. I'd be very surprised if there's not a full Ineos team kit and a Pinarello Dogma F12 hiding in Spymaster 's cupboard.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2020)

Cid said:


> No, not mutually exclusive at all. Tbh a vast number of hardcore roadies with full on lycra and £8k+ bikes are also the kind of people who own Audis. I'd be very surprised if there's not a full Ineos team kit and a Pinarello Dogma F12 hiding in Spymaster 's cupboard.


I'm not sure there is that much of a crossover tbh, people who own Audis would be into golf and stuff like that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure there is that much of a crossover tbh, people who own Audis would be into golf and stuff like that.


A lot of the golf crowd now ride bikes. You can spot them easily, they’re the ones on a 10 grand Bianchi that you pass going up hills


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

Cid said:


> No, not mutually exclusive at all. Tbh a vast number of hardcore roadies with full on lycra and £8k+ bikes are also the kind of people who own Audis. I'd be very surprised if there's not a full Ineos team kit and a Pinarello Dogma F12 hiding in Spymaster 's cupboard.



I have never owned an Audi


----------



## Cid (May 11, 2020)

Personally, being a maker of high end furniture, I do like a good car interior. Though most on the RR spectrum are a bit too gaudy tbh. Also miss driving a decent hatchback, but the expense and the knowledge that it's just a bit shitty clogging up the roads on the peaks means I won't be getting one in a hurry.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, but I suspect we disagree about sequencing of banning cars v providing alternatives, but whatever.  Ok, let's talk specifics; what do you propose for rural areas, and what measure will be the trigger for banning cars there?


I was not giving this thread my full attention yesterday, so coming back to this.

Rural areas are more difficult than urban of course. So I think effort should be focused on urban areas first, as they are also where most people live. Change will gradually filter outwards to increasingly lower density areas.

I think it would be possible to eliminate private car ownership via a version of the car club concept where you would not own the car but maybe it would be parked in your driveway for much of the time. I have previously suggested a version of this system and you can look at this thread if you are interested. That proposal seems too radical even for 99% of urban75 readers so I don't expect it to come to pass unless I become transport minister under some form of dictatorship. However, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that in 10 or 20 years a version of what I suggest would no longer be seen as completely nuts.

So, on a more pragmatic basis, things I would propose for rural areas.

I think that the feasibility of providing bus services in relatively sparsely populated areas is often underestimated. The assumption is that there are too few people wanting to travel on the same, linear routes to make it work. It's true that there will be many journeys made by rural dwellers that can't realistically be provided for by a bus network. However, it's often the case that there are certain linear routes, generally leading to the nearest large town, which pass by a fair chunk of population, and that a large proportion of those people's journeys are along that route. Often bus services are provided on these routes, but they run largely empty and this is used as an argument that they are not useful to people. One reason that people don't use them is that they are too infrequent and too expensive. More people would use them if they were affordable and more frequent, ideally to the extent where you get into a virtuous circle where they become more financially sustainable because of increased patronage and this allows further increases in frequency.

However, and this I think is very important, and a fact that is wilfully ignored, the other reason people don't use rural buses is that they already have a car. They've already paid for the car and their insurance and everything else, and the marginal extra cost of using it for a journey into town is small. And for this reason, you could provide the most excellent bus services possible and people would still stay in their cars. So, just like in urban areas you have to look at disincentivising the car use as well as providing alternatives (the other option is to change that marginal-cost calculation, which is what my nationalised car system is all about, but anyway). It's quite difficult to work out methods of disincentivising car use in rural areas if you are not going for zero private car use strategy, because you are accepting that there are still some journeys that will be done by car, and you only want to target the ones where there are genuine alternatives.

I think there are a number of things you can do though, and a lot of that can take advantage of the fact that most rural dwellers now don't really "live in the country" - they live in an extended suburbia. They likely still work in a town and/or make frequent journeys to a town for services and shopping. So, you can focus on what happens at the "town" end of their journeys - which are likely to be (a) one of their most frequently made journeys and (b) journeys which can potentially be served by public transport. In addition to that, much of the urban congestion in towns is caused not by people living in the town, but people driving there from the surrounding rural areas. Park & ride is one approach to this and maybe there are places where it's the best solution but it's not one I'm entirely enthusiastic about. You are still generating a large number of car trips to the P&R and (importantly) it's of no use to any rural dwellers who don't have a car, or can't drive. I would prefer to see people taking the bus from as close to their home as possible.

So you provide the bus services and then in parallel you make it increasingly difficult for people to eg. find parking spaces in town. Maybe you think about a kind of distributed park and ride where you don't have a giant car park 5 miles out of town but you have strategically located parking in villages along bus routes.

There's lots of planning policy stuff to do as well. For example STOP BUILDING OUT OF TOWN SUPERMARKETS. These are entirely designed around convenience for car owners. They actively encourage car use in rural areas. There's no good using a token bus service to claim that they serve others. Have planning policy which encourages more local shops, just like good planning in urban areas encourages. Have shops co-located with public transport hubs and networks.

Also on planning policy - I would like to see a bit more emphasis on transport availability when deciding on planning permission for new housing. So discouraging scattered development, and encouraging new houses to be built close to transport routes or ideally within walking distance to a local centre.

A quite small village can sustain several shops/services if their customers aren't habitually driving miles away instead. Having active villages like this isn't just good from a transport point of view - it's good for community cohesion and all that stuff too.

As I mentioned the other post about country lanes, I think there should be a review of rural speed limits too. One reason is to increase safety for pedestrians (just like in urban areas) and encourage people to walk to local centres. It shouldn't be the case that it's often actually harder to walk somewhere in the countryside than it is in a city. If as a side effect this increases certain journey times, then that isn't necessarily a bad thing, and might also help tip the balance in favour of public transport alternatives. In most rural areas there's a cake-and-eat-it attitude to travel times where people want to live somewhere quiet and remote and at the same time want to be able to get to places as quickly as possible. If you want to get to town quickly, live closer to town. There's a constant pressure to make roads faster and faster and I find it nonsensical. A lot of old arguments about increasing the economic fortunes of rural areas don't apply any more - we mostly no longer have a "working" countryside in the way we used to. Increasing road connectivity is not letting poverty stricken rural basket makers and apple growers get their products to town - it's now about letting remote-working accountants get their amazon order delivered more quickly, or shortening the commute of people who work in town but want to live somewhere with a big garden and less air pollution. I exaggerate of course but some of these arguments need to be called out and we need to be realistic about what the countryside actually is now.

I think technological changes will very likely have impact on what's possible for rural transport. If self-driving vehicles ever appear (and like others have said, it may still be many years away) then quite potentially they can become part of a public transport network - replacing parts of bus networks but also acting as feeders for a bus network - I can see that a well-designed combination of autonomous taxis and buses could be highly effective and achieve the holy grail of giving everyone access to public transport from their doorstep.

And I think that the car club concept should be expanded, with some level of subsidy perhaps, into rural areas. For example, providing car share cars at all rural rail stations could tip the balance on a lot of people's travel decision making - so, if you need to get somewhere that's 5 miles from a train station, you only drive that 5 miles instead of doing the whole journey by car.


----------



## krink (May 11, 2020)

i just wish you'd stop parking on the pavements.

(and the answer to the inevitable question is "somewhere else")


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

krink said:


> i just wish you'd stop parking on the pavements.


You'll often see people parked half-on pavements where they could have parked fully in the roadway. And the reasoning from their point of view is that they don't want to obstruct traffic any more than necessary. They could have parked on the road but then maybe cars in one direction would have to stop to let those in the other direction get by. So their solution is to generate the same situation for pedestrians on the narrowed pavement. Quite often it's narrowed enough that a wheelchair or pushchair can't get through. They are in the car driver mindset - pedestrians aren't part of their picture. Even where the space is clearly delineated by a kerb, they make the decision to take away some of the space specifically allocated to pedestrians, in order to keep things clear for the all important motor traffic.

There are moves to make it illegal throughout the UK like it already is in London. Why's it so difficult to change this - why should it even be in question?

Hopefully it'll eventually be properly banned and then we can get our keys to work on the paintwork of those who continue to do it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You'll often see people parked half-on pavements where they could have parked fully in the roadway. And the reasoning from their point of view is that they don't want to obstruct traffic any more than necessary. They could have parked on the road but then maybe cars in one direction would have to stop to let those in the other direction get by. So their solution is to generate the same situation for pedestrians on the narrowed pavement. Quite often it's narrowed enough that a wheelchair or pushchair can't get through. They are in the car driver mindset - pedestrians aren't part of their picture. Even where the space is clearly delineated by a kerb, they make the decision to take away some of the space specifically allocated to pedestrians, in order to keep things clear for the all important motor traffic.
> 
> There are moves to make it illegal throughout the UK like it already is in London. Why's it so difficult to change this - why should it even be in question?
> 
> Hopefully it'll eventually be properly banned and then we can get our keys to work on the paintwork of those who continue to do it.


Agreed. The twats that do this are likely the cyclists we always hear bleating "well I'm a driver too". Dickheads. You'll find the same pricks cycling on pavements too.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed.


Good.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed. The twats that do this are likely the cyclists we always hear bleating "well I'm a driver too". Dickheads. You'll find the same pricks cycling on pavements too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I've done over 50mph on my bike on a long, steep descent. It feels a bit like when the Millennium Falcon jumps to light speed. You are _very_ aware that if something goes wrong there's nothing between you and the tarmac but some very thin lycra
> 
> 120kph/75mph is generally accepted as the fastest you're likely to ever get on a standard road bike, given their aerodynamics and the roads available.




It's 'highest speed' not 'fastest speed'. A given speed does not itself have any speed at all, for it is a mathematical abstraction.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 212017



You forgot to photoshop the reflection.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

There appears to be a recurring theme here. Bike wankers also buy wankers' cars, when they grow up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed. The twats that do this are likely the cyclists we always hear bleating "well I'm a driver too". Dickheads. You'll find the same pricks cycling on pavements too.



"Yes, car drivers do that shit thing all the time. From which we can conclude that all cyclists are arseholes."


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

I bet the bike has a carbon frame.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> "Yes, car drivers do that shit thing all the time. From which we can conclude that all cyclists are arseholes."


You're learning. There's hope for you yet, Plank!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> all cyclists are arseholes.


Maybe no _all_.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's 'highest speed' not 'fastest speed'. A given speed does not itself have any speed at all, for it is a mathematical abstraction.


🤷‍♂️


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2020)

Those are all mountain, not road bikes.  . You could cycle them on the road, you’d just take forever.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 11, 2020)

'Road bikes' were called 'racing bikes' when I was a kid. Made a lot more sense as any bike can go on roads if it wants to, but you wouldn't do a road race on a mountain bike or a BMX or a cargo bike or whatever.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Those are all mountain, not road bikes.  . You could cycle them on the road, you’d just take forever.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's 'highest speed' not 'fastest speed'. A given speed does not itself have any speed at all, for it is a mathematical abstraction.


Surely it also does not itself have any height


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


>





Saul Goodman said:


> Really? There's nothing more comfortable than sitting in proper nice seats in a proper nice car, and if you add open roads and decent music to that, it's a joy to behold.


...


----------



## scifisam (May 11, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Road bikes' were called 'racing bikes' when I was a kid. Made a lot more sense as any bike can go on roads if it wants to, but you wouldn't do a road race on a mountain bike or a BMX or a cargo bike or whatever.



No, they're three different things. Racing bikes have much narrow tyres than road bikes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> ...


That's not a nice car.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2020)

scifisam said:


> No, they're three different things. Racing bikes have much narrow tyres than road bikes.


Not anymore...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

scifisam said:


> No, they're three different things. Racing bikes have much narrow tyres than road bikes.






> These machines are more than just tools to get from point A to point B — they’re *freedom machines.*



*Ceci n'est pas un vélo*


----------



## Marty1 (May 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> There appears to be a recurring theme here. Bike wankers also buy wankers' cars, when they grow up.



Technically not bike wankers as they are transporting their mb’s - so likely going to do a trail somewhere.

I assumed bike wankers were bikers who rode on the roads disrupting the flow of traffic.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Technically not bike wankers as they are transporting their mb’s - so likely going to do a trail somewhere.
> 
> I assumed bike wankers were bikers who rode on the roads disrupting the flow of traffic.


Have you never been run over by one whilst on a walking trail?


----------



## Marty1 (May 11, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you never been run over by one whilst on a walking trail?



No, I don’t walk on dedicated mb trails.


----------



## Ax^ (May 11, 2020)

Marty1 said:


> Is there anyone on here who likes fast/powerful luxury cars and cycling?
> 
> Or are the two mutually exclusive?🧐
> 
> 😂



don't think to many investment bankers log into the site


----------



## Doodler (May 13, 2020)

Minor point: terraced residential streets in particular look a lot more attractive when they have no cars parked along them.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2020)

Here's an article about how car dependency increases pandemic spread.









						Automobiles Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City - Market Urbanism
					

New York City is an epicenter of the global novel coronavirus pandemic. Through April 16, there were 1,458 confirmed cases per 100,000 residents in New York City. Always in the media eye, and larger than any other American city, New York City has become the symbol of the crisis, even as suburban...




					marketurbanism.com


----------



## deeyo (May 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here's an article about how car dependency increases pandemic spread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It really isn't, you know. Its a reply to an article by one jeffery e. harris of mit,





__





						NY Daily News - We are currently unavailable in your region
					






					www.nydailynews.com
				












						The Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in New York City
					

New York City’s multitentacled subway system was a major disseminator – if not the principal transmission vehicle – of coronavirus infection during the initial



					papers.ssrn.com
				



trying (and, from my very quick read-through also succeeding) to cast doubts on jeffy-boys reasoning.


----------



## Clair De Lune (May 15, 2020)

Clair De Lune said:


> Sometimes my cheapo version of a  fit bit says I've walked over a hundred steps in my sleep. As far as I'm aware I'm not a somnambulist so its clearly recording out of body experiences.


My youngest slept with me the other night and because he's become quite nocturnal he was awake long after I passed out. He reported that I wiggle all over the bed in my sleep and that I seemed to be trying to kick him in the head    so mystery solved.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2020)

deeyo said:


> It really isn't, you know. Its a reply to an article by one jeffery e. harris of mit,


It really isn't what? I know what it's a response to.


----------



## mauvais (May 15, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> There appears to be a recurring theme here. Bike wankers also buy wankers' cars, when they grow up.





Saul Goodman said:


> I bet the bike has a carbon frame.





Saul Goodman said:


>


I feel like you've not understood this at all. These bikes are standard equipment from the factory - it's how you get home.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2020)

Anyway - some good news from London





__





						Car-free zones in London as Congestion Charge and ULEZ reinstated
					

One of the world’s largest car-free zones will be created in central London as Congestion Charge and ULEZ reinstated




					www.london.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2020)

Here's a hilariously idiotic response from the "Association of British Drivers"









						Sadiq Khan and TfL Bailed Out - Freedom for Drivers Foundation
					

After threatening the Government that TfL would have to make deep cuts to public transport in London unless they came up with some money by the close of




					abdlondon.wordpress.com
				






> The Mayor and TfL have actually cut their bus income by introducing road schemes that slowed traffic including buses, thus cutting bus ridership. You cannot solve these problems by simply encouraging cycling. The average distance travelled by a London commuter is 13 miles per day with many travelling much longer distances. That makes it impractical for many people to cycle even if they had an inclination to do so. The danger of cycling puts many people off using it for long journeys. Department for Transport (DfT) figures show that there are 1,139 serious injuries and 29 deaths for every million miles cycled, while for car drivers the figures are only 27 and 2 respectively.
> 
> 
> The Mayor and central Government should face up to realities and work on the following:
> ...



It's amazing that they are stupid enough to post the number of cycling injuries, caused by motor vehicles, as a reason to increase motor traffic and reduce cycling.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 15, 2020)

Its like people read the old usenet group alt.pave.the.earth and didn't realise it was taking the piss.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 15, 2020)

> The average distance travelled by a London commuter is 13 miles per day with many travelling much longer distances. That makes it impractical for many people to cycle even if they had an inclination to do so.


13 miles is doable for someone who is relatively fit.

Anyway, the council here have confirmed they will temporarily close part of Deansgate in town from this Sunday - only a quarter of a mile stretch so not much, but better than nowt.  Hope it becomes permanent and they extend it more broadly across the centre.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2020)

I think that when they talk about the 13 mile average they probably mean for people who commute into london from outside.


----------



## Winot (May 15, 2020)

I bet the members of the ABD drive into London once a year with their wives to see a show and do Christmas shopping and spend the rest of the year ranting that they couldn't park outside the theatre.


----------



## Crispy (May 15, 2020)

Preliminary map from TfL



			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/emerging-streetspace-for-london-plan-for-cycle-routes.pdf
		


Central area detail via the guardian *








						Large areas of London to be made car-free as lockdown eased
					

Mayor Sadiq Khan says city needs to be repurposed for people as it emerges from coronavirus restrictions




					www.theguardian.com
				



*


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2020)

Driving is much nicer at the moment.


----------



## Winot (May 15, 2020)

City of London info from FT:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 15, 2020)

__





						Emergency Birmingham Transport Plan | Birmingham City Council
					

Details of Birmingham's emergency transport plan in light of the impact of COVID-19




					www.birmingham.gov.uk
				




Plans for Birmingham...


----------



## nick (May 15, 2020)

> I bet the members of the ABD drive into London once a year with their wives to see a show and do Christmas shopping and spend the rest of the year ranting that they couldn't park outside the theatre.


reminds me of the happy winter a few years ago when it dumped snow in London. All public transport cancelled, so we decided to drive to our long-booked Cage Au Folles theatre trip. No cars on the road so it took about 20 minutes door to door and we parked almost directly outside the Playhouse. Loads of punters didn't make it so we got upgraded from the cheap seats to a table right next to the stage


----------



## deeyo (May 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It really isn't what? I know what it's a response to.


The article you linked to isn't about car dependency causing corona. It's about showing how faulty the first articles claim is. Neither article proves nothing.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2020)

Kensington & Chelsea introducing various measures, and finally implementing a 20mph limit like most other London boroughs.





__





						Changes to Portobello Road to make famous market safe for visitors post-lockdown | Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
					

Portobello Road will close to traffic during trading hours as Portobello Market stallholders and shoppers return and the lockdown eases.




					www.rbkc.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2020)

If you don't live somewhere forward thinking enough already to have implemented 20mph limits, you can use this to email your MP:









						Email your MP for an emergency 20mph default during Covid-19
					

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets.




					www.20splenty.org


----------



## DownwardDog (May 22, 2020)

Police to investigate 'horrific' video of car driving more than 200mph
					

The minute-long footage shows the driver quickly hopping between lanes and overtaking other vehicles.




					news.sky.com
				




It certainly looks like ~200mph to me. This guy fucks.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Police to investigate 'horrific' video of car driving more than 200mph
> 
> 
> The minute-long footage shows the driver quickly hopping between lanes and overtaking other vehicles.
> ...


At that speed even hitting someone going in the same direction, at 70 mph, would be like ploughing into a stationary car at 130mph. Hope they get caught. But cars that can go that speed shouldn't even be allowed onto the public roads; they are just dangerous weapons.


----------



## 8ball (May 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> At that speed even hitting someone going in the same direction, at 70 mph, would be like ploughing into a stationary car at 130mph. Hope they get caught. But cars that can go that speed shouldn't even be allowed onto the public roads; they are just dangerous weapons.



Yeah, I expect as more tech comes available perhaps cars like that could have a 'non track' mode which limits them to sensible performance.
Something about the video makes me wonder whether its a fake, though.

edit: as an aside, the standard version of that car is limited to 174mph which is still clearly insane.  The limiter has been removed in this instance, assuming it is real.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2020)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I expect as more tech comes available perhaps cars like that could have a 'non track' mode which limits them to sensible performance.
> Something about the video makes me wonder whether its a fake, though.
> 
> edit: as an aside, the standard version of that car is limited to 174mph which is still clearly insane.  The limiter has been removed in this instance, assuming it is real.


I also wonder if it's real.

The technology to have speed limiters in cars has been around for some time - what's stopped it being installed is all down to the motoring lobby and the fact that many UK motorists have the same attitude to cars as the nuts in the US have towards their guns.


----------



## 8ball (May 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I also wonder if it's real.
> 
> The technology to have speed limiters in cars has been around for some time - what's stopped it being installed is all down to the motoring lobby and the fact that many UK motorists have the same attitude to cars as the nuts in the US have towards their guns.



With a little context, I think it is.  This has been happening much more commonly recently with the roads being quiet.

That's an interesting parallel to the USA and guns.  I think there is something in that.
What I meant by more tech is that you could set it to limit torque, always have stability control on, etc. in certain areas, so not just top speed or even just top speed and acceleration.

Basically the car could only be driven like a nutter on an authorised racetrack that had cleared the control protocols temporarily.

Possibly with an emergency override in case of exploding volcanoes etc.


----------



## weltweit (May 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> ..
> The technology to have speed limiters in cars has been around for some time ..


As long as the car has been with us!


----------



## 8ball (May 22, 2020)

weltweit said:


> As long as the car has been with us!



Indeed.  You're not going to run over the guy you're employing to walk in front of the car with a little red flag.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 22, 2020)

A


Winot said:


> I bet the members of the ABD drive into London once a year with their wives to see a show and do Christmas shopping and spend the rest of the year ranting that they couldn't park outside the theatre.


And I bet they wear GLOVES when they do drive!


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 22, 2020)

a limiter can be overidden if thats yer bag and the engine chipped

.was that an audi he was in ?


----------



## Cid (May 22, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> a limiter can be overidden if thats yer bag and the engine chipped
> 
> .was that an audi he was in ?



Audi A4 in my google's opinion. No wait. RS6. It says so on the rev counter.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 22, 2020)

i have ridden to work this week. nothing bad, drivers all courteous. even the 50mph around the back street boys gave me plenty of room. and i still like muscle cars. see- it can be done


----------



## DownwardDog (May 23, 2020)

8ball said:


> Something about the video makes me wonder whether its a fake, though.



I think it's real because a) I've been well north of 170mph and that's what it looks like and b) hacking the cluster on an RS6 to get it to read a different speed AND rpm would be very difficult.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 23, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Police to investigate 'horrific' video of car driving more than 200mph
> 
> 
> The minute-long footage shows the driver quickly hopping between lanes and overtaking other vehicles.
> ...


Welcome to the two ton club.  🤣


----------



## weltweit (May 23, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> ..
> It certainly looks like ~200mph to me. This guy fucks.


Should be remembered that this would be legal on many stretches of Autobahn.


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Should be remembered that this would be legal on many stretches of Autobahn.


Not necessarily, the law says something about being able to stop within line of sight - would that have applied here?


----------



## A380 (May 24, 2020)

I'd want to see a GPS speed read out or a calibrated speedometer. I bet he was only doing something like 185... Why would you do that?

And if you were going to do that why not have at least your phone running a GPS speed indicator...


----------



## nick (May 24, 2020)

That would be a great defence in court: “GPS doesn’t corroborate - so it doesn’t count “


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2020)

Central London today


----------



## nick (May 24, 2020)

Was that just off trafqlgar square  ( northumberland ave )? If so I think we were in the area in time to see them sweeping the bits into dustpans


----------



## DownwardDog (May 25, 2020)

8ball said:


> With a little context, I think it is.  This has been happening much more commonly recently with the roads being quiet.
> 
> That's an interesting parallel to the USA and guns.  I think there is something in that.
> What I meant by more tech is that you could set it to limit torque, always have stability control on, etc. in certain areas, so not just top speed or even just top speed and acceleration.
> ...



JDM 1st gen R35 GTRs had this very feature. They were limited to 180km/h unless the GPS detected they were at a track location.


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2020)

Dominic Cummins is very much the standard bearer for the car mob. There's a system set up for collective benefit and he doesn't see why he should sacrifice any of his own immediate convenience when he can simply bypass it using resources that many simply don't have. Of course what is his tool for achieving this? His privately owned car. Even if he were to stick to all the rules, he could use his car to go hundreds of miles on day trips while others are limited by the distance they can walk from their door. Because the rules are most likely written by people who've never had to be totally reliant on public transport.


----------



## 8ball (May 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Dominic Cummins is very much the standard bearer for the car mob. There's a system set up for collective benefit and he doesn't see why he should sacrifice any of his own immediate convenience when he can simply bypass it using resources that many simply don't have. Of course what is his tool for achieving this? His privately owned car. Even if he were to stick to all the rules, he could use his car to go hundreds of miles on day trips while others are limited by the distance they can walk from their door. Because the rules are most likely written by people who've never had to be totally reliant on public transport.


----------



## A380 (May 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Dominic Cummins is very much the standard bearer for the car mob. There's a system set up for collective benefit and he doesn't see why he should sacrifice any of his own immediate convenience when he can simply bypass it using resources that many simply don't have. Of course what is his tool for achieving this? His privately owned car. Even if he were to stick to all the rules, he could use his car to go hundreds of miles on day trips while others are limited by the distance they can walk from their door. Because the rules are most likely written by people who've never had to be totally reliant on public transport.



That fucker Cummings breathes oxygen, you breathe  oxygen, so you are just as bad as him.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2020)

Cars, eh.


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2020)

Ah the freedom of the open road.


----------



## T & P (May 30, 2020)

Oh noes! A traffic jam! If that isn’t final proof of the undeniable need to ban private car ownership, I don’t know what is.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

T & P said:


> Oh noes! A traffic jam! If that isn’t final proof of the undeniable need to ban private car ownership, I don’t know what is.


It kind of is.

Some of the scenes at the weekend demonstrated the problems with everyone having an individual mode of transport and the 'freedom' to drive it anywhere. Everyone makes an individual decision to do something, and there's not enough space for everyone to do it, whether that's on the motorway there, or at the final destination, where the solution to a lack of parking space is to park all over verges and so on.

You might say the solution is just to build increasingly large car parks at any popular destination, which is largely what happens, and I think it's a rubbish solution. Look at the amount of parking (it's only half full in the image, it extends right up into the field at the left) in Lulworth compared to the size of the village.



While I was out at the weekend I saw another example of the kind of selfishness that car use breeds - more pavement parking. In this case they've completely blocked the use of the pavement - never mind wheelchairs or pushchairs, everyone has to walk on the roadway. There was a whole row of cars parked like this. In this instance I was pleased to see, when I continued past them, that every single one had a penalty notice stuck to the windscreen. Brightened my day.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It kind of is.
> 
> Some of the scenes at the weekend demonstrated the problems with everyone having an individual mode of transport and the 'freedom' to drive it anywhere. Everyone makes an individual decision to do something, and there's not enough space for everyone to do it, whether that's on the motorway there, or at the final destination, where the solution to a lack of parking space is to park all over verges and so on.
> 
> ...


Where was this?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Where was this?











						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.com


----------



## Cid (Jun 1, 2020)

Yeah, the peaks have been rammed of late too... This weekend was particularly bad.


----------



## Cid (Jun 1, 2020)

Driver cuntishness has also increased exponentially. 

e2a: I get the impression that most driving in late lockdown were still just locals out to do er... whatever they need to do. Locals in the peak district can, of course, drive like cunts (full of Range Rovers), but it generally felt ok on the bike. I think also any locals out, or Sheffield types on a cheeky jaunt, were being pretty cautious out of a kind of vague respect for the general situation. Weekend though; multiple dangerous overtakes, parking extending out the villages, the odd terrific cunt leaning out the window and jeering at all and sundry, lots of revving (in 40mph zones, just outside Sheffield). As I've said upthread I'm not as militant on the idea of private transport as teuchter, but there is no fucking need at all for this sort of shit, nor is it remotely related to the independence this kind of transport can bring.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2020)

Inconsiderate (not to mention reckless) road users of any kind are quite odious, but apart from the fact that the majority of car drivers don’t behave like that anymore than the majority of cyclists, pedestrians or motorcyclists repeat the dastardly deeds of the antisocial minority, it would be ludicrous to suggest that car ownership is the cause of such behaviour, and banning them would get rid of such antisocial behaviour.

And whereas I don’t have a crystal ball at hand, I’m pretty sure I’m right in predicting if private car ownership was banned, whether in cities only or nationwide, at least 60-70% of existing private car usage would simply be filled by car clubs and hire cars. So you’re still going to get the same instances of packed roads and inconsiderate parkers sometimes around beauty spots of a sunny weekend.

I still don’t see any solid reasoning that a ban on private cars would any of the problems those calling for a ban have stated in this thread. A slight alleviation of some of the issues, at best. The only way to really eradicate all those thorny issues would be complete ban on all motor vehicles other than the emergency services’. Anyone calling of a ban on privately owned cars needs to decide if such a move might be a step too far or not. Or come out and openly state they would like all motor vehicles to be banned.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It kind of is.
> 
> Some of the scenes at the weekend demonstrated the problems with everyone having an individual mode of transport and the 'freedom' to drive it anywhere. Everyone makes an individual decision to do something, and there's not enough space for everyone to do it, whether that's on the motorway there, or at the final destination, where the solution to a lack of parking space is to park all over verges and so on.
> 
> ...


The M3 was blocked because of an accident, so not really a capacity issue.

As for Lulworth, what do you propose instead? That people stop going?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

mauvais said:


> The M3 was blocked because of an accident, so not really a capacity issue.
> 
> As for Lulworth, what do you propose instead? That people stop going?


Public transport.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

T & P said:


> Inconsiderate (not to mention reckless) road users of any kind are quite odious, but apart from the fact that the majority of car drivers don’t behave like that anymore than the majority of cyclists, pedestrians or motorcyclists repeat the dastardly deeds of the antisocial minority, it would be ludicrous to suggest that car ownership is the cause of such behaviour, and banning them would get rid of such antisocial behaviour.



It's the guns argument again. 

Guns don't kill people, people do. Cars don't park themselves on pavements, people do.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Public transport.


What if you don't want to share your space with people who play shit music and stink of BO?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> What if you don't want to share your space with people who play shit music and stink of BO?


Get on a bike


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> Get on a bike


Not much use for 100 mile trips, unless you meant a proper bike (motorbike)?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> What if you don't want to share your space with people who play shit music and stink of BO?


Write letters to local newspapers complaining about dole scroungers and that sort of thing, I imagine.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2020)

Even Los Angeles - premier car-dependency hell-hole - has realised it needs to get with the programme and start sorting out its public transport.









						Metro releases draft Long Range Transportation Plan for public review
					

The Metro Board of Directors on Thursday authorized the release of the updated draft 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan, a $400-billion, 30-year transportation blueprint for our region. There will…




					thesource.metro.net
				






> The plan also notes the potential to deliver significant mobility benefits to the region through the major capital projects, programs, and bold policies. After implementation, those benefits include 21% of county residents and 36% of jobs will be a 10-minute walk of high-quality rail or bus rapid transit options, up from only 8% of residents and 16% of jobs currently. If implemented, the plan will result in an 81% increase in daily transit trips, a 31% decrease in traffic delay and a 19% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Write letters to local newspapers complaining about dole scroungers and that sort of thing, I imagine.


How will that get me to an illegal rave in a farmer's field at 3am when I only have a Google maps link?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2020)

'The joys of walking': Pro-pedestrian groups hope increase in strolling will last beyond pandemic
					

Pro-walking groups are encouraged that people have embraced strolling as a way to get out of the house while social distancing and hope that some of the changes along city streets will prove to be permanent.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2020)

T & P said:


> Inconsiderate (not to mention reckless) road users of any kind are quite odious, but apart from the fact that the majority of car drivers don’t behave like that anymore than the majority of cyclists, pedestrians or motorcyclists repeat the dastardly deeds of the antisocial minority, it would be ludicrous to suggest that car ownership is the cause of such behaviour, and banning them would get rid of such antisocial behaviour.



Walking cunt: 80kg at 3mph 108N
Running cunt: 80kg at 8mph 286N
Cycling cunt: 95kg at 15mph 1250N
Very fast cycling cunt: 95kg at 30mph 2500N
Couple of Cunts in an A4: 1700kg at 40mph 28000N
And, just for the hell of it, 4 cunts in a range rover who didn't see you: 2500kg at 70mph 78000N
I didn't bother with the cunt on a Ducati

I'm willing to allow that people will be cunts regardless. It's what they're throwing at you/an errant child/sheep that worries me. And also the walking cunt is fuelled by one pub lunch, the runner by oatmeal and nut butter chased down with a soy latte, the cyclist by some combination of SiS energy products and the Range Rover by <x> litres of highly polluting hydrocarbons.



> And whereas I don’t have a crystal ball at hand, I’m pretty sure I’m right in predicting if private car ownership was banned, whether in cities only or nationwide, at least 60-70% of existing private car usage would simply be filled by car clubs and hire cars. So you’re still going to get the same instances of packed roads and inconsiderate parkers sometimes around beauty spots of a sunny weekend.



That is entirely true, at least at the moment, and given the government's lacklustre approach to... er... everything. But that's not really the point. You can use other methods; improve cycle access, get rid of VAT on bikes and electric bikes, restrict car licenses, restrict car speeds. Do that and smaller electric private vehicles could _potentially_ be safe as well.



> I still don’t see any solid reasoning that a ban on private cars would any of the problems those calling for a ban have stated in this thread. A slight alleviation of some of the issues, at best. The only way to really eradicate all those thorny issues would be complete ban on all motor vehicles other than the emergency services’. Anyone calling of a ban on privately owned cars needs to decide if such a move might be a step too far or not. Or come out and openly state they would like all motor vehicles to be banned.



Banning private cars in and of itself is not an end goal (except maybe for teuchter). The end goal is to get people from A to B in a manner that a) reduces environmental damage and b) makes the roads safe enough that virtually all road deaths and serious injuries are eliminated. There are ways to do this. You don't have to jump in all at once, it's not an either/or thing. Take one medium city that already uses park and ride, ban cars except for a limited fleet of electric hire vehicles. Expand that to larger cities... Improve public transport systems. As the technology improves, implement self-drive systems outside cities... Design motors to deal with different zoning situations. Design systems that can quickly manage the transitions between intercity/rural/urban environments. Short-medium term expensive, but you can design systems to minimise long-term maintenance costs. And accidents cost vast amounts of money, both in direct terms (prevention, emergency response etc) and in terms of cost to the economy (and obviously the thousands of people dealing with death or life-changing injury).

The only technology that isn't there yet is self-drive. It doesn't seem to be far off though... and so much of this can be implemented without relying on that. It needs to be. It's not optional if we want to have any chance at preserving our environment.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's the guns argument again.
> 
> Guns don't kill people, people do. Cars don't park themselves on pavements, people do.


YOu can use that argument on everything else. Some cyclists choose to ride on the payement or jump traffic lights recklessly, some of which sometimes ending up killing or severely injuring pedestrians. But bicycles don't kill and main pedestrians- cyclists do.

But in any case, none of the above has any bearing _whatosover _on the argument about car ownership. If you are hoping for all motor vehicles to be banned from the roads, including car club vehicles, hire cars, etc, why don't go out and say it? Because at the end of the day, private car ownership has sweet fa to do witth it.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2020)

T & P said:


> YOu can use that argument on everything else. Some cyclists choose to ride on the payement or jump traffic lights recklessly, some of which sometimes ending up killing or severely injuring pedestrians. But bicycles don't kill and main pedestrians- cyclists do.



Except of course that cyclists generally don't kill people. Or as best I can tell they kill up to about 2.5 people per year... The last mention I see of it was that cunt on a brakeless fixie a few years ago.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

Cid said:


> Except of course that cyclists generally don't kill people. Or as best I can tell they kill up to about 2.5 people per year... The last mention I see of it was that cunt on a brakeless fixie a few years ago.


Well, if the aim is to reduce all road casualties to zero, then all road users and types of transportation must be subject to the same scrutiny, restricitons and regulations.

At the end of the day Cid, my post was in replyto cheap and rather preposterous shot comparing cars to gun ownership.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2020)

T & P said:


> YOu can use that argument on everything else. Some cyclists choose to ride on the payement or jump traffic lights recklessly, some of which sometimes ending up killing or severely injuring pedestrians. But bicycles don't kill and main pedestrians- cyclists do.


No. Cid has already explained above.

You are arguing the equivalent of: if we have to ban guns then we are going to have to ban baseball bats.

You can kill someone with a gun, and you can kill someone with a baseball bat. However, you can kill someone with a gun even if you don't set out to do so, by setting it off accidentally or not knowing how to control it. You can kill someone with a gun with ease and relatively little risk to yourself. The same is not true of baseball bats.

It's the same comparing a car and a bicycle. Yes you can kill someone with a bicycle. But it's fairly difficult to do it by accident, and almost impossible to do without significant injury to yourself.

And yeah, there should be rules for cyclists to obey. But they should be proportionate to the risk they represent. Cyclists should not be tearing around on pavements any more than cars should be tearing around on residential streets. All this tiresome stuff about "everyone being subject to the same scrutiny, restrictions and regulations" - no one promoting increased restrictions on motor vehicles is trying to say that other road users shouldn't be subject to any restrictions whatsoever - they should be subject to proportionate ones.

Just like the guy who pulls out a gun on the street should be treated differently to the guy who pulls out a baseball bat. We can agree that neither should be allowed to use their weapon to threaten people. But we can probably agree that it's ok for someone on the street to be carrying a baseball bat to their baseball practice, but pretty much never ok for anyone to be carrying a gun.



T & P said:


> But in any case, none of the above has any bearing _whatosover _on the argument about car ownership. If you are hoping for all motor vehicles to be banned from the roads, including car club vehicles, hire cars, etc, why don't go out and say it? Because at the end of the day, private car ownership has sweet fa to do witth it.


No, it's not practical to ban all motor vehicles from the road, and that's not what I'm aiming for. 

I would like reduce road casualties to as close to zero as possible. It is perfectly possible to do that without banning all motor vehicles from the road. 

Does private car ownership have anything to do with the number of casualties? Yes I think it does, because it increases the number of vehicles on the road at any time. But road safety is not the only reason I want to reduce private car ownership.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2020)

And also



T & P said:


> it would be ludicrous to suggest that car ownership is the cause of such behaviour,



I dunno about car ownership in itself, but there's no doubt that being a car driver changes people's behaviour, and encourages antisocial behaviour. You cannot deny that being in charge of a vehicle which isolates you from the external environment, largely protects you from any impact and which allows you to exit a scene rapidly has an effect on how you behave. Furthermore, habitual car use increasingly distances you socially from those who don't have car because you end up living in a different world, and one where you don't have to suffer the same negative effects as they do (pavement parking is quite a good example of this).



T & P said:


> And whereas I don’t have a crystal ball at hand, I’m pretty sure I’m right in predicting if private car ownership was banned, whether in cities only or nationwide, at least 60-70% of existing private car usage would simply be filled by car clubs and hire cars. So you’re still going to get the same instances of packed roads and inconsiderate parkers sometimes around beauty spots of a sunny weekend.



I hope you realise that even using your own pulled-out-of-thin-air numbers, you are arguing that a 30-40% decrease in the number of cars on the road would have no effect on congestion.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I dunno about car ownership in itself, but there's no doubt that being a car driver changes people's behaviour, and encourages antisocial behaviour. You cannot deny that being in charge of a vehicle which isolates you from the external environment, largely protects you from any impact and which allows you to exit a scene rapidly has an effect on how you behave. Furthermore, habitual car use increasingly distances you socially from those who don't have car because you end up living in a different world, and one where you don't have to suffer the same negative effects as they do (pavement parking is quite a good example of this).


 That is a simplistic, easy to make and biased generalisation as those who claim most cyclists are complete antisocial dickheads given the behaviour many of them indulge in. One could make similar accusations of antisocial behaviour or living in a different world to other road users (in this case pedestrians), as bucketload after bucketload of cyclists jump pedestrian traffic lights, don't stop at zebra crossings when pedestrians are using them, ride on the pavements, and so on.

We can all play that game. Although I prefer not to, because such generalisations are bullshit. For all road users.





> I hope you realise that even using your own pulled-out-of-thin-air numbers, you are arguing that a 30-40% decrease in the number of cars on the road would have no effect on congestion.


 It would, but at the cost of implementing an extraordinarily draconian new rule. But hey, why stop there? Full ban on all motor vehicles= 100% reduction in congestion.

Or we could aim to drive down consgestion and car use by methods other than those that would make most fascist dictators blush.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2020)

T & P said:


> That is a simplistic, easy to make and biased generalisation as those who claim most cyclists are complete antisocial dickheads given the behaviour many of them indulge in. One could make similar accusations of antisocial behaviour or living in a different world to other road users (in this case pedestrians), as bucketload after bucketload of cyclists jump pedestrian traffic lights, don't stop at zebra crossings when pedestrians are using them, ride on the pavements, and so on.
> 
> We can all play that game. Although I prefer not to, because such generalisations are bullshit. For all road users.



It's not a generalisation. You haven't read what I wrote. I'm not saying "most drivers are complete antisocial dickheads". I am saying that the act of driving inevitably affects people's behaviour, and generally negatively. I include myself in this. When I drive I feel the same temptation to speed, the impatience with slow moving vehicles or wandering pedestrians, the desire to park where is convenient for me at that moment,

The same applies to cycling, yes. It affects your behaviour. The consequences are, however, less severe. That doesn't excuse bad behaviour on bikes. Encouraging people to cycle removes cars from the road and reduces pressure on public transport, and is good for people's health. These positives outweigh the negatives, which include things like cyclists occasionally acting aggressively towards pedestrians, but don't include a high likelihood of people getting seriously injured.




T & P said:


> It would, but at the cost of implementing an extraordinarily draconian new rule. But hey, why stop there? Full ban on all motor vehicles= 100% reduction in congestion.
> 
> Or we could aim to drive down consgestion and car use by methods other than those that would make most fascist dictators blush.



What are these ulra-fascist methods exactly, that exist in your imagination?


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2020)

I'm equally intrigued by how you implement a reduction in congestion without reducing the number of vehicles on the road.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> When I drive I feel the same temptation to speed, the impatience with slow moving vehicles or wandering pedestrians, the desire to park where is convenient for me at that moment,


Then you really should remove yourself from the road, as you're a danger to others. And maybe seek some CBT.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2020)

Cid said:


> I'm equally intrigued by how you implement a reduction in congestion without reducing the number of vehicles on the road.




Force people on to public transport, let covid cull them and there'll be plenty of space on the roads for cars


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Force people on to public transport, let covid cull them and there'll be plenty of space on the roads for cars


Getting the angry drivers and riders like teuchter off the road will result in a much safer place for everyone. Maybe a psych test should be a mandatory part of the driving test, to weed out people who


teuchter said:


> feel the same temptation to speed, the impatience with slow moving vehicles or wandering pedestrians, the desire to park where is convenient for me at that moment


...and make the roads safer.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> every single one had a penalty notice stuck to the windscreen. Brightened my day.


Good.  They should employ a vast army of traffic wardens to punish selfish drivers.  Park on a pavement?  Car is seized and sold, no compensation and you get a huge fine.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What are these ulra-fascist methods exactly, that exist in your imagination?


An outright ban on private ownership of a mode of transportation for little benefit overall of course, in particular when similar results that could be achieved by different, far less authoritarian methods.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

Cid said:


> I'm equally intrigued by how you implement a reduction in congestion without reducing the number of vehicles on the road.


It's not about reducing the number of vehicles on the road, it's about the way about trying to achieve this.

You could ban cars altogether. Or you could, perhaps as a less of a nuclear option, do such radical things as increase parking charges or reduce parking capacity at popular beauty spots prone to traffic congestion. And a myriad of other measures, financial, educational and infrastructure-wise that could be implement to reduce car use without resorting to banning the things altogether.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2020)

T & P said:


> An outright ban on private ownership of a mode of transportation for little benefit overall of course, in particular when similar results that could be achieved by different, far less authoritarian methods.


I think you've got in a panic from my proposals for nationalised car ownership. I've already said that I realise that's too much like real socialism, even for people on here, for it to gain enough support that it would actually happen. I don't think you need to worry about that.

I've also talked about lots of ways of reducing car dependency that are less radical. You seem to be wilfully ignoring all those, and spending the whole time arguing against something different from what I suggest as more pragmatic approaches to the problem.

Let's all calm down and not get in a panic that I'm going to take your cars from your cold dead hands in the less than one year timescale I've got organised succeed in getting the UK state to ban cars outright.


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think you've got in a panic from my proposals for nationalised car ownership. I've already said that I realise that's too much like real socialism, even for people on here, for it to gain enough support that it would actually happen. I don't think you need to worry about that.
> 
> I've also talked about lots of ways of reducing car dependency that are less radical. You seem to be wilfully ignoring all those, and spending the whole time arguing against something different from what I suggest as more pragmatic approaches to the problem.
> 
> Let's all calm down and not get in a panic that I'm going to take your cars from your cold dead hands in the less than one year timescale I've got organised succeed in getting the UK state to ban cars outright.


For the record, I don't own a car, haven't done so for 11 years, and have no plans to own one in the future even though I could afford buying a second-hand one at least. And like many if not most drivers I would like to see an overall reduction in car use.

Just don't agree with the general characterisation of car users, or indeed cyclists and other road users that goes on in this country, both IRL and on the interwebs, never mind the solutions and proposals that are often proposed around here. Far too much tribalism, demonisation, draconian OTT suggestions and axes to grind all around


----------



## mauvais (Jun 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Public transport.


I used to go to Lulworth a lot, by bike and car. In the league of 'places damaged by cars', it doesn't really rank. Under normal circumstances - perhaps not right now - the field for cars is about the right capacity. The road system is not regularly blocked up by traffic, nor do cars flood the nearby roads (just as well, there aren't any). It would certainly be better if you could get there without a car or a difficult bike ride but apart from improving accessibility I'm not really sure what problem would be solved or what would be gained.

The nearest station is Wool. The nearest big towns, Dorchester and Poole, are about 15 and 20 miles away respectively, and people don't travel from there, they travel from all over the south coast and beyond. It's in rural Dorset which otherwise has terrible public transport provision, it has no prospect of a railway. The village itself is almost entirely a tourist attraction now and so the car park being bigger than it doesn't really fit into the usual model.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 2, 2020)

There’ll be no shark teeth left on the beach at this rate


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

mauvais said:


> It would certainly be better if you could get there without a car or a difficult bike ride but apart from improving accessibility I'm not really sure what problem would be solved or what would be gained.



Improving accessibility would be enough in itself - I would see that as a significant gain.

I just think the "build a bigger car park" approach is a rubbish one. If you do arrive at one of these places by public transport (which normally means a fair bit of planning, and grappling with sporadic timetables) it's quite dispiriting to arrive to find that half the place is basically just a car park. Not just because it kind of ruins the "coastal scenery" vibe but because the sparsity of public transport could lead you to believe that hardly anyone actually wants to go there - and yet you are presented with the evidence that they do, because at the end of your tortuous journey on a half empty bus, you are presented with hundreds or thousands of gleaming cars. In fact these kinds of places, with a specific destination and perhaps a highly seasonal demand, could quite effectively be served by public transport, let's say in this case a frequent shuttle bus from Wool station that is co-ordinated with train times, well advertised and with integrated fares so that it's all as easy as possible for people to use. 

I don't know Dorset all that well so shouldn't get too much into the details of this particular location. I do know about the Scottish Highlands though, and in the past few years there's been quite an increase in tourism, a lot of it targeted at a few popular destinations. These have always been known but for whatever reason have recently become suddenly very popular, and now there are places where, in most of my memory you might have seen 5 or 6 cars parked up, but now there are tens times as many, all trying to park or get past each other on single track roads. Obviously there's much discussion about how to deal with this increase in places with little or no dedicated infrastructure, but to me it's depressing that most of the talk remains along the lines of building car parks or widening roads. I wish there was a stronger effort to improve the public transport instead. Take the Isle of Skye where most of these sights could quite easily be linked on some kind of circular route with an hourly bus during the summer months. 

Even in the states they have a system in many national parks where you can't drive in - you have to leave your car and use the buses they put on. Not quite the same scenario of course, but the principle is there - you have a place of great natural beauty which a lot of people want to visit and enjoy. So try and keep it like that instead of gradually making it into a car park, and make sure that it's not only people with cars who can get there without engaging in a major logistical challenge.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2020)

T & P said:


> For the record, I don't own a car, haven't done so for 11 years, and have no plans to own one in the future even though I could afford buying a second-hand one at least. And like many if not most drivers I would like to see an overall reduction in car use.
> 
> Just don't agree with the general characterisation of car users, or indeed cyclists and other road users that goes on in this country, both IRL and on the interwebs, never mind the solutions and proposals that are often proposed around here. Far too much tribalism, demonisation, draconian OTT suggestions and axes to grind all around



Honestly I'm a bit baffled as to your line of thought on this... Granted we do come out with outright anti-car stuff, but this is about so much more than tribalism. I drive quite regularly. I share workshop space with a guy who does up... well... er... I'd say classic cars, but it looks like we're stuck on VWs at the moment and frankly we're all a bit bored of the sodding things. I enjoy driving. I like the convenience and flexibility (though obviously flexibility depends on traffic conditions). Fine, there's some trollish aspects to the thread title, and some of the replies. But there is also a very, very stark reality:


Vehicle infrastructure in most cities (and between them) is strained.
CO2 emissions (from vehicles) are still rising. And of course there are many other associated pollutants.
Public transport infrastructure is strained.
Accessibility is a huge problem for many people; whether that's not being able to afford a car, having wheelchair routes blocked etc.
26,610 people KSI in 2018 (1770 killed).

I mean, upthread you suggested increasing parking charges, the effect of that is largely just er... increasing parking charges. It has been done. It is essentially telling people on low incomes they can fuck off if they want to visit here/commute here, if there's limited public transport. Educational measures have been around certainly since I was at primary school 25-30 years ago. The problem is that much of infrastructure is designed around private car use... I make furniture, I don't use my car much, but I need it. And having that option there means that I look at it for longer journeys, then I look at the prices for an advanced train ticket that is probably a bit unreliable, and is certainly only useable at one time and is _still_ more expensive than fuel. And yeah, you can see where that goes. People are aware of the problems of private vehicles but, where they have no other options, or even where the other options are just a bit shit, yeah, they'll get a car. Most people do not have the time or headspace to overthink these things and stick rigidly to their morals.

So that leaves financial and infrastructure measures. And those are exactly what we're talking about... Updating infrastructure is not 'draconian'. We're not going to improve anything by making getting about _more_ annoying. But at the moment we are at a point in engineering, computing and planning where it should be entirely possible to rethink how we design transport infrastructure... Most of the car industry is working on autonomous vehicles. That is somewhere we are going. That can make the roads safe for smaller, more efficient vehicles for local transport, combined with vastly more efficient intercity connections, and in-city public transport. It allows us to think about narrowing roads, to think about _improving_ equal access to transport. To deal more effectively with other issues like the colossal shit-heap that is house prices.

This is not 'little or no benefit'.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

T & P said:


> Just don't agree with the general characterisation of car users,



While I might sometimes prod "car users" as a provocation, when I am discussing this stuff seriously I am quite careful to talk about "reducing car dependancy".

Do you feel like you understand what I am on about when I talk about "car dependancy" as a thing and a problem?

That is, I am talking about a structural problem, not about individuals. When I am talking about the behaviour of car users, I generally see that behaviour as an inevitable consequence of the structural problem of car dependancy.

For example, if someone drives at 50mph on a 20mph road, I am happy to criticise that individual: they have made a choice to behave badly. But ultimately that does nothing to solve the problem: the fact that they do it is a consequence of things like lax enforcement, and the refusal to adopt technology that could make speeding virtually impossible. And those things stem from cultural/societal things, they are to do with what most people see as priorities. People tend to rate notions of freedom and privacy above road safety. And in my view that all comes from "car dependancy" - a society (and its physical infrastructure) that is mainly set up around the assumption that most people have a car and there is stuff that is very difficult to do without a car, but that's just how it is, and why change. This is fundamentally what I would like to see change. If you can eliminate car dependancy, there's a whole load of stuff that follows. Being more specific, what I'd really like to eliminate is "private car dependancy". In other words, I think there will always be a use for something car-like for certain journeys and tasks. And I would like those car-like vehicles to be available to anyone, not just those who are able to own their own. They can come in the form of car club cars and/or maybe autonomous vehicles (I am less convinced than Cid that these will be with us anytime soon, but as soon as they do become real, they'll change a lot of stuff and can become part of a fully integrated public transport system).


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> People tend to rate notions of freedom and privacy above road safety.



We have very safe roads, but yeah, if we rated road safety higher then helmets would be mandatory for all car users.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> We have very safe roads, but yeah, if we rated road safety higher then helmets would be mandatory for all car users.


This wouldn't be a safety improvement.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

mauvais said:


> This wouldn't be a safety improvement.



Oh, do go on.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I just think the "build a bigger car park" approach is a rubbish one. If you do arrive at one of these places by public transport (which normally means a fair bit of planning, and grappling with sporadic timetables) it's quite dispiriting to arrive to find that half the place is basically just a car park.



It's not just the car parking either. I grew up in a small, very touristy village and there were only two roads in and out, both narrow and windy. On a busy summer day these would get snarled up to the point where they were impassable. It seems to be universally accepted that you can queue down the road to get into a car park in the countryside, in a way nobody would do in a city.

Now I'm living in another small touristy village and even in a pandemic, it's the same thing. If the car park is full people don't simply fuck off as god intended, they either idle in the road waiting for someone else to leave or they just park on the road. There is nowhere you can safely park in the road.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now I'm living in another small touristy village and even in a pandemic, it's the same thing. If the car park is full people don't simply fuck off as god intended, they either idle in the road waiting for someone else to leave or they just park on the road. There is nowhere you can safely park in the road.



Maybe speak to your local tourist information board about getting some "fuck off as God intended" signs erected.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Oh, do go on.


I mean, this is a stupid idea that noone is considering, but helmets in the context of a closed car are designed for motor racing and come with serious downsides. The most obvious is they add a lot of weight to your head which to avoid neck injury has to be compensated for by restraints - hence HANS. The sum total of this is something that's much more restrictive and particularly impairs all-round vision.

If we cared about safety we would do more to prevent or reduce the severity of accidents, not do things to deal with them.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

mauvais said:


> I mean, this is a stupid idea that noone is considering, but helmets in the context of a closed car are designed for motor racing and come with serious downsides. The most obvious is they add a lot of weight to your head which to avoid neck injury has to be compensated for by restraints - hence HANS. The sum total of this is something that's much more restrictive and particularly impairs all-round vision.



Straight from the motoring lobby. But yes, no one is considering it because the 50% of serious head injuries deriving from road accidents is not considered a serious issue.



mauvais said:


> If we cared about safety we would do more to prevent or reduce the severity of accidents, not do things to deal with them.



This is stupid.  For starters, severity is determined by consequences.  And it's not an either/or.  If it was we wouldn't bother with seat belts/airbags etc.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 3, 2020)

People are mentioning car safety as if there have been no improvements, crash testing and classification of vehicles (The European New Car Assessment Programme | Euro NCAP) etc is big these days and there are measures to reduce the damage a car will do to a pedestrian also. There has been progress on vehicle safety.


----------



## Winot (Jun 3, 2020)

Another issue arising from car dependency and the associated assumptions is the effect on the building of infrastructure and how it favours motor vehicles over cyclists. 

A simple example - the south London junction shown here has temporary traffic lights at the moment because there is construction work going on. The temporary lights for the northbound traffic have been positioned level with the start of the cycle box, i.e. level with the stop line for the cars. Accordingly if you are in the ASL box you cannot see when the lights change. I doubt the person setting up the lights deliberately chose to endanger cyclists; more likely they just didn't think at all because they are not a cyclist and are not properly trained to think about cyclists.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> People are mentioning car safety as if there have been no improvements, crash testing and classification of vehicles



Are they?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> People are mentioning car safety as if there have been no improvements, crash testing and classification of vehicles (The European New Car Assessment Programme | Euro NCAP) etc is big these days and there are measures to reduce the damage a car will do to a pedestrian also. There has been progress on vehicle safety.


Most of that is focused on the safety of car occupants.
Any measures to "reduce damage to pedestrians" are undermined by a trend towards larger and larger vehicles and easily wiped out by non-observance of speed limits.

I'd be interested though in any data that you can provide that demonstrates a significant improvement in pedestrian safety in recent times, related to vehicle design.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Straight from the motoring lobby. But yes, no one is considering it because the 50% of serious head injuries deriving from road accidents is not considered a serious issue.
> 
> 
> 
> This is stupid.  For starters, severity is determined by consequences.  And it's not an either/or.  If it was we wouldn't bother with seat belts/airbags etc.


Have you ever tried to drive whilst wearing a helmet? I'm guessing not, or you'd know that it would be impossible to drive safely on the road whilst wearing one.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Straight from the motoring lobby. But yes, no one is considering it because the 50% of serious head injuries deriving from road accidents is not considered a serious issue.


Oh aye, the motoring lobby. I'm actually President.

If it's just a failure of society to take the issue seriously, why don't you do it then? Full face helmet and HANS, possibly a cage but maybe you can add that later. Off you go.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

mauvais said:


> Oh aye, the motoring lobby. I'm actually President.



It's nice to have dreams.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you ever tried to drive whilst wearing a helmet? I'm guessing not, or you'd know that it would be impossible to drive safely on the road whilst wearing one.



Best get all those motorbikes off the road if the riders won't convert to Sikhism, eh?

Also, if drivers of performance cars gave much of a shit about this argument they'd have better visibility.  Ever tried seeing out the back of a Lamborghini (the idea that you don't need to see out the back if you're faster than anything else on the road is another indicator of how safety is prioritised, or not).

But anyway, yes, I have driven with a helmet (not on the road). 

We wouldn't likely be looking at exactly the same helmets that racing drivers use, though.  There has been a small amount of research into options, but while it is considered more acceptable to bear the cost and suffering of a very large number of life-changing and fatal head injuries, then that is going to stay a small amount.

It's like rearward-facing airline seats.  Personal preferences over-ride safety concerns.  And convenience and economic concerns.  We could wipe out road deaths by simply re-instating the 1865 Locomotive Act.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd be interested though in any data that you can provide that demonstrates a significant improvement in pedestrian safety in recent times, related to vehicle design.



There have certainly been efforts, though I notice how my little old banger, which does not have much in the way of fancy new safety features (for me), has much better visibility than newer cars which have airbags baked into the roof pillars, a higher dashboard etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Best get all those motorbikes off the road if the riders won't convert to Sikhism, eh?


Then you've obviously never ridden a motorbike, either, or you'd know the difference.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Then you've obviously never ridden a motorbike, either, or you'd know the difference.



Of course, you don't need to be able to see when on a motorbike.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Of course, you don't need to be able to see when on a motorbike.


No, you can twist your head and body whilst on a motorbike, to enable you to see either side of you. You can't do that in a car.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 3, 2020)

No space for cycle paths but they can take up a whole lane queuing for a f**king Mcdonalds :


----------



## weltweit (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Most of that is focused on the safety of car occupants.
> Any measures to "reduce damage to pedestrians" are undermined by a trend towards larger and larger vehicles and easily wiped out by non-observance of speed limits.
> 
> I'd be interested though in any data that you can provide that demonstrates a significant improvement in pedestrian safety in recent times, related to vehicle design.


There is some background reading here: Pedestrian safety through vehicle design - Wikipedia

I do know though that in Germany there are projects to reduce injuries which have for example dictated the shape of door handles, which used to jut out and now are flush. It wouldn't surprise me to find there has been quite a lot of work on pedestrian safety done in Germany.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> No, you can twist your head and body whilst on a motorbike, to enable you to see either side of you. You can't do that in a car.



You can't turn your head in a car.  Indeed.  <takes notes>


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> You can't turn your head in a car.  Indeed.  <takes notes>


So you lied when you said you've driven a car whilst wearing a helmet?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> There is some background reading here: Pedestrian safety through vehicle design - Wikipedia
> 
> I do know though that in Germany there are projects to reduce injuries which have for example dictated the shape of door handles, which used to jut out and now are flush. It wouldn't surprise me to find there has been quite a lot of work on pedestrian safety done in Germany.


Ok. Thanks. I am aware of that stuff. But it seems like the answer to my question is that no, you can't provide any data that indicates whether vehicle design has really improved pedestrian safety in recent times.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> So you lied when you said you've driven a car whilst wearing a helmet?



Well, several cars, then.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Ok. Thanks. I am aware of that stuff. But it seems like the answer to my question is that no, you can't provide any data that indicates whether vehicle design has really improved pedestrian safety in recent times.


I am sure if I go looking for it I will find plenty but I am not so keen to support your thread which I feel is grounded in a basis of hate for private car ownership more than anything else, a proposition I can't support or agree with.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Well, several cars, then.


So you didn't lie, and you know it isn't possible to check blind spots, etc, because it's physically impossible?


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> So you didn't lie, and you know it isn't possible to check blind spots, etc, because it's physically impossible?



Try reading back what you actually wrote.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

8ball said:


> Try reading back what you actually wrote.


Try answering the question.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> No space for cycle paths but they can take up a whole lane queuing for a f**king Mcdonalds :



Fucking cretins


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> I am sure if I go looking for it I will find plenty but I am not so keen to support your thread which I feel is grounded in a basis of hate for private car ownership more than anything else, a proposition I can't support or agree with.


I think your inability to provide such data supports one of the premises of my thread, which is that cars endanger the lives of pedestrians.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> No space for cycle paths but they can take up a whole lane queuing for a f**king Mcdonalds :


Note that cyclists can bypass the queue nonetheless though


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Note that cyclists can bypass the queue nonetheless though


No need for fewer cars then. Just let the cyclists bypass them.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think your inability to provide such data supports one of the premises of my thread, which is that cars endanger the lives of pedestrians.


You could find such data were you motivated to look, it suits your purpose not to look.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2020)

I think improvements in vehicle safety (for pedestrians) might be another one I don't agree with teuchter on. Or at least am not convinced by. But it's not _that_ relevant in any case. I mean there are still definitely 26,000 killed or seriously injured every year. As long as you have a human behind the wheel, they're going to fuck up.

And it has precisely no bearing on pollution, congestion, shitty infrastructure etc.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

Cid said:


> I think improvements in vehicle safety (for pedestrians) might be another one I don't agree with teuchter on. Or at least am not convinced by. But it's not _that_ relevant in any case. I mean there are still definitely 26,000 killed or seriously injured every year. As long as you have a human behind the wheel, they're going to fuck up.
> 
> And it has precisely no bearing on pollution, congestion, shitty infrastructure etc.


I'm don't doubt that there have been improvements in vehicle design that are aimed at reducing the severity of consequences for pedestrians. I just wonder if any attempt has been made to quantify these improvements. Are pedestrians significantly safer now than they were 10 or 20 years ago? This is not something I've ever been able to find much info on - there is much more info on improvements in safety for vehicle occupants.

Recently there have been some studies saying that pedestrian fatalities have gone up in the USA - in the last ten years or so - and have linked this with increasing SUV use.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 3, 2020)

Knowledge centre | Brake
					

Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages




					www.brake.org.uk
				












						Reported Road Casualties Great Britain - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm don't doubt that there have been improvements in vehicle design that are aimed at reducing the severity of consequences for pedestrians. I just wonder if any attempt has been made to quantify these improvements. Are pedestrians significantly safer now than they were 10 or 20 years ago? This is not something I've ever been able to find much info on - there is much more info on improvements in safety for vehicle occupants.
> 
> Recently there have been some studies saying that pedestrian fatalities have gone up in the USA - in the last ten years or so - and have linked this with increasing SUV use.



I believe my car is the only model with a pedestrian airbag, despite it being launched in 2012. I believe it was considered too costly as it costs £2k to replace if activated in a minor shunt. The focus is now on softer bonnet areas and automatic detection and braking.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Knowledge centre | Brake
> 
> 
> Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages
> ...











						Reported Road Casualties Great Britain - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2020)

weltweit said:


> Knowledge centre | Brake
> 
> 
> Learn about safe and healthy mobility with our fact and advice pages
> ...


It needs a dedicated study. We need to know how many pedestrians are killed or injured each year, but it needs to be set in the context of various other things, for example, over time the number of people making journeys on foot has declined, largely as a result of the increase in car use. So a larger number of fatalities in, say, the 1980s than today would not necessarily mean that the roads are now safer for pedestrians - it might just mean that fewer people dare being pedestrians.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It needs a dedicated study. We need to know how many pedestrians are killed or injured each year, but it needs to be set in the context of various other things, for example, over time the number of people making journeys on foot has declined, largely as a result of the increase in car use. So a larger number of fatalities in, say, the 1980s than today would not necessarily mean that the roads are now safer for pedestrians - it might just mean that fewer people dare being pedestrians.





			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755698/rrcgb-2017.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2020)




----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755698/rrcgb-2017.pdf



Here are pedestrian fatalities from 2007-2017.



They seem to follow quite a similar line to road fatalities in general - an ongoing reduction until around 2010 after which they plateau. The increase towards the end of the period appears to correlate with an increase in walking.

It would be interesting to understand what happened, or stopped happening, around 2010 that explains this.

These charts indicate that for a journey of the same length, you are about 15 times more likely to be killed if you are a pedestrian, than if you are in a car. Those figures might make car travel look safer than it is for comparable journeys - because there is a high mileage on motorways which are quite safe, and are not used by pedestrians. But in broad terms, if you want to make a one mile trip to the shop, it seems that you are very significantly more likely to be killed or injured if you walk, than if you drive. And that would support my assertion that road safety measures are focussed too much on vehicle occupants rather than other road users.


----------



## Doodler (Jun 4, 2020)

Similiar to 'dark skies' campaigns against light pollution, it would be good to have a few areas, such as in the national parks, where there is a ban on all noisy transport using internal combustion engines, to include motorbikes, cars, lorries, and light aircraft. The latter in particular are nearly always flown as a hobby, one which impinges on the tranquility of wide areas of land.


----------



## Marty1 (Jun 8, 2020)

This is quite interesting even inspirational:



Could have been posted to a few other threads but seems relevant enough here.

Im feeling very pro-bicycle at the moment as my new one arrived recently and I’m loving it.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here are pedestrian fatalities from 2007-2017.
> 
> View attachment 216016
> 
> ...



Deaths per billion passenger miles are much lower than I'd expect for pedestrians.
Pretty sure I'd dead after walking a billion miles.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 8, 2020)

I went for a long bike ride today, roads were really clear, it was lovely.


----------



## Winot (Jun 11, 2020)

Interesting subversion of car advertising


----------



## T & P (Jun 11, 2020)

I don't think many of the folk who enjoy these kind of adverts will have much chance of being swayed by the one above, though...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2020)

Interesting bit of an interview with the designer of Sim City

*



			Geoff Manaugh
		
Click to expand...

*


> : While you were making those measurements of different real-world cities, did you discover any surprising patterns or spatial relationships?
> 
> *Librande*: Yes, definitely. I think the biggest one was the parking lots. When I started measuring out our local grocery store, which I don't think of as being that big, I was blown away by how much more space was parking lot rather than actual store. That was kind of a problem, because we were originally just going to model real cities, but we quickly realized there were way too many parking lots in the real world and that our game was going to be really boring if it was proportional in terms of parking lots.
> 
> ...







__





						The Philosophy of SimCity: An Interview With the Game's Lead Designer
					

Stone Librande talks about parking lots, governing styles, and how Google Earth shaped the Sim's new world.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## two sheds (Jul 1, 2020)

Better car ad here 









						France bans Dutch bike TV ad for creating 'climate of fear' about cars
					

Ad for VanMoof bike unfairly discredits automobile industry, says watchdog




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## scifisam (Jul 1, 2020)

Winot said:


> Another issue arising from car dependency and the associated assumptions is the effect on the building of infrastructure and how it favours motor vehicles over cyclists.
> 
> A simple example - the south London junction shown here has temporary traffic lights at the moment because there is construction work going on. The temporary lights for the northbound traffic have been positioned level with the start of the cycle box, i.e. level with the stop line for the cars. Accordingly if you are in the ASL box you cannot see when the lights change. I doubt the person setting up the lights deliberately chose to endanger cyclists; more likely they just didn't think at all because they are not a cyclist and are not properly trained to think about cyclists.



That is incredibly stupid. Either put the traffic lights further forward or, if that's not possible, put an ASL box behind the traffic lights. Tape put down on the road rather than repainting. If drivers can cope with temporary traffic lights they can cope with temporary ASL boxes.

Helmets are a stupid idea though. Drivers are generally at the least risk in collisions, aren't they? Yup, just checked.

If the idea is to require all passengers to wear helmets too, since they're at greater risk, then that's even more unworkable. Ill-fitting helmets would cause more injuries than they'd prevent.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Better car ad here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's quite amazing. They are squeamish about the imagery of some smoking factory chimneys. I hope they take a balanced approach and also ban all car adverts that show them speeding along empty country roads, driving around on beaches and so on.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> driving around on beaches and so on.



Yes that's always annoyed me, cars have got no fucking place on beaches. Among other places they've got no fucking place on.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

What other product is depicted in adverts in a less realistic way than the car? Nearly always the car is shown in a narcissist's paradise of empty streets or on wilderness roads or salt flats, with no other vehicle in sight. Even Ferrero Rocher probably really have been served at an ambassador's party.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> What other product is depicted in adverts in a less realistic way than the car? Nearly always the car is shown in a narcissist's paradise of empty streets or on wilderness roads or salt flats, with no other vehicle in sight. Even Ferrero Rocher probably really have been served at an ambassador's party.



 Toilet paper, high street bank managers, Coca Cola.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Toilet paper, high street bank managers, Coca Cola.



Toilet paper, out of 'taste and decency', like the blue liquid in tampon ads. Bank managers - depicted as recognisable human beings albeit strange and unctuous. Coca Cola - the ice cubes in the ads may be made of glass, but it is undoubtedly drunk in real life by skateboarders and foreign exchange students.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> What other product is depicted in adverts in a less realistic way than the car?


You mean apart from almost every advert ever?


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You mean apart from almost every advert ever?



You're claiming car adverts are _more_ realistic than other adverts? In which parallel universe?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> You're claiming car adverts are _more_ realistic than other adverts? In which parallel universe?


In the universe where you spray some Lynx into your armpits and you're suddenly surrounded by hundreds of horny women.
At least there's a chance of being on an empty road in a car.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> In the universe where you spray some Lynx into your armpits and you're suddenly surrounded by hundreds of horny women.



Your hopeful imagination is embellishing things. Lynx adverts use irony and humour so they don't appear too preposterous.

(Car adverts almost never use humour.)


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> Your hopeful imagination is embellishing things. Lynx adverts use irony and humour so they don't appear too preposterous.
> 
> (Car adverts almost never use humour.)


You need to move out of the city. I can get in my car now and find a 'car advert' road within 2 minutes. In fact, I have one right outside my front door.
Not everyone lives in London.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You need to move out of the city. I can get in my car now and find a 'car advert' road within 2 minutes. In fact, I have one right outside my front door.
> Not everyone lives in London.



I don't live in London. Congratulations on your dream home.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> I don't live in London. Congratulations on your dream home.


It's not my dream home. Far from it. It just has an empty road outside, with a lovely tunnel of trees arching over the road. Nice, empty roads aren't unrealistic.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's not my dream home. Far from it. It just has an empty road outside, with a lovely tunnel of trees arching over the road. Nice, empty roads aren't unrealistic.



What percentage of car journeys in Britain take place on otherwise empty roads? Or on salt flats? Or in eerily deserted cities?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> What percentage of car journeys in Britain take place on otherwise empty roads? Or on salt flats? Or in eerily deserted cities?


Ah, so we've've gone from it being completely unrealistic (in any part of the world), to it only being realistic some of the time, in Britain.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2020)

Why do adverts need to be realistic? Who smiles while going through a personal loan application in a bank branch? Which dogs bound in slow motion across a field every time you feed them? 

Perhaps adverts should be renamed “manufacturer updates on new products introduced to the market which may be useful to you” and for cars could feature a specification sheet shown on the screen for three minutes while being read out by Jeremy Irons.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, so we've've gone from it being completely unrealistic (in any part of the world), to it only being realistic some of the time, in Britain.



Straw man. I never claimed that car ads were completely unrealistic, just that they were less realistic than other ads. 

A better choice of words would have been 'divorced from reality' or 'less true to life' compared to other adverts. 

The reality of driving in Britain is ludicrously different from the unobstructed, depopulated world depicted.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why do adverts need to be realistic? Who smiles while going through a personal loan application in a bank branch? Which dogs bound in slow motion across a field every time you feed them?
> 
> Perhaps adverts should be renamed “manufacturer updates on new products introduced to the market which may be useful to you” and for cars could feature a specification sheet shown on the screen for three minutes while being read out by Jeremy Irons.



I don't think they need to be anything except truthful about stated facts like fuel consumption. I find the adverts ludicrous. If people are taken in by them, that's their problem.


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2020)

Advertising for many cars (in particular performance/ SUV types) can certainly be idealistic in the extreme, and promote fun and adventure as much as the tight rules governing car advertising will allow, which is not a lot.

But not all car advertising is like that. Plenty of adverts for some models focus solely or mostly on the vehicle’s safety features, which is a major selling point for a great many drivers. Other advertise the alleged superior engineering quality and reliability of their products. Others their affordability. By no means all car advertising is geared towards performance, speed or adventure.

Banning that bicycle advert is fucking ludicrous though


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2020)

Ideally car adverts would just be banned altogether, like adverts for cigarettes. I think we can all agree that no one can plausibly argue that cars are less harmful than cigarettes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think we can all agree that no one can plausibly argue that cars are less harmful than cigarettes.


Difficult to make meaningful comparisons really. I think we can all agree that most V8 Jags are more harmful than a packet of Silk Cut Blue but where do we stand on something a bit more complicated such as Capstan Full Strength v Nissan Micra?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 1, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Difficult to make meaningful comparisons really. I think we can all agree that most V8 Jags are more harmful than a packet of Silk Cut Blue but where do we stand on something a bit more complicated such as Capstan Full Strength v Nissan Micra?



Is the micra an auto (what a car by the way)?  Fuel consumption was never great on them.  Do they still sell Senior Service tabs?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Difficult to make meaningful comparisons really. I think we can all agree that most V8 Jags are more harmful than a packet of Silk Cut Blue but where do we stand on something a bit more complicated such as Capstan Full Strength v Nissan Micra?


Or a Rollie vs a Roller.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> Straw man. I never claimed that car ads were completely unrealistic, just that they were less realistic than other ads.
> 
> A better choice of words would have been 'divorced from reality' or 'less true to life' compared to other adverts.
> 
> The reality of driving in Britain is ludicrously different from the unobstructed, depopulated world depicted.









Advertisement:






Not an advertisement:


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Advertisement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





 Burger photography is a minor artform.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> Burger photography is a minor artform.


A friend of mine makes his living doing that (well, not just burgers, but food)


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> A friend of mine makes his living doing that (well, not just burgers, but food)



There must be all sorts of little tricks and trade secrets involved. Funny when restaurants have a go at taking their own food photos for their menus, usually doesnt turn out very well.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2020)

Orang Utan said:


> A friend of mine makes his living doing that (well, not just burgers, but food)


A friend's wife shoots tv food adverts. She did one for Sainsbury's at xmas which featured a cooked Turkey and apparently they painted the bird with washing up liquid to get the right sheen on it under the studio lights.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2020)

Doodler said:


> There must be all sorts of little tricks and trade secrets involved. Funny when restaurants have a go at taking their own food photos for their menus, usually doesnt turn out very well.


The trick is that most of the food isn't actually food, at least not the food it's supposed to be. Even simple things like frosting on the outside of glasses, it's hairspray or something similar. Mashed potato is used as ice cream. It's all a lie.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> The trick is that most of the food isn't actually food. Even simple things like frosting on the outside of glasses, it's hairspray or something similar. Mashed potato is used as ice cream. It's all a lie.



Did suspect that when the Lindt Master Chocolatier lovingly pours molten chocolate into a mould it might really be brown paint.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2020)

More than a third of city space in Scotland taken up by cars and parking, study shows
					

It found that roads, car parks and on-street parking account for between 34.5% and 41% of space in the cities.




					www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com
				






> *Roads and car parking take up more than a third of space in two of Scotland's biggest cities, analysis by the Scottish Parliament has found.*
> 
> Scotland's Futures Forum - Holyrood's think tank - used three case studies in Glasgow and Dundee to find how much space is dedicated to private vehicles in comparison to other forms of transport.
> It found that roads, car parks and on-street parking account for between 34.5% and 41% of space in the cities.
> ...



Good to see this point gradually being more often made in mainstream news.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 15, 2020)

Unsurprisingly, car drivers are creating loads of microplastic pollution.  Another good reason to ban them.









						Car tyres are major source of ocean microplastics – study
					

Wind-borne microplastics are a bigger source of ocean pollution than rivers, say scientists




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Yes that's always annoyed me, cars have got no fucking place on beaches.


Beach buggies?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

as long as they don't leak oil or petrol I suppose


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Unsurprisingly, car drivers are creating loads of microplastic pollution.  Another good reason to ban them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is true. I sometimes drive a car, and have devoted the last thirty years of my life to creating microplastics in my spare time. I even have a lab & workshop set up in the shed to increase productivity.

If only they fitted those evil private cars the same magic tyres they fit to the Ubers, taxis and minicabs that take us to the airport or from the nightclub, the club car vehicles we hire for pennies at weekends and drive almost as frequently as others drive their privately owned cars, the vans who deliver our online shopping, the motorcycles who bring our takeaways, the buses and coaches that take us places, the council vehicles that take away our rubbish, or the utility fleet cars that help mantain our facilities and utilities, there'd be no microplastics in the ocean. Damn you, privately owned cars!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Unsurprisingly, car drivers are creating loads of microplastic pollution.  Another good reason to ban them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a good job you have those new infiniternal tyres on your bike. The ones that last forever.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2020)

More to the point .... who fucking cares? The function of tyres are to keep the car stuck to the road under aggressive acceleration, whilst cornering at high speed, and when you hit the brakes to avoid chipping your paintwork on some dozy cycle wanker. When I'm doing 130mph+ around twisting country roads I want to be on tyres I can trust. Bollocks to the oceans.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> More to the point .... who fucking cares? The function of they tyres are to keep the car stuck to the road under aggressive acceleration, whilst cornering at high speed, and when you hit the brakes to avoid some dozy cycle wanker. When I'm doing 130mph+ around twisting country roads I want to be on tyres I can trust. Bollocks to the oceans.


Exactly. Nice sticky rubber is essential. Although it does get a bit costly when you're going through a rear tyre on a hayabusa every 500 miles, and getting about 12mpg. You'd think bikes would be cheap to run but once you start using them as they're meant to be used...


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

If cars were silent, had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power, people would still object to them despite all the benefits they provide for people. There would be campaigns to have them banned due to their aesthetic disagreeability and deleterious effects on the mosquito population.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Envious people would still object to them


FFY


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Exactly. Nice sticky rubber is essential. Although it does get a bit costly when you're going through a rear tyre on a hayabusa every 500 miles, and getting about 12mpg. You'd think bikes would be cheap to run but once you start using them as they're meant to be used...


I ran some Yokos on my S4 that were almost like chewing gum, especially in the summer. Not cheap at £300 a pop (and this was in the early 90s) and they lasted for about 2000 miles but they were the best performance upgrade I ever made to a car.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If cars were silent, had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power, people would still object to them despite all the benefits they provide for people.


That's correct. 

Your list of "solved problems" demonstrates that you have failed to comprehend the scope of the issues that they cause.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I ran some Yokos on my S4 that were almost like chewing gum, especially in the summer. Not cheap at £300 a pop (and this was in the early 90s) and they lasted for about 2000 miles but they were the best performance upgrade I ever made to a car.


All sports bike tyres are like that. When the contact patch is the size of a match box, that bit of rubber better be good. It's amazing really that that little bit of rubber manages to retain traction at 200mph.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's correct.
> 
> Your list of "solved problems" demonstrates that you have failed to comprehend the scope of the issues that they cause.



What about the benefits? Surely the benefits they provide to people should be balanced against the problems - at some stage as problems associated with cars are solved even the most anti-car person should agree that cars offer a net benefit to society. As cars improve the arguments deployed against cars could become equally valid against, for example, houses of more than 200sqft, or sewers.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

Pleased I don't live in Russia (for other reasons too), they use brake pads with asbestos in still


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2020)

Everything causes 'issues'. Every single leisure and pleasurable activity or product we consume causes 'issues' if one looks hard enough. Therefore let's ban everything.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

Yep I'm with that totally. Make cigarettes compulsory


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> What about the benefits? Surely the benefits they provide to people should be balanced against the problems - at some stage as problems associated with cars are solved even the most anti-car person should agree that cars offer a net benefit to society. As cars improve the arguments deployed against cars could become equally valid against, for example, houses of more than 200sqft, or sewers.


That's all correct.

I look forward to seeing how the problems associated with cars, including the ones you didn't include in your list, are going to be solved through measures that don't involve reducing private car use.

I predict that magical hovering technology will improve at a faster rate than the quality of T & P's posts on this subject.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's all correct.
> 
> I look forward to seeing how the problems associated with cars, including the ones you didn't include in your list, are going to be solved through measures that don't involve reducing private car use.



You do? The main problem for decades was asserted to be exhaust emissions, but that is clearly on the way to being solved. At what point will the considerable benefits outweigh the remaining problems? We surely won't need hover cars to achieve that, unless of course you haven't accounted for the benefits as thoroughly as you've accounted for the problems.


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's all correct.
> 
> I look forward to seeing how the problems associated with cars, including the ones you didn't include in your list, are going to be solved through measures that don't involve reducing private car use.
> 
> I predict that magical hovering technology will improve at a faster rate than the quality of T & P's posts on this subject.


Are you in favour of a total ban on alcohol in this country? Because it already causes far bigger problems to society than cars do as it is, let alone if cars "had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power", as in the scenario proposed by platinumsage that hilariously still is not good enough...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You do? The main problem for decades was asserted to be exhaust emissions, but that is clearly on the way to being solved. At what point will the considerable benefits outweigh the remaining problems? We surely won't need hover cars to achieve that, unless of course you haven't accounted for the benefits as thoroughly as you've accounted for the problems.


Have you read any of this thread?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You do? The main problem for decades was asserted to be exhaust emissions, but that is clearly on the way to being solved. At what point will the considerable benefits outweigh the remaining problems? We surely won't need hover cars to achieve that, unless of course you haven't accounted for the benefits as thoroughly as you've accounted for the problems.



Although (because EVs are heavier) ... 



> the increased popularity of electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic.











						Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles
					

Particulate matter (PM) exposure has been linked to adverse health effects by numerous studies. Therefore, governments have been heavily incentivising…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

T & P said:


> Are you in favour of a total ban on alcohol in this country?


I'd certainly be very interested in an alternative to alcohol that eliminated most of the problems associated with it, which still allowed you to enjoy most of the benefits associated with it, and then offered some further benefits on top.

Have you got this alternative ready for use and discussion yet?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you read any of this thread?



I think I got bored when either you or someone else suggested building more Park & Ride car parks would help solve the problem of people driving. I think it was around page 94. 

I suppose I shouldn’t have expected any sort of risk-benefit analysis on a thread with “propaganda” in the title.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

Cars were effectively banned when cv struck weren't they? (Haven't got a car so don't really know, and I've not followed the thread for a while so don't know whether this has been addressed). 

So it is possible - banning them would just extend this.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> I think I got bored when either you or someone else suggested building more Park & Ride car parks would help solve the problem of people driving. I think it was around page 94.
> 
> I suppose I shouldn’t have expected any sort of risk-benefit analysis on a thread with “propaganda” in the title.



Yeah, I argued against park and ride as a solution. You're not actually interested - fair enough. And yes, well spotted on the title.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, I argued against park and ride as a solution. You're not actually interested - fair enough. And yes, well spotted on the title.



I’ll file the thread away for reading in its entirety next time I have to wait for a bus or hire car to arrive.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Although (because EVs are heavier) ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We could go back to wooden rimmed carts, although someone will no doubt protest against that on the basis that wood dust is a Group 1 carcinogen.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> We could go back to wooden rimmed carts, although someone will no doubt protest against that on the basis that wood dust is a Group 1 carcinogen.



Your original post:



platinumsage said:


> The main problem for decades was asserted to be exhaust emissions, but that is clearly on the way to being solved.



The link I posted showed this was actually bollocks because non-exhaust PM emissions are now much higher than exhaust emissions. Your correct response would have been "Ah sorry I was talking bollocks I'll withdraw that". 

Second time you've shown you're not interested in actual discussion and as last time I'm not going to bother engaging with you because you're only interested in arguments, which are just ego-fuelled and have no profit to anyone.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Cars were effectively banned when cv struck weren't they? (Haven't got a car so don't really know, and I've not followed the thread for a while so don't know whether this has been addressed).
> 
> So it is possible - banning them would just extend this.



Use was certainly reduced quite a bit initially. But in fact what happened was that existing inequalities were exaggerated: car owners, after a while, were basically told they could go where they want, while the rest of us were told not to go anywhere. So, car owners could drive hundreds of miles to beaches and the like, and those who didn't own cars could go to a park within walking distance of their doorstep. Dominic Cummings took full advantage of this.

Reasons for discouraging public transport use included keeping trains and buses clear for essential workers to use, protecting staff who work on it, and of course avoiding crowding situations where infection could spread.

All these reasons are fair enough, to some extent. But it was notable that the same thinking was barely applied to car travel. No thought given to the benefits of keeping roads quiet for those whose only choice was to navigate them on foot or bicycle. Nor the impact on all the workers who are needed to keep the road infrastructure functioning. Nor the fact that unlimited travel distances were going to inevitably lead to crowding in certain popular locations.

If I were Prime Minister, I would do the following now, to redress this inequality. I would designate 2 out of 3 weekends for the remainder of the summer as "car free". The rules would be reversed: no non-essential travel by car, anywhere. Those who did not own a car would be given priority access to a system where seats could be booked on trains and buses to anywhere in the UK. There would be a limited number of seats allocated per vehicle, to guard against overcrowding on board. Those who, in addition to not owning a car, live in flats with no outdoors space, would be given free tickets. Britain's non car-owning people could then go and enjoy beaches and natural beauty spots anywhere they liked, and enjoy a taste of what car owners could do throughout the lockdown period. As a bonus, none of these places would have SUVs parked everywhere, and the air quality and noise levels would be even better than usual.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you read any of this thread?


LOL!

Nobody has!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

two sheds said:


> Your original post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you missed my point. Exhaust emissions were seen as the big problem. Once those were brought down and on the way to being eliminated, then that enabled another, previously less serious problem to come to the fore. Non-exhaust emissions of particulates are only higher than exhaust emissions now because of the tremendous progress that has been made in reducing exhaust emissions.

At what point will the level of exhaust plus non-exhaust emissions be acceptable given the benefits that cars provide? Some would say zero, but that is not rational and is not applied to other areas of daily life, such as the size of housing. And make no mistake, the benefits of high-speed load-carrying personal transportation are absolutely massive.


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd certainly be very interested in an alternative to alcohol that eliminated most of the problems associated with it, which still allowed you to enjoy most of the benefits associated with it, and then offered some further benefits on top.
> 
> Have you got this alternative ready for use and discussion yet?


So given that no such alternative exists, it is, at the present time, a binary issue. Would you ban alcohol if you had the power to do so? Because it certainly creates a great deal of problems.

Incidentally, assuming you were serious I'd be interested to know what issues would remain in your mind with cars that "had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power" that were so significant you would still advocate banning them. Because I struggle to think of any...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> You do? The main problem for decades was asserted to be exhaust emissions, but that is clearly on the way to being solved. At what point will the considerable benefits outweigh the remaining problems? We surely won't need hover cars to achieve that, unless of course you haven't accounted for the benefits as thoroughly as you've accounted for the problems.


The benefits of private cars are tiny compared to the problems they cause.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The benefits of private cars are tiny compared to the problems they cause.



How have you quantified the benefits to arrive at that assertion?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How have you quantified the benefits to arrive at that assertion?


It’s not exactly that radical a conclusion to come to.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s not exactly that radical a conclusion to come to.



It's a highly radical position, especially when it leads to an assertion that private car use should be eliminated.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Exhaust emissions were seen as the big problem.


So you claim, but plenty of people have been banging on about all the other problems for decades. The problem is that you have not been paying attention.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> It's a highly radical position, especially when it leads to an assertion that private car use should be eliminated.


The only radical thing is that somehow we have been conditioned to accept the horror they inflict as either normal or an acceptable price to pay for them.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

T & P said:


> So given that no such alternative exists, it is, at the present time, a binary issue. Would you ban alcohol if you had the power to do so? Because it certainly creates a great deal of problems.


I don't think so. I would legalise other less harmful drugs though.



T & P said:


> Incidentally, assuming you were serious I'd be interested to know what issues would remain in your mind with cars that "had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power" that were so significant you would still advocate banning them. Because I struggle to think of any...


If you can't think of any, then you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to any of the relevant points made on this thread and many others, over and over again.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> LOL!
> 
> Nobody has!


This is why there are a lot of people who still haven't realised that I'm right on this subject.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The only radical thing is that somehow we have been conditioned to accept the horror they inflict as either normal or an acceptable price to pay for them.



There is always a balance between costs and benefits. It could easily be argued that car ownership should be reduced, by for example, crushing supercars owned in London by the spoiled kids of Saudi oil millionaires. But there comes a point where you're removing a Volvo from a 70-year old farmer in rural Queensland who then has no means to leave their property.

By properly assessing the benefits of car ownership, it should be possible to determine when private car ownership should be encouraged, and when it should be discouraged. This could then be done in such a way to bring the most benefit and the least harm. Without such an assessment we'll get crude measures such a anti-car taxation penalising those on low incomes in areas of low population density, while middle-class city dwellers reap the rewards.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is why there are a lot of people who still haven't realised that I'm right on this subject.


Don't be daft.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> By properly assessing the benefits of car ownership, it should be possible to determine when private car ownership should be encouraged, and when it should be discouraged.


Go on then, what are your criteria?


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think so. I would legalise other less harmful drugs though.
> 
> 
> If you can't think of any, then you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to any of the relevant points made on this thread and many others, over and over again.


Or perhaps no points of merit were made, certainly in the scenario when we remove the issues of pollution, congestion, and accidents.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Go on then, what are your criteria?



As I said, it needs a proper assessment.

However you started this thread with the aim of "eliminating the private car from the planet forever" so you presumably don't see any way in which private car ownership could be of net benefit to anyone or to society.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As I said, it needs a proper assessment.
> 
> However you started this thread with the aim of "eliminating the private car from the planet forever" so you presumably don't see any way in which private car ownership could be of net benefit to anyone or to society.


Oh their benefits to an _individual_ are quite clear. That’s the entire problem.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

If you want to eliminate something that is so beneficial to e.g. a billion people, enabling them to work, see family and countless other things, with consequential benefits to society, you really are going to need a better reason than "but look at all the bad things it also causes".


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As I said, it needs a proper assessment.
> 
> However you started this thread with the aim of "eliminating the private car from the planet forever" so you presumably don't see any way in which private car ownership could be of net benefit to anyone or to society.


That is what I called my "long term agenda" and it will probably depend on technological changes and not be possible within my lifetime. I explained a couple of posts later that my more immediate aim is a reduction in car dependency.

So, have you done a proper assessment?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That is what I called my "long term agenda" and it will probably depend on technological changes and not be possible within my lifetime. I explained a couple of posts later that my more immediate aim is a reduction in car dependency.
> 
> So, have you done a proper assessment?



Of course I haven’t, because i don‘t have the credentials necessary to obtain research funding on that topic.

I have however conducted an assessment of your contributions to this thread and have found no valid argument for eliminating car ownership (or reducing it as forcibly as you appear to advocate)

For example, this is why you bumped the thread recently:



teuchter said:


> More than a third of city space in Scotland taken up by cars and parking, study shows
> 
> 
> It found that roads, car parks and on-street parking account for between 34.5% and 41% of space in the cities.
> ...



Why is it a bad thing that a third of a city (plus the railway line and bus station etc) is allocated to transportation? Should we be equally outraged that more than a third is devoted to housing, and seek to eliminate houses larger than 200sqft for example?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Why is it a bad thing that a third of a city (plus the railway line and bus station etc) is allocated to transportation? Should we be equally outraged that more than a third is devoted to housing, and seek to eliminate houses larger than 200sqft for example?



It's not saying that a third of the city is allocated to transportation - it's saying it's allocated to car use. A large proportion of space is given over to uses that exclude people. The space could instead be used for things that provide a wider benefit. And the more space that's dedicated to car users, the less convenient everything is for anyone else. Ever visited a supermarket by bus, where you have have to walk across a vast car park to get between the door and the bus stop?

Yes in principle we should aim for greater equality in housing too. Yes we should be outraged that people have to live in overcrowded, poorly maintained flats while others knock about in big properties set in large grounds with multiple cars parked up in their garage.

I'm not sure where your 200sqft comes from.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The benefits of private cars are tiny compared to the problems they cause.


No they're not.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's not saying that a third of the city is allocated to transportation - it's saying it's allocated to car use. A large proportion of space is given over to uses that exclude people. The space could instead be used for things that provide a wider benefit. And the more space that's dedicated to car users, the less convenient everything is for anyone else. Ever visited a supermarket by bus, where you have have to walk across a vast car park to get between the door and the bus stop?
> 
> Yes in principle we should aim for greater equality in housing too. Yes we should be outraged that people have to live in overcrowded, poorly maintained flats while others knock about in big properties set in large grounds with multiple cars parked up in their garage.
> 
> I'm not sure where your 200sqft comes from.



Space in a city allocated to car use is allocated to transportation. If you can't agree with that then it's no wonder your reasoning is flawed. Such space is part of the transportation infrastructure and does not exclude people any more than a train station excludes people who don't travel by train or a swimming spool excludes non swimmers. 

It's not equality of housing I was using as a comparison, but eliminating excessive use of space. Most houses consist mostly of empty space and are of no use to anyone other than the occupants. If their size was capped at a reasonable limit, then there would much more space available in cities for things that provide a wider benefit, not to mention the environmental benefits from reduced material use and construction time.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Space in a city allocated to car use is allocated to transportation. If you can't agree with that then it's no wonder your reasoning is flawed. Such space is part of the transportation infrastructure and does not exclude people any more than a train station excludes people who don't travel by train or a swimming spool excludes non swimmers.


Space allocated to car use is a subset of space allocated to transportation. The article points out the size of that exclusionary subset.

A train station does not exclude car owners, or anyone. Space dedicated to car owners excludes those who are not car owners.



platinumsage said:


> It's not equality of housing I was using as a comparison, but eliminating excessive use of space. Most houses consist mostly of empty space and are of no use to anyone other than the occupants. If their size was capped at a reasonable limit, then there would much more space available in cities for things that provide a wider benefit, not to mention the environmental benefits from reduced material use and construction time.


Correct.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Space allocated to car use is a subset of space allocated to transportation. The article points out the size of that exclusionary subset.
> 
> A train station does not exclude car owners, or anyone. Space dedicated to car owners excludes those who are not car owners.



Car space serves a significant majority of the population, just as train space and swimming pool space do.

Claiming anyone can get a train or learn to swim is no different to claiming anyone can own a car.



teuchter said:


> Correct.



Great. No one needs more than two 10ftsq rooms, so let's cap house sizes at that level and save the planet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A train station does not exclude car owners, or anyone. Space dedicated to car owners excludes those who are not car owners.


Cycle lanes take up a massively disproportionate amount of space. That space should be shared.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage there is no reasoning with Teuchter, Teuchter hates car owners because they have freedoms which non car owners don't have. And rather than bringing non car owners improvements to bring their freedoms closer to car owners, Teuchter prefers to consider removing car owners of their ownership of cars. 

Levelling down rather than levelling up is his mantra, because some people have something that is good, which not all people have, they should be prevented from enjoying it and have it removed by edict. Rather than steps be taken so that more people can enjoy the good thing.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

I hate car owners, and anyone enjoying themselves. I claim anyone can learn to swim, and that no-one needs more than 20 sqft to live in.
Fancy that.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> and that no-one needs more than 20 sqft to live in.


I'm pretty sure you drew the line there, as that would affect you.


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2020)

weltweit said:


> platinumsage there is no reasoning with Teuchter, Teuchter hates car owners because they have freedoms which non car owners don't have. And rather than bringing non car owners improvements to bring their freedoms closer to car owners, Teuchter prefers to consider removing car owners of their ownership of cars.
> 
> Levelling down rather than levelling up is his mantra, because some people have something that is good, which not all people have, they should be prevented from enjoying it and have it removed by edict. Rather than steps be taken so that more people can enjoy the good thing.



Yes more cars. That’s the answer.


----------



## Winot (Jul 15, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Space in a city allocated to car use is allocated to transportation.



Inefficiently allocated.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2020)

Winot said:


> Inefficiently allocated.




As I said the same argument could be applied to houses, shops, offices etc. For example I’d personally love it if everyone bought their tat online and the market was eliminated from my local town square, freeing up space for other uses. However I appreciate other people live their lives differently from me so I’m not going to advocate for the elimination of market stalls. Some regulations for the management of litter and noise from the market do however seem sensible.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

Winot said:


> Inefficiently allocated.




Clear evidence that people who don’t travel by car are responsible for the pandemic.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> As I said the same argument could be applied to houses, shops, offices etc. For example I’d personally love it if everyone bought their tat online and the market was eliminated from my local town square, freeing up space for other uses. However I appreciate other people live their lives differently from me so I’m not going to advocate for the elimination of market stalls. Some regulations for the management of litter and noise from the market do however seem sensible.


Imagine your local town with market stalls, selling tat, everywhere. Tat stalls all down the side of each street, and scattered around in the middle of the street too. Tat stalls outside your house. Multistorey buildings filled with tat stalls on each floor. Shops and public buildings with large areas of nothing but tat stalls in front of them. In some places, tat stalls set up in the middle of the pavement so you can't get round the side of them with a pushchair. As you move out of the immediate centre there might be some sort of ring road, with 4 lanes of tat stalls. It'll probably have been built in the 60s or 70s and a few residential streets will have been demolished to make way for people to put up as many tat stalls as possible. As you move further out you'll find buildings increasingly spaced out to make way for even larger tat stall areas, and eventually you'll find places where the buildings are smaller in area than the tat stalls compounds that surround them. You will be wondering: do we really need this many tat stalls? Isn't there a better way of doing this? You stop at a stall selling che guevara t-shirts. You've noticed a lot of other stalls selling che guevara t-shirts. There are only two t-shirts on the stall, surrounded by empty table space. You suggest the stall holder could combine their operation with some others, because maybe ten stalls worth of t-shirts would easily fit on one table and that they could organise themselves so that they took turns and everyone could work 1 day in 10. The stall holder looks at you as if you are crazy, and accuses you of trying to take away their freedom. They say you are jealous, because you don't have your own tat stall. They ask why you want to bring everyone down to your level. They suggest that some woodland on the edge of down is cleared for a new tat stall compound, and then you can set yours up there, and then everyone will be happy. It starts raining and you go home.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If cars were silent, had zero emissions, generated no particulates, were made 100% accident proof causing no injuries, ran on virtual roads by hovering above green landscapes, were grown from vats using only organic materials, were totally recyclable and ran on solar power, people would still object to them despite all the benefits they provide for people. There would be campaigns to have them banned due to their aesthetic disagreeability and deleterious effects on the mosquito population.



Remarkable foresight


----------



## Doodler (Jul 16, 2020)

Opinion piece from the New York Times:

I've seen a future without cars and it looks amazing

Requires registration with the NYT to read, but this is free and worth the minimal effort.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2020)

Automated driving electric cars/minibuses acting as a taxi service on demand for anyone who wants them? Was the suggestion I saw.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 16, 2020)

I've never learned to drive or owned a car. Sure, it's probably made a few decisions for me in life, but nothing that crucial. Whilst I understand that in our current infrastructure some people may need cars, I see neighbours viewing cars as 'essential' to drive what would be no more than a fifteen minute walk. One of my daughters friends mums seemed genuinely baffled as to how I could get to Croydon town centre if I didn't drive. . . It's like a 15 - 20 minute walk. I can still go to IKEA, the I can still get a full weeks family shopping in a rucksack. I find it utterly depressing that so much space is taken up by 'the floor is lava' road. Once again the roads round here are solid with cars, uncrossable without the pelican crossings (which are ignored by 50% of drivers). Where is everyone going? All day long? It doesn't stop.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Doodler said:


> Opinion piece from the New York Times:
> 
> I've seen a future without cars and it looks amazing
> 
> Requires registration with the NYT to read, but this is free and worth the minimal effort.



We'll still have paywalls in this amazing future, I guess.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> We'll still have paywalls in this amazing future, I guess.



You don't have to pay, so more a freewall - progress.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

Was out of London briefly yesterday and was reminded again how the often beautiful countryside of SE England is totally ruined by people constantly driving around it. Anyone who pretends that most of these people would take buses if they were available needs their head examining. They think it's just their god-given right to pop down the shops 5 miles away to get the custard they forgot, driving at 60mph along country roads to do so. They need to be stopped.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Doodler said:


> You don't have to pay, so more a freewall - progress.



Freewall.  There's a branding opportunity for Donald Trump in there somewhere.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

The begrudgery here is astounding. People who don't have cars because they either don't need them or can't pass a driving test, deciding that people who do need them and are intelligent enough to pass a driving test shouldn't be allowed to own a car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Clear evidence that people who don’t travel by car are responsible for the pandemic.


Given the current situation with the virus, it should be obvious to any fool that cars containing a single occupant is the only way forward. It's not fewer cars we need, it's more roads and more parking spaces, but when all of the shops are gone, and everyone is working from home, we'll have plenty of space in the cities for high rise car parks.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Given the current situation with the virus, it should be obvious to any fool that cars containing a single occupant is the only way forward.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

Fun and games in my town regarding parking.  Its a small riverside town and the stretch of river is very picturesque with several key landmarks but unfortunately somewhere along the way things kind of went wrong, now a large stretch of the embankment is pay and display parking bays. A total waste of a potentially beautiful riverside.

Fortunately the council are on the case.  There has been compulsory purchases of some grotty nearby buildings and the whole area is going to be redeveloped.  Yeah, it'll mostly be crazy expensive flats but that pays for the rest of the development which will include some much needed social housing and in general turn the riverside into a attraction in its own right and somewhere the town will be proud of and will attract more visitors.

What it means though is that the pay and display parking is going.  There will be quite a few resident only bays left and there are several other public car parks in what is a small town.  Of course though you can now hear the howls from the 1% who think the right to park anywhere they want is on the same level as fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression and right to liberty.  You know the type, the sort who think frequency of bin collections is a more pressing political issue than child poverty and malnourishment.

Anyway, I don't normally get involved in consultations but soon as I heard their pathetic whinging I wrote to the council to give them my full support.  It means nothing to me because I'll likely moved away long before the thing is built but you know, fuck em.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Imagine your local town with market stalls, selling tat, everywhere. Tat stalls all down the side of each street, and scattered around in the middle of the street too. Tat stalls outside your house. Multistorey buildings filled with tat stalls on each floor. Shops and public buildings with large areas of nothing but tat stalls in front of them. In some places, tat stalls set up in the middle of the pavement so you can't get round the side of them with a pushchair. As you move out of the immediate centre there might be some sort of ring road, with 4 lanes of tat stalls. It'll probably have been built in the 60s or 70s and a few residential streets will have been demolished to make way for people to put up as many tat stalls as possible. As you move further out you'll find buildings increasingly spaced out to make way for even larger tat stall areas, and eventually you'll find places where the buildings are smaller in area than the tat stalls compounds that surround them. You will be wondering: do we really need this many tat stalls? Isn't there a better way of doing this? You stop at a stall selling che guevara t-shirts. You've noticed a lot of other stalls selling che guevara t-shirts. There are only two t-shirts on the stall, surrounded by empty table space. You suggest the stall holder could combine their operation with some others, because maybe ten stalls worth of t-shirts would easily fit on one table and that they could organise themselves so that they took turns and everyone could work 1 day in 10. The stall holder looks at you as if you are crazy, and accuses you of trying to take away their freedom. They say you are jealous, because you don't have your own tat stall. They ask why you want to bring everyone down to your level. They suggest that some woodland on the edge of down is cleared for a new tat stall compound, and then you can set yours up there, and then everyone will be happy. It starts raining and you go home.



Sounds great, there must be full employment and a booming economy to keep those tat stalls in business.  Working 1 day in 10 might sound like a good idea, but when the municipal stallholders association starts allocating the best workdays based on a complex and infuriating formula, it doesn't take long before most workers end up out of pocket.

Imagine you set out from your 20sqft apartment and head down to the market to buy a che guevara t-shirt, but when you get there you find all the stalls have been replaced by a pop-up mime workshop. Not deterred you head to the bus stop, intending to visit one of the t-shirt shops located in the suburbs. After fruitlessly waiting an hour for a bus someone tells you they've been cancelled due to rioting by unemployed stall traders. You flag down a taxi. The driver says she's not allowed to go that way any more, and that since the road and pavement was replaced with an alternative transport corridor, you'll only be permitted to use the route on a unicycle (unless you're disabled in which case you can get the disabled persons bus which leaves from the town centre every second wednesday). You head home and tell your nephew that you have been unable to buy a che guevara t-shirt for his birthday because you can't ride a unicycle, but not to worry because he can share his friend's one. He tells you that's fine, because he only goes out once every ten days anyway when he gets some clothes to wear from their clothing share group. The other days if desperate he goes shopping wearing a cardboard box, but obviously only if the weather is dry.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Fun and games in my town regarding parking.  Its a small riverside town and the stretch of river is very picturesque with several key landmarks but unfortunately somewhere along the way things kind of went wrong, now a large stretch of the embankment is pay and display parking bays. A total waste of a potentially beautiful riverside.
> 
> Fortunately the council are on the case.  There has been compulsory purchases of some grotty nearby buildings and the whole area is going to be redeveloped.  Yeah, it'll mostly be crazy expensive flats but that pays for the rest of the development which will include some much needed social housing and in general turn the riverside into a attraction in its own right and somewhere the town will be proud of and will attract more visitors.


You haven't thought this through, have you, or do you actually believe that expensive housing and loads of people travelling to see some water and a bit of green is the way forward?
And what about those who like looking at cars, do their wants and needs matter less than the wants and needs of those who like looking at water? Run a bath and put some green food colouring in it if water and green are your things.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> You haven't thought this through, have you, or do you actually believe that expensive housing and loads of people travelling to see some water and a bit of green is the way forward?
> And what about those who like looking at cars, do their wants and needs matter less than the wants and needs of those who like looking at water? Run a bath and put some green food colouring in it if water and green are your things.



Every time I read one of your posts in my head I read it in the voice of a pissed up street drinker.  I do it subconsciously, strange.  Anyway, back on ignore you go. Feel free to carry on shouting into the void, like say a street drinker.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Every time I read one of your posts in my head I read it in the voice of a pissed up street drinker.  I do it subconsciously, strange.


Every time I read one of your posts I read it in the voice of Victor Meldrew.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Was out of London briefly yesterday and was reminded again how the often beautiful countryside of SE England is totally ruined by people constantly driving around it. Anyone who pretends that most of these people would take buses if they were available needs their head examining. They think it's just their god-given right to pop down the shops 5 miles away to get the custard they forgot, driving at 60mph along country roads to do so. They need to be stopped.



How did you get there? How would you have got there, and how would you buy your custard, if all the public transport was stopped?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Every time I read one of your posts I read it in the voice of Victor Meldrew.



I read your posts in the voice of George Best.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> Sounds great, there must be full employment and a booming economy to keep those tat stalls in business.  Working 1 day in 10 might sound like a good idea, but when the municipal stallholders association starts allocating the best workdays based on a complex and infuriating formula, it doesn't take long before most workers end up out of pocket.
> 
> Imagine you set out from your 20sqft apartment and head down to the market to buy a che guevara t-shirt, but when you get there you find all the stalls have been replaced by a pop-up mime workshop. Not deterred you head to the bus stop, intending to visit one of the t-shirt shops located in the suburbs. After fruitlessly waiting an hour for a bus someone tells you they've been cancelled due to rioting by unemployed stall traders. You flag down a taxi. The driver says she's not allowed to go that way any more, and that since the road and pavement was replaced with an alternative transport corridor, you'll only be permitted to use the route on a unicycle (unless you're disabled in which case you can get the disabled persons bus which leaves from the town centre every second wednesday). You head home and tell your nephew that you have been unable to buy a che guevara t-shirt for his birthday because you can't ride a unicycle, but not to worry because he can share his friend's one. He tells you that's fine, because he only goes out once every ten days anyway when he gets some clothes to wear from their clothing share group. The other days if desperate he goes shopping wearing a cardboard box, but obviously only if the weather is dry.


I can see that like weltweit you have an underlying fear that reductions in motor use are the thin end of the wedge that has full-on communism at its other end, and your freedom will indeed only be taken from your cold dead hands.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I can see that like weltweit you have an underlying fear that reductions in motor use are the thin end of the wedge that has full-on communism at its other end, and your freedom will indeed only be taken from your cold dead hands.



The thin end of the wedge for you might be the reduction in housing that sees you relocated to a soviet-style eco-shoebox, to free up urban space for "something more useful".


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I can see that like weltweit you have an underlying fear that reductions in motor use are the thin end of the wedge that has full-on communism at its other end, and your freedom will indeed only be taken from your cold dead hands.


Maybe there needs to be an alternative way of displaying and proving their masculinity and freedom?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe there needs to be an alternative way of displaying and proving their masculinity and freedom?



I have a dream that one day women will be allowed to drive cars.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> Freewall.  There's a branding opportunity for Donald Trump in there somewhere.



After careful consideration, I hope you were being serious there.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> I have a dream that one day women will be allowed to drive cars.


They do....


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> I have a dream that one day women will be allowed to drive cars.


Actually I'd probably settle simply for men to be banned from driving, because they cause the most problems, driving twice as many miles per year, and causing a disproportionately high number of traffic incidents.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They do....


Only the masculine ones, according to sleaterkinney


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 16, 2020)

Think of how much space would be saved with even a reduction in car size.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually I'd probably settle simply for men to be banned from driving, because they cause the most problems, driving twice as many miles per year, and causing a disproportionately high number of traffic incidents.



Yes, simplistic group-based solutions are what is needed.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How did you get there? How would you have got there, and how would you buy your custard, if all the public transport was stopped?



5 Miles is an ~20min cycle ride.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> How did you get there? How would you have got there, and how would you buy your custard, if all the public transport was stopped?


Train and bike was how I got there, a combination I would recommend to all able-bodied people for getting most places in the country. If you forgot the custard in your weekly shop, don't have custard that week. If you want convenience, live in denser developed areas like most people do. Then there's a shop around the corner. I would argue that most people in SE England these days choose to live in the sticks rather than in a place with amenities, and they've got used to being told they're free to make that choice as a lifestyle decision, just as they're free to make the choice to live 40 miles from their workplace as a lifestyle decision, with the only commute option being car. It's not that I would legislate against such things, but I would argue we should not be sustaining an infrastructure costing hundreds of billions of pounds in order to accommodate these selfish, destructive choices.


----------



## T & P (Jul 16, 2020)

It could be that some, many, or even most of those drivers observed 'driving in the countryside' were in fact travelling a far greater distance than a few miles, and not to buy custard either.

Very far fetched, I know. But still... did anyone actually conduct an on-the-spot survey to establish those drivers were all on a short distance shopping trip for a just a few items that could be transported on a bicycle?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

T & P said:


> It could be that some, many, or even most of those drivers observed 'driving in the countryside' were in fact travelling a far greater distance than a few miles, and not to buy custard either.
> 
> Very far fetched, I know. But still... did anyone actually conduct an on-the-spot survey to establish those drivers were all on a short distance shopping trip for a just a few items that could be transported on a bicycle?


I was brought up in the countryside, I don't need to do surveys to know the attitudes. Of course the custard example was just one example of the terrible uses of cars in the countryside. Another might be 'Oh, the queue for a table at the pub we came to for lunch is too long, let's drive ten miles up the road to the next pub we consider to have decent food'. It's an entire attitude about having the right to bomb around the countryside on the flimsiest of excuses. Then when you're challenged on the fact that you've set up your whole life so you have to drive hundreds of miles a week to get to work/do your leisure pursuits/get shopping/consume what you want, you pretend that the questioner is oppressing the poorest person in the village, who genuinely doesn't have anywhere else to move to and could probably do with some public transport.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

Let no-one say this thread doesn't do what it says in the title


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Train and bike was how I got there, a combination I would recommend to all able-bodied people for getting most places in the country. If you forgot the custard in your weekly shop, don't have custard that week. If you want convenience, live in denser developed areas like most people do. Then there's a shop around the corner. I would argue that most people in SE England these days choose to live in the sticks rather than in a place with amenities, and they've got used to being told they're free to make that choice as a lifestyle decision, just as they're free to make the choice to live 40 miles from their workplace as a lifestyle decision, with the only commute option being car. It's not that I would legislate against such things, but I would argue we should not be sustaining an infrastructure costing hundreds of billions of pounds in order to accommodate these selfish, destructive choices.


Absolute elitist bollocks. Most people live where they can afford to live. Most people can't afford to live in the middle of London.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Absolute elitist bollocks. Most people live where they can afford to live. Most people can't afford to live in the middle of London.


Most people live in towns and cities. The poor who live in the countryside need public transport. 

Also you clearly don't know the south east of England if you think the price divide is between London and the countryside.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Has anybody noticed that most of these people crying for a ban on cars are middle-class and either retired or close to retiring, with a nice big house with a garden?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> I was brought up in the countryside, I don't need to do surveys to know the attitudes. Of course the custard example was just one example of the terrible uses of cars in the countryside. Another might be 'Oh, the queue for a table at the pub we came to for lunch is too long, let's drive ten miles up the road to the next pub we consider to have decent food'. It's an entire attitude about having the right to bomb around the countryside on the flimsiest of excuses. Then when you're challenged on the fact that you've set up your whole life so you have to drive hundreds of miles a week to get to work/do your leisure pursuits/get shopping/consume what you want, you pretend that the questioner is oppressing the poorest person in the village, who genuinely doesn't have anywhere else to move to and could probably do with some public transport.



But people do have the right to drive ten miles to eat out, they always have in this country. So it's no surprise that they act as if they do.

In fact the only country I can think of where people may not have that right is North Korea.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> But people do have the right to drive ten miles to eat out, they always have in this country. So it's no surprise that they act as if they do.
> 
> In fact the only country I can think of where people may not have that right is North Korea.


People used to have the right to harm the health of others by smoking in a pub. Thankfully times move on. What other forms of physical harm to others do you think we should continue enabling for the sake of our glorious traditions of freedom?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> What other forms of physical harm to others do you think we should continue enabling for the sake of our glorious traditions of freedom?



This kind of whingeing helps me think of a few...


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> In fact the only country I can think of where people may not have that right is North Korea.



How bad is it if I catch a tram to restaurant five miles away when there's a perfectly good restaurant 200 yards from my house?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> People used to have the right to harm the health of others by smoking in a pub. Thankfully times move on. What other forms of physical harm to others do you think we should continue enabling for the sake of our glorious traditions of freedom?


People still have a right to pollute the atmosphere with their selfish flights abroad. Are you one of these people?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

And the right to eat bad food and neglect to do any exercise, placing stress on the NHS.
And the right to destroy the planet by turning their heating way up and leaving the lights on.
And the right to ride a motorbike, potentially orphaning their family (and they're not even required to be on the donor register).

IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> And the right to eat bad food and neglect to do any exercise, placing stress on the NHS.
> And the right to destroy the planet by turning their heating way up and leaving the lights on.
> And the right to ride a motorbike, potentially orphaning their family (and they're not even required to be on the donor register).
> 
> IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!


It is indeed outrageous that people are allowed to do things.

I have to go and make a baby panda's eye and swan liver paté sandwich now, but I'll be back later.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> And the right to eat bad food and neglect to do any exercise, placing stress on the NHS.
> And the right to destroy the planet by turning their heating way up and leaving the lights on.
> And the right to ride a motorbike, potentially orphaning their family (and they're not even required to be on the donor register).
> 
> IT'S AN OUTRAGE!!!


Well yes, you correctly highlight that we will have to change our entire lifestyles if we wish to make the planet livable in the future. I hope we can largely do it by positive reinforcement of more local and public transport-based ways of living, rather than reinforcing car-based and plane-based lifestyles. But I suspect some people will cling on to their right to ruin the planet so strongly that we may have to legislate against them eventually. Don't be that person.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> People used to have the right to harm the health of others by smoking in a pub. Thankfully times move on. What other forms of physical harm to others do you think we should continue enabling for the sake of our glorious traditions of freedom?



How many people die in the clothing industry worldwide each year, what about other industries such as farming? Should we ban all these things or try to make them safer?



Brainaddict said:


> Well yes, you correctly highlight that we will have to change our entire lifestyles if we wish to make the planet livable in the future. I hope we can largely do it by positive reinforcement of more local and public transport-based ways of living, rather than reinforcing car-based and plane-based lifestyles. But I suspect some people will cling on to their right to ruin the planet so strongly that we may have to legislate against them eventually. Don't be that person.



If that's your aim I'd start by banning useless things such as football - no utility value, massive stadia taking up space in most cities and towns, causes lots of pointless travel both within and between countries, as well as alcohol-fueled violence, nationalism, racism and homophobia. It's a planet-killing hate machine and must be stopped.


----------



## T & P (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If that's your aim I'd start by banning useless things such as football - no utility value, massive stadia taking up space in most cities and towns, causes lots of pointless travel both within and between countries, as well as alcohol-fueled violence, nationalism, racism and homophobia. It's a planet-killing hate machine and must be stopped.


 I could be wrong but I suspect teuchter would be on board with this one...


----------



## T & P (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Well yes, you correctly highlight that we will have to change our entire lifestyles if we wish to make the planet livable in the future. I hope we can largely do it by positive reinforcement of more local and public transport-based ways of living, rather than reinforcing car-based and plane-based lifestyles. But I suspect some people will cling on to their right to ruin the planet so strongly that we may have to legislate against them eventually. Don't be that person.


If pollution is your main gripe about car usage, which is fair dos, presumably you have no objection to people owning and driving (from time to time at the least) electric cars?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If that's your aim I'd start by banning useless things such as football - no utility value, massive stadia taking up space in most cities and towns, causes lots of pointless travel both within and between countries, as well as alcohol-fueled violence, nationalism, racism and homophobia. It's a planet-killing hate machine and must be stopped.



I really enjoyed the break from football.  One of very few good things to come from this pandemic.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

T & P said:


> I could be wrong but I suspect teuchter would be on board with this one...


I'm certain he would be. It involves people enjoying themselves.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm certain he would be. It involves people enjoying themselves.



I'm coming over all "crusty reminiscer" now, but I can remember a time when those on this site had a generally positive attitude to the freedom to do all sorts of enjoyable things.

Even ones of questionable legality!


----------



## T & P (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> Well yes, you correctly highlight that we will have to change our entire lifestyles if we wish to make the planet livable in the future. I hope we can largely do it by positive reinforcement of more local and public transport-based ways of living, rather than reinforcing car-based and plane-based lifestyles. But I suspect some people will cling on to their right to ruin the planet so strongly that we may have to legislate against them eventually. Don't be that person.


Inevitable silly banter around this forum aside, I don’t think most people would disagree with this, car drivers included.

But there is not a single overwhelming culprit  that would solve the world’s problems if it got rid of. We can all still drive, go on holidays, eat meat or do countless other non-essential activities, so long as we do less of it.

Nothing needs to be outright banned. And demonising the very existence of a certain mode of transport or denouncing anyone ever seen using it as contributing to destroying the planet or people’s health without knowing their particular habits is meaningless vindictive rubbish.

Someone who drives a gas guzzler daily to the local shops is an arsehole and is part of the problem. Someone who barely uses a car and a couple of times a year enjoys  a weekend away in the countryside and travels in an efficient low-emissions car is doing nothing wrong or objectionable. Certainly not more than someone who takes several breaks by train and coach per year and whose annual CO2 contribution will undoubtedly be similar or higher than a frugal car user.

Of course we should aim to cut down on certain habits. But pretending that any and all car usage is objectionable and unjustifiable is blatant bullshit, and such irrational hostility undoubtedly does more harm than good to the cause.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2020)

During shut down I used my car so little that I didn't have to put fuel in it for 11 weeks. 

I missed seeing my son, but driving to work I can do without.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> The poor


You only ever hear a certain type use that phrase.



weltweit said:


> During shut down I used my car so little that I didn't have to put fuel in it for 11 weeks.
> 
> I missed seeing my son, but driving to work I can do without.


But at least the fuel you weren't using was cheap.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2020)

We have friends in Leeds and Sheffield. Used to pile in the car to go see them. 

We often used to think - it could be easier by train - but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> We have friends in Leeds and Sheffield. Used to pile in the car to go see them.
> 
> We often used to think - it could be easier by train - but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?


And a taxi at both ends, twice. It makes no sense at all, unless you happen to live within pissing distance from a train station, and/or you're loaded.


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually I'd probably settle simply for men to be banned from driving, because they cause the most problems, driving twice as many miles per year, and causing a disproportionately high number of traffic incidents.


Only time I've been in an accident was when a woman drove into whilst checking her makeup in the rear view mirror. When me and a passerby pushed her car off the road it bump started as she had left it in gear and she drove off into the wall of a house. Turns out she was on her way home after picking the car up from the garage after being repaired from a previous accident. 

Some people (both men and women) shouldn't be allowed on the road full stop.

I like Germany's idea where if you fail your driving test on the 3rd attempt then you are perma banned and get a free bus pass.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2020)

That's discrimination  





against crap drivers


----------



## WouldBe (Jul 16, 2020)

weltweit said:


> We have friends in Leeds and Sheffield. Used to pile in the car to go see them.
> 
> We often used to think - it could be easier by train - but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?


My parents have looked at going by train to Exeter to see relatives. It costs ~£40 in petrol to drive or £150 each by train.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

WouldBe said:


> I like Germany's idea where if you fail your driving test on the 3rd attempt then you are perma banned and get a free bus pass.



I bet that third test is pretty nerve-wracking.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2020)

I passed on third time 

actually 

but 30ish years ago decided I was the sort of driver best kept off the road and have hardly driven since  I got my free bus pass a few years ago but it's fuck all use to me at the moment.


----------



## T & P (Jul 17, 2020)

weltweit said:


> We have friends in Leeds and Sheffield. Used to pile in the car to go see them.
> 
> We often used to think - it could be easier by train - but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?


A couple of years ago we had to go to somewhere near Arundel for a wedding. I can’t remember if the station we needed was Arundel itself or a smaller one- I think the latter. All I know is that the only tickets/ route that would do it were £50 per head. From fucking London. Of course we ended up driving. £50 would get you across the entire country anywhere else in the world ffs.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

weltweit said:


> but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?



Because of entrenched car dependency, and the politics and infrastructure that have been built around it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> Has anybody noticed that most of these people crying for a ban on cars are middle-class and either retired or close to retiring, with a nice big house with a garden?



Much like the OP, a gentrifier who used his privilege to oust some locals so he could move to zone two and take advantage of the magnificent public transport that affords him. Who then goes on to the internet to boast how he spends north of ten grand a year gadding about on leisurely sojourns on the rail network we all pay for but have not the time nor the money to enjoy.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 17, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> If that's your aim I'd start by banning useless things such as football - no utility value, massive stadia taking up space in most cities and towns, causes lots of pointless travel both within and between countries, as well as alcohol-fueled violence, nationalism, racism and homophobia. It's a planet-killing hate machine and must be stopped.


The internationalisation of sport, and the huge amount of travel to international games, is also unsustainable. My god, there's some people on this thread who are going to be in for a shock when climate change hits home to them and they realise they actually have to make some lifestyle changes. You may think touring Europe to go to football games for a few hours is something you can't live without, but it isn't, and you will have to.

I really want the transition to a more sustainable and just economy to be achievable by positive changes to people's lives but the kind of whining you get when you suggest people might have to change their habits in any way makes me worry that we have to prepare for a big reaction from entitled people, even once climate change starts to affect quality of life in the UK.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Because of entrenched car dependency, and the politics and infrastructure that have been built around it.



3/10


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 17, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Much like the OP, a gentrifier who used his privilege to oust some locals so he could move to zone two and take advantage of the magnificent public transport that affords him. Who then goes on to the internet to boast how he spends north of ten grand a year gadding about on leisurely sojourns on the rail network we all pay for but have not the time nor the money to enjoy.


I wasn't aware of that but I'm not in the least surprised. It's exactly what I expect from 'those types'.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse forgot to mention my large collection of £1k+ road bikes - which I ride on the pavements, shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way, and ignoring red lights. Often I take these on the train; I sit in first class of course, which is paid for out of my income which is basically made up of various government grants to carry out pointless consultancy work furthering the interests of me and my middle class mates in London, anyway I sit in first class but chuck the bike in the vestibule of one of the standard class carriages where it gets in everyones way. If anyone complains about it I ask them what _they_ are doing about climate change, and I tell these plebs that I assume they have their car parked at whatever station they are getting off at, and that they are only going to drive 30 miles to their home, and I don't care if there's no public transport, why don't they get a bike like I do, and that if they don't think they can manage that distance maybe they should just put some effort into getting fit, instead of standing there having a go at someone like me just trying to do my bit for the environment. Then I throw my coffee at them, which is some kind of coffee with a pretentious name, that you can only get in first class.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Bahnhof Strasse forgot to mention my large collection of £1k+ road bikes - which I ride on the pavements, shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way, and ignoring red lights. Often I take these on the train; I sit in first class of course, which is paid for out of my income which is basically made up of various government grants to carry out pointless consultancy work furthering the interests of me and my middle class mates in London, anyway I sit in first class but chuck the bike in the vestibule of one of the standard class carriages where it gets in everyones way. If anyone complains about it I ask them what _they_ are doing about climate change, and I tell these plebs that I assume they have their car parked at whatever station they are getting off at, and that they are only going to drive 30 miles to their home, and I don't care if there's no public transport, why don't they get a bike like I do, and that if they don't think they can manage that distance maybe they should just put some effort into getting fit, instead of standing there having a go at someone like me just trying to do my bit for the environment. Then I throw my coffee at them, which is some kind of coffee with a pretentious name, that you can only get in first class.




Knew it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2020)

Brainaddict said:


> The internationalisation of sport, and the huge amount of travel to international games, is also unsustainable. My god, there's some people on this thread who are going to be in for a shock when climate change hits home to them and they realise they actually have to make some lifestyle changes. You may think touring Europe to go to football games for a few hours is something you can't live without, but it isn't, and you will have to.



Perhaps shutting the UK's border to economic migrants would be a good start. People from places such a Libya and Mali should stay where their carbon footprint is small, rather than migrating to countries where it will inevitably increase by at least an order of magnitude due to all the trappings of modern society they will attempt to avail themselves of.



> I really want the transition to a more sustainable and just economy to be achievable by positive changes to people's lives but the kind of whining you get when you suggest people might have to change their habits in any way makes me worry that we have to prepare for a big reaction from entitled people, even once climate change starts to affect quality of life in the UK.



The most obvious way to transition to a more sustainable and just economy through positive changes to people's lives is by expanding nuclear power, but of course that's another thing that people are trying to eliminate without a proper assessment of the risks and benefits.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Bahnhof Strasse forgot to mention my large collection of £1k+ road bikes - which I ride on the pavements, shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way, and ignoring red lights. Often I take these on the train; I sit in first class of course, which is paid for out of my income which is basically made up of various government grants to carry out pointless consultancy work furthering the interests of me and my middle class mates in London, anyway I sit in first class but chuck the bike in the vestibule of one of the standard class carriages where it gets in everyones way. If anyone complains about it I ask them what _they_ are doing about climate change, and I tell these plebs that I assume they have their car parked at whatever station they are getting off at, and that they are only going to drive 30 miles to their home, and I don't care if there's no public transport, why don't they get a bike like I do, and that if they don't think they can manage that distance maybe they should just put some effort into getting fit, instead of standing there having a go at someone like me just trying to do my bit for the environment. Then I throw my coffee at them, which is some kind of coffee with a pretentious name, that you can only get in first class.


I can't decide if that's a self deprecating parody or a true story. I fear the latter.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Bahnhof Strasse forgot to mention my large collection of £1k+ road bikes - which I ride on the pavements, shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way, and ignoring red lights. Often I take these on the train; I sit in first class of course, which is paid for out of my income which is basically made up of various government grants to carry out pointless consultancy work furthering the interests of me and my middle class mates in London, anyway I sit in first class but chuck the bike in the vestibule of one of the standard class carriages where it gets in everyones way. If anyone complains about it I ask them what _they_ are doing about climate change, and I tell these plebs that I assume they have their car parked at whatever station they are getting off at, and that they are only going to drive 30 miles to their home, and I don't care if there's no public transport, why don't they get a bike like I do, and that if they don't think they can manage that distance maybe they should just put some effort into getting fit, instead of standing there having a go at someone like me just trying to do my bit for the environment. Then I throw my coffee at them, which is some kind of coffee with a pretentious name, that you can only get in first class.


Typical cyclist.


----------



## T & P (Jul 17, 2020)

Apparently drive-in cinemas, concerts and even raves are to become a thing in the age of Corona









						Lockdown easing: 10 things you CAN do this summer
					

A quick guide to some socially distanced experiences in the UK over the next couple of months.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




(((non drivers)))


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 17, 2020)

I know it's a terrible thing to do, but does anyone else piss themselves laughing when they drive past a *lycralist in the pouring rain?

*(Did I just invent a new word?)


----------



## Cid (Jul 17, 2020)

weltweit said:


> We have friends in Leeds and Sheffield. Used to pile in the car to go see them.
> 
> We often used to think - it could be easier by train - but why does it cost more than a single person driving a car each to use the train?



Seems to keep getting more expensive too. 

I mean fuck I had a mate over from Holland to spread the covids, and the fare from Manc airport to Shef was £30. So yes, I drove.


----------



## Cid (Jul 17, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> I know it's a terrible thing to do, but does anyone else piss themselves laughing when they drive past a *lycralist in the pouring rain?
> 
> *(Did I just invent a new word?)







__





						Urban Dictionary: Lycralist
					

A recreational cyclist who insists on wearing body hugging Lycra despite not being skilled or fit enough to enter a race or time-trial. Lycralists can be identified by: 1. Ignoring traffic signals. 2. No stopping for pedestrians at crossings. 3. Ignoring lane restrictions. 4. Overtaking where it...




					www.urbandictionary.com


----------



## Doodler (Jul 18, 2020)

Funny to think Urban75 was once a home for supporters of Reclaim the Streets and anti-roads protests. Now in its middle age it attracts the brotherhood of the Vauxhall Vectra Owners Club.


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2020)

Nice data set from Copenhagen 









						Copenhagenize your city: the case for urban cycling in 12 graphs
					

Danish-Canadian urban designer Mikael Colville-Andersen busts some common myths and shows how the bicycle has the potential to transform cities around the world




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## A380 (Jul 18, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> But people do have the right to drive ten miles to eat out, they always have in this country. So it's no surprise that they act as if they do.
> 
> In fact the only country I can think of where people may not have that right is North Korea.



And Monaco- because you couldn’t go 10 miles...


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2020)

A380 said:


> And Monaco- because you couldn’t go 10 miles...


You can if you’re doing a few laps of the Grand Prix route on your way to dinner. And why wouldn’t you?


----------



## two sheds (Jul 18, 2020)

Just to test your eyesight?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Opinion: I've come to hate cars with a passion. It makes me a car-hating, angry Karen
					

People still believe they have a God-given right to drive, when many could nip down to the shops on foot or on a bike




					www.independent.co.uk
				




Further incursions into the mainstream media. Good to see.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Opinion: I've come to hate cars with a passion. It makes me a car-hating, angry Karen
> 
> 
> People still believe they have a God-given right to drive, when many could nip down to the shops on foot or on a bike
> ...



Let's see one in the Telegraph, until then it's just boring virtue-signalling from the usual corners.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Opinion: I've come to hate cars with a passion. It makes me a car-hating, angry Karen
> 
> 
> People still believe they have a God-given right to drive, when many could nip down to the shops on foot or on a bike
> ...


Yay, someone on the internet said something about cars. That'll learn 'em.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

8ball said:


> Let's see one in the Telegraph,


They'll get there eventually









						Garden villages creating car-dependency, report says
					

Residents in one garden village would have to walk up to seven miles to get to a shop or a train station




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2020)

This is the dystopia we'd be heading for everywhere, if it weren't for a few of us fighting back.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 10, 2020)

_Sunday lunch drive through?_

Somewhere along the way something has gone wrong in this country.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> _Sunday lunch drive through?_
> 
> Somewhere along the way something has gone wrong in this country.



A pandemic if you hadn’t noticed.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 10, 2020)

platinumsage said:


> A pandemic if you hadn’t noticed.



Well duh.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

Good work.









						Brandalism Take Over 100 UK Billboards
					

Environmental activist groups from the ‘Brandalism’ network have installed over 100 parody car advert posters on billboards and bus stops in England and Wales. The guerilla artworks featuring brands such as Range Rover, Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Citroen, Lamborghini and Vauxhall were installed without




					streetartnews.net


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Good work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some of those are brilliant.

This should be a real one ...



Couldn't agree more


----------



## teuchter (Jan 27, 2021)

Now they are destroying space heritage in order to make room for car parking.









						Out of space, NASA is demolishing Apollo and space shuttle launch platform | collectSPACE
					

One of the three large steel platforms that supported the launch of NASA's Apollo and space shuttle missions is being demolished — due to a lack of space. Mobile Launch Platform-2 (MLP-2) was front and center for 51 spaceflights from 1968 through 2011.



					www.collectspace.com


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now they are destroying space heritage in order to make room for car parking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## T & P (Jan 27, 2021)

Oh, the dastardly car industry. Is there no evil deed it will not commit?

Having said that, losing a pair of steel structures within a large site that still offers dozens of other buildings and exhibits of the same or larger historical importance doesn’t seem to me the worst of crimes. Not as bad as, say, destroying and losing forever ancient woodlands and important local habitats to accommodate vanity superfluous high speed rail projects.

I’m surprised to see you caring much about space exploration heritage btw. The fuel consumption and emissions of those rockets are positively dreadful, you know...


----------



## A380 (Jan 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is the dystopia we'd be heading for everywhere, if it weren't for a few of us fighting back.
> 
> View attachment 225916



See, I reckon that would be a good thing. You can’t lose really, it would either be surprising good food, so a win, or quite mediocre, which would make the whole experience bizarre and a bit of a hoot. Either way would likely bring joy to your day.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now they are destroying space heritage in order to make room for car parking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You either need to stop telling bare lies or you need to learn how to read, which is it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You either need to stop telling bare lies or you need to learn how to read, which is it?


Given that he's an absolute stranger to the truth... guess!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 3, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m surprised to see you caring much about space exploration heritage btw. The fuel consumption and emissions of those rockets are positively dreadful, you know...



Rocket exhaust is just water vapour.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 3, 2021)

Having read the article, it's one of the older big crawler things they're breaking up since they are building a new and bigger one to replace it and they don't have space to park four of them.  When we visited Cape Kennedy we saw them on the tour. They are absolutely awesome things, if I had Musk or Bezos' money. I'd put in a bid for it since it would make a great conversation piece parked in the garden. Plus Mrs Q's eyes would roll so much they would probably fall out.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

Of course they've got space. I've outlined one potential site but there are plenty of others.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Of course they've got space. I've outlined one potential site but there are plenty of others.
> 
> View attachment 252557




You said:



teuchter said:


> Now they are destroying space heritage in order to make room for car parking.




That's not true, is it.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

We can see that they have got plenty of car parking space they could use to keep the space heritage, and they have chosen to keep the car parking instead of the space heritage.

That's perfectly good enough for an unashamed propaganda thread. Do you want a peer reviewed paper or something?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2021)

We could chop up teuchter and feed him to orphans so orphans are being kept hungry in order to keep teuchter alive.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> We could chop up teuchter and feed him to orphans so orphans are being kept hungry in order to keep teuchter alive.


That's true, but I am of great benefit to humanity and car parking isn't.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's true, but I am of great benefit to humanity and car parking isn't.


Shall we take a vote?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 3, 2021)

They didn't have the funds to maintain it and no museums or other institutions were interested in it or any part of it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Shall we take a vote?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They didn't have the funds to maintain it and no museums or other institutions were interested in it or any part of it.


More interested in polishing the chrome on their SUVs than looking after important heritage artefacts. Just goes to show what car owners are like.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> More interested in polishing the chrome on their SUVs than looking after important heritage artefacts. Just goes to show what car owners are like.



When the next moon mission doesn’t fail because a key staff member wasn’t driving around looking for a parking spot we’ll know to thank their foresight in removing this unwanted bit of metal.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> When the next moon mission doesn’t fail because a key staff member wasn’t driving around looking for a parking spot we’ll know to thank their foresight in removing this unwanted bit of metal.


Well, I don't think anyone can dispute that yesterday's failed landing by the SpaceX Starship vehicle is an indictment of the space industry's obsession with car parking provision.


----------



## T & P (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> More interested in polishing the chrome on their SUVs than looking after important heritage artefacts. Just goes to show what car owners are like.


Not as bad as all the train enthusiasts happy to see ancient woodlands destroyed to build completely unnecesary £100bn high speed tracks with pointy trains, mind...


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

Whatever.

Now sign this petition.









						Petition to ban polluting SUV advertising
					

We banned tobacco advertising because smoking is bad for our health. So, why do we let advertisers glamourise polluting, gas-guzzling SUVs through adverts in our streets, in our cinemas, in newspapers and on television?




					action.wearepossible.org


----------



## souljacker (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Whatever.
> 
> Now sign this petition.
> 
> ...



What will be the pollution cutoff point for this ban? I'm guessing it won't ban Audi E-Tron or Jag I-Paces? Or is it the size of them that's the problem?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

T & P said:


> Not as bad as all the train enthusiasts happy to see ancient woodlands destroyed to build completely unnecesary £100bn high speed tracks with pointy trains, mind...




Whereas the lovely motorcar brings us happy stories like this...









						Rare wild plant flourishes in Suffolk car park 'nature reserve'
					

Traffic is keeping hungry deer and rabbits away from the rare field wormwood plants, say experts.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> *One of the country's rarest and most threatened wild plants has "astounded" conservationists by thriving on an industrial-estate nature reserve.*
> The field wormwood plants grow on one of the tiniest reserves in England in Brandon, Suffolk.
> Botanists and volunteers of the group Plantlife said the number of flowering plants had rocketed from two in 2019, to 85 at the latest count.
> Plantlife said traffic at the site kept hungry deer and rabbits away.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

souljacker said:


> What will be the pollution cutoff point for this ban? I'm guessing it won't ban Audi E-Tron or Jag I-Paces? Or is it the size of them that's the problem?




It's the size of them teuchter doesn't like. It has been shown that most are no more polluting than a regular car, he's just jealous that he can't get his life together enough to buy and run one, so takes to hawking shit petitions around the web instead.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

souljacker said:


> What will be the pollution cutoff point for this ban? I'm guessing it won't ban Audi E-Tron or Jag I-Paces? Or is it the size of them that's the problem?


I don't believe any "pollution cut-off" is proposed. 
I think I'd extend the ban to anything with a stupid name actually.


----------



## souljacker (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't believe any "pollution cut-off" is proposed.
> I think I'd extend the ban to anything with a stupid name actually.



Its a stupid petition then.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Whereas the lovely motorcar brings us happy stories like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I read an article once about how roads were saving the young of moose in the US (haven't saved the link sadly). Bears are smart enough to know that cars are dangerous and don't approach roads and the moose have learnt this and have their young next to the road where the bears (their main predator) stay away.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I read an article once about how roads were saving the young of moose in the US (haven't saved the link sadly). Bears are smart enough to know that cars are dangerous and don't approach roads and the moose have learnt this and have their young next to the road where the bears (their main predator) stay away.




The American's like a nice, big SUV too, QED.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't believe any "pollution cut-off" is proposed.
> I think I'd extend the ban to anything with a stupid name actually.




Elizabeth Line.

HS2.

teuchter.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2021)

Chernobyl was good for wildlife too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Chernobyl was good for wildlife too.


of course it was


Spoiler



















						What We Know About the Chernobyl Animal Mutations
					

Get facts about the Chernobyl animal mutations, learn the status of animals today, and find out how we use mutations to study radiation exposure.




					www.thoughtco.com


----------



## kabbes (Feb 3, 2021)

Is anybody on this thread not just here out of boredom in order to enjoy a good bit of bickering?


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Is anybody on this thread not just here out of boredom in order to enjoy a good bit of bickering?


there are other reasons for coming to a teuchter thread? Getting people bickering is his superpower. The man could start an argument in a Trappist monastery.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

If these two people had driven instead of taking the bus, billions and billions of extra people would probably be dead now. 

Just goes to show. Think how many world problems could be quickly solved if we banned cars and everyone had to go on the bus together.









						Covid: The London bus trip that saved maybe a million lives
					

A conversation on a bus led to the setting up of the Recovery trial, leading to treatments for Covid.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If these two people had driven instead of taking the bus, billions and billions of extra people would probably be dead now.
> 
> Just goes to show. Think how many world problems could be quickly solved if we banned cars and everyone had to go on the bus together.
> 
> ...




The world needs a several billion fewer people, typical bus wankers to not give a fuck about the future of the planet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The world needs a several billion fewer people, typical bus wankers to not give a fuck about the future of the planet.


If the next big virus outbreak can be contained to public transport, we could fix that problem by getting rid of all the bus wankers.


----------



## souljacker (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If these two people had driven instead of taking the bus, billions and billions of extra people would probably be dead now.



Don't be daft. It would just be 'Covid: The London car journey that saved a million lives' or 'Covid: The stroll through London that saved a million lives' or even 'Covid: The afternoon beer session that saved a million lives', The bus has little significance.


----------



## T & P (Mar 25, 2021)




----------



## MickiQ (Mar 25, 2021)

The two dudes are apparently experts in this subject who apparently already knew each other well. Does anyone imagine they wouldn't have had this conversation somewhere? The fact they held it on the bus is neither here nor there.


----------



## T & P (Mar 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> The two dudes are apparently experts in this subject who apparently already knew each other well. Does anyone imagine they wouldn't have had this conversation somewhere? The fact they held it on the bus is neither here nor there.


I refer you to post #1149 just up the page...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> The two dudes are apparently experts in this subject who apparently already knew each other well. Does anyone imagine they wouldn't have had this conversation somewhere? The fact they held it on the bus is neither here nor there.


The fact that somebody tried to transfer credit from these two people to a bus is quite telling.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If these two people had driven instead of taking the bus, billions and billions of extra people would probably be dead now.
> 
> Just goes to show. Think how many world problems could be quickly solved if we banned cars and everyone had to go on the bus together.
> 
> ...



Hang on though, if Matt Hancock had also been on the bus with them, he'd have got involved, fucked everything up and loads more people would have died.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

If public transport had been halted at the start of the pandemic, millions fewer people would have caught the virus.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

Congratulations everyone. Hopefully the time you have spent making up your counter-arguments has distracted you from doing something harmful like driving to the shops in your Audis, which by the way you have failed to lend to NHS workers to let them drive to work safely during the pandemic.


----------



## T & P (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Congratulations everyone. Hopefully the time you have spent making up your counter-arguments has distracted you from doing something harmful like driving to the shops in your Audis.


Why, I'm posting from behind the wheel!


----------



## souljacker (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> you have failed to lend to NHS workers to let them drive to work safely during the pandemic.



They got the bus like you told them to!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

souljacker said:


> They got the bus like you told them to!


I told them that if they could borrow a car from someone community minded, then they should do that.

Of course, by definition no car owners are community-minded. Which is why they also want to destroy the NHS.

So the NHS workers have to sit in the bus held up by queues of cars driven by people like you lot on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I told them that if they could borrow a car from someone community minded, then they should do that.
> 
> Of course, by definition no car owners are community-minded. Which is why they also want to destroy the NHS.
> 
> So the NHS workers have to sit in the bus held up by queues of cars driven by people like you lot on this thread.


if they were cars driven by people like the posters on this thread i don't think there'd be queues of cars, it'd be a bigger mess than that


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Congratulations everyone. Hopefully the time you have spent making up your counter-arguments has distracted you from doing something harmful like driving to the shops in your Audis, which by the way you have failed to lend to NHS workers to let them drive to work safely during the pandemic.


You seem a little confused. Do you want them to catch the bus or do you want them to drive? Make your mind up, FFS


----------



## souljacker (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I told them that if they could borrow a car from someone community minded, then they should do that.
> 
> Of course, by definition no car owners are community-minded.



So you were just trying to fuck with their heads whilst they try and cope with the pandemic? 

"Go and borrow a car from someone community minded!"
"Like who, Teuchter?"
"None of them, lol"

You are the real monster here.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Congratulations everyone. Hopefully the time you have spent making up your counter-arguments has distracted you from doing something harmful like driving to the shops in your Audis, which by the way you have failed to lend to NHS workers to let them drive to work safely during the pandemic.


My son's girlfriend is a nurse and currently lives with us, Not only I have ferried her to work in my Audi many times but my son has used both it and his own car on many occasions to take her thus saving her the ridiculous cost of staff parking. 
Once more you are making spurious statements with no basis in fact.


----------



## BillRiver (Mar 25, 2021)

My best mate is an A&E nurse.
She started cycling about a year ago, and has cycled to and from work throughout the pandemic so far.
She reckons is the key reason she's (more or less) stayed sane and coped with it all.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> My son's girlfriend is a nurse and currently lives with us, Not only I have ferried her to work in my Audi many times but my son has used both it and his own car on many occasions to take her thus saving her the ridiculous cost of staff parking.
> Once more you are making spurious statements with no basis in fact.


That's just car nepotism and doesn't count. 
The household obviously has two cars so you could have given one away, but you didn't.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 25, 2021)

If anybody wants a free 13 year-old Panda that stinks of dogs and is covered in drool (some of it is even the dog’s) then please do feel free to give me a call.  It’s not been driven in a year so I make no guarantees about which bits of it may have seized up.


----------



## T & P (Mar 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If anybody wants a free 13 year-old Panda that stinks of dogs and is covered in drool (some of it is even the dog’s) then please do feel free to give me a call.  It’s not been driven in a year so I make no guarantees about which bits of it may have seized up.


I'm sure teuchter will take you up on your offer, so he can immediately start offering lifts to local nurses and doctors in his community. Not to do so just because he holds a grudge against motor vehicles would be an insult to the NHS and its workers, and probably culminate in the deaths of patients who would have otherwise been saved.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> I'm sure teuchter will take you up on your offer, so he can immediately start offering lifts to local nurses and doctors in his community. Not to do so just because he holds a grudge against motor vehicles would be an insult to the NHS and its workers, and probably culminate in the deaths of patients who would have otherwise been saved.


I think teuchter may actually be responsible for the coronaviris.


----------



## A380 (Mar 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think teuchter may actually be responsible for the coronaviris.


Yeah, a Chinese bat read some of his posts and was so saddened at the lack of joy in the world proposed it immediately caused a virus it was nurturing to mutate, when that didn’t kill it off it offered itself up as a sandwich filling. And you know what? Frankly I can’t blame it.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If anybody wants a free 13 year-old Panda that stinks of dogs and is covered in drool (some of it is even the dog’s) then please do feel free to give me a call.  It’s not been driven in a year so I make no guarantees about which bits of it may have seized up.


  Oooh,,,, I might take it. I need a new expedition car


----------



## kabbes (Mar 25, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Oooh,,,, I might take it. I need a new expedition car


Just so long as you don’t want to go above 60mph, you’ll be gravy.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 25, 2021)

Would make an interesting project


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's just car nepotism and doesn't count.
> The household obviously has two cars so you could have given one away, but you didn't.


We've got three actually, As well as my A6 and my son's Golf, Mrs Q has a Nissan Micra as well. I daresay that condemns us completely in your eyes but car nepotism (love that term totally going to steal it) is great completely eliminates the need to use public transport and prevents us from mixing with the disease ridden proles.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yeah, a Chinese bat read some of his posts and was so saddened at the lack of joy in the world proposed it immediately caused a virus it was nurturing to mutate, when that didn’t kill it off it offered itself up as a sandwich filling. And you know what? Frankly I can’t blame it.


A lesson to everyone on the consequences of responding to my writings and the truths within them by spinning into a clamour of petulant, self-regarding negativity. A lesson in particular to urban75. Some parallels with the life of Jesus perhaps.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 25, 2021)

"We've got three actually, As well as my A6 and my son's Golf, Mrs Q has a Nissan Micra as well. I daresay that condemns us completely in your eyes but car nepotism (love that term totally going to steal it) is great completely eliminates the need to use public transport and prevents us from mixing with the disease ridden proles. "

^^^  i claim my prize, you are Mark Thatcher^^^^^


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 25, 2021)

hash tag said:


> "We've got three actually, As well as my A6 and my son's Golf, Mrs Q has a Nissan Micra as well. I daresay that condemns us completely in your eyes but car nepotism (love that term totally going to steal it) is great completely eliminates the need to use public transport and prevents us from mixing with the disease ridden proles. "
> 
> ^^^  i claim my prize, you are Mark Thatcher^^^^^


That's the biggest drawback of public transport. It's full of the type of people who like to use public transport.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 25, 2021)

2 atm in the household but looking at another couple for me


----------



## T & P (Mar 25, 2021)

I haven’t owned a car for many years but at one point we were a two-car, one driver household. Ms T & P doesn’t drive and we made do with an old VW Polo, but one day I was offered an older but in good working order Volvo Estate for free by a friend, so we had a London errands car and a weekend/ days out car. It was a nice arrangement.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 25, 2021)

The rear of my Corsa is tinged with green growth, it badly needs a wash and currently looks rather unloved. 

I can't find my sponges though, and it has been like this for a while now.

I will have to fix it this weekend one way or another.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

weltweit said:


> The rear of my Corsa is tinged with green growth, it badly needs a wash and currently looks rather unloved.
> 
> I can't find my sponges though, and it has been like this for a while now.
> 
> I will have to fix it this weekend one way or another.


A hammer will do it.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A hammer will do it.



Bless, it’s like he’s painted himself solidly into a corner over a period of decades and really wants a brum brum.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> Bless, it’s like he’s painted himself solidly into a corner over a period of decades and really wants a brum brum.


Seems like you are just trying to get a rise, which is hardly in the spirit of the thread.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seems like you are just trying to get a rise, which is hardly in the spirit of the thread.



You actually made me look back a couple of pages to check.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> You actually made me look back a couple of pages to check.


I win, then?


----------



## hash tag (Mar 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> Bless, it’s like he’s painted himself solidly into a corner over a period of decades and really wants a brum brum.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> Bless, it’s like he’s painted himself solidly into a corner over a period of decades and really wants a brum brum.


actually owns one of those giant pointless new land rovers (weekdays only), for weekends his got a dirty fucking great Ford Ranger.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 25, 2021)

tech's little weekend runaround


----------



## hash tag (Apr 7, 2021)

By the right car for the right environment, what an idea! There are of course exceptions to the rule but who would have thought you don't need a huge XC90 in central London. Ground breaking news. City drivers 'should think twice' before buying SUVs


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

Look at this absolutely typical car driver.

Not only were they breaking covid rules (because they think their car gives them the right to drive around going anywhere they feel like) but they are entirely incompetent using other means of transport, because driving their car has made them stupid.









						'Covid-breach' kayaker stuck on Loch Lomond island without paddle
					

The man, believed to be from England, was rescued after getting trapped while camping on Inchtavannach in Loch Lomond.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Look at this absolutely typical car driver.
> 
> Not only were they breaking covid rules (because they think their car gives them the right to drive around going anywhere they feel like) but they are entirely incompetent using other means of transport, because driving their car has made them stupid.
> 
> ...


I’d have thought a beardy kayaker holidaying  on a remote Scottish island and subsisting on lichen and moss whilst sheltering from the drizzle in a damp tarpaulin would have been right up your street.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> because they think their car gives them the right to drive around going anywhere they feel like


Obviously this guy is being a dick but that's due to ignoring Covid restrictions which are a hopefully temporary case. However having the right to drive around wherever you feel like it is pretty much the whole point of buying a car


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

A380 said:


> I’d have thought a beardy kayaker holidaying  on a remote Scottish island and subsisting on lichen and moss whilst sheltering from the drizzle in a damp tarpaulin would have been right up your street.


This wasn't even a remote island. Even after losing their paddle, they almost certainly could have got to the shore with minimal effort. But they are a car owner, so they had to call the police to be rescued. A public transport user would have had more initiative.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> However having the right to drive around wherever you feel like it is pretty much the whole point of buying a car


It's like how buying a gun gives you the right to go out and commit as many massacres as you fancy.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This wasn't even a remote island. Even after losing their paddle, they almost certainly could have got to the shore with minimal effort. But they are a car owner, so they had to call the police to be rescued. A public transport user would have had more initiative.


I think his being a joyless fucker trumps the car ownership. He probably drove something like a 1 litre Micra L .I also believe  him to be the sort of person who makes porridge with water and salt. As I imagine you do.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This wasn't even a remote island. Even after losing their paddle, they almost certainly could have got to the shore with minimal effort. But they are a car owner, so they had to call the police to be rescued. A public transport user would have had more initiative.


If anything it shows modes of transportation other than cars are dangerously unreliable and could cost you your life when enjoying the great outdoors. This clown could have enjoyed a very pleasurable drive followed by a picnic sitting on the back of the car that would have been simpler, better and safer than entering the water on some flimsy canoe and risking getting stranded, as he did.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> If anything it shows modes of transportation other than cars are dangerously unreliable and could cost you your life when enjoying the great outdoors.


Yeah, I wouldn’t fancy being in a kayak in the outside lane of the M6... asking for trouble.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's like how buying a gun gives you the right to go out and commit as many massacres as you fancy.


Even for you that is a bizarre mental leap, You can't buy a gun in this country (which I agree with) but even in America where you are allowed to buy guns, it's supposedly for 'home defence' only, going on rampages and massacring people is definitely illegal.
Whereas with car ownership there are restrictions on what I can do with it, I can't drive on other people's properties, I have to maintain and insure it but I do indeed have a legal right to drive it on the public highway providing I obey the appropriate laws enacted for mine and everyone else's safety. There are no laws (other than current temporary restrictions) restricting which particular bits of the public highway I can use.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Even for you that is a bizarre mental leap, You can't buy a gun in this country (which I agree with) but even in America where you are allowed to buy guns, it's supposedly for 'home defence' only, going on rampages and massacring people is definitely illegal.
> Whereas with car ownership there are restrictions on what I can do with it, I can't drive on other people's properties, I have to maintain and insure it but I do indeed have a legal right to drive it on the public highway providing I obey the appropriate laws enacted for mine and everyone else's safety. There are no laws (other than current temporary restrictions) restricting which particular bits of the public highway I can use.



I am glad that my post prompted you to acknowledge that part of your previous comment is complete nonsense:



MickiQ said:


> Obviously this guy is being a dick but that's due to ignoring Covid restrictions which are a hopefully temporary case. *However having the right to drive around wherever you feel like it *is pretty much the whole point of buying a car



Unfortunately, of course, in practice most car drivers dto think they have the right to go wherever they feel like, just like how many gun owners think they've got the right to go around shooting everyone. At least gun owners don't cause as much societal harm as car owners do, though. A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts car owners at 350% worse. At least.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Look at this absolutely typical car driver.
> 
> Not only were they breaking covid rules (because they think their car gives them the right to drive around going anywhere they feel like) but they are entirely incompetent using other means of transport, because driving their car has made them stupid.
> 
> ...


The most shameful bit is that he didn't carve a new paddle. Probably didn't want to scratch his Bear Grylls TM survival knife. Broken Britain etc.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

Sorry to be so late to the thread...have we done *this* yet? 

This one is my favourite: 









Apparently inspired by this:


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

Trains are death machines.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

Toasters are death machines.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Sorry to be so late to the thread...have we done *this* yet?



Interesting, thanks.



> The War on Cars is a new podcast about the epic, hundred years’ war between The Car and The City. We deliver news and commentary on the latest developments in the worldwide fight to undo a century’s worth of damage wrought by the automobile. We produce a new show every other week.




Even in America they are cottoning on the fact that it's time to sort things out.

Some of the dinosaurs on this thread will remain in denial, of course.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

Death machines are death machines.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter is a death machine. Once he'd finished killing all the joy, he moved on to boring people to death.


----------



## bimble (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter is totally correct. However i just drove home singing along really loudly to terrible music that i like and not bothering a soul. It wasn't the same on the bus.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

I have to confess that I've just bought a 5 metre 2 ton death machine, with a 3.5 litre V6. But it will be a mobile home, and is much smaller and lighter than the fixed home I currently reside in. I'll convert it to LPG and hope to run it mostly on BioLPG, which is made from waste. And it will have a composting toilet, solar shower and solar panels. And no heating because I will relocate with the seasons and be forever warm. So I hope my impact on my fellow earth-dwellers will be acceptable.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> teuchter is totally correct. However i just drove home singing along really loudly to terrible music that i like and not bothering a soul. It wasn't the same on the bus.


I can see how that might bother bus wankers. It'd be something else for them to be joyless about.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> teuchter is totally correct. However i just drove home singing along really loudly to terrible music that i like and not bothering a soul. It wasn't the same on the bus.


Yeah, I hate to admit it but perhaps that’s true. If only private vehicle users could switch to the magic cars Uber and car share clubs use, which don’t pollute, contaminate or cause any injuries on impact....

Or the equally magical delivery vans that nowdays make nearly as many journeys on residential streets as privately owned cars do, just to deliver on a pretty much daily basis all those essential items from Amazon that one couldn't be arsed to go out and buy from the shops, even before the pandemic when everything was open. That's okay, those highly convenient delivery vans don't pollute, congest, or maim either


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> I have to confess that I've just bought a 5 metre 2 ton death machine, with a 3.5 litre V6. But it will be a mobile home, and is much smaller and lighter than the fixed home I currently reside in. I'll convert it to LPG and hope to run it mostly on BioLPG, which is made from waste. And it will have a composting toilet, solar shower and solar panels. And no heating because I will relocate with the seasons and be forever warm. So I hope my impact on my fellow earth-dwellers will be acceptable.


As long as you replace your driving seat from one made of unsanded pallets with a few nails sticking out...


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

What should SUV stand for? Superfluous Unconscionable V....?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

bimble said:


> teuchter is totally correct.





T & P said:


> Yeah, I hate to admit it but perhaps that’s true.



Slowly we are making some progress.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Slowly we are making some progress.


Posted from Amazon-delivered electronic device


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Slowly we are making some progress.


You only need to do it one more time today, and you be as useful as a stopped clock.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Or the equally magical delivery vans that nowdays make nearly as many journeys on residential streets as privately owned cars do, just to deliver on a pretty much daily basis all those essential items from Amazon that one couldn't be arsed to go out and buy from the shops, even before the pandemic when everything was open. That's okay, those highly convenient delivery vans don't pollute, congest, or maim either



Follow https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp Cargo bikes are making such rapid progress...vans are history!









						Pedal Me, the e-cargo bike-based delivery service, warns Amazon: “We’re coming for you”
					

London-based firm offers to co-operate with online giant – but is prepared to compete too




					road.cc


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I am glad that my post prompted you to acknowledge that part of your previous comment is complete nonsense:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, of course, in practice most car drivers dto think they have the right to go wherever they feel like, just like how many gun owners think they've got the right to go around shooting everyone. At least gun owners don't cause as much societal harm as car owners do, though. A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts car owners at 350% worse. At least.


love to see the formula you've used for that calculation.
As for other assertion, I DO have the right to go wherever I feel like, as does someone on a bus except I am exercising my other right to use my car.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 8, 2021)

Problem solved:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 8, 2021)

Cars are death machines is an awesome slogan, VW Group should use it, they'd sell loads more motors


----------



## hash tag (Apr 8, 2021)

A380 said:


> I think his being a joyless fucker trumps the car ownership. He probably drove something like a 1 litre Micra L .I also believe  him to be the sort of person who makes porridge with water and salt. As I imagine you do.


In defence of the humble Micra, until recently, Mrs Tag was driving around in one that was 20 years old. It never let her down, it never owed her a penny and since giving it away it is still going strong. If you look around, as we do, there are still dozens of old Micras out there being driven still.


----------



## Doodler (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Congratulations everyone. Hopefully the time you have spent making up your counter-arguments has distracted you from doing something harmful like driving to the shops in your Audis, which by the way you have failed to lend to NHS workers to let them drive to work safely during the pandemic.



On the other hand, by getting out of their personal heart attack/depression machines and walking more, they may well have reduced future demand on the NHS by some small amount.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

I like the term ‘depression machines’. Though it is far more fitting a term for buses; indisputably the most soul-destroying form of transportation known to humankind.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

I wish Brixton could be car free. It would be bliss. The drivers here are such cretins. The pollution on the South Circular even got a mention at an autopsy recently, as a cause of death. 

Did I mention that my neighbour ran me over when he was high? He's so careless that a week later his car caught fire.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Or the equally magical delivery vans that nowdays make nearly as many journeys on residential streets as privately owned cars do, just to deliver on a pretty much daily basis all those essential items from Amazon that one couldn't be arsed to go out and buy from the shops, even before the pandemic when everything was open. That's okay, those highly convenient delivery vans don't pollute, congest, or maim either


One van making a round of deliveries for 30 or more people will create a hell of a lot less pollution than if those 30 people all got in a car and went to the shops.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 8, 2021)

Unless of course they bought less or, heaven forbid, they walked to the shops and back. Morrisons, bless em, I have discovered try to arrange your delivery when they are already in your area.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 8, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Unless of course they bought less or, heaven forbid, they walked to the shops and back. Morrisons, bless em, I have discovered try to arrange your delivery when they are already in your area.


They all do that, it's just Morrisons are trying to con you that it's their idea.


hash tag said:


> In defence of the humble Micra, until recently, Mrs Tag was driving around in one that was 20 years old. It never let her down, it never owed her a penny and since giving it away it is still going strong. If you look around, as we do, there are still dozens of old Micras out there being driven still.


Mrs Q has a 2007 Micra which she bought at the end of 2009, we've still got it. I've been through 4 vehicles in the same time, even our son who passed his test in the same year is on his 3rd.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 8, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Unless of course they bought less or, heaven forbid, they walked to the shops and back.


Indeed. Which is precisely why we need more pedestrianised high streets, cycle lanes, LTN's etc.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> One van making a round of deliveries for 30 or more people will create a hell of a lot less pollution than if those 30 people all got in a car and went to the shops.



But you can do that with one cargo e-bike. They take 300kg. Won't be long before they have a supermarket contract.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> But you can do that with one cargo e-bike. They take 300kg. Won't be long before they have a supermarket contract.


Yeah, they're amazing. What's even better is how much they wind up idiots (usually taxi drivers) on Twitter who can't get their head around them being both safe and viable.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 8, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> They all do that, it's just Morrisons are trying to con you that it's their idea.


I think we have only ever had two deliveries and both from Morrisons.


beesonthewhatnow said:


> Indeed. Which is precisely why we need more pedestrianised high streets, cycle lanes, LTN's etc.


Croydon High Street is giving a very good impression of dying on its feet. Heaven knows what it will look like after lock down.
I am hating the new cycle lanes, they have now got those stupid little poles in them. In time they will become dirty and difficult to see. People are already hitting them. There is no where for cars to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. There is no where for emergency vehicles to stop. All the rubbish will build up inside them because the cleaners can't get inside them..and lo, cyclists still ride on pavements.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 8, 2021)

hash tag said:


> I think we have only ever had two deliveries and both from Morrisons.
> 
> Croydon High Street is giving a very good impression of dying on its feet. Heaven knows what it will look like after lock down.
> I am hating the new cycle lanes, they have now got those stupid little poles in them. In time they will become dirty and difficult to see. People are already hitting them. There is no where for cars to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. There is no where for emergency vehicles to stop. All the rubbish will build up inside them because the cleaners can't get inside them..and lo, cyclists still ride on pavements.


If cyclists are still on the pavement then it's usually a sign that the lane isn't fit for purpose. Even now this country is utterly shit at them. Look to The Netherlands for how they should be done.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> One van making a round of deliveries for 30 or more people will create a hell of a lot less pollution than if those 30 people all got in a car and went to the shops.


 Of course, only it is not as simple as that. A lot of the stuff Amazon delivers is not the kind of wares anyone would jump into a car to pick up. I know plenty of people who will order the likes of a flash drive or a myriad of other non-essential stuff they’re in no particular rush to get simply because they get free next day delivery, instead of popping into a shop in central London the next time they were due to go into (by public transport as well of course). 

And additionally, car ownership in larger cities and London in particular is actually fairly low, so the argument that all these convenient doorstep deliveries plaguing our streets nowadays are replacing car journeys is even weaker. A carless person ordering 24 rolls of toilet roll would have carried them on the bus before they got a Prime subscription.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m firmly of the opinion that everyone should do their bit for the environment and their communities’ wellbeing, which should include curbing habits that are polluting or potentially harmful. But there is a massive difference between advocating a more restrained and environmentally conscious behaviour, and demanding any particular habit or trait should be banned outright.

Regardless of whether I might agree with a given argument for an outright restriction or banning, at the very least I would expect any proponent of such nuclear options to be consistent and not self-serving in their criteria of what is allowed or not. If internal combustion engine vehicles are deemed too unacceptably polluting and hazardous to be allowed in a given area, neighbourhood or city, then one cannot demand the banishment of all privately owned cars whilst taking full advantage of other motor vehicles to deliver their shopping or carry them home after an exhausting day out.

That’s why most of the LTN areas that have recently propagated across London are little more than cynical NIMBY exercises. If every single car travelling a local residential streets is ‘a mortal danger to children’, as I have seen them described by LTN supporters before, then I’m sorry but no vehicle at all other than emergency services and disabled blue badge holders should be allowed to enter. Do you live there and own a car? Park it elsewhere. Fancy a taxi home? Get dropped at the boundary of the LTN. All deliveries other than bulky large heavy items? Collect from local shop or post office outside the LTN boundary. Fair is fair. Certainly if one claims one car on their street is one too many.

Needless to say, if such perfectly fair and objective measures had been proposed for LTN zones, the percentage of local residents voting for it would have likely been next-to-fuck-all %.

TLDR summary: we should all towards leading more responsible and environmentally friendly lifestyles, but anyone advocating outright bans on something must either ensure they aren’t benefiting in any way from the very thing they’re demanding others are prevented  from using, or GTFO.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

Most people won't change their habits without stick and/or carrot. The expansion of ULEZ is a fucking huuuuge stick, and I'm amazed that Sadiq's got away with it. Maybe people who are on the fence, or who say there's no point changing because one person can't make a difference, are relieved and grateful that there's some leadership and the whole community will change at once. I also suspect that many people aren't aware of it. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the pre-Sept 2015 diesels in London suddenly have to pay £12.50 a day. If it goes smoothly you can bet that many other cities in the UK and Europe will follow suit.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Of course, only it is not as simple as that. A lot of the stuff Amazon delivers is not the kind of wares anyone would jump into a car to pick up. I know plenty of people who will order the likes of a flash drive or a myriad of other non-essential stuff they’re in no particular rush to get simply because they get free next day delivery, instead of popping into a shop in central London the next time they were due to go into (by public transport as well of course).
> 
> And additionally, car ownership in larger cities and London in particular is actually fairly low, so the argument that all these convenient doorstep deliveries plaguing our streets nowadays are replacing car journeys is even weaker. A carless person ordering 24 rolls of toilet roll would have carried them on the bus before they got a Prime subscription.
> 
> ...


These kinds of posts are a depression machine.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

hash tag said:


> I am hating the new cycle lanes, they have now got those stupid little poles in them. In time they will become dirty and difficult to see. People are already hitting them. There is no where for cars to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. There is no where for emergency vehicles to stop. All the rubbish will build up inside them because the cleaners can't get inside them..and lo, cyclists still ride on pavements.





Emergency vehicles and street cleaners use cycle lanes.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the pre-Sept 2015 diesels in London suddenly have to pay £12.50 a day. If it goes smoothly you can bet that many other cities in the UK and Europe will follow suit.


Everyone in London has been on notice for a couple of years regarding older diesels now. It's not going to come as any shock. Anyone who's still running one is either unconcerned because the ULEZ expansion won't affect them, wealthy enough not to care, or an idiot.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> These kinds of posts are a depression machine.


Just ignore it, it's complete bollocks.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Just ignore it, it's complete bollocks.


I know. T & P posts the same thing every couple of weeks or so.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Everyone in London has been on notice for a couple of years regarding older diesels now. It's not going to come as any shock. Anyone who's still running one is either unconcerned because the ULEZ expansion won't affect them, wealthy enough not to care, or an idiot.


Pre-Sept 2015 isn't exactly old. And never underestimate the idiots.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

hash tag said:


> There is no where for cars to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass.


It's strange that I've never come across motorists campaigning for kerbside parking to be removed anywhere where it means there's only two vehicles' width of roadway left over. It seems that they regard a cycle lane plus poles as substantially different to a row of parked cars.


----------



## T & P (Apr 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> These kinds of posts are a depression machine.


Because they remind you of your own double standards and hypocritical lifestyle, which you'd rather pretend didn't exist?


----------



## T & P (Apr 9, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> I wish Brixton could be car free. It would be bliss. The drivers here are such cretins. The pollution on the South Circular even got a mention at an autopsy recently, as a cause of death.


 And funnily enough the congestion (and invariably, pollution) has got a lot, lot worse in the last few months since those middle class exclusivisity NIMBY areas LTN zones flanking both sides of the South Circular for miles on end have appeared. I wonder if the two could perhaps be related...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> And funnily enough the congestion (and invariably, pollution) has got a lot, lot worse in the last few months since those middle class exclusivisity NIMBY areas LTN zones flanking both sides of the South Circular for miles on end have appeared. I wonder if the two could perhaps be related...


*citation needed


----------



## teuchter (Apr 10, 2021)

I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.





__





						Beeching Plan 2021: roads to close
					

Perhaps this should be under speculation, mods feel free to move it.  Beeching closing railways is often mentioned here, but what about a Beeching Road report, identifying roads that could be closed? Drove by Shrewsbury and Worcester recently after a few years absence, both seem to have bypasses...



					www.railforums.co.uk


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 11, 2021)

How could people outside cities manage without cars?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing.[/URL]


Fringe?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 11, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Indeed. Which is precisely why we need more pedestrianised high streets, cycle lanes, LTN's etc.



Cycle lanes have been shown to lead to a proliferation of cyclists.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 11, 2021)

hash tag said:


> I am hating the new cycle lanes, they have now got those stupid little poles in them. In time they will become dirty and difficult to see. People are already hitting them.



So cycle lanes should be got rid of because...drivers can't drive?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's strange that I've never come across motorists campaigning for kerbside parking to be removed anywhere where it means there's only two vehicles' width of roadway left over. It seems that they regard a cycle lane plus poles as substantially different to a row of parked cars.



Plenty of people round here park on main roads so as to leave less than two cars' width of roadway. Long term storage of large commercial and recreational vehicles on a public highway is perfectly acceptable for some reason. The extra congestion, pollution and risk this causes is nowhere on the agenda of the hard-done-by motorist brigade.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate to burst your bubble but the guys at railforum have the same power and influence as the posters of U75, i.e. exactly none whatsoever


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 11, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Plenty of people round here park on main roads so as to leave less than two cars' width of roadway. Long term storage of large commercial and recreational vehicles on a public highway is perfectly acceptable for some reason. The extra congestion, pollution and risk this causes is nowhere on the agenda of the hard-done-by motorist brigade.


The one thing which trumps the right to drive is the right to park.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 11, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> So cycle lanes should be got rid of because...drivers can't drive?


 No, but those poles are shit and counter-productive. Even potentially dangerous IMO


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 11, 2021)

T & P said:


> And funnily enough the congestion (and invariably, pollution) has got a lot, lot worse in the last few months since those middle class exclusivisity NIMBY areas LTN zones flanking both sides of the South Circular for miles on end have appeared. I wonder if the two could perhaps be related...


With the pandemic people are a lot less likely to use public transport, so they get in their car. 
Now before the pandemic and LTNs, when traffic was able to flow freely we had congestion and pollution - so where is all that extra traffic going to go?.
LTNs and cycle lanes are part of the solution, give people an alternative to cars.  1/3 of car journeys are less than 2k.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> With the pandemic people are a lot less likely to use public transport, so they get in their car.
> Now before the pandemic and LTNs, when traffic was able to flow freely we had congestion and pollution - so where is all that extra traffic going to go?.
> LTNs and cycle lanes are part of the solution, give people an alternative to cars.  1/3 of car journeys are less than 2k.


If 1/3 of journeys are less than 2k, and even if you managed to convince 100% of those to switch to walking, cycling or public transport, it would still leave 2/3rds of all traffic journeys being longer than that distance, and they far less likely to switch.

The traffic on the stretch of the South Circular directly flanked by LTNs has got unspeakably worse since they were implemented. And that traffic is never going to go away- ever. So all we are achieving is condemning countless amounts of people (the residents along the road as much as the road users, lest we forget) to an eternity of increased traffic fumes and signficantly larger delays, so the lucky residents of some quirky residential triangle get extra tranquility on their already traffic-light streets, while the poor sods living along the main roads, including of course bus users and cyclists endure a semi-perpetual state of chock-a-block traffic. And make no mistake, car traffic will increase not decrese once the pandemic is fully over. Things will only get even worse.

There is a need for reduce car usage and we should aim to do so, but this is not the way to do it. Not when it creates a set of problems on its own and make conditions and quality of life worse for a great many people and is doomed to have a limited effect on vehicle journeys in London anyway.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

“This is not the way to do it”.

Let’s hear what is then?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

T&P has got it all worked out.



T & P said:


> that traffic is never going to go away- ever.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

By the way here is something I came across at the weekend.

Let's cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there and admire whatever fragments might be left over afterwards.



This sign made me wonder exactly what was going on in the mind of the person who chose that image to represent the development. Usually you'd choose an image with the cafe and river and trees in the foreground and the oversized carpark hidden from view. 

But maybe what this person was really excited about was a new smooth expanse of tarmac to park their death machine on. Maybe that really is more important to them than looking at the river or being amongst the trees.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> By the way here is something I came across at the weekend.
> 
> Let's cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there and admire whatever fragments might be left over afterwards.
> 
> View attachment 262926


What's so good about trees? I walk past trees every day, and never give them a second glance, but a Bugatti Chiron in a lovely car park in the woods, now that's worth staring at


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> By the way here is something I came across at the weekend.
> 
> Let's cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there and admire whatever fragments might be left over afterwards.
> 
> ...



They should have put some V8 BMWs in there


----------



## klang (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> By the way here is something I came across at the weekend.
> 
> Let's cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there and admire whatever fragments might be left over afterwards.
> 
> ...


where's that?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

"Cafe and family leasure facility" 
You have to be a special kind of joyless to begrudge working class families some leisure time.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 12, 2021)

When we moved into our current house we had a tree on the front lawn, When Eldest Q started learning to drive when she turned 17, I realised there would just be no space for a third car (possibly more as her siblings grew up) so the tree and the grass had to go so I could have the front  paved over.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> When we moved into our current house we had a tree on the front lawn, When Eldest Q started learning to drive when she turned 17, I realised there would just be no space for a third car (possibly more as her siblings grew up) so the tree and the grass had to go so I could have the front  paved over.


At least now you won't have sap and leaves all over your lovely cars. 
I hope the tree cried as you killed it.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

littleseb said:


> where's that?


Somewhere along the River Medway.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> At least now you won't have sap and leaves all over your lovely cars.
> I hope the tree cried as you killed it.


I contracted the job out to a band of professional tree murderers, sap wasn't all that much of a problem  but some birds built their nest on the wrong side once where it was in a branch above the car rather than the grass and shat on my car every night.
After about a week of this I had to remove the nest and destroy it, they hadn't laid any eggs yet though to be honest that wouldn't have stopped me.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> "Cafe and family leasure facility"
> You have to be a special kind of joyless to begrudge working class families some leisure time.


People like Spymaster and his collection of BMW V8s. Whatever they are; I assume some kind of sports car for spoilt adolescents.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.



Well of course they are, it’s not like they don’t have limitless time on their hands cos they’re too busy having sex is it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> People like Spymaster and his collection of BMW V8s. Whatever they are; I assume some kind of sports car for spoilt adolescents.


I only have one V8. 

The other's a straight-6 but has 2 turbochargers. It's for greedy people.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well of course they are, it’s not like they don’t have limitless time on their hands cos they’re too busy having sex is it.


Ooh that was cruel, very funny but still cruel


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> By the way here is something I came across at the weekend.
> 
> Let's cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there and admire whatever fragments might be left over afterwards.
> 
> ...



They’re doubling the size of the car park at the Devil’s Punchbowl in Hindhead, god bless the National Trust for doing their bit to encourage folk to get out in to nature


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “This is not the way to do it”.
> 
> Let’s hear what is then?


Just because I (or anyone else) don't have a magic solution to propose, it doesn't mean we should keep doing something that doesn't solve the problem at hand, and actually makes some aspects of it worse.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well of course they are, it’s not like they don’t have limitless time on their hands cos they’re too busy having sex is it.


I note your urban75 postcount is 20% higher than mine, by the way.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

Destroying ancient woodland to build a duplicate railway route for trains that go a bit faster is, however, perfectly fine


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I note your urban75 postcount is 20% higher than mine, by the way.



And six times the number of likes that you have


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Just because I (or anyone else) don't have a magic solution to propose, it doesn't mean we should keep doing something that doesn't solve the problem at hand, and actually makes some aspects of it worse.


It doesn't go un-noticed that you argue strongly against blanket 20mph speed limits (saying they only need apply to residential streets, which should be distinct from 'main' roads) and also claim that LTNs cause problems because they increase traffic on those main roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Destroying ancient woodland to build a duplicate railway route for trains that go a bit faster is, however, perfectly fine


Ah, you’re one of _those _idiots.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't go un-noticed that you argue strongly against blanket 20mph speed limits (saying they only need apply to residential streets, which should be distinct from 'main' roads) and also claim that LTNs cause problems because they increase traffic on those main roads.


I don't believe there should be any 20mph speed limits. Do they put 20mph speed limits on trains? No, children are taught not to fuck around on train tracks. They should be taught the same about roads. If someone dies whilst fucking around on a train track, we laugh at them and maybe post a video of it on YouTube, to show others how fucking stupid they were, and the train driver gets a bit of time off work, but if someone hasn't learnt that roads are dangerous, and steps out in front of a car, weirdos punish the car driver by imposing silly speed limits, instead of awarding the poor driver compensation for the trauma, and prosecuting the pedestrian for causing this unnecessary suffering.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 12, 2021)

That is one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever seen on here


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That is one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever seen on here


It's just a parody of the people who actually think some of that stuff.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't believe there should be any 20mph speed limits. Do they put 20mph speed limits on trains? No, children are taught not to fuck around on train tracks. They should be taught the same about roads. If someone dies whilst fucking around on a train track, we laugh at them and maybe post a video of it on YouTube, to show others how fucking stupid they were, and the train driver gets a bit of time off work, but if someone hasn't learnt that roads are dangerous, and steps out in front of a car, weirdos punish the car driver by imposing silly speed limits, instead of awarding the poor driver compensation for the trauma, and prosecuting the pedestrian for causing this unnecessary suffering.


This is even piss poor as a parody.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 12, 2021)




----------



## mauvais (Apr 12, 2021)

Hello everyone, I see my '_where on Google Earth am I_' skills are urgently required. And it's great timing because I've just bought a drone and a 3D rendering engine.

Before:



Visualisation of after:



Ahhh you car fuckers, I loved that one scrappy tree!


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2021)

They could replace the entire New Forrest with a track for drifting. That would be awesome.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Hello everyone, I see my '_where on Google Earth am I_' skills are urgently required. And it's great timing because I've just bought a drone and a 3D rendering engine.
> 
> Before:
> 
> ...


Proves my point about car park fetishisation completely.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't go un-noticed that you argue strongly against blanket 20mph speed limits (saying they only need apply to residential streets, which should be distinct from 'main' roads) and also claim that LTNs cause problems because they increase traffic on those main roads.


And?


----------



## mauvais (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Proves my point about car park fetishisation completely.


Oh sure, apart from the bit about, "cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there"



Looks like it's the old caff you need to take your wrath out on.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Oh sure, apart from the bit about, "cut down some woodland so people can park their cars there"
> 
> View attachment 262943
> 
> Looks like it's the old caff you need to take your wrath out on.


We both know that a load of the new stuff (like one of the new lakes and whatever other things are cropped out above) could have been put where the carpark is, and then a whole load of woodland could have been kept.
But no, the car parking is sacrosanct, and therefore the trees shall be sacrificed instead.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But no, the car parking is sacrosanct, and therefore the trees shall be sacrificed instead.


Correctly.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That is one of the most stupid posts I’ve ever seen on here





beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is even piss poor as a parody.


I'm trying to beat teuchter at his own game.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> If 1/3 of journeys are less than 2k, and even if you managed to convince 100% of those to switch to walking, cycling or public transport, it would still leave 2/3rds of all traffic journeys being longer than that distance, and they far less likely to switch.
> 
> The traffic on the stretch of the South Circular directly flanked by LTNs has got unspeakably worse since they were implemented. And that traffic is never going to go away- ever. So all we are achieving is condemning countless amounts of people (the residents along the road as much as the road users, lest we forget) to an eternity of increased traffic fumes and signficantly larger delays, so the lucky residents of some quirky residential triangle get extra tranquility on their already traffic-light streets, while the poor sods living along the main roads, including of course bus users and cyclists endure a semi-perpetual state of chock-a-block traffic. And make no mistake, car traffic will increase not decrese once the pandemic is fully over. Things will only get even worse.
> 
> There is a need for reduce car usage and we should aim to do so, but this is not the way to do it. Not when it creates a set of problems on its own and make conditions and quality of life worse for a great many people and is doomed to have a limited effect on vehicle journeys in London anyway.


Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How would people outside cities manage without cars?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> How would people outside cities manage without cars?


Nobody lives outside cities in teuchter's world. Everybody lives in a nice gated complex in London.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> How would people outside cities manage without cars?


In what scenario?


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

In the "cars have been got rid of scenario". Presumably the environmental lobby have given this some thought. We hear a lot about urban transport solutions, but not so much about people in rural areas. They often have a 10+ mile drive to local amenities. I can't see bicycles and/or buses as much of a solution.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> In the "cars have been got rid of scenario". Presumably the environmental lobby have given this some thought. We hear a lot about urban transport solutions, but not so much about people in rural areas. They often have a 10+ mile drive to local amenities. I can't see bicycles and/or buses as much of a solution.


You can read the first few pages of this thread which I think links to some other threads too which should answer your questions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't care about people who don't live in cities


CFY


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.



Empty roads encourage speeding, you monster.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You can read the first few pages of this thread which I think links to some other threads too which should answer your questions.



Ok, I've read them. The only reasonable rural car-free solution I can envisage is summoning a shared/hired autonomous vehicle whenever you have an errand. Has anyone modelled the cost and practicality of this? I'm interested to know how it would compare with people in rural areas owning their own self-drive or autonomous vehicle and parking it at home and all of their many destinations. 

If the shared/hired fleet had vehicles of varying sizes, a solo journey could be done in a roofed/cabin two wheeler. That would be sufficient for most trips, so you'd make a huge saving in energy/resources/impact compared to the usual 5-seater-with-boot-personal vehicle. But it all sounds a bit Flash Gordon to me. I can't envisage it happening for several decades. And would the numbers make much sense?

I've always thought that roofed/cabin two wheelers also have massive potential in urban settings, especially if they're autonomous. But you never hear about them. For the last 34 years Peraves cabin motorcycles have been achieving astonishingly high average speeds with low fuel consumption. Only a handful of people have them. They're expensive to buy and need a lot of skill to drive. But if they were autonomous they could be a massive game changer. There are already experimental motorcycles which can drive themselves and, unlike the Peraves, stay upright when stationary. 

Peraves:


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 12, 2021)

The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected  to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it  but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?


----------



## Elpenor (Apr 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know some contributors to this thread think the whole "let's get rid of cars" thing is a kind of fringe lunatic thing. They won't be laughing for long. The guys over at railforums.co.uk are already drawing up a list of roads to shut down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe this is called “crayonism”


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected  to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it  but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
> Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
> Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?


And how would we go about booking one of these communal cars for dogging?


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> The idea of shared autonomous vehicles has some merit but they still raise questions. Shared as in they don't belong to you but will come exclusively for you and yours. Shared in the sense that you would be expected  to share journeys with other people. That would be more environmentally friendly and some people would be fine with it  but probably not so if you were a woman on her own.
> Summoning a robotaxi to take you home on a Saturday night sounds great but how long would people be prepared to wait. As a father of teenage girls I have more than once picked up the phone to hear someone say "Dad I can't get a taxi please can you come and get me"
> Would you prepared to have one that someone has just thrown up in?


I'm assuming you don't occupy the vehicle with strangers unless you choose to. The shared aspect is mainly the community-society ownership. In the sense that we used to own all the BR trains. I'm assuming the autonomous shared vehicle service would have to be state-wide and nationalised. If it was divided amongst private operators it would be ten times as disastrous as rail franchising. You'd have local operators ruthlessly trying to force each other out of business, as with the Stagecoach/Gloag story.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Don’t you get it. If you get a 100% of them to switch then that’s a third of car traffic off the roads. If you took out all car journeys less than 3k then that’s almost half of the traffic. There would be no congestion at all.


Sadly it seems unlikely you’re going to get anywhere near 100% reduction of those short car journeys by just facilitating quieter and safer cycling routes. A lot of people can’t or will not ditch their car for a bicycle regardless of how safe and fully car-free routes, for various reasons.

Some will simply can’t be arsed. Others can’t cycle. Others are not physically fit enough. Others cannot accomplish what their trip out requires on a bike (heavy shopping, giving a lift to others, etc). Others might be willing on principle but certainly not on all those days when it’s cold, or raining.

You don’t really need to be an expert in the field or wait for official reports a year down the line to know that, the best, safest cycling conditions possible are never going to achieve more than a small to moderate reduction of those short journeys. A great many people will simply not cycle, end of.

IMO it’d be very wishful thinking to think the LTN zones are ever in a million years going to convert a even third of those people who currently use their cars for short journeys to cycle, let alone all of them. A great many people will never ever cycle, that is the short answer. But I’ll eat my hat on a live feed if I’m wrong and these LTNs manage to convert even half of those making 2km journeys in cars in London to cycling or walking, never mind all of them.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

Your thesis is easy to test by looking at who does or doesn't cycle in an established cycling paradise such as Amsterdam. I'm sure you could find some stats.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Sadly it seems unlikely you’re going to get anywhere near 100% reduction of those short car journeys by just facilitating quieter and safer cycling routes. A lot of people can’t or will not ditch their car for a bicycle regardless of how safe and fully car-free routes, for various reasons.
> 
> Some will simply can’t be arsed. Others can’t cycle. Others are not physically fit enough. Others cannot accomplish what their trip out requires on a bike (heavy shopping, giving a lift to others, etc). Others might be willing on principle but certainly not on all those days when it’s cold, or raining.
> 
> ...


That sound in the distance is people from The Netherlands laughing at you.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Your thesis is easy to test by looking at who does or doesn't cycle in an established cycling paradise such as Amsterdam. I'm sure you could find some stats.


I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> I really don’t think comparisons between different cities in different countries are proof or even indicative of anything, for multiple reasons from city layouts to existing transport infrastructures to travel costs. I’m all for looking at other countries‘ models and trying to import their positive traits, but it’s not going to be as simple as copying it and expecting to get the same outcome.


This is just head-in-sand mode. You can do better.


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That sound in the distance is people from The Netherlands laughing at you.


So why the fuck aren’t potential cyclists in London not cycling already if physically able? Are you seriously suggesting that all the people who have a car and have never before chosen to switch their car for a cycle in the past are going to do that now because there are LTN zones about? A few undoubtedly, but many, let alone most or all? Bollocks wishful thinking and you know it. Certainly on those LTNs that still allow resident cars, buses, taxis and or deliveries, which is most of them.

As an example in my local area, if someone was afraid enough in the past to cycle from Tulse Hill to Streatham, which already offered an end to end quiet route with multiple with low traffic, wide streets before the LTN came along, it would be fantasist bullshit to pretend the arrival of the LTN, which still allows for cars and buses to travel through it, it’s going to sway the great majority of those. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and I suspect you know it just as well as I.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Ok, I've read them. The only reasonable rural car-free solution I can envisage is summoning a shared/hired autonomous vehicle whenever you have an errand. Has anyone modelled the cost and practicality of this? I'm interested to know how it would compare with people in rural areas owning their own self-drive or autonomous vehicle and parking it at home and all of their many destinations.
> 
> If the shared/hired fleet had vehicles of varying sizes, a solo journey could be done in a roofed/cabin two wheeler. That would be sufficient for most trips, so you'd make a huge saving in energy/resources/impact compared to the usual 5-seater-with-boot-personal vehicle. But it all sounds a bit Flash Gordon to me. I can't envisage it happening for several decades. And would the numbers make much sense?
> 
> ...



A fully car-free solution for rural areas is less easy to achieve than in urban areas, and it's not something that is likely to happen in the near future. That said I think it's important to point out that a car free existence isn't impossible in rural areas, lots of people do it and many of them because they don't have any choice. Some rely heavily on help from others, some simply accept a restricted lifestyle, some position themselves in places which are rural but d have reasonably good public transport connections.

I think it's important not to view rural transport as something to be solved by a single technological solution. Even giving everyone access to shared autonomous vehicles doesn't remove some of the problems that are caused when everyone wants to go into the local town to do their shopping. You still end up with issues of parking and congestion and so on. I'm not sure that roofed/cabin two-wheelers get around all of the problems that cars create.

There might be some less radical technological game-changers, such as more availability of online ordering/delivery. I'm interested to see how that plays out in rural areas. Also, e-bikes and maybe even e-scooters have the potential to make things that were previously just out of reach for some people, become within reach. For some people. e-bikes are not a solution for everyone, before anyone starts saying I am demanding that OAPs go shopping on electric scooters.

Also important to bear in mind that there are many types of "rural" ranging from a kind of spread-out version of suburbia to truly remote places where there's not a shop nor any public transport for 30 miles. The right solutions will be very different in each case.

My immediate focus for rural areas rather than instantly getting rid of all cars would be a reduction in the vicious cycle of car dependancy and things that make life more equitable for those who aren't able to drive or can't afford to. In some places it makes sense to try and increase bus services and in some places you might have to accept that a bus service is not viable. Transport policy should be linked in with planning policy meaning that you try not to end up working out how to get people to distant out-of-town supermarkets and instead do everything you can to make things like shops viable in small settlements. Try and locate any new rural housing in places that can be served by public transport. There's also plenty of space to reduce the number of car journeys overall without demanding anyone give up access to a private car. There are things you can do which might allow a household to shift a proportion of their journeys to public transport and become a one car household instead of a two car household.

My nationalising everyone's car scheme is to make a point about car dependancy and the way that marginal costs affect journey decisions once you are invested into one mode of transport.

Some day maybe I will try and start a thread specifically on rural transport issues where an attempt can be made to discuss these things seriously. I actually have a reading list of recent stuff on this that I am yet to catch up on. Ignore the people trying to tell you I know nothing beyond central London; I grew up in a rural area, which I'm still very much in touch with and I'm very well aware of what problems exist and how they differ to those in urban places (although there are also plenty of things in common). The first instance of me going on about car dependancy is to be found in the pages of a magazine published by a small school in the scottish highlands in the late 20th century.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> So why the fuck aren’t potential cyclists in London not cycling already if physically able? Are you seriously suggesting that all the people who have a car and have never before chosen to switch their car for a cycle in the past are going to do that now because there are LTN zones about? A few undoubtedly, but many, let alone most or all? Bollocks wishful thinking and you know it. Certainly on those LTNs that still allow resident cars, buses, taxis and or deliveries, which is most of them.
> 
> As an example in my local area, if someone was afraid enough in the past to cycle from Tulse Hill to Streatham, which already offered an end to end quiet route with multiple with low traffic, wide streets before the LTN came along, it would be fantasist bullshit to pretend the arrival of the LTN, which still allows for cars and buses to travel through it, it’s going to sway the great majority of those. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, and I suspect you know it just as well as I.


I think this twitter account might be a good one for you.



			https://twitter.com/epiphanymotors


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



Funnily enough I was last in Amsterdam in late 2019 and remembered seeing plenty of cars on shit loads of streets, including through the very centre of the city. Are talking about reduced traffic and selected traffic-free streets, or traffic-free cities? We seem to be switching from one proposal to the other as is suitable to the discussion...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Funnily enough I was last in Amsterdam in late 2019 and remembered seeing plenty of cars on shit loads of streets, including through the very centre of the city.


It's almost as if with correct planning and infrastructure  - that puts the needs of people first, not their cars - a city can work and still have cars available for those who actually need them.

(fwiw, cycling rates in Amsterdam are still rising, with a corresponding reduction in car use. They'll be effectively gone eventually)


----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> This is just head-in-sand mode. You can do better.


Are you seriously suggesting that the very layout, demographics, geography, size, and existing transport infrastructure of a given city don’t really matter when considering implementing the transport model of a different city with visible differences in all those areas? That the same percentage of regular cyclists is exportable and easily achievable to any other city, just like that?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A fully car-free solution for rural areas is less easy to achieve than in urban areas, and it's not something that is likely to happen in the near future. That said I think it's important to point out that a car free existence isn't impossible in rural areas, lots of people do it and many of them because they don't have any choice. Some rely heavily on help from others, some simply accept a restricted lifestyle, some position themselves in places which are rural but d have reasonably good public transport connections.
> 
> I think it's important not to view rural transport as something to be solved by a single technological solution. Even giving everyone access to shared autonomous vehicles doesn't remove some of the problems that are caused when everyone wants to go into the local town to do their shopping. You still end up with issues of parking and congestion and so on. I'm not sure that roofed/cabin two-wheelers get around all of the problems that cars create.
> 
> ...




TL,DR


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 13, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> After about a week of this I had to remove the nest and destroy it, they hadn't laid any eggs yet though to be honest that wouldn't have stopped me.


That's not very nice.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> (fwiw, cycling rates in Amsterdam are still rising, with a corresponding reduction in car use. They'll be effectively gone eventually)


That's great, but given that motorists in the UK pump around £40 Billion a year in taxes into the coffers, how do you suppose a country of freeloading cyclists is going to pay for the NHS? Or are you suggesting that, like the Netherlands, we should ditch the NHS and require everyone to pay mandatory health insurance? Or didn't you think that far ahead?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's great, but given that motorists in the UK pump around £40 Billion a year in taxes into the coffers, how do you suppose a country of freeloading cyclists is going to pay for the NHS? Or are you suggesting that, like the Netherlands, we should ditch the NHS and require everyone to pay mandatory health insurance? Or didn't you think that far ahead?


You might want to dig a little deeper into the actual cost of motoring and supporting roads infrastructure, the cost of pollution and congestion etc etc. Car drivers are freeloaders, subsidised by everyone else.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that the very layout, demographics, geography, size, and existing transport infrastructure of a given city don’t really matter when considering implementing the transport model of a different city with visible differences in all those areas? That the same percentage of regular cyclists is exportable and easily achievable to any other city, just like that?


Do they matter? Of course. Will it happen “just like that”? No, it will be a long process, made harder by the reactionary idiots fighting it every step of the way. Is it possible? Yes.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 13, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> That's not very nice.


No but it was necessary, if there had been eggs I might have tried moving the nest so it was over the grass though I believe that birds don't like that. But parking on the road or accepting my car covered in birdshit for several weeks isn't worth a few more pigeons in the world.
Sometimes harsh choices have to be made.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Sadly it seems unlikely you’re going to get anywhere near 100% reduction of those short car journeys by just facilitating quieter and safer cycling routes. A lot of people can’t or will not ditch their car for a bicycle regardless of how safe and fully car-free routes, for various reasons.
> 
> Some will simply can’t be arsed. Others can’t cycle. Others are not physically fit enough. Others cannot accomplish what their trip out requires on a bike (heavy shopping, giving a lift to others, etc). Others might be willing on principle but certainly not on all those days when it’s cold, or raining.



When discussing cycling with people those never come up, 99.99% of the time its because it's dangerous and ltns and cycle lanes improve that. Does it get cold in Copenhagen?



T & P said:


> You don’t really need to be an expert in the field or wait for official reports a year down the line to know that, the best, safest cycling conditions possible are never going to achieve more than a small to moderate reduction of those short journeys. A great many people will simply not cycle, end of.
> 
> IMO it’d be very wishful thinking to think the LTN zones are ever in a million years going to convert a even third of those people who currently use their cars for short journeys to cycle, let alone all of them. A great many people will never ever cycle, that is the short answer. But I’ll eat my hat on a live feed if I’m wrong and these LTNs manage to convert even half of those making 2km journeys in cars in London to cycling or walking, never mind all of them.


You don't need to be an expert - common sense etc...

I know myself because I have seen more people commute when they put a cycle lane on my route. They work.

We've not even gone onto the pollution bit yet...


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

London has managed to double the amount of cycle journeys, in the past couple of decades, so it's clear that there is scope to encourage more people to do it, even if the absolute number is still pretty small. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens this summer if/when people start returning to work in central London. On a purely anecdotal basis I know a few people who previously would not have considered cycling as a commute method, who have been doing it through the pandemic.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

Cycling is 3 times worse for the environment than driving.


----------



## nick (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Cycling is 3 times worse for the environment than driving.


you bastard.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Cycling is 3 times worse for the environment than driving.


Dead link for me, can you check it?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Dead link for me, can you check it?


Sorted. Try it now.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Sorted. Try it now.


Nope, still doesn't work.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 13, 2021)

nick said:


> you bastard.


I fell for it too.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> London has managed to double the amount of cycle journeys, in the past couple of decades, so it's clear that there is scope to encourage more people to do it, even if the absolute number is still pretty small. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens this summer if/when people start returning to work in central London. On a purely anecdotal basis I know a few people who previously would not have considered cycling as a commute method, who have been doing it through the pandemic.


Cycling should absolutely be encouraged, environmental benefits aside, it has health benefits and is a great recreational activity for the whole family as well. I'm broadly in favour of anything that makes it safer for people to do. We need proper cycle lanes that are physically isolated from roads on which cars operate. Perhaps that will encourage people to consider using it as an alternative to SOME car journeys which is great but any idea that will result in a massive drop off of car ownership is nonsense. Like it or not outside the big cities in fact mostly just outside London, there is zero alternative (actual or plausible) to owning a car. Cars can and must be made more environmentally friendly, phase out the ICE in favour of electric/fuel cell vehicles and make them more recycleable by all means but no government would dare and no population will tolerate imposed rights on ownership.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Cycling should absolutely be encouraged, environmental benefits aside, it has health benefits and is a great recreational activity for the whole family as well. I'm broadly in favour of anything that makes it safer for people to do. We need proper cycle lanes that are physically isolated from roads on which cars operate. Perhaps that will encourage people to consider using it as an alternative to SOME car journeys which is great but any idea that will result in a massive drop off of car ownership is nonsense. Like it or not outside the big cities in fact mostly just outside London, there is zero alternative (actual or plausible) to owning a car. Cars can and must be made more environmentally friendly, phase out the ICE in favour of electric/fuel cell vehicles and make them more recycleable by all means but no government would dare and no population will tolerate imposed rights on ownership.


This entire thread is about countering the view you have just spelled out. Feel free to bother reading it, if you want to. It's tiring to respond to the same, standard, points repeatedly.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> We need proper cycle lanes that are physically isolated from roads on which cars operate.


I can think of plenty of places that fit that brief. Pripyat immediately springs to mind.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Feel free to bother reading it, if you want to.


Don't be silly. Nobody takes this thread seriously. It's just one to piss about on.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be silly. Nobody takes this thread seriously. It's just one to piss about on.


I know. MickiQ's post was just making fun of people stuck in outdated modes of thinking about transport. Mine was making fun of someone who thought that anyone could actually write that stuff seriously.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's tiring to respond to the same, standard, points repeatedly.



Maybe naptime?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know. MickiQ's post was just making fun of people stuck in outdated modes of thinking about transport. Mine was making fun of someone who thought that anyone could actually write that stuff seriously.


I didn't realise. I don't read most of yours.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You might want to dig a little deeper into the actual cost of motoring and supporting roads infrastructure, the cost of pollution and congestion etc etc. Car drivers are freeloaders, subsidised by everyone else.


The roads are necessary for haulage of silly little things like food, and other such frivolities. Car drivers also use the roads, and car drivers pay lots of taxes, so car drivers are actually subsidising your food, and pretty much everything else you buy. Cyclists, on the other hand... Freeloading fucks.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't realise. I don't read most of yours.


I read all of his posts, they're great. He may come across as deranged but he is both consistent and highly entertaining.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't realise. I don't read most of yours.


Nobody does (apart from MickiQ) . They all say the same thing, just with different words and varying degrees of joylessness.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't read most of yours.


That's quite obvious from all the nonsense you write and all the basic things you get wrong. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink (from the fount of wisdom).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The roads are necessary for haulage of silly little things like food, and other such frivolities. Car drivers also use the roads, and car drivers pay lots of taxes, so car drivers are actually subsidising your food, and pretty much everything else you buy. Cyclists, on the other hand... Freeloading fucks.


No. Try again.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)




----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> London has managed to double the amount of cycle journeys, in the past couple of decades, so it's clear that there is scope to encourage more people to do it, even if the absolute number is still pretty small. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens this summer if/when people start returning to work in central London. On a purely anecdotal basis I know a few people who previously would not have considered cycling as a commute method, who have been doing it through the pandemic.


Of of course there is scope for further conversion to cycling- not disputing that. But what I was questioning earlier were the claims or suggestions made by others in the last page or two that one could get rid of all short distance car journeys by a sufficiently improved cycling network.

Some people will never cycle, either because they can’t actually do so, or because they simply won’t for a range of reasons, from convenience to laziness to plain old refusal to do so. Such cases have nothing to do with cycling safety, and IMO it is wishful thinking that you would get rid of most, let alone all private car short journeys that currently take place by offering the best possible cycling conditions, however safe.

Banter aside, I have never questioned the benefits for everyone for increased cycle use. But I do maintain that some of the recently pro-cycling measures that rely on motor vehicle area-wide exclusions are not just inefficient, but actually making matters worse for everyone. I only wish that it is not going to take several years for the authorities to realise that making large areas of London inaccessible to through traffic, and causing perennial congestions on the remaining thoroughfares to cars, will have achieved a modest reduction in car journeys at best, while making conditions for all types of road users on those routes as well as the local residents along them a lot worse.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

The bicycle of course was invented in Scotland, by clever Scottish people (like most things). You can see that the Nazis hadn't worked out how to ride them, so just pushed them around like idiots (much like most modern car drivers would).

What did Hitler invent? He invented the mass-produced affordable car - which went on to do more damage to the world than WW2 did. Of course the Nazis wanted everyone to have a car. Hitler was very much in tune with a certain kind of person - the kind of person who wants to be a car owner. 





Recognise the expression on Hitler's face? Yes, that's right, it's the same expression we know that certain posters on this thread have as they sit in their car and see someone less wealthy than them, perhaps waiting for a bus in the rain. Waiting for the bus because car drivers have voted for there to be insufficient funding for public transport. Just like the Nazis, these urban75 posters pretend to be "socialists" but actually believe themselves to be a master race.

It's not difficult to join the dots.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Of of course there is scope for further conversion to cycling- not disputing that. But what I was questioning earlier were the claims or suggestions made by others in the last page or two that one could get rid of all short distance car journeys by a sufficiently improved cycling network.
> 
> Some people will never cycle, either because they can’t actually do so, or because they simply won’t for a range of reasons, from convenience to laziness to plain old refusal to do so. Such cases have nothing to do with cycling safety, and IMO it is wishful thinking that you would get rid of most, let alone all private car short journeys that currently take place by offering the best possible cycling conditions, however safe.
> 
> Banter aside, I have never questioned the benefits for everyone for increased cycle use. But I do maintain that some of the recently pro-cycling measures that rely on motor vehicle area-wide exclusions are not just inefficient, but actually making matters worse for everyone. I only wish that it is not going to take several years for the authorities to realise that making large areas of London inaccessible to through traffic, and causing perennial congestions on the remaining thoroughfares to cars, will have achieved a modest reduction in car journeys at best, while making conditions for all types of road users on those routes as well as the local residents along them a lot worse.


Strange how it works everywhere else then. I know it’s nice to think that us Brits are something special but the reality doesn’t match up. Wherever good quality cycling infrastructure is built, cycling rates go up, with a corresponding drop in car journeys.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The bicycle of course was invented in Scotland, by clever Scottish people (like most things). You can see that the Nazis hadn't worked out how to ride them, so just pushed them around like idiots (much like most modern car drivers would).
> 
> What did Hitler invent? He invented the mass-produced affordable car - which went on to do more damage to the world than WW2 did. Of course the Nazis wanted everyone to have a car. Hitler was very much in tune with a certain kind of person - the kind of person who wants to be a car owner.
> 
> ...



... well, that post is certainly an effective evisceration of what passes for mental health care in this country.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> ... well, that post is certainly an effective evisceration of what passes for mental health care in this country.


Sense of humour, you do not have


----------



## maomao (Apr 13, 2021)

Innit. I've pretty much given up posting on these threads because it's more fun watching teuchter run rings round them.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Sense of humour, you do not have



Attempts at comedy usually ring fewer alarm bells, but it’s a relief to know that’s what it was.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Innit. I've pretty much given up posting on these threads because it's more fun watching teuchter run rings round them.



U ok hun?


----------



## maomao (Apr 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> U ok hun?


Fine thanks Sheldon.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What did Hitler invent? He invented the mass-produced affordable car


He was a lot like you in that regard. Nobody can be wrong all the time, although you seem to be having a fairly good attempt.


----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Strange how it works everywhere else then. I know it’s nice to think that us Brits are something special but the reality doesn’t match up. Wherever good quality cycling infrastructure is built, cycling rates go up, with a corresponding drop in car journeys.


You say it works everywhere else. I have been in 20-odd countries in my life, and nowhere else I have observed the same policy of forcing all through traffic in one route only between two city areas and make it all about impossible to take an alternative route, like it has long been the case in London, and made more so since the arrival of the LTNs.

Even in the much lauded European cities with high cycle use that you and others suggest is the way forward for Britain, cars are allowed to choose multiple routes from A to B, which include- oh horror of horrors- countless residential side streets.

So come to think of it, fuck yeah! Let’s adopt the Amsterdam model. In full, naturally, and including their standing on motor vehicles travelling through side streets.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

The difference there being that those streets are designed with pedestrians and cyclists first. The entire experience and expectations of driving a car there are entirely different. There is no reason whatsoever why it can’t be done here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

How Amsterdam became the bicycle capital of the world
					

In the 1960s, Dutch cities were increasingly in thrall to motorists, with the car seen as the transport of the future. It took the intolerable toll of child traffic deaths – and fierce activism – to turn Amsterdam into the cycling nirvana of today




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

Yep, let’s have cars using side streets like this please:


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The difference there being that those streets are designed with pedestrians and cyclists first. The entire experience and expectations of driving a car there are entirely different. There is no reason whatsoever why it can’t be done here.


There are many.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> policy of forcing all through traffic in one route only between two city areas and make it all about impossible to take an alternative route,


What a load of complete nonsense


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

Given that so many of them use bikes, it's strange that they have significantly more road deaths per capita than the UK. Maybe they're doing something wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Given that so many of them use bikes, it's strange that they have significantly more road deaths per capita than the UK. Maybe they're doing something wrong.



Well, our road deaths are v low compared to most places.  It’s health and safety gone mad, frankly.


----------



## cybershot (Apr 13, 2021)

Plan to ban rush hour on Stoke-on-Trent road agreed
					

But cabinet members at Stoke-on-Trent City Council are still fighting proposals to ban rush hour traffic from Victoria Road in Fenton




					www.stokesentinel.co.uk


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

Does that include the school run?


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> I have been in 20-odd countries in my life, and nowhere else I have observed...


You don't differentiate between anecotal evidence and data, do you? This prevents you from making a useful contribution to the debate.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> You don't differentiate between anecotal evidence and data, do you? This prevents you from making a useful contribution to the debate.



It’s a debate! 

Come on, boffins!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What a load of complete nonsense
> 
> View attachment 263142View attachment 263143View attachment 263144View attachment 263145View attachment 263146View attachment 263147View attachment 263148


UP TO 4 MINUTES MORE THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE IT'S THE END OF DAYS AND WORSE THAN HITLER WHO ARE THE REAL RACISTS HERE ANYWAY IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD WHY DO YOU HATE OLD PEOPLE SO MUCH THINK OF THE FUCKING CHILDREN NURSE IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN

(repeat to fade)


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What a load of complete nonsense
> 
> View attachment 263142View attachment 263143View attachment 263144View attachment 263145View attachment 263146View attachment 263147View attachment 263148



Was it just me expecting some kind of Longcat joke to become apparent while scrolling down?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

Anyway... Cyclists... fucking freeloaders.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anyway... Cyclists... fucking freeloaders.


Talentless dog-fluffers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anyway... Cyclists... fucking freeloaders.


Do explain


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Do explain


Don’t fall for it


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anyway... Cyclists... fucking freeloaders.



I cycle and pay a lot of tax.
I do have fairly sticky fingers though if you’d like to apply a label.


----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> You don't differentiate between anecotal evidence and data, do you? This prevents you from making a useful contribution to the debate.


Oh really? Well, seeing as this can be easily turned around the other way, let’s just do so.

You seem to be suggesting that I am wrong or have no verifiable proof to say that cities abroad including poster-child Amsterdam don’t ban cars from travelling on secondary/ side streets anywhere near the level seen in London nowadays.

So, can you prove that Amsterdam does in fact have similarly restrictive laws and policy to London today regarding cars using side streets instead of sticking to trunk routes only?

I mean, my brother-in-law lives there and I’ve been there plenty of times, and every time  including our most recent visit in Xmas 2019, our taxis to and from his place to various places across town almost invariably included driving through all kinds of secondary residential streets. But admittedly I cannot prove this to you, so hopefully you can prove to me I must have imagined it or be lying.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Oh really? Well, seeing as this can be easily turned around the other way, let’s just do so.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that I am wrong or have no verifiable proof to say that cities abroad including poster-child Amsterdam don’t ban cars from travelling on secondary/ side streets anywhere near the level seen in London nowadays.
> 
> ...


When London's side streets resemble those of Amsterdam, you may have a point.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Do explain



I’m not sure where this is going, but I’m hoping it’s better than road tax...


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Oh really? Well, seeing as this can be easily turned around the other way, let’s just do so.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that I am wrong or have no verifiable proof to say that cities abroad including poster-child Amsterdam don’t ban cars from travelling on secondary/ side streets anywhere near the level seen in London nowadays.
> 
> ...



That's just more proof that you don't get the difference between anedotal evidence and data.


----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> That's just more proof that you don't get the difference between anedotal evidence and data.


 Let’s try again. Can I ask you a question and ask for a straight answer, with no diversions, counter questions, or whataboutisms? 

Does Amsterdam constrict motor vehicles regarding the use of secondary or side streets as through-routes anywhere near as much as London does presently in those areas where LTNs have proliferated?


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Does Amsterdam constrict motor vehicles regarding the use of secondary or side streets as through-routes anywhere near as much as London does presently in those areas where LTNs have proliferated?


Do they need to?


----------



## maomao (Apr 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 263159


Drove a BMW too:


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Let’s try again. Can I ask you a question and ask for a straight answer, with no diversions, counter questions, or whataboutisms?
> 
> Does Amsterdam constrict motor vehicles regarding the use of secondary or side streets as through-routes anywhere near as much as London does presently in those areas where LTNs have proliferated?


Here’s an article where they talk about filtering in Holland:









						How to prevent rat running
					

Bollards have a bad reputation. They are considered dangerous for cycling and indeed many people get injured when they hit one, but bollards also have a very good side. They can regulate the traffi…




					bicycledutch.wordpress.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

8ball said:


> Well, our road deaths are v low compared to most places.  It’s health and safety gone mad, frankly.


I think it proves that more cars means fewer road deaths.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Drove a BMW too:
> 
> View attachment 263174



Photoshop


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2021)

.


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 13, 2021)

Photoshop


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Does Amsterdam constrict motor vehicles regarding the use of secondary or side streets as through-routes anywhere near as much as London does presently in those areas where LTNs have proliferated?



Yes.

Dutch street design tends to use a slightly different means to get to the same end. They design residential streets such that the speed of traffic along it is reduced way down to something like 10mph. And they make a lot of streets one way for vehicles and both ways for bikes.

The end effect is very similar to creating no-through roads. Drivers are made to stick to the main roads, because the alternative would be much slower.

I can't keep up with whether you're currently moaning that things that work in other cities might not work in London - or whether you are moaning that they use other things in other cities which you would rather we used here. Either way, whether you use the filter/no-through roads approach, or the massively redesigned residential roads approach, you will end up with the same people moaning about the same things like how all the traffic is forced onto the main roads or how it takes longer to drive to somewhere or other since the streets were redesigned.

If you have any realinterest in understanding the Dutch approach there is quite a good explanation here -









						I want my street to be like this…
					

I want my street to be like this… Reclaiming residential streets, Dutch street design, and why this REALLY REALLY matters. This might be the most important blog post I write on urban design &…




					robertweetman.wordpress.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Dutch street design tends to use a slightly different means to get to the same end. They design residential streets such that the speed of traffic along it is reduced way down to something like 10mph.


It's down to 10mph because of slow fucks on bikes. Remove the bikes and it'll be back to a respectable 60mph.


----------



## Winot (Apr 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> You say it works everywhere else. I have been in 20-odd countries in my life, and nowhere else I have observed the same policy of forcing all through traffic in one route only between two city areas and make it all about impossible to take an alternative route, like it has long been the case in London, and made more so since the arrival of the LTNs.



Tokyo


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> Tokyo


Duckbilled Platypus.


----------



## Winot (Apr 14, 2021)




----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

Winot said:


>



I forsee an upsurge in demand for clunkers that would otherwise go straight to the scrapyard as people buy them to trade in for electric bikes.


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I forsee an upsurge in demand for clunkers that would otherwise go straight to the scrapyard as people buy them to trade in for electric bikes.


Still gets people on bikes they otherwise couldn't afford.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I forsee an upsurge in demand for clunkers that would otherwise go straight to the scrapyard as people buy them to trade in for electric bikes.



And they’ll go to the scrapyard after that?  I’m not sure what the issue is there.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> Still gets people on bikes they otherwise couldn't afford.


Then why not just give a subsidy to someone to buy an electric (or pedal) bike without the need to surrender a car first? It's a safe bet that no-one taking up this scheme will actually reduce how many cars they have. The most likely outcome is that rather than trade in a second car against a new one is that they will trade the old car against an electric bike and then pay the extra cost of the replacement car or trade it in for a bike rather than just scrap it/send it to the auction.
Just giving an out and out subsidy would probably give a faster take up as people who would wait until their car is ready for replacement get one now and those who can't afford one (and probably doesn't have a car to trade) could also get one quickly.


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Photoshop


You know it's not. And the Nazi stuff was a bit 'people in glass houses' from a BMW driver too. Why don't you go the whole hog and get a Volkswagen?


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

8ball said:


> And they’ll go to the scrapyard after that?  I’m not sure what the issue is there.


There isn't an issue but if you want to encourage people to buy electric bikes (a policy I support) why not just give out and out subsidies anyway?


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Then why not just give a subsidy to someone to buy an electric (or pedal) bike without the need to surrender a car first? It's a safe bet that no-one taking up this scheme will actually reduce how many cars they have. The most likely outcome is that rather than trade in a second car against a new one is that they will trade the old car against an electric bike and then pay the extra cost of the replacement car or trade it in for a bike rather than just scrap it/send it to the auction.
> Just giving an out and out subsidy would probably give a faster take up as people who would wait until their car is ready for replacement get one now and those who can't afford one (and probably doesn't have a car to trade) could also get one quickly.


It's very British to assume it's all a big scam without even knowing the details of the scheme. There could be some fairly simple protections against scheming the system or maybe they just recognise that letting people benefit directly from government money is a good thing all round.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's very British to assume it's all a big scam without even knowing the details of the scheme. There could be some fairly simple protections against scheming the system or maybe they just recognise that letting people benefit directly from government money is a good thing all round.


I'm sure it's genuine but why not straight out subsidise people to buy electric bikes anyway? I'm not criticising the scheme just think it could be done better by just giving people the 3000 Euro towards an electric bike without attaching any conditions other than it must be spent on a bike rather than champaigne and oysters.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's very British to assume it's all a big scam without even knowing the details of the scheme. There could be some fairly simple protections against scheming the system or maybe they just recognise that letting people benefit directly from government money is a good thing all round.



Most “direct” thing would be to just take out the middleman and reduce taxes.


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I'm sure it's genuine but why not straight out subsidise people to buy electric bikes anyway? I'm not criticising the scheme just think it could be done better by just giving people the 3000 Euro towards an electric bike without attaching any conditions other than it must be spent on a bike rather than champaigne and oysters.


Because dirty old cars will go to scrap rather than being sold to young drivers wanting something cheap. And the price of bangers goes up making driving a little more inconvenient.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

So the aim is to reduce the number of cars in Paris. Either
(a) give people €2500 towards an e-bike and make them get rid of their car
(b) give people €2500 towards an e-bike and let them keep their car.

It's very difficult to judge which would be the most effective. Very tricky. Really hard to tell.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I'm sure it's genuine but why not straight out subsidise people to buy electric bikes anyway? I'm not criticising the scheme just think it could be done better by just giving people the 3000 Euro towards an electric bike without attaching any conditions other than it must be spent on a bike rather than champaigne and oysters.



Maybe the “replacement” element.  It involves taking a car off the road. Also connects the dots re: the idea of a bike _instead_ of a car, as opposed to all those bikes sat in garages in this country, bought with those “cycle to work” schemes while the owners are still driving.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why don't you go the whole hog and get a Volkswagen?



Because they're not Bavarian.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because dirty old cars will go to scrap rather than being sold to young drivers wanting something cheap. And the price of bangers goes up making driving a little more inconvenient.


The person getting rid of the dirty old car will do what it is most cost-effective for them, If there is more money in selling it to a young (or poorer) driver then they will do that else they'll trade it in (which will almost certainly be more profitable than scrapping it themselves even if that is where the car ultimately ends up)


teuchter said:


> So the aim is to reduce the number of cars in Paris. Either
> (a) give people €2500 towards an e-bike and make them get rid of their car
> (b) give people €2500 towards an e-bike and let them keep their car.
> 
> It's very difficult to judge which would be the most effective. Very tricky. Really hard to tell.


If option a) then there is absolutely nothing to stop them then buying another car (admittedly probably a cleaner more environmentally friendly one)


----------



## Athos (Apr 14, 2021)

There must be loads of people who'd never be without a car, but would use it far less if they had an electric bike. A straight subsidy for them would be a good idea.  Maybe £3k if you scrap a car, or £1.5k otherwise?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> If option a) then there is absolutely nothing to stop them then buying another car (admittedly probably a cleaner more environmentally friendly one)


Except that they have to pay for it.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> If option a) then there is absolutely nothing to stop them then buying another car (admittedly probably a cleaner more environmentally friendly one)



.. with the massive environmental cost of making a new car coming into the equation.
Not sure of the full details, though.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

Athos said:


> There must be loads of people who'd never be without a car, but would use it far less if they had an electric bike. A straight subsidy for them would be a good idea.  Maybe £3k if you scrap a car, or £1.5k otherwise?


How about £3k towards an e-bike plus a year's subscription to a car share club like Zipcar.


----------



## Athos (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How about £3k towards an e-bike plus a year's subscription to a car share club like Zipcar.


Yeah that'd be a good idea. I think there's lots of people who can't imagine being without a car (myself included), but who would find it easier than they realised with decent alternatives.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

But anyway, while certain posters are having an existential crisis prompted by the suggestion of a policy that actively encourages people to get rid of cars - I think it's worth pointing out how much these kinds of policies actually pander to the motorist. They are subsidies offered to people who have already chosen to make transport choices that are harmful to the city. There's no money offered to all the Parisians who have no car. 

The equivalent is offering street muggers €2500 to not mug anyone for a bit. It's a sort of protection racket. Nonetheless I magnanimously support it.


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Except that they have to pay for it.


That's hardly an obstacle is it? In real terms as compared against people's incomes the price of cars is lower than it has ever been. 
And even if it wasn't then most people buying cars regard them as a necessity, Indeed governments both home and abroad are subsidising the sale of newer and thus more environnmentally friendly vehicles (especially electric)


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But anyway, while certain posters are having an existential crisis prompted by the suggestion of a policy that actively encourages people to get rid of cars - I think it's worth pointing out how much these kinds of policies actually pander to the motorist. They are subsidies offered to people who have already chosen to make transport choices that are harmful to the city. There's no money offered to all the Parisians who have no car.
> 
> The equivalent is offering street muggers €2500 to not mug anyone for a bit. It's a sort of protection racket. Nonetheless I magnanimously support it.


Your ability to take 2 totally unrelated things and create an imaginary connection between them is really impressive.


----------



## maomao (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Your ability to take 2 totally unrelated things and create an imaginary connection between them is really impressive.


It's called analogy and is arguably at the core of all advanced cognition.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> That's hardly an obstacle is it? In real terms as compared against people's incomes the price of cars is lower than it has ever been.
> And even if it wasn't then most people buying cars regard them as a necessity, Indeed governments both home and abroad are subsidising the sale of newer and thus more environnmentally friendly vehicles (especially electric)


If it was no obstacle they'd already have replaced their old banger with a new car.

Of course it's an obstacle. One that some people could overcome, but also one that might be enough to prompt someone whose economic case for continuing as a car owner is already marginal, to decide not to replace their car. For example, the running costs of an already existing and paid-for old car might be similar to a car club subscription, but the cost of buying a new car that would not be used a lot, might be more.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But anyway, while certain posters are having an existential crisis prompted by the suggestion of a policy that actively encourages people to get rid of cars - I think it's worth pointing out how much these kinds of policies actually pander to the motorist. They are subsidies offered to people who have already chosen to make transport choices that are harmful to the city. There's no money offered to all the Parisians who have no car.
> 
> The equivalent is offering street muggers €2500 to not mug anyone for a bit. It's a sort of protection racket. Nonetheless I magnanimously support it.


I actually think it's an excellent idea. Buy a 200 quid POS car, trade it in and get 2.5k for it, buy a 2.5k bike, then sell the bike for 2 grand to some tree hugging weirdo. I might start buying up old shitheap cars, in case they ever do something simar here.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I actually think it's an excellent idea. Buy a 200 quid POS car, trade it in and get 2.5k for it, buy a 2.5k bike, then sell the bike for 2 grand to some tree hugging weirdo. I might start buying up old shitheap cars, in case they ever do something simar here.




Do it four or five times and voila, the dough to buy a banging motor


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do it four or five times and voila, the dough to buy a banging motor


Exactly. Everyone's a winner... Apart from the losers.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do it four or five times and voila, the dough to buy a banging motor


Five cars on the scrapheap, five people with new ebikes bought at a discount, and only one new car on the road. Maybe Saul Goodman in jail for some kind of fraud offence, so a pretty decent result all round.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Five cars on the scrapheap



One car. Obviously you nip down the scrapyard and buy the thing back for €50 in order to scrap it again...


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> One car. Obviously you nip down the scrapyard and buy the thing back for €50 in order to scrap it again...


What if I (or someone else with advanced cognition) am also down at the scrapyard, offering them €2000 for it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What if I (or someone else with advanced cognition) am also down at the scrapyard, offering them €2000 for it?




I'll save you the journey to the scrapyard, just come round mine and you can buy as many €50 wrecks for €2000 as you can want.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

The whole scheme relies on car owners being stupid enough to sell their old cars to some dodgy bloke from the UK for way less than they could get on the scrappage scheme. 

It's car owners we are talking about, so it's actually plausible to an extent.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Five cars on the scrapheap, five people with new ebikes bought at a discount, and only one new car on the road. Maybe Saul Goodman in jail for some kind of fraud offence, so a pretty decent result all round.


Fraud? I didn't come up with the scheme, I merely availed of it, and I can't think of anything I'd enjoy more than taking money from both the government and cyclists. The thought of it makes me moist.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Fraud? I didn't come up with the scheme, I merely availed of it, and I can't think of anything I'd enjoy more than taking money from both the government and cyclists. The thought of it makes me moist.


Seems like you are taking €2300 from each car owner, and giving a €500 discount to each e-bike purchasing cyclist. Go for it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The whole scheme relies on car owners being stupid enough to sell their old cars to some dodgy bloke from the UK for way less than they could get on the scrappage scheme.
> 
> It's car owners we are talking about, so it's actually plausible to an extent.


This from the bright spark who's going around scrapyards paying 2000 quid for 50 quid bangers. 🤪


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's very British to assume it's all a big scam without even knowing the details of the scheme. There could be some fairly simple protections against scheming the system or maybe they just recognise that letting people benefit directly from government money is a good thing all round.


What is it about car driving that brings out the inner daily mail reader?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> What is it about car driving that brings out the inner daily mail reader?


Probably the same thing that brings out the wanker in cyclists.


----------



## T & P (Apr 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> When London's side streets resemble those of Amsterdam, you may have a point.


In other words, you cannot prove it. Just as I thought.


----------



## T & P (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes.
> 
> Dutch street design tends to use a slightly different means to get to the same end. They design residential streets such that the speed of traffic along it is reduced way down to something like 10mph. And they make a lot of streets one way for vehicles and both ways for bikes.
> 
> ...


Reduced speeds is at most a deterrent but does not prevent someone from driving through the street in question, and does not come anywhere close to the act of actually banning all through traffic on large residential areas, with hefty fines for infractors, like it happens here now.

So the answer to my question of whether Amsterdam employs similarly restrictive measures as London’s LTNs remains a resounding NO. But thank you and all the others for trying.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> Reduced speeds is at most a deterrent but does not prevent someone from driving through the street in question, and does not come anywhere close to the act of actually banning all through traffic on large residential areas, with hefty fines for infractors, like it happens here now.
> 
> So the answer to my question of whether Amsterdam employs similarly restrictive measures as London’s LTNs remains a resounding NO. But thank you and all the others for trying.


Oh well. And you were so close to changing your mind too. If only we could have convinced you.


----------



## T & P (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Oh well. And you were so close to changing your mind too. If only we could have convinced you.


So you do concede that your earlier answer was wrong, correct?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> In other words, you cannot prove it. Just as I thought.


Are you genuinely this stupid or putting on an act?

Make London’s side streets like those of Amsterdam, along with the societal attitude changes, and LTN’s as implemented in London wouldn’t be required.

As things stand, they’re needed. See various posters on this thread for examples of why.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 14, 2021)

Uneducated, ill-informed and determined to stay that way.  Millions just like him. Won't be responsible for his actions, so nanny state eventually has to weigh in with one-size-fits-all rules, which are too late to avert disaster.


----------



## T & P (Apr 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are you genuinely this stupid or putting on an act?
> 
> Make London’s side streets like those of Amsterdam, along with the societal attitude changes, and LTN’s as implemented in London wouldn’t be required.
> 
> As things stand, they’re needed. See various posters on this thread for examples of why.


LTNs are completely unfit for purpose if their aim is to significantly reduce car journeys in London. All they do is create cosy NIMBY zones in certain areas while making matters significantly worse for those poor sods living by trunk routes and the road users including bus passengers.

And let’s try to keep the discussion fucking civil, eh?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> LTNs are completely unfit for purpose if their aim is to significantly reduce car journeys in London. All they do is create cosy NIMBY zones in certain areas while making matters significantly worse for those poor sods living by trunk routes and the road users including bus passengers.


This is just trotting out the same old stuff over and over again. The same evidence free claims that are made over and over, zillions of times each day on twitter or Facebook or in real life or whatever. We have an LTN thread on here which has been pretty much continually addressing all this literally for the past year and more. There is no shortage of opportunity for you to hear the responses to these claims which are now so well rehearsed. There's nothing anyone here can say in answer to them which is new or which hasn't been said to you before. So there's basically no point in going anywhere with it.

People have given answers to your questions about Amsterdam vs London. You're not interested in discussing those answers. It's just a waste of time. You have said you have no proposals for alternative ways to deal with what you seemingly acknowledge as problems. So what is there to talk about?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

Meanwhile, in a better place...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

Also


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Also


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

They were an idea genuinely ahead of their time. Obviously flawed, a large part due to the tech available, but the essential concept of an electrically assisted pedal vehicle is very much bang on.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 14, 2021)

Intriguing that France is banning domestic flights where the train is an alternative. I hear they are also years ahead of us with some imaginative vehicle policies in Paris. I'm very encouraged by this, because the French are passionate about their freedoms and are never slow to take radical action when the govt has a policy they object to. I think we'll see a flurry of radical vehicle emissions policies around the world. There's so much public support. The battle of wills has been won. We just have to go through a migration process, which will be painful and expensive for some. But they can't hinder it.


----------



## Aladdin (Apr 14, 2021)

This is the option for An Post over here.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 14, 2021)

There are a few of these flying around town lately, which is not sustainable but better than motorised vehicles?

a much better example of a bike delivery

Not many of these around?

Then of course there is

There are also rickshaws which have a bit if a reputation.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

What's wrong with the first one


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What's wrong with the first one



Not enough flowers?


----------



## hash tag (Apr 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What's wrong with the first one


All the flowers are imported - by plane
many flowers are resource hungry, requiring lots of water in countries that are struggling to provide clean water
for its inhabitants
all that cardboard for a couple of flowers which are going to curl up and die in a day or two


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 14, 2021)

Says the petrolhead


----------



## hash tag (Apr 14, 2021)

Who also cares a bit about the environment. For many years we did not have a car and we still have bikes. I still care enough about it to think about the whys and wherefores.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

I agree about cut flowers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 14, 2021)

hash tag said:


> All the flowers are imported - by plane
> many flowers are resource hungry, requiring lots of water in countries that are struggling to provide clean water
> for its inhabitants
> all that cardboard for a couple of flowers which are going to curl up and die in a day or two


Ah. I spent ages looking at the pic trying to work out what was wrong with the bike


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Probably the same thing that brings out the wanker in cyclists.


Ouch.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 15, 2021)

Just did a burn up to Lutterworth and back.

That crush-and-rocket when you feel like your right foot is in direct connection with time-warp and vegans.

If you ain't got a V8 you're lower class of person


----------



## hash tag (Apr 15, 2021)

So said Maggie Thatcher, well sort of


----------



## hash tag (Apr 15, 2021)

Flowers have a worse impact that I thought re pesticides and CO2, but who cares Behind the Label: cut flowers


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

I've always thought it's a bit weird to give someone a dying amputated limb as a gift anyway.


----------



## Doodler (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But no, the car parking is sacrosanct, and therefore the trees shall be sacrificed instead.



Not all the greenery surely. The drivers will still need somewhere to throw their rubbish or to waddle out of their vehicles and urinate/defecate.


----------



## maomao (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've always thought it's a bit weird to give someone a dying amputated limb as a gift anyway.


Less of a 'limb' and more of a sex organ.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 15, 2021)

We should give each other pet insects.


----------



## David Clapson (Apr 30, 2021)

PedalMeApp (the bicycle alternative to delivery vans) is raising funds. 300% oversubscribed within a couple of days. Hopefully we'll soon see them with a big supermarket delivery contract. Pedal Me I put in £100.


----------



## T & P (Apr 30, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> PedalMeApp (the bicycle alternative to delivery vans) is raising funds. 300% oversubscribed within a couple of days. Hopefully we'll soon see them with a big supermarket delivery contract. Pedal Me I put in £100.


I’m all for schemes like this. If an item is not too heavy/ bulky and the delivery address not too remote, as many items as possible should be delivered by bike.

Companies like Amazon should be forced or at least shamed into splitting their deliveries into ‘bikeable’ and non-bikeable items. Whenever I see a bloke arriving on my street in a longwheel base diesel van to deliver just a book-sized packet, I want to cry.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m all for schemes like this. *If an item is not too heavy/ bulky* and the delivery address not too remote, as many items as possible should be delivered by bike.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m all for schemes like this. If an item is not too heavy/ bulky and the delivery address not too remote, as many items as possible should be delivered by bike.
> 
> Companies like Amazon should be forced or at least shamed into splitting their deliveries into ‘bikeable’ and non-bikeable items. Whenever I see a bloke arriving on my street in a longwheel base diesel van to deliver just a book-sized packet, I want to cry.


Stop opposing schemes that are designed to make this kind of thing more feasible then.

They will only be forced to change if it's easier to use pedal vehicles and more difficult to use large vehicles. Have you heard of the LTN concept?


----------



## T & P (Apr 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Stop opposing schemes that are designed to make this kind of thing more feasible then.
> 
> They will only be forced to change if it's easier to use pedal vehicles and more difficult to use large vehicles. Have you heard of the LTN concept?


That was never the primary aim of LTN zones, and you know that full well. You must surely also know that most if not all LTN zones don’t actually restrict any motor vehicles from accessing them- they simply prevent them from using the zone in question as a through route. So the LTNs will have a very insignificant effect in persuading the likes of Amazon to switch to bikes. You’re either rather misinformed or being disingenuous.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 30, 2021)

#BoycottAmazon


----------



## hash tag (Apr 30, 2021)

You can get many things, big and small delivered by bicycle these days, but I doubt that could deliver your new car purchase delivered that way.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> That was never the primary aim of LTN zones, and you know that full well. You must surely also know that most if not all LTN zones don’t actually restrict any motor vehicles from accessing them- they simply prevent them from using the zone in question as a through route. So the LTNs will have a very insignificant effect in persuading the likes of Amazon to switch to bikes. You’re either rather misinformed or being disingenuous.


You're forever banging on about things that make life less easy for motorists being no solution to anything, blah blah:



T & P said:


> There is either an unacceptable catalogue of ineptitudes from TFL or a deliberate, concerted fucking effort to make motor traffic as hellish as possible in London at the moment, because that is exaclty what it has been since the end of the lockdown. Excessive number of roadworks with temporary traffic lights in the same area or neighbourhood, coupled with the closure of Vauxhall Bridge until fucking November, have made crossing the river into South London a daily cunting nightmare.
> 
> Add for good meausre the ever increasing NIMBY low traffic neighbourhood zones, removal of lanes from multi-lane roads so pedestrians can use the extra space (pretty much no-one does on Edgware Road), and newly implemented permananent exclusion of cars from bus lanes that for decades had been happily part time restricted only, and we have a perfect storm of permanent gridlock, massively increased pollution, and millions of extra man hours wasted sitting in traffic every week. So thank you very much TFL and and thank you very much Sadik Khan, you fucking plonkers from hell.



Now you're saying that the "NIMBY low traffic neighbourhood zones" aren't going to make it more difficult for delivery companies to make profligate use of motor vehicles, the ones that bring you to tears when they show up with your latest Top Gear VHS video you bought off ebay.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 1, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> No but it was necessary, if there had been eggs I might have tried moving the nest so it was over the grass though I believe that birds don't like that. But parking on the road or accepting my car covered in birdshit for several weeks isn't worth a few more pigeons in the world.
> Sometimes harsh choices have to be made.


Get rid of your car.  Maybe a harsh choice, but it's the correct one.


----------



## MickiQ (May 1, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Get rid of your car.  Maybe a harsh choice, but it's the correct one.


I fork out for a 12kg bag of bird food every few months so given I'm feeding the little feathery layabouts I think it is not unreasonable of me to expect them to learn to use the toilet


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 1, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I fork out for a 12kg bag of bird food every few months so given I'm feeding the little feathery layabouts I think it is not unreasonable of me to expect them to learn to use the toilet


Clean your car more regularly then you lazy sod.


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2021)

Absolutely top marks to these people.









						Extinction Rebellion activists block roads across UK with solo climate change protests
					

Several activists arrested including GP who sat in front of traffic in Birmingham




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## weltweit (May 2, 2021)




----------



## Cid (May 9, 2021)

GCN feature on the 'Drycycle':


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Absolutely top marks to these people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No surprise that they're too stupid to realise that traffic jams create more pollution than moving cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2021)

Cid said:


> GCN feature on the 'Drycycle':



I think they're a great idea. A stepping stone between a bicycle and adult transport. I had a similar one when I was 3.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

Look at this cunt! Riding a very highly tuned (250bhp) Hayabusa around the narrow roads of Ireland (at speeds reaching 200mph), like it's his personal racetrack!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

I try not to get too attached to things but when I bought this bike I knew I'd take it to the grave with me (or vice versa).
It started life as a Honda Blackbird, which went to V&M for some serious tuning, and finished in a way that both Honda and V&M could only wish they could achieve.


Like I said, It started life as a stock Honda Blackbird, which went to V&M to be converted to 1 of the 25 '50th Anniversary edition' bikes, with around 200BHP... Then I got hold of one, and converted it from carb to injection, and with a few more alterations, I achieved what both Honda and V&M never managed to achieve (despite their best efforts)... a 200+mph Honda Blackbird.
Despite their best efforts, V&M never managed to get the Blackbird to hit 200mph... I did


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

Just a bit of lighthearted banter about speeding!

Who cares if it actually kills and injures people and who cares if people reading this thread will have friends or family who have lost their lives or had their lives irretrievably altered by the consequences of people using rural roads as racetracks.

All just a bit of fun though. Got a reaction from me, so great work.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Got a reaction from me, so great work.


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2021)

Do you genuinely not care if people have lost friends and family to those speeding on rural roads?      Or are you just affecting not to care because you think it’s funny?


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Do you genuinely not care if people have lost friends and family to those speeding on rural roads?


Given that he's the idiot on the wankermobile in the video above I doubt it or he wouldn't do it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Do you genuinely not care if people have lost friends and family to those speeding on rural roads?      Or are you just affecting not to care because you think it’s funny?


Of course I care, that's why I called him a cunt, but anything that winds teuchter up is worth posting.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

In case Saul Goodman takes it down, what he's posted up is a video of himself speeding on rural roads in ireland and then boasting about his 200mph motorbike. As a jokey wind-up.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2021)

No he hasn’t.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In case Saul Goodman takes it down, what he's posted up is a video of himself speeding on rural roads in ireland and then boasting about his 200mph motorbike. As a jokey wind-up.


I don't recall saying it was me riding?


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In case Saul Goodman takes it down, what he's posted up is a video of himself speeding on rural roads in ireland and then boasting about his 200mph motorbike. As a jokey wind-up.


Yup, he's chickened out and made the video private, but I've taken the time to save some details about it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't recall saying it was me riding?



I’m not sure how you putting a video of an arsehole on a Suzuki and a picture of your Honda leads some halfwits to conflate the two, but there you go, takes all sorts to make a world.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yup, he's chickened out and made the video private, but I've taken the time to save some details about it.


You should report it to the cops. I hope you got the reg number.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I’m not sure how you putting a video of an arsehole on a Suzuki and a picture of your Honda leads some halfwits to conflate the two, but there you go, takes all sorts to make a world.


Indeed.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I’m not sure how you putting a video of an arsehole on a Suzuki and a picture of your Honda leads some halfwits to conflate the two, but there you go, takes all sorts to make a world.


I wonder why he uploaded it to his youtube channel.
I wonder why he's deleted it, along with the other similar video of similar speeding uploaded several months ago.
I wonder why they've both been deleted now. Maybe all just a coincidence.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wonder why he uploaded it to his youtube channel.
> I wonder why he's deleted it, along with the other similar video of similar speeding uploaded several months ago.
> I wonder why they've both been deleted now. Maybe all just a coincidence.


To wind you up, of course, and it seems to be working quite well


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wonder why he uploaded it to his youtube channel.
> I wonder why he's deleted it, along with the other similar video of similar speeding uploaded several months ago.
> I wonder why they've both been deleted now. Maybe all just a coincidence.



Deal with facts and avoid supposition.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Deal with facts and avoid supposition.


The facts are that he thinks it's ok as joke/windup subject matter.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I’m not sure how you putting a video of an arsehole on a Suzuki and a picture of your Honda leads some halfwits to conflate the two, but there you go, takes all sorts to make a world.


It was a Suzuki Hayabusa which he has previously claimed to own one of and to have driven at 200mph. Private video with double figures of views. 200mph. No one's threatening to grass on him but that doesn't make it laudable behaviour. And after all the whining about cyclists riding irresponsibly.


----------



## kabbes (May 10, 2021)

I tell you what; whoever _was_ riding that motorbike was an unmitigated prick.


----------



## BillRiver (May 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> V&M never managed to get the Blackbird to hit 200mph... I did


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> It was a Suzuki Hayabusa which he has previously claimed to own one of and to have driven at 200mph. Private video with double figures of views. 200mph. No one's threatening to grass on him but that doesn't make it laudable behaviour. And after all the whining about cyclists riding irresponsibly.


I don't own a Hayabusa. Haven't for quite a while, but I'm fairly certain that when I did, I wasn't the only one.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> It was a Suzuki Hayabusa which he has previously claimed to own one of and to have driven at 200mph. Private video with double figures of views. 200mph. No one's threatening to grass on him but that doesn't make it laudable behaviour. And after all the whining about cyclists riding irresponsibly.


He’s the sort of fella who says he drives more carefully when he’s pissed


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> .


I have a video of it somewhere, taken from behind the speed radar thing. I might upload it later. Unfortunately, it's on a runway, so teuchter won't be able to froth about it.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't own a Hayabusa. Haven't for quite a while, but I'm fairly certain that when I did, I wasn't the only one.


Tbf you certainly give the impression of being far too much of a flaky alkie to have ridden that bike and lived so who knows. But you're definitely complicit.


----------



## Aladdin (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wonder why he uploaded it to his youtube channel.
> I wonder why he's deleted it, along with the other similar video of similar speeding uploaded several months ago.
> I wonder why they've both been deleted now. Maybe all just a coincidence.


----------



## David Clapson (May 10, 2021)

I had a Hayabusa for a while. I joined a club for bikers who want to reach 200 mph. We'd rent an airfield and some timing equipment. I saw 204 mph on the clocks but the radar said it was 187. This was typical for a well prepared bike with stock engine internals and an average sized rider. The only guy who could get 200 from a bike with stock internals was a very skinny shortarse with close-fitting unpadded leathers and a drastically lowered suspension. He did lots of other little things to cut drag, such as pushing the brake pistons into the calipers before every run. But the key was the lowered suspension, which also made the bike unrideable on the road. 

That's probably a bit too much detail for this thread, so I'll stop now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> I had a Hayabusa for a while. I joined a club for bikers who want to reach 200 mph. We'd rent an airfield and some timing equipment. I saw 204 mph on the clocks but the radar said it was 187. This was typical for a well prepared bike with stock engine internals and an average sized rider. The only guy who could get 200 from a bike with stock internals was a very skinny shortarse with close-fitting unpadded leathers and a drastically lowered suspension. He did lots of other little things to cut drag, such as pushing the brake pistons into the calipers before every run. But the key was the lowered suspension, which also made the bike unrideable on the road.
> 
> That's probably a bit too much detail for this thread, so I'll stop now.


It takes a lot of power to push through the air at that speed. You need over 200bhp to get there on a Hayabusa.


----------



## David Clapson (May 10, 2021)

It's all about aerodynamics. If you can't get your drag right down you can throw a ton of money at extra bhp and get (almost) nowhere. You'd think bikers would be well aware of this, what with all the speed record history, but they're always banging on about engine tuning.

This guy managed 150 with about 95 bhp in 1948:







This guy did 214 mph with 100 bhp in 1956:






This guy did 83 on this bicycle in 2013:


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> It's all about aerodynamics. If you can't get your drag right down you can throw a ton of money at extra bhp and get (almost) nowhere. You'd think bikers would be well aware of this, what with all the speed record history, but they're always banging on about engine tuning.
> 
> This guy managed 150 with about 95 bhp in 1948:
> 
> ...


Weren't we talking about the Hayabusa?


----------



## David Clapson (May 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Weren't we talking about the Hayabusa?


Yes. I explained how you could reach 200 on a Hayabusa with a stock motor if you improved the aerodynamics. Then you displayed your natural talent for grasping the wrong end of the stick by saying you needed more than 200 bhp.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Yes. I explained how you could reach 200 on a Hayabusa with a stock motor if you improved the aerodynamics. Then you displayed your natural talent for grasping the wrong end of the stick by saying you needed more than 200 bhp.


Nope, I was talking about you on your Hayabusa. You said the most you got was 187, so I replied saying you'd need over 200bhp to reach 200. I worked it out based on your figures, it wasn't that difficult. Would you like me to teach you how to calculate it?
I guess one of us did get the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2021)

Fucking organ donors.





__





						Page not found
					






					www.rsa.ie


----------



## David Clapson (May 10, 2021)

Not interested. Let's try to get the thread on topic. You trolled it, I steered it gently back with aerodynamics and a bicycle which does 83 mph. Over to you. If you want to be constructive and clever with your numbers you could look at recent SUV sales and calculate the savings in energy if smaller cars had been bought instead.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

It's nuts that it's somehow considered ok to let vehicles capable of anything even approaching 200mph go anywhere near a public road. The evidence that you can't leave things to individual judgement was posted (and removed) from this thread today. Some people freak out when I compare it to gun ownership. The norms are so screwed up that it seems fine to have a joke about speeding and a bit of nudge nudge wink wink only joking boast about it.

Maybe we can have some jokey banter about school shootings next.


----------



## David Clapson (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> you can't leave things to individual judgement


Well proven by recent sales of SUVs in the UK,  which caused the nation to miss a significant emissions target. It's interesting that the forecasters didn't see this coming. They were outfoxed by car industry marketing and the lure of big cars as status symbols. It's depressing that the wall to wall media coverage of climate breakdown/Greta Thunberg for a number of years had no effect on the buying decisions of the people who really, really want a Range Rover. I hate to say it, but we need even more legislation.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Well proven by recent sales of SUVs in the UK,  which caused the nation to miss a significant emissions target. It's interesting that the forecasters didn't see this coming. They were outfoxed by car industry marketing and the lure of big cars as status symbols. It's depressing that the wall to wall media coverage of climate breakdown/Greta Thunberg for a number of years had no effect on the buying decisions of the people who really, really want a Range Rover. I hate to say it, but we need even more legislation.


Here are two photos I happened to take at the weekend.


----------



## nick (May 11, 2021)

at least the Range Rover in the first pic has gone off road


----------



## nick (May 11, 2021)

187 on a Hayabusa?   lightweight.

Back to the topic of this thread.
That is only 4mph faster than a bicycle -
BBC: "We weren't supposed to go more than 175."


----------



## nick (May 11, 2021)

Or 335 kph on rollers
Bruce Bursford - Wikipedia


Although the poor bloke was taken out by a lorry 21 years ago
BBC News | UK | Record-breaking cyclist killed


----------



## BigMoaner (May 11, 2021)

i'm at the stage where i love and hate cars all the same. hate what they have done to cities, but love the freedom and the sheer engineering brilliance of flying across the country in a matter of hours.

where's the happy medium?


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

Trains.


----------



## David Clapson (May 11, 2021)

Motorbikes. Much more freedom, cross the country in half the time, modest emissions, minimal impact on others if you're careful.


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2021)

I thought that motorbikes did better on fuel consumption, so better on carbon emissions, but were pretty bad for pollutants, mainly because there isn't enough space to put all the stuff that there is on modern cars that tries to minimise air pollutants.

Or maybe that info is now out of date.

They are pretty bad for noise pollution though. Is that just because they are made noisy to appeal to a certain type of customer, or is it inevitable?


----------



## T & P (May 12, 2021)

BigMoaner said:


> i'm at the stage where i love and hate cars all the same. hate what they have done to cities, but love the freedom and the sheer engineering brilliance of flying across the country in a matter of hours.
> 
> where's the happy medium?


The happy medium is of course a balanced approach, with a continuous drive to curb individual behaviour that overall contributes to pollution and less other desirable effects, but without the need to outright ban any given mode of transportation, or demonise all those who use it without taking into account how often and how sensibly they use it.

That is why reasonable measures to promote more environmentally friendly modes of transportation over cars are to be encouraged if thought to be effective and not too punitive, but extreme measures such as banning all cars from towns and cities are way excessive, unnecessary and for the most part vindictive by those proposing them.

Nothing needs to be banned. We just need to do less of it.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> That is why reasonable measures to promote more environmentally friendly modes of transportation over cars are to be encouraged if thought to be effective and not too punitive, but extreme measures such as banning all cars from towns and cities are way excessive, unnecessary and for the most part vindictive by those proposing them.


It's not extreme to ban cars from towns and cities, certainly not the cores of them.  Demolish the multistorey car parks and use the land for something better.


----------



## Athos (May 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I thought that motorbikes did better on fuel consumption, so better on carbon emissions, but were pretty bad for pollutants, mainly because there isn't enough space to put all the stuff that there is on modern cars that tries to minimise air pollutants.
> 
> Or maybe that info is now out of date.
> 
> They are pretty bad for noise pollution though. Is that just because they are made noisy to appeal to a certain type of customer, or is it inevitable?



A few of the big manufacturers are looking at having banks of swappable, universal batteries, now.  That'd make electric bikes attractive for commuting - no range issues, no long waits charging, no noise, no emissions, take up less space, less dangerous to pedestrians, yet still more convenient than public transport in many instances.

(Though you'd still need the 'Busa for the weekend blasts, of course.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2021)

BigMoaner said:


> i'm at the stage where i love and hate cars all the same. hate what they have done to cities, but love the freedom and the sheer engineering brilliance of flying across the country in a matter of hours.
> 
> where's the happy medium?



Move out of the city.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> The happy medium is of course a balanced approach, with a continuous drive to curb individual behaviour that overall contributes to pollution and less other desirable effects, but without the need to outright ban any given mode of transportation, or demonise all those who use it without taking into account how often and how sensibly they use it.
> 
> That is why reasonable measures to promote more environmentally friendly modes of transportation over cars are to be encouraged if thought to be effective and not too punitive, but extreme measures such as banning all cars from towns and cities are way excessive, unnecessary and for the most part vindictive by those proposing them.
> 
> Nothing needs to be banned. We just need to do less of it.


Judging by the attitudes from the petrolheads on this forum, people need to be forced to change their behaviours, as they won’t do it otherwise


----------



## T & P (May 12, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It's not extreme to ban cars from towns and cities, certainly not the cores of them.  Demolish the multistorey car parks and use the land for something better.


Well it obviously changes from city to city, but in central London there are very few multi-storey car parks, and far fewer people who drive into central London and park there. So which cars do you ban? If you ban all private cars in London, you will find that most of Zone 1 will still be 80% full of motor vehicles. Because most of them are Ubers, club cars, taxis, delivery vans, trade vehicles, lorries, and various other types that are not private owned. 

What next? Ban all club cars? Still lots left. Ban all Ubers and private hire vehicles? That's going to be _really_ helpful to millions of people who have to take a journey that for any number of reasons is not viable to do by other methods.

And even after then you still have thousands of van and lorry deliveries of heavier items, and trade repair vehicles that simply cannot be replaced by bicycles, no matter how much some might wish otherwise. So you've taken the yes, extreme measure of banning cars and private hire/ taxis from a massive area, only to find out that there's still plenty of motor traffic around.

So yes. Small pedestrian zones exist already everywhere, including a few in London. But a city-wide private car exclusion would be an extreme meausre simply because it would not solve remove motor traffic from London, only reduce it by a modest percentage. That model might work in some small towns somewhere in the world. Will never work in London, no matter how people stomp their foot pretending otherwise.


----------



## Cid (May 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well it obviously changes from city to city, but in central London there are very few multi-storey car parks, and far fewer people who drive into central London and park there. So which cars do you ban? If you ban all private cars in London, you will find that most of Zone 1 will still be 80% full of motor vehicles. Because most of them are Ubers, club cars, taxis, delivery vans, trade vehicles, lorries, and various other types that are not private owned.
> 
> What next? Ban all club cars? Still lots left. Ban all Ubers and private hire vehicles? That's going to be _really_ helpful to millions of people who have to take a journey that for any number of reasons is not viable to do by other methods.
> 
> ...



I was going to write quite a long post explaining why just limiting vehicle use doesn’t make sense, but thanks - you’ve done it for me. You can’t just say ‘we’ll limit car use a bit’ because the nature of transport infrastructure means people will keep on using them. That’s exactly why you need to ban or severely restrict vehicle use and redesign your infrastructure around effective alternatives.


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2021)

Contrary to T&P's numbers pulled out of thin air, not far off 50% of the vehicles entering the London congestion charge zone are privately owned cars.



The numbers of taxis and PHVs are also very significant and I'd want to reduce their use too. That means keeping them available for people who really need them (like those with disabilities for whom public transport is not an option) and making them less attractive for those who could actually just use public transport instead.

On occasion I've had to bite my tongue when I've been part of a group which has decided to get an uber for a journey within central London which actually would have been quicker if we'd just taken the tube.


----------



## souljacker (May 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> On occasion I've had to bite my tongue when I've been part of a group which has decided to get an uber for a journey within central London which actually would have been quicker if we'd just taken the tube.



I'm glad you have finally admitted that you are a mere keyboard warrior who doesn't practice in real life what he preaches on here. I bet you have a TV in the bedroom and no lock on your lavvy door.


----------



## Cid (May 12, 2021)

I should add I’m not that pro public transport. I mean as we have found out recently there are some er… problems with hundreds of people sharing the same enclosed space. Although that is also clearly a problem with PHVs and shared vehicles. But properly thought-out infrastructure should be able to provide for light electric vehicles alongside mass transit. Could potentially even make things modular.

e2a: and obviously reclaiming road infrastructure means you can reconfigure the approach to public transport a fair bit.

e.g (weird choice of music, but hey)


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well it obviously changes from city to city, but in central London there are very few multi-storey car parks, and far fewer people who drive into central London and park there. So which cars do you ban? If you ban all private cars in London, you will find that most of Zone 1 will still be 80% full of motor vehicles. Because most of them are Ubers, club cars, taxis, delivery vans, trade vehicles, lorries, and various other types that are not private owned.
> 
> What next? Ban all club cars? Still lots left. Ban all Ubers and private hire vehicles? That's going to be _really_ helpful to millions of people who have to take a journey that for any number of reasons is not viable to do by other methods.
> 
> ...


I haven't said anything about banning every type of vehicle - the thread is focussed on private cars.  The problem with taking less drastic measures is that they are likely to fail as car drivers are inherently selfish - so banning them from certain areas is for the greater good.  People with disabilities or with legitimate need to use a car could still do so, but the majority of journeys by car in cities can be achieved by public transport, either with the current infrastructure or through expanding it to accommodate more passengers/routes.  

City centre streets can be pedestrianised and still allow delivery drivers, etc., to get to where they need - this arrangements works perfectly well now.


----------



## gosub (May 12, 2021)

__





						Are Helicopters Faster Than Cars? Well, It Depends… – Pilot Teacher
					






					pilotteacher.com


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2021)

Cid said:


> I should add I’m not that pro public transport. I mean as we have found out recently there are some er… problems with hundreds of people sharing the same enclosed space.


We'd better abandon all buildings except private homes, and all non-virtual social events too then.

Public transport is not in a special category when it comes to enclosed, shared spaces. In fact it's generally better ventilated than the majority of enclosed spaces.

If you make all transport based on single-person pods then the inevitable outcome is that you have to give over large amounts of space to transportation, and the inevitable consequence of that is that you create places that are unfriendly to pedestrians and inhuman in scale. It's what car dominance has created. The same problems remain whether the vehicles are 'normal' cars or futuristic looking electric pods. For sure you can make some space savings by making the vehicles non-privately owned and through intelligent automated control systems, and these kind of things can probably be very useful for final-leg journeys in non densely populated areas, but I'm not convinced it can be made to work in high density or high travel intensity situations. I don't think there's any proof-of-concept system anywhere that demonstrates this.


----------



## platinumsage (May 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We'd better abandon all buildings except private homes.



Yes let’s. Terribly polluting things that use up vast quantities of highly CO2-intensive steel and cement, not to mention the land use, heating or air-conditioning and transport to and from. They’re a blot on our cities and in our countryside and should be rewilded.


----------



## Cid (May 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We'd better abandon all buildings except private homes, and all non-virtual social events too then.
> 
> Public transport is not in a special category when it comes to enclosed, shared spaces. In fact it's generally better ventilated than the majority of enclosed spaces.
> 
> If you make all transport based on single-person pods then the inevitable outcome is that you have to give over large amounts of space to transportation, and the inevitable consequence of that is that you create places that are unfriendly to pedestrians and inhuman in scale. It's what car dominance has created. The same problems remain whether the vehicles are 'normal' cars or futuristic looking electric pods. For sure you can make some space savings by making the vehicles non-privately owned and through intelligent automated control systems, and these kind of things can probably be very useful for final-leg journeys in non densely populated areas, but I'm not convinced it can be made to work in high density or high travel intensity situations. I don't think there's any proof-of-concept system anywhere that demonstrates this.



To be slightly more clear, I think public transport should be the main form of getting about, for most people. I just think it has its problems. Though part of this is just design, and freeing up more infrastructure would allow more flexibility on that front. You also need consistent demand and travel times to run it efficiently... That isn't necessarily going to be the case outside of widely used commute routes in major cities. 

Also where were you planning to put your mass transit? Because bike, pod, bus or tram you're still unfriendly to pedestrians and inhuman in scale.


----------



## teuchter (May 12, 2021)

Cid said:


> To be slightly more clear, I think public transport should be the main form of getting about, for most people. I just think it has its problems. Though part of this is just design, and freeing up more infrastructure would allow more flexibility on that front. You also need consistent demand and travel times to run it efficiently... That isn't necessarily going to be the case outside of widely used commute routes in major cities.


Don't disagree with that, other than to say that my idea of the ideal public transport system would have solutions for those low-demand areas that were fully integrated. It might be as simple as on-demand taxis that take you the last leg of your journey, from transport hub to final destination, and which would be included in the pricing for the whole journey, easy to book and so on.



Cid said:


> Also where were you planning to put your mass transit? Because bike, pod, bus or tram you're still unfriendly to pedestrians and inhuman in scale.


I don't agree with that; there are plenty of examples of systems based around these transport methods that work fine in urban environments that remain friendly to pedestrians and human in scale.

There's obviously a sliding scale from totally pedestrian friendly (no moving vehicles anywhere) to completely alienating (multi-lane uncrossable highways and buildings separated by huge parking lots) and some compromises need to be made to allow motorised transport to be part of the picture - the point is that once you start designing things around private vehicles, things become exponentially more inhuman and set up incentives that only encourage things to get even worse.


----------



## Cid (May 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Don't disagree with that, other than to say that my idea of the ideal public transport system would have solutions for those low-demand areas that were fully integrated. It might be as simple as on-demand taxis that take you the last leg of your journey, from transport hub to final destination, and which would be included in the pricing for the whole journey, easy to book and so on.
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that; there are plenty of examples of systems based around these transport methods that work fine in urban environments that remain friendly to pedestrians and human in scale.
> ...



I don't think we're arguing for particularly different things tbh, I just think there's probably room to allow for small personal vehicles. Probably on a hire basis, or electric bikes etc. They should certainly fit in around a new public transport infrastructure, rather than the other way round.


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2021)

Webinar - Setting 30km/h and 20mph urban limits at national level - 20th May 2:30pm BST
					

We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets.




					www.20splenty.org


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Webinar - Setting 30km/h and 20mph urban limits at national level - 20th May 2:30pm BST
> 
> 
> We quite simply campaign for 20mph to become the default speed limit on residential and urban streets.
> ...


70% of motorists exceeded the 30mph limit, this at the height of lockdown and protect the nhs.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> 70% of motorists exceeded the 30mph limit, this at the height of lockdown and protect the nhs.
> 
> View attachment 268020


Anyone exceeding the speed limit should have their car seized and crushed without compensation and made to pick up litter in the area for several weeks using only their teeth.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 13, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyone exceeding the speed limit should have their car seized and crushed without compensation and made to pick up litter in the area for several weeks using only their teeth.


"Not me, I'm a good driver"


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> "Not me, I'm a good driver"


If they want to keep driving after that they should only be permitted to drive one of these.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 13, 2021)

What happened with the other 30%? Was there a cop-car there or something?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2021)

“I’m safer when I drive faster because I’m concentrating more”


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2021)

I rarely drive at over 30mph in towns anyway because I find it difficult to drive and concentrate on the DVD at speeds much faster than that.


----------



## spanglechick (May 13, 2021)

I quite fancy a pod system.  Like those vacuum tubes you get to take cash off the shop floor in supermarkets.  I reckon it’s not outside the wit of engineering to make personal pods that fold up to the size of a suitcase.  Maybe they could use the sewers. 

And yes. I know. Tubes. We already have tubes. But other people are germy/fighty/smelly/rapey/listen to shit music/whatever. And I’m disabled, and there’s too much walking. My pod system would make every other manhole and drain grill a potential pod entry system. The alternate ones would be exits, of course.

Or they could stop procrastinating and get on with inventing teleportation.  I mean, it feels like it should’ve been a higher priority than mobile phones, yet here we are.  2021 and no teleportation to be had.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> I quite fancy a pod system.  Like those vacuum tubes you get to take cash off the shop floor in supermarkets.  I reckon it’s not outside the wit of engineering to make personal pods that fold up to the size of a suitcase.  Maybe they could use the sewers.
> 
> And yes. I know. Tubes. We already have tubes. But other people are germy/fighty/smelly/rapey/listen to shit music/whatever. And I’m disabled, and there’s too much walking. My pod system would make every other manhole and drain grill a potential pod entry system. The alternate ones would be exits, of course.
> 
> Or they could stop procrastinating and get on with inventing teleportation.  I mean, it feels like it should’ve been a higher priority than mobile phones, yet here we are.  2021 and no teleportation to be had.


----------



## spanglechick (May 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> View attachment 268058


My idea’s better.


----------



## nick (May 14, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> I quite fancy a pod system.  Like those vacuum tubes you get to take cash off the shop floor in supermarkets.


Our very own Dr Evil (Aka Elon) is way ahead of you








						Hyperloop - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



.

Suspect there are a few teething troubles yet to be ironed out


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 14, 2021)

Drivers - “Can’t possibly ban cars from city centres”

Paris - “hold my wine...”









						Paris Will Ban Through Traffic in City Center
					

Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s latest effort to rein in car use and fight pollution would prevent non-residents from driving across the French capital's historic heart in 2022.




					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drivers - “Can’t possibly ban cars from city centres”
> 
> Paris - “hold my wine...”
> 
> ...




Not quite;



> The new zone would not ban cars altogether: It would still permit motorized access to the zone’s residents (including short-term hotel guests), to people with disabilities, and to vehicles used for public transit, deliveries or services. The new rules would nonetheless make it illegal to drive across the city center without stopping.



They'll just all stop for a little cinq à sept.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drivers - “Can’t possibly ban cars from city centres”
> 
> Paris - “hold my wine...”
> 
> ...


That isn't what I think you think it is.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 14, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That isn't what I think you think it is.





> The new zone would not ban cars altogether: It would still permit motorized access to the zone’s residents (including short-term hotel guests), to people with disabilities, and to vehicles used for public transit, deliveries or services. The new rules would nonetheless make it illegal to drive across the city center without stopping. That would cover about 55% of total traffic — more than 100,000 cars — passing through this zone on average per day, the city says.


Amazingly enough I think it’s that ^^^


----------



## T & P (May 14, 2021)

And that's all very well and will significantly reduce traffic, but it does not, by a long shot, get anywhere close to banning or eradicating cars from city centres, let alone whole cities. Which is what some of us have been saying it will simply not doable, and not going to happen.


----------



## teuchter (May 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> it will simply not doable, and not going to happen.


Hope you don't get a heart attack looking at these images


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> And that's all very well and will significantly reduce traffic, but it does not, by a long shot, get anywhere close to banning or eradicating cars from city centres, let alone whole cities. Which is what some of us have been saying it will simply not doable, and not going to happen.


It’s a significant step in the right direction, and won’t be the end of things.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> And that's all very well and will significantly reduce traffic, but it does not, by a long shot, get anywhere close to banning or eradicating cars from city centres, let alone whole cities. Which is what some of us have been saying it will simply not doable, and not going to happen.


 Not with that attitude


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Amazingly enough I think it’s that ^^^


Well you do _now_


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Hope you don't get a heart attack looking at these images
> 
> View attachment 268160View attachment 268161



Ah, but you can't cycle around there either. The Venetians quickly realised that they didn't want people like beesonthewhatnow, Orang Utan, and yourself, on the islands, so banned cycling ages ago. So you are half right. In that respect it's a city we should strive to emulate.

What's your next example of a car free zone? Buckingham Palace?


----------



## Leafster (May 14, 2021)

Cid said:


> GCN feature on the 'Drycycle':



I think the Bio-Hybrid looks a lot better and comes in a lot of different formats.











						A new class of cycle available in two versions
					

Four wheels, one roof, electrically assisted. A pedelec vehicle that can travel on cycle paths and no driver's license required. The Cargobike represents a genuine emissions-free goods transport solution.




					www.biohybrid.com


----------



## teuchter (May 14, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, but you can't cycle around there either. The Venetians quickly realised that they didn't want people like beesonthewhatnow, Orang Utan, and yourself, on the islands, so banned cycling ages ago. So you are half right.


No, I am 100% right.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Hope you don't get a heart attack looking at these images
> 
> View attachment 268160View attachment 268161



No cars in Atlantis either.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, I am 100% right.


If by 100% right, you mean_ posting nonsense,_ then yes; you're 100% right.


----------



## teuchter (May 14, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If by 100% right, you mean_ posting nonsense,_ then yes; you're 100% right.


I have been aware for some time that your definition of "100% right" is _posting nonsense._


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I have been aware for some time that your definition of "100% right" is _posting nonsense._


So you'll understand why I've always considered you to be 100% right!


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2021)




----------



## T & P (May 19, 2021)

Footprints are too far apart.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



Why don’t they just do it for real?


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Why don’t they just do it for real?


Perhaps they’re not cunts?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> Perhaps they’re not cunts?


Fair game when it’s a BMW cuntwagon


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Why don’t they just do it for real?


I find it limits the number you can do per hour.


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Fair game when it’s a BMW cuntwagon


I guess if it'd been an Audi they would have had to take a shit on it instead


----------



## Orang Utan (May 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I guess if it'd been an Audi they would have had to take a shit on it instead


yes! Rolls Royces would get thermited


----------



## dessiato (May 19, 2021)

Urban speed limits here have just been reduced to, depending on the road, as low as 20, 30, and 50. There is no noticeable hindrance to the traffic flow.

From the DGT twitter:

20 km/h on roads that have a single lane with one way traffic and with a raised path/sidewalk. 
30 km/h on roads with one lane in each direction reduced from 50km/h. 
50  km/h on roads with two or more lanes per traffic direction. This speed limit remains the same except for vehicles carrying heavy or dangerous goods which must reduce their speed to 40 km/h.

Unfortunately there's a lot of people, usually Brits, complaining about it. Some are convinced that the speed limits on the motorways has also been dropped to 50. I've even heard people saying it is impossible to go this slowly, because, "my car can't go that slowly."


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2021)

dessiato said:


> I've even heard people saying it is impossible to go this slowly, because, "my car can't go that slowly."



Pretty much this has been used as an argument on here; if I recall correctly something about cars' gears making 20mph too difficult to drive at.

The other one is that it will be dangerous for people to drive at 20mph because they'll be watching the speedometer instead of the road.


----------



## nick (May 19, 2021)

I said (correctly) that it was difficult to set cruise control for 20 - as it doesn't become active until just below that speed

Others lambasted me for using cruise control at such a speed and I should be using the speed limiter instead. We agreed to differ


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2021)

And I said (quite correctly in the case of my automatic bike and indeed many cars, though not all), that 20 mph speeds can be more polluting than 30 mph.


----------



## Crispy (May 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> And I said (quite correctly in the case of my automatic bike and indeed many cars, though not all), that 20 mph speeds can be more polluting than 30 mph.


I have heard this, but never seen the receipts. Is there a reputable study?


----------



## T & P (May 19, 2021)

Crispy said:


> I have heard this, but never seen the receipts. Is there a reputable study?


Well, I guess there'll be differences automatic and manual vehicles, but traditionally 30 mph on 4th gear tends to be sweet spot for the lowest consumption and and pollution levels in urban driving (not necessarily the sweet spot ovreall at any speed, of course).

It is likely newly manufactured cars are starting to reflect the trend of decreased speed limits in urban areas across Europe, but older manual cars are far from efficient at 20 mph.

My 400cc automatic bike consistently returns far, far worse fuel consumption figures at 20 mph than at 30. Though of course that might not necessarily be the same for other automatic single gear bikes.


----------



## Leafster (May 19, 2021)

Crispy said:


> I have heard this, but never seen the receipts. Is there a reputable study?


According to this article in the Guardian, the Energy Savings Trust suggests the best fuel economy is achieved by driving between 55 and 65 mph so perhaps we should ensure that all obstructions are removed from the roads and all speed limits are increased to 65mph everywhere so this is possible!  









						Get the most from your car with these top 12 'hypermiling' tips | Leo Hickman
					

Leo Hickman: The reduction in petrol duty might help you in the short term, but 'hypermilers' know other ways to save and reduce emissions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well, I guess there'll be differences automatic and manual vehicles, but traditionally 30 mph on 4th gear tends to be sweet spot for the lowest consumption and and pollution levels in urban driving (not necessarily the sweet spot ovreall at any speed, of course).
> 
> It is likely newly manufactured cars are starting to reflect the trend of decreased speed limits in urban areas across Europe, but older manual cars are far from efficient at 20 mph.
> 
> My 400cc automatic bike consistently returns far, far worse fuel consumption figures at 20 mph than at 30. Though of course that might not necessarily be the same for other automatic single gear bikes.


Even if all this is true - so what?

Anyone who actually cared about pollution would just drive less instead of waffling on about gears.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Is there a reputable study?


What do you think?


----------



## Spymaster (May 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Even if all this is true - so what?
> 
> Anyone who actually cared about pollution would just drive less instead of waffling on about gears.


There’s a flaw in this though, isn’t there?


----------



## teuchter (May 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> There’s a flaw in this though, isn’t there?


Is it that it would interfere with you and T & P and your other pals down the multistorey car park trying to mow down as many pensioners and toddlers as you would really like to, in an ideal world?


----------



## Spymaster (May 19, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (May 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Is it that it would interfere with you and T & P and your other pals down the multistorey car park trying to mow down as many pensioners and toddlers as you would really like to, in an ideal world?


Only partly.


----------



## dessiato (May 20, 2021)

The debate, such as it is, seems to be discussing driving at 20mph. The new speed limits here are, of course, in kph. Driving at 20kph means, in my car, driving between 1st and 2nd. Of course it is doable. Whether it is a good idea from the point of view of increased pollution is a different matter.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

It doesn’t increase pollution, it lessens it but anyway reducing a speed limit is a traffic calming measure to save lives being lost in accidents, rather than lessening emissions


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> *It doesn’t increase pollution*,* it lessens it* but anyway reducing a speed limit is a traffic calming measure to save lives being lost in accidents, rather than lessening emissions


Do you have any studies to back that up?

Before we waste any more time on this issue, you are aware that all internal combusition vehicles, irrelevant of type of transmission, number of gears, or size engine, have speed sweet spot for the lowest fuel consumption (and therefore pollution), that is never, ever the lowest speed possible of the vehicle, right? Indeed, the best results are usually achieved in the 45-55 mph range.

This is of course irrelevant to the argument of urban driving, as those speeds are far too fast. But it proves to anyone who might have any doubts that extremely low speeds are in no fucking way the most fuel-efficient way to cover distance by any given bigger than a light 50cc scooter.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It doesn’t increase pollution, it lessens it ...



This isn't necessarily true.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?
					

Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?
> 
> 
> Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates
> ...


Rubbish article. Did you read it properly?


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> Do you have any studies to back that up?
> 
> Before we waste any more time on this issue, you are aware that all internal combusition vehicles, irrelevant of type of transmission, number of gears, or size engine, have speed sweet spot for the lowest fuel consumption (and therefore pollution), that is never, ever the lowest speed possible of the vehicle, right? Indeed, the best results are usually achieved in the 45-55 mph range.
> 
> This is of course irrelevant to the argument of urban driving, as those speeds are far too fast. But it proves to anyone who might have any doubts that extremely low speeds are in no fucking way the most fuel-efficient way to cover distance by any given bigger than a light 50cc scooter.



We should make 20mph the speed limit everywhere, and have manufacturers design vehicles that are most efficient at 10-20mph. Then everyone's happy.


----------



## BillRiver (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it


It does seem that way, doesn't it.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Rubbish article. Did you read it properly?


I read it all.
You clearly didn’t as I only posted it a minute ago


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> I read it all.



You clearly didn't. Read it again _carefully_ and quote the appropriate bit. .


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

Any car that can’t be driven at 20kph is broken, simple as that. It’s just drivers desperately trying to come up with a new variation on “but I don’t _want_ to drive that slowly”, nothing more.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 20, 2021)

Meh


teuchter said:


> We should make 20mph the speed limit everywhere, and have manufacturers design vehicles that are most efficient at 10-20mph. Then everyone's happy.




Except for the ambulance that is racing towards you when in life-saving need, that should be limited to 3mph, walking pace, seeing as what the etymology of Ambulance is I'm sure you'll approve.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You clearly didn't. Read it again _carefully_ and quote the appropriate bit. .


The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?
> 
> 
> Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates
> ...





Orang Utan said:


> Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it


The report that Guardian not-at-all-biased journo is basing that article on is from 1995, and leans heavily on idle times to support its argument. There was no stop-start engine technology in 1995. It is everywhere now. Not to mention how much pollution cutting technology has moved from 1995.

I'm sorry but that report is complete invalid nowadays and proves fuck all. 

Frankly, one would have to be ignorant of the most basic knowledge or understanding of how how a car works- even just from driving or simply observing them on the street- to suggest driving at 10-15 mph is ever going to be less polluting that at higher streets. It's just blatant nonsense.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

Pollution. Is. Not. The. Reason. For. Low. Speed. Limits. In. Cities.


Christ almighty.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.


That might be because most speed bumps are designed to negotiate safely at speeds of no more than 5-10 mph if you have any regard whatsoever for the long-term health of your car's suspension. 

If speed bumps were designed to be travelled safely at no less than 15- 18 mph, no driver would feel the need to accelerate between them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.



Don't help Orang Utan !

Let him work it out himself.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> If speed bumps were designed to be travelled safely at no less than 15- 18 mph, no driver would feel the need to accelerate between them.



If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Pollution. Is. Not. The. Reason. For. Low. Speed. Limits. In. Cities.
> 
> 
> Christ almighty.


That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.

We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safety relating to curbing car speeds, might have a drawback, however minor it might be. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.

But it's still the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.
> 
> We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safely curbing car speeds, however minor, might have a drawback. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.
> 
> But no. It's the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.


It’s important though, because it’s the line trotted out by the petrol heads when lower limits are proposed as a safety measure.

So, fine, pollution may be more with lower limits. Let’s remove the cars completely then, win-win.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, fine, pollution may be more with lower limits. Let’s remove the cars completely then, win-win.



A better solution would be for everyone to stop putting so much emphasis on pollution levels like they're some kind of big deal.


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.



It's you that moved the goalposts when you started banging on about pollution when we were talking about speed limits, in this post here.


----------



## Crispy (May 20, 2021)

The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Crispy said:


> The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.


Good. Once the pollution aspect is removed, the unworkable calls for completely banning cars from cities will carry even less weight than they do now.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.
> 
> We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safety relating to curbing car speeds, might have a drawback, however minor it might be. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.
> 
> But it's still the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.


You’re on the wrong thread


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

Crispy said:


> The direct pollution you can see coming out an exhaust pipe argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm


Fixed


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> Good. Once the pollution aspect is removed, the unworkable calls for completely banning cars from cities will carry even less weight than they do now.


Nope.


----------



## Teaboy (May 20, 2021)

20kph?

I can dream I suppose.  Maybe at 3 in the morning.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.




You should treat yourself to an Overfinch Range Rover for your birthday


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You should treat yourself to an Overfinch Range Rover for your birthday



Nah, that's OTT. 

My V8 Cuntwagon manages it fine.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

.


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

Crispy said:


> The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.


Electric vehicles still produce lots of PM pollution, and I believe that PM has been shown to reduce with speed, so there will be an even stronger argument for lower speeds.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

The best thing about electric vehicles is that they'll be a piece of piss to reprogram. They're already some of the fastest accelerating vehicles on the planet. A quick tune-up on a laptop and we'll all be driving fucking rockets


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The best thing about electric vehicles is that they'll be a piece of piss to reprogram. They're already some of the fastest accelerating vehicles on the planet. A quick tune-up on a laptop and we'll all be driving fucking rockets


Death penalty for hackers


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Minor infringements incur five years hard labour carrying litters for children, the disabled and the frail


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Death penalty for hackers


Nah, it’ll be 3 points and a 100 quid fine.


----------



## Athos (May 20, 2021)

I've just bought a new plug-in hybrid - trying to do my bit, and all that.   But I hear conflicting claims about the net benefit to the environment, when you take into account e.g. manufacture of batteries, and the energy to charge them (albeit we're on a green tariff, paying a bit more so that all ours is from renewable sources).  Does anyone have any links to a decent (relatively non-partisan) study?


----------



## liquidindian (May 20, 2021)

I imagine it's going to be possible to limit the speed of electric cars in the same way as ebikes and escooters can be. I think the scooters about to be trialled also have GPS that means they can only go at 8km/h in some places? Yeah, bring on the EV revolution if it looks like that.


----------



## CNT36 (May 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I imagine it's going to be possible to limit the speed of electric cars in the same way as ebikes and escooters can be. I think the scooters about to be trialled also have GPS that means they can only go at 8km/h in some places? Yeah, bring on the EV revolution if it looks like that.


Speed limits on Escooters are cancelled out by that bit in the contract where the user promises to ride like a complete cunt at all times.


----------



## hash tag (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Minor infringements incur five years hard labour carrying litters for children, the disabled and the frail


Does this go for cyclists as well. At least three jumped a red light in front of me at the end of my road this week 
Whats good for one, has to be good for the other.


----------



## hash tag (May 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I imagine it's going to be possible to limit the speed of electric cars in the same way as ebikes and escooters can be. I think the scooters about to be trialled also have GPS that means they can only go at 8km/h in some places? Yeah, bring on the EV revolution if it looks like that.


Yes, right. I have seen scooters doing 20+ MPH.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Does this go for cyclists as well. At least three jumped a red light in front of me at the end of my road this week
> Whats good for one, has to be good for the other.



We've already determined that cyclists who infringe the rules are to have their penises nailed to ther saddles.  

OU's todger will have more holes than a crumpet.


----------



## liquidindian (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Yes, right. I have seen scooters doing 20+ MPH.


Yes those are not speed-limited.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Does this go for cyclists as well. At least three jumped a red light in front of me at the end of my road this week
> Whats good for one, has to be good for the other.


Nope - it’s fine for cyclists in some circumstances. Not a pedestrian crossing. Then they’d get a stern talking to and a leaflet.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> We've already determined that cyclists who infringe the rules are to have their penises nailed to ther saddles.
> 
> OU's todger will have more holes than a crumpet.


What I do in my private life is no-one’s business


----------



## hash tag (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope - it’s fine for cyclists in some circumstances. Not a pedestrian crossing. Then they’d get a stern talking to and a leaflet.


Had I not been more caring or attentive, anyone of them could have ended up in a&e or worse.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Had I not been more caring or attentive, anyone of them could have ended up in a&e or worse.


And you’d’ve had your collar felt
(Though if it were up to me, you’d been put in the stocks and had rotten tomatoes thrown at you. Tinned.)


----------



## maomao (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Had I not been more caring or attentive, anyone of them could have ended up in a&e or worse.


Well you're a bit of a doddery old git by the sound of it so if you spotted them they were probably fine.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Does this go for cyclists as well. At least three jumped a red light in front of me at the end of my road this week
> Whats good for one, has to be good for the other.


Nope.


----------



## liquidindian (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Had I not been more caring or attentive, anyone of them could have ended up in a&e or worse.


Thank you for not maiming anyone yet.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

I’m all for stricter legislation and harsher penalties governing all types of road users. Including of course the introduction of jaywalking laws and liability for pedestrians- a staple of many countries, some of which get mentioned here as templates for the UK to follow.

For instance, increasingly stiffer financial penalties for repeat jaywalkers would perhaps succeed finally getting the message into predestinas’ heads that is actually neither safe nor okay to not to look before crossing a road or ignore traffic light-controlled crossing. I’d wager that measure would save far more pedestrian lives than well-observed citywide 20 mph limits.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m all for stricter legislation and harsher penalties governing all types of road users. Including of course the introduction of jaywalking laws and liability for pedestrians- a staple of many countries, some of which get mentioned here as templates for the UK to follow.
> 
> For instance, increasingly stiffer financial penalties for repeat jaywalkers would perhaps succeed finally getting the message into predestinas’ heads that is actually neither safe nor okay to not to look before crossing a road or ignore traffic light-controlled crossing. I’d wager that measure would save far more pedestrian lives than well-observed citywide 20 mph limits.


Fuck off


----------



## hash tag (May 20, 2021)

Fwiw. Very few appear to be respecting the 20 limits. Black cabs, private cabs, buses....I've seen most categories exceeding it and intimidating those that do respect it. It will get better.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

IME Uber drivers are the worst at it. I’m unfortunate enough to ride on two streets that are used as rat runs by little cunts in small cars that have had fins n shit added. They tear by at 40mph or more and they get away with it


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m all for stricter legislation and harsher penalties governing all types of road users. Including of course the introduction of jaywalking laws and liability for pedestrians- a staple of many countries, some of which get mentioned here as templates for the UK to follow.
> 
> For instance, increasingly stiffer financial penalties for repeat jaywalkers would perhaps succeed finally getting the message into predestinas’ heads that is actually neither safe nor okay to not to look before crossing a road or ignore traffic light-controlled crossing. I’d wager that measure would save far more pedestrian lives than well-observed citywide 20 mph limits.


There are people who actually think this, for real.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

All 20mph streets to be fitted with invisible speed cameras and no warnings for police stops


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Fwiw. Very few appear to be respecting the 20 limits. Black cabs, private cabs, buses....I've seen most categories exceeding it and intimidating those that do respect it. It will get better.


The blanket 20 limits are an object lesson in the adage that if a law is stupid people will ignore it. There are many, many, areas where 20mph limits make perfect sense but just as many where it’s demonstrably ridiculous and therefore generally ignored.


----------



## Spymaster (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> All 20mph streets to be fitted with invisible speed cameras and no warnings for police stops


Impossible. It’ll mean cameras on nearly every road in Central London.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The blanket 20 limits are an object lesson in the adage that if a law is stupid people will ignore it. There are many, many, areas where 20mph limits make perfect sense but just as many where it’s demonstrably ridiculous and therefore generally ignored.


Unless severe and instant punishment is mandated


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Impossible. It’ll mean cameras on nearly every road in Central London.


Yes. There would also need to be a pillory on every street


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There are people who actually think this, for real.


Whereas the bit about increasingly stiffer fines it’s just a bit of silly buggers on my part, entire countries and many or most of their citizens appear to approve of jaywalking laws and the concept of some burden of responsibility and liability falling on pedestrians. I’d be interested to know if you and Orang Utan actually think those countries with jaywalking laws have got it disastrously wrong, seeing as how outraged both of you appear to be at the very prospect.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> Whereas the bit about increasingly stiffer fines it’s just a bit of silly buggers on my part, entire countries and many or most of their citizens appear to approve of jaywalking laws and the concept of some burden of responsibility and liability falling on pedestrian. I’d be interested to know if you and Orang Utan actually think those countries with jaywalking laws have got it completely wrong, seeing as how outraged both of you appear to be at the very prospect.


Yes it is wrong. Have witnessed such nonsense in Berlin


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Unless severe and instant punishment is mandated





Orang Utan said:


> Yes. There would also need to be a pillory on every street



Thought for a moment Pritti Patel had hacked your account, but you sound as if you have lurched to the right of that fucking monstrosity.


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes it is wrong. Have witnessed such nonsense in Berlin


So trying to get pedestrians crossing the road as safely as possible is nonsense? Fuck me, this is beyond parody.


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

Yes they have got it wrong.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> So trying to get pedestrians crossing the road as safely as possible is nonsense? Fuck me, this is beyond parody.


Yes, cos the traffic will be going slowly enough to stop in time if someone dashes across the road unexpectedly


----------



## T & P (May 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, cos the traffic will be going slowly enough to stop in time if someone dashes across the road unexpectedly


That’s simply not the case in a good number of scenarios, including some in which speed was not a factor in the first place.


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

I think we should have a law that no-one can drive their car anywhere unless they have determined that there are no jaywalkers on their route.


----------



## liquidindian (May 20, 2021)

I'm wondering if the history of jaywalking and how the law is applied in the US in particular are not as well known as I'd assumed.


----------



## teuchter (May 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm wondering if the history of jaywalking and how the law is applied in the US in particular are not as well known as I'd assumed.


I thought I'd already posted this on this thread... But I haven't - I'd put it on another thread.









						A defense of jaywalking.
					

Looking at any number of big-city dailies over the last few weeks, one might reasonably surmise that we are in the middle of a new public-health...




					slate.com


----------



## Orang Utan (May 20, 2021)




----------



## liquidindian (May 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I thought I'd already posted this on this thread... But I haven't - I'd put it on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True and there's also the way the law is applied in the US. Hard to know if this would happen here. I mean, has there ever been any times where laws have been used in this way in the UK? 🤔🤔🤔


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

_Jaywalking_, for fuck’s sake


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> So trying to get pedestrians crossing the road as safely as possible is nonsense? Fuck me, this is beyond parody.


It’s almost as if you’ve got things completely backwards, isn’t it?


----------



## David Clapson (May 20, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> Speed limits on Escooters are cancelled out by that bit in the contract where the user promises to ride like a complete cunt at all times.


E-scooters are still illegal on the road unless part of an approved government trial. E-scooter trials: guidance for users And they're illegal on the pavement. The law has not been changed, as many people seem to think. Theoretically you could use one legally on the road if it was taxed, insured and had a registration, and you'd passed an appropriate driving test. But in practice this is thought to be impossible. Nobody's managed it yet. In the meantime, the Met are stopping e-scooters on the road and seizing them for no insurance. Riders can also get points on their driving licence. Or a ban.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I rarely drive at over 30mph in towns anyway because I find it difficult to drive and concentrate on the DVD at speeds much faster than that.


I find it hard to keep a snifter upright in the alcoholic beverage holder when I'm swerving at speeds in excess of 30mph.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The best thing about electric vehicles is that they'll be a piece of piss to reprogram. They're already some of the fastest accelerating vehicles on the planet. A quick tune-up on a laptop and we'll all be driving fucking rockets


I'm already working on it 
No point letting all of those lockdown hours go to waste.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m all for stricter legislation and harsher penalties governing all types of road users. Including of course the introduction of jaywalking laws and liability for pedestrians- a staple of many countries, some of which get mentioned here as templates for the UK to follow.
> 
> For instance, increasingly stiffer financial penalties for repeat jaywalkers would perhaps succeed finally getting the message into predestinas’ heads that is actually neither safe nor okay to not to look before crossing a road or ignore traffic light-controlled crossing. I’d wager that measure would save far more pedestrian lives than well-observed citywide 20 mph limits.


The roads don't belong to drivers - we all pay for them.  If 'jaywalking' laws were introduced there would have to be a massive increase in the number of pedestrian crossing - probably many times the number we have currently, which would slow drivers down even more.  That would be amusing - be careful what you wish for.

In many places there are no crossings so there is no choice but to just walk across, unless you take a huge detour to the nearest crossing.  The whole thing is a ridiculous argument.


----------



## Spymaster (May 21, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> The roads don't belong to drivers - we all pay for them.  If 'jaywalking' laws were introduced there would have to be a massive increase in the number of pedestrian crossing - probably many times the number we have currently, which would slow drivers down even more.  That would be amusing - be careful what you wish for.
> 
> In many places there are no crossings so there is no choice but to just walk across, unless you take a huge detour to the nearest crossing.  The whole thing is a ridiculous argument.


No, that’s not how they work. Usually the laws state that you cannot cross a road within a stated distance (e.g. 100 meters) of a suitable crossing. If there’s no such suitable crossing then jaywalking restrictions will not apply.


----------



## T & P (May 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s almost as if you’ve got things completely backwards, isn’t it?


No, I think it's rather you who does. There is already an enormous degree of emphasis and legislation to ensure every other road user behaves as carefully and attentively as possible. But no such emphasis exists regarding pedestrians in this country.

And despite how much you might dislike it, despite how much more heavy and metally and massy a motor vehicle is than a pedestrian, there are situations in which a pedestrian can behave in a manner sudden and irresponsible enough as to cause an accident in which the motor vehicle user would be entirely faultless, and entirely incapable of having prevented the accident.

No matter of pretending otherwise is going to change that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> No, I think it's rather you who does. There is already an enormous degree of emphasis and legislation to ensure every other road user behaves as carefully and attentively as possible. But no such emphasis exists regarding pedestrians in this country.
> 
> And despite how much you might dislike it, despite how much more heavy and metally and massy a motor vehicle is than a pedestrian, there are situations in which a pedestrian can behave in a manner sudden and irresponsible enough as to cause an accident in which the motor vehicle user would be entirely faultless, and entirely incapable of having prevented the accident.
> 
> No matter of pretending otherwise is going to change that.


Your solution is to place the burden onto the pedestrians. That is where you’re the wrong way round.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> No, I think it's rather you who does. There is already an enormous degree of emphasis and legislation to ensure every other road user behaves as carefully and attentively as possible. But no such emphasis exists regarding pedestrians in this country.
> 
> And despite how much you might dislike it, despite how much more heavy and metally and massy a motor vehicle is than a pedestrian, there are situations in which a pedestrian can behave in a manner sudden and irresponsible enough as to cause an accident in which the motor vehicle user would be entirely faultless, and entirely incapable of having prevented the accident.
> 
> No matter of pretending otherwise is going to change that.


Just admit you’re a selfish pig who doesn’t care about others and the environment and just likes driving emission-belching cars


----------



## Spymaster (May 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Your solution is to place the burden onto the pedestrians. That is where you’re the wrong way round.



Agreed. Attention should be placed primarily on the true villains of the piece. Cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Your solution is to place the burden onto the pedestrians. That is where you’re the wrong way round.



Agreed. Attention should be placed primarily on the true villains of the piece. Cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 21, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Just admit you’re a selfish pig who doesn’t care about others and the environment and just likes driving emission-belching cars


No. That's me.


----------



## Teaboy (May 21, 2021)

Jaywalking laws are of course shit but there is a general point to be made about how rubbish we are at crossing the road.  I'm just talking about plain old self-preservation.  Its really common (and I mean _really common)_ to see people crossing busy traffic in a stupid and dangerous place where there are actual crossings a few metres away.  It happens all the time.

Go through any town or city and it happens all over the place even when there are two pedestrian crossings close to each other there is always some ejit trying to cross inbetween the crossings.

It shouldn't be banned of course, people can cross where they like its just fucking dumb from a not getting hurt perspective.


----------



## T & P (May 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Your solution is to place the burden onto the pedestrians. That is where you’re the wrong way round.


Bullshit. The majority of the burden would still lay squarely with motor vehicle users. What a bizarre thing to say.


----------



## T & P (May 21, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Just admit you’re a selfish pig who doesn’t care about others and the environment and just likes driving emission-belching cars


Fuck off.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Fuck off.


On my bike


----------



## Orang Utan (May 21, 2021)

Someone needs to read the thread title again


----------



## Orang Utan (May 21, 2021)

CBA to read this, but someone will:
Where Covid’s Car-Free Streets Boosted Business


----------



## hash tag (May 21, 2021)

Have you or teuchter been down to Swansea lately?


----------



## hash tag (May 23, 2021)

Coming home yesterday ..just in front of the bus up ahead is a set of traffic lights. It took over 10 minutes to get through that set. They were quickly followed by another set of lights and a bridge


----------



## Orang Utan (May 23, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Coming home yesterday ..just in front of the bus up ahead is a set of traffic lights. It took over 10 minutes to get through that set. They were quickly followed by another set of lights and a bridge
> View attachment 269811


Good anti-car propaganda there - well done


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 23, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Coming home yesterday ..just in front of the bus up ahead is a set of traffic lights. It took over 10 minutes to get through that set. They were quickly followed by another set of lights and a bridge
> View attachment 269811


One person per car, they would have had to walk 10 minutes otherwise.


----------



## maomao (May 23, 2021)

hash tag said:


> Coming home yesterday ..just in front of the bus up ahead is a set of traffic lights. It took over 10 minutes to get through that set. They were quickly followed by another set of lights and a bridge
> View attachment 269811


Were you standing on the roof of a car to take this photo?


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Good anti-car propaganda there - well done


Yes, some people are finally getting the hang of this.


----------



## hash tag (May 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> Were you standing on the roof of a car to take this photo?


Jumping up and down - on the roof


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2021)

Here is embedded car culture. This is a footer at the bottom of every email that a certain company sends me:





I've not asked for directions, nor do I have any intention of visiting them. But at the end of every email they let me know how to get to their showroom by CAR to park in their CUSTOMER CAR PARK or a LAYBY on the A30.

Note how they have to shout about it in capital letters, possibly because of the din of constant traffic going past. Or it might just be because they are car people, who are usually shouty and angry.

There's zero information offered to those who might want to come not in A CAR. No mention of the rail station, just off the edge of their map and 10-15 minutes walk away. Nothing about nearest bus stops.

They've given me a quote for some stuff and I think I will advocate using another company, as a punishment, and proof that promulgating car culture can lose you business.


----------



## David Clapson (May 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here is embedded car culture. This is a footer at the bottom of every email that a certain company sends me:
> 
> 
> View attachment 269894
> ...


Seems a bit harsh. They are probably used to going everywhere by van because they carry glass and windows.


----------



## MickiQ (May 23, 2021)

Probably think people too poor to own a car can't afford their windows


----------



## BillRiver (May 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They've given me a quote for some stuff and I think I will advocate using another company, as a punishment, and proof that promulgating car culture can lose you business.



It won't mean anything unless you tell them what you're doing and why. I hope you do.


----------



## T & P (May 23, 2021)

In other news, man yells at the sky in anger at the tyranny of it all as he notices the website for the Gloucester motorway services doesn’t include comprehensive directions on how to reach it by public transport.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> It won't mean anything unless you tell them what you're doing and why. I hope you do.


Is being shamed on one of the internet's most widely followed threads not harsh enough?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here is embedded car culture. This is a footer at the bottom of every email that a certain company sends me:
> 
> 
> View attachment 269894
> ...




I imagine they wrongly assumed you were a grown up and would arrive like one.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 24, 2021)

/ c


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Both drivers in the wrong, because they were both driving cars.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Both drivers in the wrong, because they were both driving cars.



And, you're a twat, but most people know that anyway.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, you're a twat, but most people know that anyway.


Wrong thread


----------



## Spymaster (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Both drivers in the wrong, because they were both driving cars.



Both in the wrong because one pulled out and the other was speeding.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Both drivers in the wrong, because they were both driving cars.


If however one of those vehicles had been an Amazon van on its way to deliver teuchter’s latest online purchases, and the other a supermarket   small truck returning after having dropped off his grocery shopping instead of privately owned cars, neither driver would be at fault


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Both in the wrong because one pulled out and the other was speeding.


Err, the other was only doing 20 mph, the speed is shown at the bottom of the webcam footage, so not speeding.


----------



## Spymaster (May 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, the other was only doing 20 mph, the speed is shown at the bottom of the webcam footage, so not speeding.


Still too fast for that road.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Still too fast for that road.



No it wasn't, that's a fairly wide road with just a few parked vehicles, not a narrow road with both sides crammed with parked vehicles. 

She drove out of that side street a lot faster, having ignored the road markings & give way sign, she was probably on her phone, totally her fault.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2021)

That’s a narrow road with plenty enough parked cars. He should have taken more care


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 24, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That’s a narrow road with plenty enough parked cars. He should have taken more care



This is a narrow road, with loads of parked cars, 20 mph would be too much in such a road.



In comparison, that road is wide, with few parked cars, and a good view going ahead.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> This is a narrow road, with loads of parked cars, 20 mph would be too much in such a road.
> 
> View attachment 270076
> 
> In comparison, that road is wide, with few parked cars, and a good view going ahead.


Rubbish, you could do 60 down there.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 24, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Rubbish, you could do 60 down there.



Perhaps in a Audi or BMW.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2021)

Too right, whooses keeping to speed limits


----------



## Orang Utan (May 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> This is a narrow road, with loads of parked cars, 20 mph would be too much in such a road.
> 
> View attachment 270076
> 
> In comparison, that road is wide, with few parked cars, and a good view going ahead.


Still too narrow to be going that fast though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 24, 2021)

Nah, only one person at fault there. 20mph was fine, the other driver simply didn't give way. And then proceeded to scream as if they were somehow the wronged party in it all.


----------



## MickiQ (May 24, 2021)

The woman in black was guilty she clearly failed to stop at the road markings. The camera car did seem to be tanking it a bit but so long as he wasn't speeding, he's in the clear.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, the other was only doing 20 mph, the speed is shown at the bottom of the webcam footage, so not speeding.


For once Spymaster is right.

Maybe you need some top-up driving lessons.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> If however one of those vehicles had been an Amazon van on its way to deliver teuchter’s latest online purchases, and the other a supermarket   small truck returning after having dropped off his grocery shopping instead of privately owned cars, neither driver would be at fault


Well neither would be in a car, so neither would be at fault on the grounds of driving a car. Correct.

If the delivery vans are delivering to people less fortunate than me, who can't easily walk to the supermarket, then they are a good thing. Not to an dogmatic idealogue like you perhaps, but to a reasonable person like me, it's all fine. As long as they are not speeding.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2021)

I do agree he was travelling a bit too fast even if legally, from a cautious point view. Not at fault, but not sensibly enough for me.

This incidentally is a good example of plenty of good drivers being actually able to judge a safe speed without needing local authority legislation to guide them. Plenty of times over the years on these boards, some people have been quick to label anyone who might have questioned the wisdom of a local low speed limit as ‘arrogant drivers’, ‘selfish’, or ‘pretending to know better than the experts’.

In fact a great many drivers have long known the 30 mph limit that was commonplace across cities for the last hundred years was too fast for certain narrower residential streets. You could also add plenty of country lanes with a 50 mph limit, which is even more bonkers.

28mph on plenty of smaller streets with a 30 mph limit is legal but wrong and unsafe. Equally, a few miles over the limit on certain roads in certain conditions might be illegal but perfectly safe, or at least far safer than doing 29 mph on certain residential roads with a 30 limit. I would actually be concerned about the driving proficiency of anyone who thinks otherwise.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> I do agree he was travelling a bit too fast even if legally, from a cautious point view. Not at fault, but not sensibly enough for me.
> 
> This incidentally is a good example of plenty of good drivers being actually able to judge a safe speed without needing local authority legislation to guide them. Plenty of times over the years on these boards, some people have been quick to label anyone who might have questioned the wisdom of a local low speed limit as ‘arrogant drivers’, ‘selfish’, or ‘pretending to know better than the experts’.
> 
> ...


Yes, that's why speed limits need to be reduced to 20 in most urban areas and rural limits should be dropped too.

The video is a good example of two drivers not being able to judge a safe speed. Again, that's why limits need to be reduced.


----------



## mauvais (May 24, 2021)

The camera car driver is driving sensibly and slowly enough, at least until they get hit and then for some reason accelerate into a parked car.


----------



## Elpenor (May 24, 2021)

I think the music our driver was listening to - passenger? - is slightly ironic. 

Maybe that junction should be a 4-way stop


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes, that's why speed limits need to be reduced to 20 in most urban areas and rural limits should be dropped too.
> 
> The video is a good example of two drivers not being able to judge a safe speed. Again, that's why limits need to be reduced.


Like you say, most. Not all. I’m glad you finally agree that blanket speed limits over entire areas that don’t take into account the differences between any of the roads in said area, no matter how significantly apart, are not necessarily justifiable.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> I think the music our driver was listening to - passenger? - is slightly ironic.
> 
> Maybe that junction should be a 4-way stop


Was thinking, if that had been in the Netherlands there would more likely have been no road markings, and the driver on the right would have had priority. (Napoleonic thing, has been changing in recent years but that was always traditional).

So he would have slowed down at the junction and woman coming from the right would have edged across. If there had been someone on _her _right they'd have edged across in front of her because they'd have thought "no I'm the one with priority here" and if there'd been someone on _their _right they'd have in turn edged across because they'd have had priority.

Of course the original he driving would have decided he was the one with priority and so all four would have met in a standstill stalemate in the middle. 

First time I've ever thought the Dutch system was actually better.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> Like you say, most. Not all. I’m glad you finally agree that blanket speed limits over entire areas that don’t take into account the differences between any of the roads in said area, no matter how significantly apart, are not necessarily justifiable.


They are necessary for as long as the motorist lobby refuses to have speed limiters in vehicles. That would let some 20mph streets go to 30 and some to 10.

As it is, we know it's too challenging for car people to follow multiple limits so we have to accept something general that tries to reduce the number of people they murder.


----------



## two sheds (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> the number of people they murder.



not manslaughter - they actually go out and plan to do it?


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

mauvais said:


> The camera car driver is driving sensibly and slowly enough, at least until they get hit and then for some reason accelerate into a parked car.


This is not correct.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is not correct.


I know, right. The owner of the parked car typically gets very cross.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They are necessary for as long as the motorist lobby refuses to have speed limiters in vehicles. That would let some 20mph streets go to 30 and some to 10.


I do have a speed limiter in my vehicle. It’s my right foot.


----------



## platinumsage (May 25, 2021)

The camera car driver is driving in the middle of the road instead of on the left hand side. Not a good idea when you have blind junctions on the right.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

two sheds said:


> not manslaughter - they actually go out and plan to do it?


Non no no. It’s definitely murder. Honest.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

Just look at how wide & clear the road is before the accident, 20mph is perfectly reasonable, even the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on inappropriate speed, describe it as driving within the speed limit when that is too fast for the conditions at the time, such as in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity, none of which applies here.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The camera car driver is driving in the middle of the road instead of on the left hand side. Not a good idea when you have blind junctions on the right.


It's not a properly blind junction and their middle-of-the-road strategy isn't terrible - mitigates the risk of a pedestrian running out, it didn't really contribute to this accident, and you could argue that sticking to the left would present the opposite risk of being hit from the left.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The camera car driver is driving in the middle of the road instead of on the left hand side. Not a good idea when you have blind junctions on the right.



His positioning is fine but you can feel that’s he’s a couple of mph over what’s appropriate speed there, especially when he’s passing the parked cars earlier. If he was a little slower he’d have been able to avoid the fuckwit. I actually think he should have been able to brake in time to let her pass in front anyway. That’s probably what happens when you listen to James Blunt though.


----------



## platinumsage (May 25, 2021)

mauvais said:


> It's not a properly blind junction and their middle-of-the-road strategy isn't terrible - mitigates the risk of a pedestrian running out, it didn't really contribute to this accident, and you could argue that sticking to the left would present the opposite risk of being hit from the left.



There are risks to everything but if the crazy crashing woman had turned left out of the junction it would have been a head-on collision that wouldn't have been a fun insurance claim for the cam car driver.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

The bits they did get wrong IMO isn't speed as such, which is why it's always unhelpful to make everything about it. It's: 

(a) early on in the video there's a silver Mercedes coupe parked at 90 degrees to the road and there's a high risk that it's reversing out. Perhaps the driver knows it's always parked there but otherwise there's no reaction to or handling of this risk.

(b) there is zero apparent reaction to the accident; no braking or avoiding action. It develops quickly so maybe a bit much to ask but ultimately you've got to be ready to emergency stop for all sorts of things in these environments. Again it's a bit unfair but I do think they could have avoided hitting the parked car if they'd been paying more attention.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There are risks to everything but if the crazy crashing woman had turned left out of the junction it would have been a head-on collision that wouldn't have been a fun insurance claim for the cam car driver.


Possibly (not sure that would be a problem actually) but they couldn't have done that at full speed so it's a different threat.


----------



## platinumsage (May 25, 2021)

The cam driver is clearly driving in the middle of the road so they can straddle all the speed bumps. They're doing it since the start of the video.

The idea that they're doing it to mitigate the risks of pedestrians running out is silly, because they remain in the middle of the road early on even when there are cars parked on the right.

Basically they're gldiing along in their own little world thinking that they are a competent and calm driver because they're not speeding, whereas if they had been speeding they may well have been paying more attention.


----------



## dessiato (May 25, 2021)

I think I posted earlier about the new urban speed limits here. They make a lot of sense. Unfortunately there's still people ignoring them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

mauvais said:


> (b) there is zero apparent reaction to the accident; no braking or avoiding action. It develops quickly so maybe a bit much to ask but ultimately you've got to be ready to emergency stop for all sorts of things in these environments. Again it's a bit unfair but I do think they could have avoided hitting the parked car if they'd been paying more attention.


This. He hits her at the same speed he’s been driving at all the way along the road, despite having a couple of seconds from when the black car first comes into view.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The cam driver is clearly driving in the middle of the road so they can straddle all the speed bumps. They're doing it since the start of the video.
> 
> The idea that they're doing it to mitigate the risks of pedestrians running out is silly, because they remain in the middle of the road early on even when there are cars parked on the right.
> 
> Basically they're gldiing along in their own little world thinking that they are a competent and calm driver because they're not speeding, whereas if they had been speeding they may well have been paying more attention.


I don't mean that the driver in question is doing it to avoid risk, I mean that if you _did_ drive down there trying to position yourself appropriately it might not look all that much different, so it's not a problem as such.

I do agree that they're gliding along which is fundamental to their part in the accident, and I also agree that there is a "I'm doing the speed limit therefore I'm a safe driver" attitude born out of our social focus on speed alone. I really don't think them speeding would have helped though.


----------



## paolo (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This. He hits her at the same speed he’s been driving at all the way along the road, despite having a couple of seconds from when the black car first comes into view.


To avoid a sideswipe on a road with side roads, one would need to treat each junction as a give way, at least to slow down enough to do a visual check on the side roads. For full safety, you need to assume the contravening drivers have not seen their stop signs, and will be driving at a “normal speed”, e.g. 20mph, straight across.

Do you do that? How fast can you do it, safely?


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> To avoid a sideswipe on a road with side roads, one would need to treat each junction as a give way, at least to slow down enough to do a visual check on the side roads.
> 
> Do you do that? How fast can you do it, safely?


This is a bit absolute. Some accidents you can't avoid entirely through anything other than unreasonable caution but we know that the driver didn't brake hard, the front of the car would have dipped if they had. They have about a second to do _something_ and they don't. From the moment the car becomes visible to the point they crash into the white parked car they're just a passenger.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 25, 2021)

It comes to something when I’m defending a car driver, but the camera car did nothing wrong here.

Now, there’s a good argument that the residential streets concerned could be designed better (see the Dutch for examples etc) and in doing so would have prevented this accident, but as things were the driver was doing 20mph, on a relatively wide road on which they had priority over the side roads. Driving as they were in a central position is fine, less chance of an opening door or someone stepping out becoming a problem.

The fault lies 100% with the idiot screaming into her phone.


----------



## Athos (May 25, 2021)

I don't think the camera car driver was at fault for the accident. But, if they'd been a better driver i.e. had they been driving slower, anticipating the hazard, and paying sufficient attention to enable them to react quicker, they might have avoided the incident.  (The positioning was fine, though, being honest, it was to minimise speed bumps rather than for safety.)


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> To avoid a sideswipe on a road with side roads, one would need to treat each junction as a give way, at least to slow down enough to do a visual check on the side roads. For full safety, you need to assume the contravening drivers have not seen their stop signs, and will be driving at a “normal speed”, e.g. 20mph, straight across.
> 
> Do you do that? How fast can you do it, safely?


I think so, pretty much on built up roads like that. That particular hazard (having right of way through what is effectively a crossroad) should always be anticipated and slowed for. I definitely don’t think that would have happened if I’d been driving the camera car. Not like that anyway. I might have taken off her back bumper. Unless perhaps I’d been listening to James Blunt all morning.


----------



## platinumsage (May 25, 2021)

The faster you drive the less likely you are to be hit from the side by someone who has no intention to give way.


----------



## paolo (May 25, 2021)

mauvais said:


> This is a bit absolute. Some accidents you can't avoid entirely through anything other than unreasonable caution but we know that the driver didn't brake hard, the front of the car would have dipped if they had. They have about a second to do _something_ and they don't. From the moment the car becomes visible to the point they crash into the white parked car they're just a passenger



I’ve rewatched the video just now. How long would you say, in the video, the black car appears before impact? I’m going to guess 1/10 of a second. What would you say?


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> I’ve rewatched the video just now. How long would you say, in the video, the black car appears before impact? I’m going to guess 1/10 of a second. What would you say?


About a second, and that's with the constrained perspective of the camera (although tbf the A-pillar might hinder visibility as much as any side view helps it). The "thinking distance" time in the Highway Code is 0.7 seconds, FWIW.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This. He hits her at the same speed he’s been driving at all the way along the road, despite having a couple of seconds from when the black car first comes into view.



No it's not a couple of seconds, on the dashcam she only comes into view only after it clocked over at 18.14.26, and they hit at the very point it clocks to 18.14.27, so just under a second, which is thinking time.

If he had been going couple of mph less, as you suggested, even if had slammed on the brakes, he couldn't have stopped in time, the accident wouldn't have been avoided, because she clearly doesn't brake, she would have piled into the side of his car, in fact she would most probably have crashed into the driver's door.


----------



## paolo (May 25, 2021)

I’ve been geeky enough to check just now. (You can find out FPS in YouTube, and also do frame by frame steps)

The video is 30 frames per second.

6 frames elapse from the black car breaching the stop line to impact.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> I’ve been geeky enough to check just now. (You can find out FPS in YouTube, and also do frame by frame steps)
> 
> The video is 30 frames per second.
> 
> 6 frames elapse from the black car breaching the stop line to impact.



How about from when it actually comes into view & impact?


----------



## mojo pixy (May 25, 2021)

The camera is only looking straight ahead. Cars have side windows too. A look to the right as the driver approached the junction would have helped considerably and given an extra second of stopping time, evven slightly more.


----------



## paolo (May 25, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> The camera is only looking straight ahead. Cars have side windows too. A look to the right as the driver approached the junction would have helped considerably and given an extra second of stopping time, evven slightly more.



Which comes back to the point of treating every side road driver as non-compliant.

(mauvais “Some accidents you can't avoid entirely through anything other than unreasonable caution”)


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> If he had been going couple of mph less, as you suggested, even if had slammed on the brakes, he couldn't have stopped in time, the accident wouldn't have been avoided, because she clearly doesn't brake, she would have piled into the side of his car, in fact she would most probably have crashed into the driver's door.


 He would have needed to be going _faster _for her to hit his driver's door. Slower, he's got enough space there to do something. He has anyway but he just cruises straight on into her. And he doesn't have to stop to avoid the collision, just slow down.


----------



## paolo (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He would have needed to be going _faster _for her to hit his driver's door. Slower, he's got enough space there to do something. He has anyway but he just cruises straight on into her. And he doesn't have to stop to avoid the collision, just slow down.



Cruises.. 1/5 of a second.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> Cruises.. 1/5 of a second.


That's from going over the stop line. You see the black car well before that and he has enough time to be on the brakes. If he'd been going slower as he'd approached the "crossroad" he'd have had more. He should have done better.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 25, 2021)

Here we can see how long the approaching car is visible for - and this is _without_ turning the head to look out of the right window.
IMO there's enough space to stop in time (~6m needed to stop, at 20mph) 

But .. that's for a driver paying attention. This individual was clearly not.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 25, 2021)

Christ you lot can argue black is white! The car that didn't stop at the give way lines is in the wrong, end of.

Had the camera car been going at a proper lick then it would have been long gone before the transgression took place, so look and learn and never dip below 50 on roads like that, it's for safety.


----------



## MickiQ (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think so, pretty much on built up roads like that. That particular hazard (having right of way through what is effectively a crossroad) should always be anticipated and slowed for. I definitely don’t think that would have happened if I’d been driving the camera car. Not like that anyway. I might have taken off her back bumper. Unless perhaps I’d been listening to James Blunt all morning.


I think we all agree that Blunt needs to step up and take his share of responsibility for this crash


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

paolo said:


> I’ve been geeky enough to check just now. (You can find out FPS in YouTube, and also do frame by frame steps)
> 
> The video is 30 frames per second.
> 
> 6 frames elapse from the black car breaching the stop line to impact.





Spymaster said:


> That's from going over the stop line. You see the black car well before that and he has enough time to be on the brakes. If he'd been going slower as he'd approached the "crossroad" he'd have had more. He should have done better.


Yep. You can slow YT clips down to 0.25x in the ordinary settings, and the time from visible to collision in that is 3.6 seconds, which I make to be 0.9 in dog years.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 25, 2021)

She makes no attempt to stop at the while line, or am I missing something?


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He would have needed to be going _faster _for her to hit his driver's door.


D'oh.   

I'll give you that, that'll teach me for replying when my concentration was actually on dealing with a bloody IT support ticket.


----------



## magneze (May 25, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> She makes no attempt to stop at the while line, or am I missing something?


That's right. Frankly she's lucky to have hit a car rather than killed a cyclist or pedestrian.


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> D'oh.
> 
> I'll give you that, that'll teach me for replying when my concentration was actually on dealing with a bloody IT support ticket.


No wonder there are so many crashes when you can't even pay attention when studying driving habits


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Yep. You can slow YT clips down to 0.25x in the ordinary settings, and the time from visible to collision in that is 3.6 seconds, which I make to be 0.9 in dog years.





And, if you slow it down to half that, it's 7.2 seconds.


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2021)

two sheds said:


> not manslaughter - they actually go out and plan to do it?


Yes - look at the replies on the last page of the thread. People are saying the driver didn't do anything wrong, because they are driving at a speed that would be ok if no other driver does something wrong like come out of a side road without looking. The only safe way to drive down the street is to do so at a speed where you can stop in time for any possible event. It might be this other car suddenly appearing or it might be an innocent child suddenly appearing. The act of driving with this attitude necessarily puts people at risk of death. So, they get in their car, probably listen to something even more bland than James blunt, and set off in the knowledge they are doing something the that could kill people even though they don't need to. We can argue whether it's technically murder but why not just say murder to get a reaction from the petrolheads? It passes the time and potentially they spend time arguing on here instead of going out murdering people in their cars.


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2021)

Nonsense. The only safe way to drive is to get in your car and leave the ignition turned off. And even that's not really safe because you might cause a crash by somebody trying to avoid you.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes - look at the replies on the last page of the thread. People are saying the driver didn't do anything wrong, because they are driving at a speed that would be ok if no other driver does something wrong like come out of a side road without looking. The only safe way to drive down the street is to do so at a speed where you can stop in time for any possible event. It might be this other car suddenly appearing or it might be an innocent child suddenly appearing. The act of driving with this attitude necessarily puts people at risk of death. So, they get in their car, probably listen to something even more bland than James blunt, and set off in the knowledge they are doing something the that could kill people even though they don't need to. We can argue whether it's technically murder but why not just say murder to get a reaction from the petrolheads? It passes the time and potentially they spend time arguing on here instead of going out murdering people in their cars.


I'm actually arguing the toss on this _whilst driving _so if anything the joke's on you.


----------



## Spymaster (May 25, 2021)

magneze said:


> That's right. Frankly she's lucky to have hit a car rather than killed murdered a cyclist or pedestrian.


Ftfy


----------



## Doodler (May 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> This is a narrow road, with loads of parked cars, 20 mph would be too much in such a road.
> 
> View attachment 270076
> 
> In comparison, that road is wide, with few parked cars, and a good view going ahead.


Masses of parked cars can really uglify a street.


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2021)

Indeed, those cars shouldn't have been parked there. If they hadn't his speed would have been perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 25, 2021)

tbf seeing as how easily you can get bashed by an inattentive fuckwit makes me think that a Marauder makes for an idea vehicle for the city streets.


----------



## two sheds (May 25, 2021)

And I bet that would be illegal. Political correctness gone mad


----------



## T & P (May 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf seeing as how easily you can get bashed by an inattentive fuckwit makes me think that a Marauder makes for an idea vehicle for the city streets.
> 
> View attachment 270152


I think it's the only way forward. Seeing as we have already established speed bumps are badly designed and cause all cars smaller than a Chelsea tractor to slow down to a crawl for each one and accelerate again, creating extra pollution and noise, I think the smallest sensible size for cities nowadays for both safety and public health reasons is a Range Rover-type vehicle. No need to slow down for bumps + extra protection from idiots


----------



## maomao (May 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> extra protection from idiots


Do they only lock from the outside then?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> I think it's the only way forward. Seeing as we have already established speed bumps are badly designed and cause all cars smaller than a Chelsea tractor to slow down to a crawl for each one and accelerate again, creating extra pollution and noise, I think the smallest sensible size for cities nowadays for both safety and public health reasons is a Range Rover-type vehicle. No need to slow down for bumps + extra protection from idiots




It's basic common sense. This may as well be a good point for a passing mod to lock the thread now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 25, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> Here we can see how long the approaching car is visible for - and this is _without_ turning the head to look out of the right window.
> IMO there's enough space to stop in time (~6m needed to stop, at 20mph)


Stopping distance at 20 mph is not 6m, it's thinking 6m+ braking distance 6m = 12m. 





__





						Know your stopping distances | AA
					

An explanation of stopping distances, thinking distances, braking distances and the factors that influence them.




					www.theaa.com


----------



## mojo pixy (May 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Stopping distance at 20 mph is not 6m, it's thinking 6m+ braking distance 6m = 12m.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the human head were immovable and the human field of view were as narrow as a dashcam's FoV, I agree another 6m noticing/thinking time would be needed from the point in the screenshot. I want to factor in the time between the _camera_ picking up the vehicle approaching at speed from the right, and when the _driver_ could/should have first seen it, IMO before that.


----------



## mauvais (May 25, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> If the human head were immovable and the human field of view were as narrow as a dashcam's FoV, I agree another 6m noticing/thinking time would be needed from the point in the screenshot. I want to factor in the time between the _camera_ picking up the vehicle approaching at speed from the right, and when the _driver_ could/should have first seen it, IMO before that.


As I mentioned this is complicated because the A-pillar of the car obscures visibility at a certain angle. As nerdy as I am, I can't be bothered to figure out how much it likely applies here.

There's also sound to be reckoned with.


----------



## platinumsage (May 25, 2021)

Also need to consider the reflection of the car's daytime running lights in the gloss paint on the side of the green telecoms box. Could easily have stopped based on that before the car came into view.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 25, 2021)

We can't hear it but the shouty woman was listening to Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name. It was an accident waiting to happen. One driver full of rage and the other one off his tits on James Blunt. 
Choose your music wisely, or turn it off. Personally, I never have the radio turned on unless I'm on the motorway. Its too much of a distraction.


----------



## David Clapson (May 25, 2021)

Last year Lambeth Council hired Pedal Me to deliver 10,000 care packages. Someone submitted a FOI request querying the contract. It turns out that Pedal Me were cheaper and faster than companies which use vans. Ten vans would have been needed for the contract. About 5,000kg of CO2 were saved, or about 100 tree seedlings grown for 10 years. Faster, cheaper, cleaner – so that’s why Lambeth chose Pedal Me e-cargo bikes to distribute care packages


----------



## T & P (May 27, 2021)

Here teuchter , something that will warm your heart... No need to thank me


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

Good work by the passing teenager - just a car getting smashed up by a collapsing building, yeah whatever, carry on walking.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



If the cars were going faster they'd have been out of the way quicker.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 27, 2021)

Nice car drivers slowed or stopped to let them cross, result.


----------



## Leafster (May 27, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Nice car drivers slowed or stopped to let them cross, result.


I didn't see any of the cyclists stop though.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Nice car drivers slowed or stopped to let them cross, result.


Yes, looks like approximately 1 in 50 car drivers is not a thoughtless monster who thinks getting to the drive-through McDonalds is more important than animal welfare. Lucky one of them came by eventually.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes, looks like approximately 1 in 50 car drivers is not a thoughtless monster who thinks getting to the drive-through McDonalds is more important than animal welfare. Lucky one of them came by eventually.


McDonalds Richmond doesn't have a drive-through.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 27, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Last year Lambeth Council hired Pedal Me to deliver 10,000 care packages. Someone submitted a FOI request querying the contract. It turns out that Pedal Me were cheaper and faster than companies which use vans. Ten vans would have been needed for the contract. About 5,000kg of CO2 were saved, or about 100 tree seedlings grown for 10 years.


Imagine trying to find fault with bikes delivering food packages.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

Leafster said:


> I didn't see any of the cyclists stop though.


Indeed. If you look closely, two of the cyclists try to kick the deer as they charge past.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

As a result, the Royal Parks Commission very sensibly banned cyclists from Richmond Park.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



That's ace... Its like real life 3D Frogger.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> McDonalds Richmond doesn't have a drive-through.


Wouldn't be surprised if they were driving from Hampstead or somewhere to Croydon. Less effort than walking 2 minutes to a nearby McDonalds where they would have to mix with 'common people'.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> As a result, the Royal Parks Commission very sensibly banned cyclists from Richmond Park.


I see they haven't banned cars. Strange isn't it. It's almost as if cyclists are cunts and nobody likes them


----------



## MickiQ (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



Why is this a bad thing? If  the deer weren't scared of cars, they'd get run over and be dead wouldn't they? I dare say that deer are also scared of wolves and bears as well which no-one seems to comment on.


----------



## T & P (May 27, 2021)

Wow...



> Poor obedience with regards to Park bylaws was also a cited issue: ‘Sports cyclists were gauged as reaching up to 34mph on several occasions.’ Richmond Park has a speed limit for bicycles of 20mph, and cyclists have historically been fined for being recorded over this limit.



One thing is certain: now that so many local authorities have decided that the maximum safe speed in urban areas is 20 mph, that speed limit should start to apply to cyclists as well in all such areas, not just those governed by local by-laws like Richmond Park.


----------



## maomao (May 27, 2021)

T & P said:


> Wow...
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is certain: now that so many local authorities have decided that the maximum safe speed in urban areas is 20 mph, that speed limit should start to apply to cyclists as well in all such areas, not just those governed by local by-laws like Richmond Park.


God this thread has just turned into an endless parade of fucking knob ends hasn't it. I'm going to go key some fucking cars to get over it. Might take a couple of potatoes and stick them in exhaust pipes.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

Good to see Windsor and Maidenhead taking the cycling menace seriously and banning them from High Streets.

The £100 fine is far too low though.

Obvs.


----------



## Elpenor (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



Zebras wouldn’t have had such a problem, they’ve even got their own crossing


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> Might take a couple of potatoes and stick them in exhaust pipes.


Fuck all happens usually. They just get blown out.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Good to see Windsor and Maidenhead taking the cycling menace seriously and banning them from High Streets.
> 
> The £100 fine is far too low though.
> 
> Obvs.





> Cllr John Baldwin (Lib Dem) added he was concerned about the ‘choking points’ in Maidenhead as some parts of King Street would require cyclists to mount and dismount again.
> 
> He said: “I’m just concerned we’re going to have a bunch of guys standing at that choke point and handing out tickets like they’re going out of fashion."


Imagine that, having to obey the rules! Poor cyclists!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I see they haven't banned cars. Strange isn't it. It's almost as if cyclists are cunts and nobody likes them


They did, but that angered motorists, Why else would they have bought that big SUV if not to see some wildlife?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> They did, but that angered motorists, Why else would they have bought that big SUV if not to see some wildlife?


Protection against speeding cyclists?


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 27, 2021)

We have the biggest deer population since the last ice age and no one  except brave community minded speeding motorists on their phones are trying to cull this out of control sapling munching herd of evil


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> We have the biggest deer population since the last ice age and no one  except brave community minded speeding motorists on their phones are trying to cull this out of control sapling munching herd of evil


I'm doing my bit by eating more Bambi than I ever have.


----------



## MickiQ (May 27, 2021)

They re-introduced wolves into Yellowstone Park in the US because the elk were doing so much damage to the environment due to overpopulation. We ought to do the same, teach the wolves to drive and it will be doubly beneficial.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Protection against speeding cyclists?


I doubt if they see themselves as needing protection, more rugged outdoorsmen on the way through the wilderness to provide (McDonald's) for their family.


----------



## T & P (May 27, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> They re-introduced wolves into Yellowstone Park in the US because the elk were doing so much damage to the environment due to overpopulation. We ought to do the same, teach the wolves to drive and it will be doubly beneficial.


And to complement that, cyclists who wear a sheep costume should then be allowed to cycle through Richmond Park. It's a win-win situation: the wolves get their exercise and hunting instincts sharp, and the cyclists get to ride through the park again, and as fast as they dare.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 27, 2021)

Only we can prevent deer :  Audi driver


----------



## maomao (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck all happens usually. They just get blown out.


You need a hammer and a potato of the right diameter.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> God this thread has just turned into an endless parade of fucking knob ends hasn't it.


Yup they do the thread's work for me. Very little effort required on my part.


----------



## dessiato (May 27, 2021)

Do they still cull the deer every year, then sell the meat? I used to enjoy it, but seldom see it for sale here.


----------



## dessiato (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yup they do the thread's work for me. Very little effort required on my part.


You are aware that much, if not most, of it is intended to wind you up, and take the piss?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

dessiato said:


> You are aware that much, if not most, of it is intended to wind you up, and take the piss?


Self-awareness isn't his thing.


----------



## Teaboy (May 27, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> We have the biggest deer population since the last ice age and no one  except brave community minded speeding motorists on their phones are trying to cull this out of control sapling munching herd of evil





MickiQ said:


> They re-introduced wolves into Yellowstone Park in the US because the elk were doing so much damage to the environment due to overpopulation. We ought to do the same, teach the wolves to drive and it will be doubly beneficial.



The deer in Richmond Park are a managed herd.  That being said I do think the reintroduction of Wolves would solve around 60% - 70% of the countries problems.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

dessiato said:


> You are aware that much, if not most, of it is intended to wind you up, and take the piss?


I'm very aware of the intent and take much pleasure in its failure.

Quite enjoyed watching Saul Goodman lose his nerve and delete all his YouTube speeding videos the other day for example. I wonder if the Garda have knocked yet.


----------



## souljacker (May 27, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> The deer in Richmond Park are a managed herd.  That being said I do think the reintroduction of Wolves would solve around 60% - 70% of the countries problems.



If we let them lose in the house of commons and locked all the doors, we could get that figure up to 80 or 90%


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm very aware of the intent and take much pleasure in its failure.
> 
> Quite enjoyed watching Saul Goodman lose his nerve and delete all his YouTube speeding videos the other day for example. I wonder if the Garda have knocked yet.


We can always tell when you’re getting irritated because you go out of your way to say you’re not. It would be far more convincing if you pretended to ignore us!  😉


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> We can always tell when you’re getting irritated because you go out of your way to say you’re not. It would be far more convincing if you pretended to ignore us!  😉


You spotted that too 
And how he crumbled and started frothing when I made those videos private, and now he's trying to pretend he enjoyed it 
He's more transparent than a very transparent thing.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> We can always tell when you’re getting irritated because you go out of your way to say you’re not. It would be far more convincing if you pretended to ignore us!  😉


Thanks for the tips, but with all due disrespect we wouldn't be on page 61 if I didn't know what I was doing. Nor would a certain poster be worrying about a potential criminal conviction.


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

Aye. Anonymous bloke on the internet in videos of an unidentifiable bike. Bet he must be shitting himself.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Aye. Anonymous bloke on the internet in videos of an unidentifiable bike. Bet he must be shitting himself.


You're buying the 'I took the videos down just to wind up teuchter' line are you?


----------



## Spymaster (May 27, 2021)

I think that was likely just a serendipitous side effect.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're buying the 'I took the videos down just to wind up teuchter' line are you?


Why else would I do it? There was nothing identifiable in them, and look how well it worked!


----------



## David Clapson (May 27, 2021)

Autonomous minibuses drove themselves in traffic in Cambridge today. Apparently the first time a self-driving vehicle's been allowed out on public roads in the UK. 









						Self-driving shuttles carry passengers in Cambridge road trials
					

The first custom-made autonomous passenger shuttles to take to UK roads alongside other traffic have launched in Cambridge today (Thursday, May 27).




					www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk
				







__





						News - Autonomous | Aviation | Automotive Technology
					






					aurrigo.com
				




Aurrigo, the manufacturer, also makes a 4 seater. Great things are expected of it. It's got an algorithm which enables it to swarm, like birds and insects.  See the driverless pods that could one day be on the streets of Coventry


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Autonomous minibuses drove themselves in traffic in Cambridge today. Apparently the first time a self-driving vehicle's been allowed out on public roads in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't look like they are exactly out on public roads? It seems it's going around a campus site, and has a driver who can take control at any point.


----------



## David Clapson (May 28, 2021)

Public roads on a campus, and a driver just in case.  Early days.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Autonomous minibuses drove themselves in traffic in Cambridge today. Apparently the first time a self-driving vehicle's been allowed out on public roads in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not going to make any difference, where will the motorist display their skill, their mastery of the road and machine for us to admire?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 28, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not going to make any difference, where will the motorist display their skill, their mastery of the road and machine for us to admire?


Exactly. I can't see Google programming a drifting option into their cars. Fuck autonomous cars, and the software they drove in on.


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2021)

This is good messaging:


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2021)

In other news, TfL bike scheme is now turning a profit and, like Dylan in 1965, going electric.


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems it's going around a campus site, and has a driver who can take control at any point.



The driver is Saul Goodman


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2021)

.


----------



## MickiQ (May 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't look like they are exactly out on public roads? It seems it's going around a campus site, and has a driver who can take control at any point.


It will run from Trumpington Park and Ride to the Station via the Campus, parts of it will be on the public roads but on a dedicated buslane. This is a trial with 6 robot buses alongside regular ones, no-one is pretending it's yet a production service.
But robot driven vehicles are going to start appearing more and more over the next few years. Buses are an obvious first starting point, I would imagine garbage trucks might be the next step.


----------



## teuchter (May 28, 2021)

What no-one knows is the timescale for the technology to become fully usable on public roads. Years or decades?

The danger is getting into "just around the corner" thinking, which becomes an excuse not to invest in proper public transport infrastructure using existing technology in the meantime. I notice it now comes up in all discussions about public transport, particularly when talking about rural scenarios. Rural public transport is difficult, and it could certainly be revolutionised by autonomous vehicles, but this can only be a solution once the technology actually is ready. It's very tempting to think they will appear soon, so we can just make do with eg. inadequate bus services in the meantime. But it might be 20 years until we actually manage to have autonomous vehicles running on rural public roads. Or longer. Who knows.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Attempted murder.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Attempted murder.



People behave like this as a direct result of anti cyclist 'banter'.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

I'd like to see the context.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'd like to see the context.


What context could possibly justify that?


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> What context could possibly justify that?



It's a bit strange that the video begins at the point he falls off - what happened before that? 

Here's an example:

SUV driver rams motorbikes, paralysing someone, then flees:









						Hollywood Stuntz gang assault - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Result: No charges for the driver, 15 bikers prosecuted.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> People behave like this as a direct result of anti cyclist 'banter'.


The banter is attempted manslaughter


----------



## klang (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'd like to see the context.


driver uses his car as a weapon. should be inside.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The banter is attempted manslaughter


How do you attempt manslaughter? Surely you can only have attempted murder? (honest question)


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> How do you attempt manslaughter? Surely you can only have attempted murder? (honest question)


Indeed. I was trying to be as silly as Bees.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. I was trying to be as silly as Bees.


It's not far off attempted murder. He couldn't possibly see where his wheel was going to hit him from the driver's seat.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's a bit strange that the video begins at the point he falls off - what happened before that?
> 
> Here's an example:
> 
> ...


That was a gang of motorcyclists. This is a couple of kids fucking about on bicycles. 

Maybe his skirt was too short eh?


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> This is a couple of kids fucking about on bicycles.



How do you know what it is if the video is mysteriously cut-off?

I find it hard to believe the car driver would do that for no reason whatsoever, at the very least because it risks damage to their vehicle. Something happened beforehand to make them angry and/or fearful, and it's obviously something that the video uploader doesn't want us to see.


----------



## klang (May 29, 2021)

obviously.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> How do you know what it is if the video is mysteriously cut-off?
> 
> I find it hard to believe the car driver would do that for no reason whatsoever, at the very least because it risks damage to their vehicle. Something happened beforehand to make them angry and/or fearful, and it's obviously something that the video uploader doesn't want us to see.



Having once had a black cab drive into me on a bicycle for faffing about a bit too much at the lights I'm not sure I agree. He was probably being annoying. Might even have bounced off his car. Doesn't justify what he did and is nothing like the case of the driver attacked by a motorcycle gang that you've linked to.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

This was the Instagram user's previous post:



I've seen videos of cyclists in groups in London going through traffic doing stunts like this, anyone who gets in their way gets an earful and a dose of vandalism.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This was the Instagram user's previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen videos of cyclists in groups in London going through traffic doing stunts like this, anyone who gets in their way gets an earful and a dose of vandalism.




Yes. Wheelies and a bit of vandalism. We know. Don't think anyone else here will claim that justifies a physical attack. Well, not until later when they've had a drink anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. Wheelies and a bit of vandalism. We know. Don't think anyone else here will claim that justifies a physical attack. Well, not until later when they've had a drink anyway.



I didn't say it justified anything - I just said I'd like to see the footage preceding the incident before making a judgement.


----------



## klang (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This was the Instagram user's previous post:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Indeed. I was trying to be as silly as Bees.


There is no way that driver could see where the cyclist was on the floor. If that wheel had gone over his head we would be dead. It is attempted murder with a deadly weapon.

As for you pricks asking about “context”, there is none. Whatever happened beforehand is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I didn't say it justified anything - I just said I'd like to see the footage preceding the incident before making a judgement.


He had really skimpy cycling shorts on. It was more than the poor driver could take.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

Apparently this is what he said "Other riders were pissing [the driver] off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time."

If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens. It's a bit like going around town on Friday night calling random blokes bald-headed cunts - ok, no one should assault you for name-calling but don't act surprised when your head hits the pavement.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Apparently this is what he said "Other riders were pissing [the driver] off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time."
> 
> If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens. It's a bit like going around town on Friday night calling random blokes bald-headed cunts - ok, no one should assault you for name-calling but don't act surprised when your head hits the pavement.



A receding hairline can indicate an excess of testosterone. Which basically explains your whole post.


----------



## klang (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Apparently this is what he said "Other riders were pissing [the driver] off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time."
> 
> If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens. It's a bit like going around town on Friday night calling random blokes bald-headed cunts - ok, no one should assault you for name-calling but don't act surprised when your head hits the pavement.


yes but you're forgetting that cars are shit and drivers are pricks.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> A receding hairline can indicate an excess of testosterone. Which basically explains your whole post.


That's a misconception - a receding hairline is caused by an excessive sensitivity of the hair follicles to a testosterone metabolite, and in no way indicates an excess of testosterone. So if you thought that analogy explained the post, think again.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's a misconception - a receding hairline is caused by an excessive sensitivity of the hair follicles to a testosterone metabolite, and in no way indicates an excess of testosterone. So if you thought that analogy explained the post, think again.


Both high and low levels of testosterone can result in hair loss. My post remains substantially correct.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It is attempted murder with a deadly weapon.



🤣


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Apparently this is what he said "Other riders were pissing [the driver] off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time."
> 
> If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens. It's a bit like going around town on Friday night calling random blokes bald-headed cunts - ok, no one should assault you for name-calling but don't act surprised when your head hits the pavement.


“She was wearing a short skirt”

Fuck off.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> 🤣


Explain it in a different way then.


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “She was wearing a short skirt”
> 
> Fuck off.



Yes that’s exactly the same, well done.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Explain it in a different way then.



😂


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This was the Instagram user's previous post:




A couple of cyclists trying to cause cars to crash here. Attempted murder for sure.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes that’s exactly the same, well done.


“If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens”


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “If you spend your days cycling round in a gang taunting drivers this sort of thing happens”



Because women wearing clothes is the same as a group of men intimidating people on the road how exactly?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Yeah, I’m sure the gown man sat inside a two ton metal box was terrified of the child on a bicycle. Definitely the kids fault. He was asking for it really.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2021)

It's like if some teenagers are being annoying, someone pulls a gun, aims it at one of them, and just misses - it's not attempted murder, they were asking for it.

You wouldn't ask if someone with that short a temper should be allowed to carry firearms, right?

Hope the driver gets done (they'll probably just get a couple of points and banned from driving for ten minutes).


----------



## platinumsage (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, I’m sure the gown man sat inside a two ton metal box was terrified of the child on a bicycle. Definitely the kids fault. He was asking for it really.



Wasn’t it a terrified woman trapped in a metal box desperately trying to escape from an aggressive group of men? 

Oh wait, we don’t know the details do we.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, I’m sure the gown man sat inside a two ton metal box was terrified of the child on a bicycle. Definitely the kids fault. He was asking for it really.





teuchter said:


> It's like if some teenagers are being annoying, someone pulls a gun, aims it at one of them, and just misses - it's not attempted murder, they were asking for it.
> 
> You wouldn't ask if someone with that short a temper should be allowed to carry firearms, right?
> 
> Hope the driver gets done (they'll probably just get a couple of points and banned from driving for ten minutes).



You two are gold! 🤪


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You two are gold! 🤪


So, let’s go through this. Which of the following do you disagree with?

1 - the driver deliberately drove their vehicle at the kid on the ground

2 - the driver could not possibly have been able to see where the cyclist was, whether he’d be driving over his head etc 

3 - no matter what behaviour/actions the cyclist had taken beforehand, the drivers actions were inexcusable

4 - the cyclist could have been severely injured or killed by the drivers actions


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, let’s go through this. Which of the following do you disagree with?
> 
> 1 - the driver deliberately drove their vehicle at the kid on the ground
> 
> ...



MURDER! 

You remind me of my nephew when you post on this thread. He’s proper bonkers too but in an amusing way! 😂


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Because women wearing clothes is the same as a group of men intimidating people on the road how exactly?



Innit? 

On this thread Bees will henceforth be known as Silly Simile


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2021)

Apologists out in force - proving the basic premise of the thread once again.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

I haven’t clicked on that but I’m sure it’s fabulous, so have a like anyway 👍


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Attempted murder.


The cyclist obviously attacked the terrified driver prior to this, which is why we only see a few seconds of video. Cyclist probably had a gun, too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The cyclist obviously attacked the terrified driver prior to this, which is why we only see a few seconds of video. Cyclist probably had a gun, too.


I’d love to know how a kid in a bike could attack someone inside a car. Can you enlighten me?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> MURDER!
> 
> You remind me of my nephew when you post on this thread. He’s proper bonkers too but in an amusing way! 😂


So, not one point addressed. Says a lot.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’d love to know how a kid in a bike could attack someone inside a car. Can you enlighten me?


Most cars don't have bulletproof glass.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Apologists out in force - proving the basic premise of the thread once again.


Quite. Any other situation where an adult had attempted to harm - potentially fatally - a child, everyone would rightly condemn them. But because a car is involved, well, must be something else going on, they were provoked, the kid was asking for it etc. Depressing.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2021)

> Most cars don't have bulletproof glass.



Most kids don't have carproof heads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Most cars don't have bulletproof glass.


Riiiiiight.


----------



## T & P (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, let’s go through this. Which of the following do you disagree with?
> 
> 1 - the driver deliberately drove their vehicle at the kid on the ground
> 
> ...


Banter aside, I very much doubt anyone here would  disagree with points 1, 3, and 4. I certainly don’t.

I simply cannot tell for sure about point 2- and frankly nor can anyone else here. Anyone who states ‘the driver couldn’t possibly see the cyclist in front’ from that footage is talking as much speculative bollocks as anyone who says the driver definitely did.

So there, that’s my answer to your perfectly reasonable questions. And furthermore, even if the driver could see perfectly well and only intended to teach the cyclist a lesson rather than trying to kill him, he’s a fucking cunt for doing so and deserves to have the book thrown at him.

I’m clearly still a petrolhead though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Riiiiiight.


The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that the video was cut short because it was self-incriminating.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Most kids don't have carproof heads.


Then it would make sense not to fuck with cars.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that the video was cut short because it was self-incriminating.


Considering it’s been submitted to the police, with a view to prosecuting the driver, I doubt it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Considering it’s been submitted to the police, with a view to prosecuting the driver, I doubt it.


The whole video has, or just those few carefully selected seconds?


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, not one point addressed. Says a lot.



This addresses all of your ponts perfectly.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> A couple of cyclists trying to cause cars to crash here. Attempted murder for sure.


Also tried to snatch a bag from a pedestrian.


----------



## T & P (May 29, 2021)

I should probably have teuchter ’s like of my previous post printed, framed, and hung on my wall


----------



## weltweit (May 29, 2021)

My silver Vauxhall Corsa is ace, a 1200cc 3 cylinder engine and economical, yet faster [1] than a Porsche 911. 

_1) Corsa doing 90, 911 doing 85mph  _


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2021)

Article about the Bikestormz community and why it’s more complicated and positive than it first appears:









						BikeStormz riders saddle up to protest against knife crime
					

Biannual ride-out brings central London to a halt with message of ‘bikes up, knives down’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## maomao (May 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Also tried to snatch a bag from a pedestrian.


Source for this please.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Also tried to snatch a bag from a pedestrian.



They've started stealing dogs in London too.


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Apologists out in force - proving the basic premise of the thread once again.


“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

Here are some quite good explanations about why Elon Musk's various 'Loop' schemes are stupid.

At the heart of why they are stupid is that they are things designed by people completely stuck in the 'private car' mindset. They ignore decades of city planning and transport experience, which have told us that we have to use some kind of public transport, and which have shown us what types of public transport actually work.

The first video looks at the scheme where you build loads of road tunnels under LA, which are there to shuttle people's private cars around. Aside from all the technical/logistical issues, it's a great example of people being in denial of the fact that there just isn't space for this, and the fallacy of simply building more road capacity for private vehicles.

The second video is about a scheme that is sort-of public transport, designed by people who don't really like the idea of public transport so have tried to make it look like something else. And it just doesn't work anyway, and again is oblivious to all the existing knowledge about what you need to do to transport people in large numbers. It also gives a useful comparison of the immense parking space that's currently needed for a stadium in LA, compared to the minimal amount required for a larger-capacity stadium in Prague which is connected using bog standard public transport.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Two good videos, those


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2021)

weltweit said:


> My silver Vauxhall Corsa is ace, a 1200cc 3 cylinder engine and economical, yet faster [1] than a Porsche 911.
> 
> _1) Corsa doing 90, 911 doing 85mph  _



I don't think my 1.2 Corsa would do 90. Although I've never tried. Once I got it to go 82 but neither me nor the car enjoyed it much.


----------



## weltweit (May 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't think my 1.2 Corsa would do 90. Although I've never tried. Once I got it to go 82 but neither me nor the car enjoyed it much.


Oh I think mine will do 90, fairly humming along for it though, toward the end of the envelope  Sound little cars though I think, I really like mine.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

If you emergency stop at 90mph, you’ll still be going at 70mph at the point that the car that hit the brakes at 70 would already have stopped.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

Winot said:


> Article about the Bikestormz community and why it’s more complicated and positive than it first appears:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was just on a bus from Aldgate to Strand and a bike storm stormed pass and the bus hit a kid who wheelied across its path. He was ok, bike’s ruined though. Demonstrates the inherent dangers of public transport, if I had driven none of this would have happened


----------



## mauvais (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If you emergency stop at 90mph, you’ll still be going at 70mph at the point that the car that hit the brakes at 70 would already have stopped.


If that's a literal claim I think your maths are a bit off. It's not that far off though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If you emergency stop at 90mph, you’ll still be going at 70mph at the point that the car that hit the brakes at 70 would already have stopped.



Am struggling to picture a scenario where you, a: would need to perform an emergency stop at 70 or 90mph and b: that doing so would affect the outcome of the incident.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am struggling to picture a scenario where you, a: would need to perform an emergency stop at 70 or 90mph and b: that doing so would affect the outcome of the incident.



An emergency stop is, by definition, something you only do in unforseen circumstances.


----------



## weltweit (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am struggling to picture a scenario where you, a: would need to perform an emergency stop at 70 or 90mph and b: that doing so would affect the outcome of the incident.


Some time ago on a dark and wet M4 I encountered a stationary Kia Sportage and other cars in the fast lane. I was probably doing about 70 and I had to do an emergency stop. I stopped ok, perhaps a cars length from the Kia. Behind me another car, who might have been distracted, he didn't stop in time and rear ended me, pushing my car forward into the back of the Kia.

eta my car was an insurance write off.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> An emergency stop is, by definition, something you only do in unforseen circumstances.



All circumstances can be foreseen, an emergency stop is usually for an unexpected event, but if barrelling along at 70 on a motorway should something happen that requires you to stop immediately you won’t be able to cos of stopping distance.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am struggling to picture a scenario where you, a: would need to perform an emergency stop at 70 or 90mph and b: that doing so would affect the outcome of the incident.


I recommended a couple of pages back that you do a refresher course. Think you should consider it. It's one thing being an incompetent/dangerous driver, and another failing to do anything about it when advised to by people more knowledgeable than you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I recommended a couple of pages back that you do a refresher course. Think you should consider it. It's one thing being an incompetent/dangerous driver, and another failing to do anything about it when advised to by people more knowledgeable than you.



I don’t recall you advising anything. But am all ears* as to what would require an emergency stop at 70 that would actually save the situation.


*for the next 5 minutes at any rate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All circumstances can be foreseen, an emergency stop is usually for an unexpected event, but if barrelling along at 70 on a motorway should something happen that requires you to stop immediately you won’t be able to cos of stopping distance.



Look mate if you want to twist reality into knots to justify the fact you drive like a bellend I can't stop you.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

If you are driving at 70 and there are plausible scenarios which could not be saved by an emergency stop, then you shouldn't be driving at 70. In fact this applies at any speed. This is pretty basic. Phone a driving school ASAP and in the meantime give your car keys to a responsible person, if you know any.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If you are driving at 70 and there are plausible scenarios which could not be saved by an emergency stop, then you shouldn't be driving at 70. In fact this applies at any speed. This is pretty basic. Phone a driving school ASAP and in the meantime give your car keys to a responsible person, if you know any.



Plausible scenarios don't enter into it. Drivers are not required to drive at the highest speed at which they can imagine nothing going wrong. If that were the case, we'd have all the stupidest people in the land driving the fastest.

Which granted is exactly what we do have. But at least there's a theoretical limit put in place by people whose imaginations _can_ conceive of something as improbable as some prick in an Audi causing a pile up on the M5.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

This is just one bit of the Highway Code that nearly all drivers think doesn't apply to them:


----------



## dessiato (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am struggling to picture a scenario where you, a: would need to perform an emergency stop at 70 or 90mph and b: that doing so would affect the outcome of the incident.


I was once doing 120mph on the A16. A car pulled out. I tried to stop. I went a long way before I’d slowed enough to feel safe. A car coming the other way swerved out of my way and hit the verge. I think that we all needed clean underwear that day. I’ve never done it again.


----------



## mauvais (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is just one bit of the Highway Code that nearly all drivers think doesn't apply to them:
> 
> View attachment 271014


That* _is_ what you should do. However it's not a legal requirement and, independently of that, the typical legal expectation of a reasonable driver is significantly less than that.

*actually "reasonably expect to remain clear" would be better than "see to be clear"


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All circumstances can be foreseen, an emergency stop is usually for an unexpected event, but if barrelling along at 70 on a motorway should something happen that requires you to stop immediately you won’t be able to cos of stopping distance.


Are you asking me if, for example, there has ever been a multi-vehicle pile-up on the motorway as a result of drivers unexpectedly coming upon a need to rapidly stop and failing to be able to do so?


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

mauvais said:


> If that's a literal claim I think your maths are a bit off. It's not that far off though.


It’s close enough to make no difference to the point being made, which is that very high speeds don’t just result in higher stopping distances, they also leave you still travelling enormously quickly if your stopping distance turns out to be insufficient for some reason.  Failure to operate within the margins for error become lethal.  A single point of failure, a single misjudgement multiples up in a way that you don’t get even at 70mph.  There’s a tendency to bracket everything above 70 together.  In reality, every extra 10mph adds risk in a frighteningly rapid fashion.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

dessiato said:


> I was once doing 120mph on the A16. A car pulled out. I tried to stop. I went a long way before I’d slowed enough to feel safe. A car coming the other way swerved out of my way and hit the verge. I think that we all needed clean underwear that day. I’ve never done it again.


You needed a lifetime ban is what you needed.


----------



## dessiato (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You needed a lifetime ban is what you needed.


Never had a ban. Only once had a speeding fine. We've all done stupid things. That was one of the worst of mine.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

dessiato said:


> I was once doing 120mph on the A16. A car pulled out. I tried to stop. I went a long way before I’d slowed enough to feel safe. A car coming the other way swerved out of my way and hit the verge. I think that we all needed clean underwear that day. I’ve never done it again.



Was this a stop or a slow down?


----------



## weltweit (May 30, 2021)

dessiato said:


> Never had a ban. Only once had a speeding fine. We've all done stupid things. That was one of the worst of mine.


I once drove from Munich to Cardiff in the same day. I had a fast car.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are you asking me if, for example, there has ever been a multi-vehicle pile-up on the motorway as a result of drivers unexpectedly coming upon a need to rapidly stop and failing to be able to do so?



No, if you can’t stop in the distance that is visible you are travelling too fast. What I am asking is if there is an event such as a stag leaping on to the carriageway whereby an emergency stop would have made any difference to the outcome.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 30, 2021)

dessiato said:


> I was once doing 120mph on the A16. A car pulled out. I tried to stop. I went a long way before I’d slowed enough to feel safe. A car coming the other way swerved out of my way and hit the verge. I think that we all needed clean underwear that day. I’ve never done it again.


You sir, are a cunt, who should have died then (with no other casualties)


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No, if you can’t stop in the distance that is visible you are travelling too fast. What I am asking is if there is an event such as a stag leaping on to the carriageway whereby an emergency stop would have made any difference to the outcome.


If people have crashed then they have always been driving faster than they could stop.  And all those people thought they were driving at a speed that was fine.  They were wrong.  If you’re wrong at 90mph, that has consequences that are orders of magnitude different to being wrong at 70mph.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If people have crashed then they have always been driving faster than they could stop.  And all those people thought they were driving at a speed that was fine.  They were wrong.  If you’re wrong at 90mph, that has consequences that are orders of magnitude different to being wrong at 70mph.



Yes, still doesn't answer the pressing issue of the 70mph emergency stop though...


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, still doesn't answer the pressing issue of the 70mph emergency stop though...


Are you incapable of generalising to the wider message about stopping distances?  The simple example is about an emergency stop but the principle applies to _all_ braking manoeuvres. Why do you think people hit things in front of them on motorways? You think they didn’t press the brake first in an attempt to slow or stop? What do you think the consequences are of your braking time leaving you still travelling at high speeds when you get that wrong and have the collision?

Don’t you think that everybody involved in this was just as sure as you are that they are a good driver travelling at an appropriate speed with adequate stopping time?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are you incapable of generalising to the wider message about stopping distances?  The simple example is about an emergency stop but the principle applies to _all_ braking manoeuvres. Why do you think people hit things in front of them on motorways? You think they didn’t press the brake first in an attempt to slow or stop? What do you think the consequences are of your braking time leaving you still travelling at high speeds when you get that wrong and have the collision?
> 
> Don’t you think that everybody involved in this was just as sure as you are that they are a good driver travelling at an appropriate speed with adequate stopping time?





I am unsure why you are keeping on at this, motorway pileups are nothing to do with emergency stops, they are do to people driving too close to the car in front, these are two very different things.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I am unsure why you are keeping on at this, motorway pileups are nothing to do with emergency stops, they are do to people driving too close to the car in front, these are two very different things.


At some point, somebody encounters a stationary obstacle, which they have to react to quickly enough in order to come to a complete stop.  All those cars in the video are trying and failing to perform an emergency stop.

If you are arguing that as a driver you aren’t scanning the road ahead and you are only driving by reference to the car in front, we have a whole other argument.


----------



## platinumsage (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> At some point, somebody encounters a stationary obstacle, which they have to react to quickly enough in order to come to a complete stop.  All those cars in the video are trying and failing to perform an emergency stop.
> 
> If you are arguing that as a driver you aren’t scanning the road ahead and you are only driving by reference to the car in front, we have a whole other argument.



Perhaps the people crashing into the back of the pileup are all doing so at e.g. 40 mph, despite some of them having slowed from 90 and others having slowed from 50, it’s just the ones slowing from 90 were paying attention further ahead due to their speed, so we’re able to spend much longer braking.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> At some point, somebody encounters a stationary obstacle, which they have to react to quickly enough in order to come to a complete stop.  All those cars in the video are trying and failing to perform an emergency stop.
> 
> If you are arguing that as a driver you aren’t scanning the road ahead and you are only driving by reference to the car in front, we have a whole other argument.




UK motorways are built so that you have a line of sight that is something like 3/4 of a mile (the exact figure escapes me and I can't be arsed to check , but it is of that order), it is plenty to stop if there is a stationary object, the only reason for not seeing one would be inattention. As you well know, objects on motorways don't turn in to stationary ones without some catastrophic event occurring, a shipping container falling from a truck or such like. In which case anyone with half  an eye on the road would see it happening long before it actually happens.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> If you emergency stop at 90mph, you’ll still be going at 70mph at the point that the car that hit the brakes at 70 would already have stopped.


No you won't. You won't hit the car in front, because you'll be driving at a safe enough distance to stop in an emergency. Or are you using some hypothetical scenario, where nobody is watching the road and nobody is driving at a safe distance from the car in front? Because only a fool breaks the 2 second rule.


----------



## kabbes (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> UK motorways are built so that you have a line of sight that is something like 3/4 of a mile (the exact figure escapes me and I can't be arsed to check , but it is of that order), it is plenty to stop if there is a stationary object, the only reason for not seeing one would be inattention. As you well know, objects on motorways don't turn in to stationary ones without some catastrophic event occurring, a shipping container falling from a truck or such like. In which case anyone with half  an eye on the road would see it happening long before it actually happens.


And yet these things happen anyway.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And yet these things happen anyway.



Darwin's got this one.


----------



## weltweit (May 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are you incapable of generalising to the wider message about stopping distances?  The simple example is about an emergency stop but the principle applies to _all_ braking manoeuvres. Why do you think people hit things in front of them on motorways? You think they didn’t press the brake first in an attempt to slow or stop? What do you think the consequences are of your braking time leaving you still travelling at high speeds when you get that wrong and have the collision?
> 
> Don’t you think that everybody involved in this was just as sure as you are that they are a good driver travelling at an appropriate speed with adequate stopping time?



Great video, perfectly shows the effect of an accident where lots of vehicles are travelling too close together, in bad conditions and going too fast for those conditions. And there are almost certainly people in that pile up who were just not properly paying attention to what was going on around and in front of them. 

The nasty thing about it is that no matter how safe and proper your own driving might be you can still find yourself in a situation where a motorway pile up - in which you will be involved - can take place. I know some drivers who when it starts to rain or if traffic is too heavy or visibility too poor, they head for the next motorway exit and continue their journey on A roads. And that is despite the claim that Motorways are the safest roads.


----------



## mauvais (May 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> UK motorways are built so that you have a line of sight that is something like 3/4 of a mile (the exact figure escapes me and I can't be arsed to check , but it is of that order), it is plenty to stop if there is a stationary object, the only reason for not seeing one would be inattention. As you well know, objects on motorways don't turn in to stationary ones without some catastrophic event occurring, a shipping container falling from a truck or such like. In which case anyone with half  an eye on the road would see it happening long before it actually happens.


This isn't universally true IMO. It works well in simple situations but the density of modern motorways means that visibility is obscured, the situation changes too often, too many other road users are not observant and so provide no warning, etc etc

For example if you're following an HGV at a safe distance you might reasonably think that distance to be your thinking distance plus your ability to outbrake the truck if it slows rapidly, but not instantly, without hitting it. And that's sensible right up until the HGV changes lane suddenly to reveal a stopped vehicle ahead which you're now confronted with.


----------



## David Clapson (May 30, 2021)

Has anyone noticed the American anti-car stickers which have appeared lately?










I'd like to up the ante with some abusive anti-SUV stickers, to be stuck on SUVs. Especially the big ones. On the glass - don't want to be accused of damaging the paintwork. Can anyone think of appropriate words which SUV might stand for? Something rude like Simpleminded Unforgivable Vanity. But much better.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

I'd like to see more stickers like that appear. It would be great to start seeing them on cars. There's probably some kind of critical threshold where if you saw a few around, suddenly lots of people would feel confident in sticking a few themselves.

I also like these kinds of initiatives


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

Moscow seems to manage to have even worse, even more arrogant and entitled drivers than the UK and they have various vigilante things going on. I think I've posted some of them before.


----------



## David Clapson (May 31, 2021)

Shit for brains
Underendowed
Victim


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Has anyone noticed the American anti-car stickers which have appeared lately?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Shit for brains
> Underendowed
> Victim



That’ll show ‘em.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2021)

mauvais said:


> This isn't universally true IMO. It works well in simple situations but the density of modern motorways means that visibility is obscured, the situation changes too often, too many other road users are not observant and so provide no warning, etc etc
> 
> For example if you're following an HGV at a safe distance you might reasonably think that distance to be your thinking distance plus your ability to outbrake the truck if it slows rapidly, but not instantly, without hitting it. And that's sensible right up until the HGV changes lane suddenly to reveal a stopped vehicle ahead which you're now confronted with.



Tell me more about this nimble HGV that changes lanes so suddenly that me in my lumbering car wouldn’t have time to notice what’s going on.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 271055


Such bullshit. We don’t want your shitty noisy ugly cars


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2021)

I haven’t read the last couple of pages yet but teuchter , beesonthewhatnow , and Orang Utan ate all wrong. That much I’m sure of.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2021)

I ALWAYS eat right, Spymaster - you know that


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Shit for brains
> Underendowed
> Victim


'Vermin' is your V.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Such bullshit. We don’t want your shitty noisy ugly cars


Who is this 'we' you were appointed spokesperson for?


----------



## mauvais (May 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tell me more about this nimble HGV that changes lanes so suddenly that me in my lumbering car wouldn’t have time to notice what’s going on.


The HGV doesn't have to be nimble, it just has to not hit the hazard, leaving you closing on it at 56mph more than you were the HGV.

This sort of thing at 30 seconds


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He was ok, bike’s ruined though.


The perfect outcome 👍


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who is this 'we' you were appointed spokesperson for?


Those of us who think private cars should be banished forever


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Those of us who think private cars should be banished forever


Ah, the minority weirdos. OK, carry on.


----------



## T & P (May 31, 2021)

If private cars were banned and everyone switched to using car club vehicles such as Zipcars, would those cars still be ‘death machines’? I am not entirely clear on that point.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tell me more about this nimble HGV that changes lanes so suddenly that me in my lumbering car wouldn’t have time to notice what’s going on.


Your touching faith in the infallibility of drivers just so long as they are _good_ would be charmingly naïve even if there wasn’t ample evidence — on a weekly basis — of all the drivers that also thought they were good enough to avoid accidents on the motorway but were wrong.  People smash into things on motorways all the time and _all_ of them thought it would never be them.  You’re demonstrating the fundamental attribution error quite marvellously.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Your touching faith in the infallibility of drivers just so long as they are _good_ would be charmingly naïve even if there wasn’t ample evidence — on a weekly basis — of all the drivers that also thought they were good enough to avoid accidents on the motorway but were wrong.  People smash into things on motorways all the time and _all_ of them thought it would never be them.  You’re demonstrating the fundamental attribution error quite marvellously.




Well I was talking about ME in my post, but I am happy to have enacted a policy whereby any drivers that fall short of my impeccable standards have their licences torn up permanently, cars crushed and a savage wedgie.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

T & P said:


> If private cars were banned and everyone switched to using car club vehicles such as Zipcars, would those cars still be ‘death machines’? I am not entirely clear on that point.


Yes. But people would be less incentivised to use a death machine when another mode of travel was available. Hope that clarifies.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well I was talking about ME in my post, but I am happy to have enacted a policy whereby any drivers that fall short of my impeccable standards have their licences torn up permanently, cars crushed and a savage wedgie.


I sincerely hope you’re never proved wrong.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I sincerely hope you’re never proved wrong.



Of course to be proved right I need to be on my deathbed aged 90, mumbling “see kabbes, fucking told you so” which will be interpreted as delirious ramblings. Life is so unfair.


----------



## T & P (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes. But people would be less incentivised to use a death machine when another mode of travel was available. Hope that clarifies.


Really? Because I reckon once most drivers were introduced to the massive economic savings and parking possibilities of car clubs, they would use them more often than their own vehicles,

I don’t even own a car, and whenever my bike was being serviced or otherwise not available, I would have gone to work by bus & Tube. But now I can hire a Zipcar parked on my street, drive myself to Chelsea, park 20 metres away from work, and leave the car there. All for around £7.50- £8 on a typical day.

So I no longer use public transport for those occasions I don’t have my bike available. Thank you, Zipcar


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

T & P said:


> Really? Because I reckon once most drivers were introduced to the massive economic savings and parking possibilities of car clubs, they would use them more often than their own vehicles,
> 
> I don’t even own a car, and whenever my bike was being serviced or otherwise not available, I would have gone to work by bus & Tube. But now I can hire a Zipcar parked on my street, drive myself to Chelsea, park 20 metres away from work, and leave the car there. All for around £7.50- £8 on a typical day.
> 
> So I no longer use public transport for those occasions I don’t have my bike available. Thank you, Zipcar


Glad to hear that the LTN-generated congestion that you were recently complaining about making trips across London impossible has now evaporated.


----------



## kabbes (May 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Of course to be proved right I need to be on my deathbed aged 90, mumbling “see kabbes, fucking told you so” which will be interpreted as delirious ramblings. Life is so unfair.


Technically, that wouldn’t prove you right, it would just prove you lucky.  There isn’t actually a way for you to be proved right on this one, because it’s about risk.  You think it’s an accident that I chose  a profession where I can never be proved wrong?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)




----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Glad to hear that the LTN-generated congestion that you were recently complaining about making trips across London impossible has now evaporated.


Last time I did that was at the heart of the initial lockdown when people were staying in and the roads were pretty empty. However, even if my journey would take 50 minutes by car now versus 40 by public transport, it would still a no-brainer.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2021)

This guys rams two police cars, no prison and just two years disqualification.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



One of those vehicles could have been a pedestrian or cyclist instead and folk here are still happy to treat speeding on rural roads as a suitable subject for jokey banter.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Last time I did that was at the heart of the initial lockdown when people were staying in and the roads were pretty empty. However, even if my journey would take 50 minutes by car now versus 40 by public transport, it would still a no-brainer.


Glad you've finally admitted to your lack of brain. Though why would you still prefer a private car even when slower? Are you just so fucking lazy you won't walk to a bus stop or something? (given you've never mentioned a disability in any of these threads)


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Glad you've finally admitted to your lack of brain. Though why would you still prefer a private car even when slower? Are you just so fucking lazy you won't walk to a bus stop or something? (given you've never mentioned a disability in any of these threads)


Why don't you kindly cunt off until you have taken a chill pill?


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Why don't you kindly cunt off until you have taken a chill pill?


Thought so. Lazy fucker. Enjoy your heart disease and diabetes. I am very chilled cheers and off for a nice healthy walk in the sun. 









						Physical inactivity a leading cause of disease and disability, warns WHO
					

Physical inactivity can have serious implications for people’s health, said the World Health Organization today on the occasion of World Health Day. Approximately 2 million deaths per year are attributed to physical inactivity, prompting WHO to issue a warning that a sedentary lifestyle could...




					www.who.int


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Thought so. Lazy fucker. Enjoy your heart disease and diabetes. I am very chilled cheers and off for a nice healthy walk in the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All these twice-weekly games of tennis I've been playing for the last fifteen years, for nothing... If only someone had told me the way to stay healthy was to walk to the bus stop on the two or three times per year I don't have my bike


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>




This is what happens when two twats refuse to reverse back up the lane and both try to drive up a 45 degree slope at the side of the road


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> All these twice-weekly games of tennis I've been playing for the last fifteen years, for nothing... If only someone had told me the way to stay healthy was to walk to the bus stop on the two or three times per year I don't have my bike


Twice a week all year round? Or in the summer if it's not raining? You want to be careful if that's all you do, cardiac arrest is a significant risk in people who engage in aerobic activity without training regularly. I bet you drive there too. Making exercise part of your daily commute would be a much better solution from the point of your health. 

You're the only one left plugging away on this thread you know. Spymaster and Saul Goodman have long since given up arguing points that they've lost repeatedly and now just post unfunny "memes" or resort to abuse. Everyone else, while far from agreed on a solution, knows there's a problem; it's just you now, droning on endlessly about how _you_ need to be persuaded, solutions have to be attractive to _you_ etc. Sadly there's no solution to you being a selfish lazy twat so I don't think there's any need for anyone on this thread to pay heed to a single word you type.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 1, 2021)

Looks to me like they’ve collided at speed whilst trying to avoid each other by serving up the bank.  Their front offside looks damaged.  I mean, it ALL looks damaged.  But you know what I mean.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is what happens when two twats refuse to reverse back up the lane and both try to drive up a 45 degree slope at the side of the road


I’m shocked a Range Rover was involved, they’re known for being such careful, thoughtful, community minded sorts of people.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 1, 2021)

Perhaps one of the drivers had a stroke.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're the only one left plugging away on this thread you know. Spymaster and Saul Goodman have long since given up arguing points that they've lost repeatedly and now just post unfunny "memes" or resort to abuse. Everyone else, while far from agreed on a solution, knows there's a problem; it's just you now, droning on endlessly about how _you_ need to be persuaded, solutions have to be attractive to _you_ etc. Sadly there's no solution to you being a selfish lazy twat so I don't think there's any need for anyone on this thread to pay heed to a single word you type.



I'm working but will return when I'm bored. The thread's not for serious discussion though. It's for being rude to teuchter.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Twice a week all year round? Or in the summer if it's not raining? You want to be careful if that's all you do, cardiac arrest is a significant risk in people who engage in aerobic activity without training regularly. I bet you drive there too. Making exercise part of your daily commute would be a much better solution from the point of your health.
> 
> You're the only one left plugging away on this thread you know. Spymaster and Saul Goodman have long since given up arguing points that they've lost repeatedly and now just post unfunny "memes" or resort to abuse. Everyone else, while far from agreed on a solution, knows there's a problem; it's just you now, droning on endlessly about how _you_ need to be persuaded, solutions have to be attractive to _you_ etc. Sadly there's no solution to you being a selfish lazy twat so I don't think there's any need for anyone on this thread to pay heed to a single word you type.


I feel you're going to have to go for another walk, as your stress levels are clearly still a bit high. And you're the only one hurling any abuse in here, pal. Cunt the fuck off already with your ignorant, clueless and 100% wrong accusastions of laziness.

It's as pathetic as is laughable that any disagreement on any given policy or point regarding cars clearly makes anyone in your eyes a confirmed petrolhead. It's all or nothing, obviously. Either you agree with every single measure ever proposed or applied regarding car use, or you're a Clarksonite. No half measures. You cast doubt on even one thing, certfied petrolhead. End of. 

Incidentally, I really do hope that with such holier-than-thou attitude regarding the use of motor cars- sorry, 'death machines', let's call them what they are- you don't ever, *ever* use them directly or indirectly for your conveniene, whether to have your groceries or Amazon goodies delivered or to take that convenient taxi here and then, because otherwise it would make you in a rather compromising position.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m shocked a Range Rover was involved, they’re known for being such careful, thoughtful, community minded sorts of people.



It's from the same stable, but is actually a Discovery Sport. As discussed here:


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> you don't ever, *ever* use them directly or indirectly for your convenience



You're really obsessed with this.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> eel you're going to have to go for another walk, as your stress levels are clearly still a bit high. And you're the only one hurling any abuse in here, pal. Cunt the fuck off already with your ignorant, clueless and 100% wrong accusastions of laziness.


I made a light hearted remark based on the words in your post and received a foul mouth torrent of abuse (and no answer to the question). Who's stressed? I'm chilling in the garden with my kids. 

And my potatoes arriving at the supermarket by lorry is pretty unavoidable  whereas you're on record saying you'd choose a private car over public transport _even when public transport is quicker_ and start slinging abuse when challenged on it. Yep, lazy, selfish, entitled wanker. Seen no evidence otherwise yet


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's from the same stable, but is actually a Discovery Sport. As discussed here:
> 
> View attachment 271311


Slightly different smell, but still shit from the same arse.


----------



## Doodler (Jun 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Slightly different smell, but still shit from the same arse.



Two people spring to mind on seeing a black Range Rover.

Paul Golding in his Britain First motorcade.

That Australian cokehead with the tiny dick who went off on one at some cyclist a few years ago.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

Doodler said:


> Two people spring to mind on seeing a black Range Rover.
> 
> Paul Golding in his Britain First motorcade.
> 
> That Australian cokehead with the tiny dick who went off on one at some cyclist a few years ago.


To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.


I refuse to drive vehicles under 300bhp, on principle.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I made a light hearted remark based on the words in your post and received a foul mouth torrent of abuse (and no answer to the question). Who's stressed? I'm chilling in the garden with my kids.
> 
> And my potatoes arriving at the supermarket by lorry is pretty unavoidable  whereas you're on record saying you'd choose a private car over public transport _even when public transport is quicker_ and start slinging abuse when challenged on it. Yep, lazy, selfish, entitled wanker. Seen no evidence otherwise yet


Ah, new insults added up to laziness. Keep up the good work


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Ah, new insults added up to laziness. Keep up the good work



You started the abuse shit-for-brains.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're really obsessed with this.


Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.

Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone _seriously_ viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.

So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.
> 
> Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone _seriously_ viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.
> 
> So if one asks for moderating lesser car use but without an actual ban, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use of them yourself at all times, or GTFO. It's only fair.


I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.
> 
> Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone _seriously_ viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.
> 
> So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.


Your argument is is total bollocks. The argument being presented by most people who want to see cars banned is that we need a wholesale transformation of our cities and infrastructure, so that a car ban could become workable.

I sometimes drive a car. I wish I didn’t have to, and look forward to the day it can be thrown on a scrapheap. This is not a hypocritical position.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2021)

My dad bought a brand new car last week, so obviously I’m never speaking to him again and will be down in the garage with a bag of Tate & Lyle and some sharp keys later on


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Yes, for a simple reason. There is a massive difference between advocating between moderation or curbing of of the use of cars- or indeed any other activity, whether flying, food consumption or anything else- and advocating a total ban on its use.
> 
> Anyone who demands something as radical as banning car ownership, let alone _seriously_ viewing cars as 'death machines', better be whiter than white in their own behaviour at all times and a total and ensure a full absence of use of the activity they vocally demand be banned for others, or they would be monumental fucking hypocrites themselves.
> 
> So if one asks for moderating car use and supports measures to do so but without using an actual ban on them, pefectly fine by me if they sometimes get Amazon to deliver their latest gadgets or toys for the kids in a van. Or if they're really tired after a big supermarket shop and fancy treating themselves to an Uber ride home, rather than carrying lots of bags on the bus. No hypocrisy there. But if anyone really wants to ban motor vehicles for others, either operate by a zero-use code of conduct yourself at all times, or GTFO. I suspect a good number of those advocating the latter would fail this test.


There's so much stupidity in this post I can't be bothered to reply to it. But in any case it's all been replied to many times over throughout the last 67 pages of this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

Seeing as T & P wants to ban pedestrians from jaywalking I hope he's hacked both of his own legs off. Bet he hasn't though, the hypocrite.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seeing as T & P wants to ban pedestrians from jaywalking I hope he's hacked both of his own legs off. Bet he hasn't though, the hypocrite.


There's no such thing as jaywalking in this country. I hope you have self-flagellate appropriately for having used an Americanism.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.



We'd each take a car, twice the pollution, but it's worth it so we can have a bit of a sportive, (not a race, cos that's illegal on the UK's roads, for cyclists too).



Spymaster said:


> I refuse to drive vehicles under 300bhp, on principle.




 Any vehicle with fewer than two turbo chargers is just a danger. Had Spy or I been humming along that country lane there would have been no crash as we'd have been long-gone before the bellend in the SUV showed up.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

It has to be said though that the anti-car brigade on here has changed my mind on some issues. For my next car I thought I wanted an RS6, but it is entirely thanks to a thread on here that has shown me the error of my ways and that I should be more responsible as a parent and that and get an RSQ8 instead. So thanks to you for setting me on the right path here.


----------



## Doodler (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To me it brings to mind Spymaster and Bahnhof Strasse . One of them would be sulking in the passenger seat because the other had won the argument about who got to drive that day.



I honestly can't picture either of them as blacked-out-window Range Rover drivers!


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

Doodler said:


> I honestly can't picture either of them as blacked-out-window Range Rover drivers!


They are sort of more like Prince Philip I guess.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They are sort of more like Prince Philip I guess.



Dead racists?


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.


Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.


It's not unwarranted. You really are a thick cunt.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seeing as T & P wants to ban pedestrians from jaywalking I hope he's hacked both of his own legs off. Bet he hasn't though, the hypocrite.


That’s a particularly pisspoor analogy and you know it. It would have worked if I advocated banning pedestrians from the streets, which of course isn’t remotely the case.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's not unwarranted. You really are a thick cunt.


You really are winning the argument here.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> You really are winning the argument here.


There is no argument. You clearly are a thick, selfish wanker.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I usually pick my Amazon stuff up from the shop at the end of the road but it still goes there by van. I've asked them to use the canal network but for some reason they won't. Thick cunt.



Formatting error.

The last sentence looks like your sign-off.



maomao said:


> It's not unwarranted. You really are a thick cunt.



Better.



maomao said:


> There is no argument. You clearly are a thick, selfish wanker.



Cracked it


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Your continuing unwarranted abuse suggests to me a sense of guilt about your own double standards, or an all-consuming hatred of cars and those you deem not to hate them much as you that is frankly a bit disturbing. Either way, have a word with yourself.


Again, you’re on the wrong thread. Look at the title


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> That’s a particularly pisspoor analogy and you know it. It would have worked if I advocated banning pedestrians from the streets, which of course isn’t remotely the case.


It actually is pretty much the case in many American cities


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> There's no such thing as jaywalking in this country. I hope you have self-flagellate appropriately for having used an Americanism.


You're right.

However, in the context I think it's reasonable to nominate T & P to self-flagellate on my behalf. He probably won't even do it, the hypocrite.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It actually is pretty much the case in many American cities



Except the biggest one


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> There's no such thing as jaywalking in this country.



Yes there is.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes there is.


Go on then...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Go on then...












						jaywalking
					

1. the action of walking across a street at a place where it is not allowed or…




					dictionary.cambridge.org


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 1, 2021)

The latest Ford F150 electric is capable of a 4 second 60 run yet can do all the normal pick up truck stuff including using it’s battery to power yer house from for a day. This solution surely satisfies everyone in this thread


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> The latest Ford F150 electric is capable of a 4 second 60 run yet can do all the normal pick up truck stuff including using it’s battery to power yer house from for a day. This solution surely satisfies everyone in this thread




It's a pick up truck so you can burn some asbestos in the back whilst you cruise the streets. A win by  any measure


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 1, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> The latest Ford F150 electric is capable of a 4 second 60 run yet can do all the normal pick up truck stuff including using it’s battery to power yer house from for a day. This solution surely satisfies everyone in this thread


This is the problem with electric cars. Or one of the problems. The rocket-like acceleration is going to encourage the petrolheads to show off. I wonder how they'll get their loud exhaust fix? Maybe some speakers under the car for a V8 rumble? Could be quite a lucrative market. Or maybe they'll just spin their tyres.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> This is the problem with electric cars. Or one of the problems. The rocket-like acceleration is going to encourage the petrolheads to show off. I wonder how they'll get their loud exhaust fix?



Already dealt with.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 1, 2021)

Not exactly spine-tingling Here’s the fake noise the Jaguar I-Pace makes when you hit the throttle. Sounds like a....I don't know what, but it won't encroach on the huge aftermarket which I will make billions from.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Not exactly spine-tingling Here’s the fake noise the Jaguar I-Pace makes when you hit the throttle. Sounds like a....I don't know what, but it won't encroach on the huge aftermarket which I will make billions from.


People will be able to make them sound like whatever they want. We're going to have everything from herds of elephants to Typhoon jets.

We’ll be selecting car noises like we do ringtones.


----------



## maomao (Jun 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> jaywalking
> 
> 
> 1. the action of walking across a street at a place where it is not allowed or…
> ...


That's a learner's dictionary. It has UK  pronunciations for diaper, faucet and sidewalk too because you're either learning one accent or the other.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> The latest Ford F150 electric is capable of a 4 second 60 run yet can do all the normal pick up truck stuff including using it’s battery to power yer house from for a day. This solution surely satisfies everyone in this thread


Those monstrosities are a perfect example of why electric vehicles solve fuck all.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's a learner's dictionary.


These are car people.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Not exactly spine-tingling Here’s the fake noise the Jaguar I-Pace makes when you hit the throttle. Sounds like a....I don't know what, but it won't encroach on the huge aftermarket which I will make billions from.


It should play Thus Spoke Zarathustra as the speed goes up. Dah, DAH, DAHHHH and then you have to hit 80 to make it go DA-DAH!
Trillions.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's a learner's dictionary. It has UK  pronunciations for diaper, faucet and sidewalk too because you're either learning one accent or the other.



Chambers gives the same result, as does every other dictionary, odd hill you’ve chosen to die on here, seems teuchter wishes to join you an’all.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 2, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Has anyone noticed the American anti-car stickers which have appeared lately?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Shippou-Sensei suggested V for Vermin, which is just perfect. (His post has disappeared somehow. )
I can't think of anything as pithy for S and U though. I'm not very good at this. 

Status-mad. Slack-jawed. Shit for brains...

U could be Urban....Something Urban Vermin.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

Superb Ubermensch Victors


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Chambers gives the same result, as does every other dictionary, odd hill you’ve chosen to die on here, seems teuchter wishes to join you an’all.


Chambers (online), the Scrabble dictionary, doesn't give a pronunciation and says it's an Americanism. 

There is clearly no law in any part of the United Kingdom that refers to 'jaywalking', nor is it a crime in the UK under any other name. It has a very clear early 20th century US etymology and is only ever used to refer to US law or by twats.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Chambers (online), the Scrabble dictionary, doesn't give a pronunciation and says it's an Americanism.
> 
> There is clearly no law in any part of the United Kingdom that refers to 'jaywalking', nor is it a crime in the UK under any other name. It has a very clear early 20th century US etymology and is only ever used to refer to US law or by twats.



It is an Americanism and there is no law in the U.K. that uses the word, but you said that it doesn’t exist in the U.K. and yet you have just acknowledged that it does, as an Americanism.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is an Americanism and there is no law in the U.K. that uses the word, but you said that it doesn’t exist in the U.K. and yet you have just acknowledged that it does, as an Americanism.


_pats Bahnhof Strasse on head_

Well done

It nevertheless grates when people refer to crossing the road away from or during the wrong phase of a pedestrian crossing in this country as 'jaywalking'. Because it's an Americanism.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

What snappy word or phrase do we use in this country to refer to illegal pedestrianing? 

"Walking on a road contrary to section 15(1)(b) of the The Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) Regulations 1982, section 17(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or of an applicable part of a relevant Traffic Regulation Order?"


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> ... nor is it a crime in the UK under any other name.


Yes it is. It's an offence to walk across certain roads on the mainland, and there's much wider discretion to the police to issue penalties to pedestrians for crossing the road anywhere it creates a danger in Northern Ireland (see The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995).


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's an offence to walk across certain roads on the mainland,


Motorways certainly though it's not known as jaywalking. Any sub 70mph roads you can name?


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Motorways certainly though it's not known as jaywalking. Any sub 70mph roads you can name?


Yes, some designated non-motorway special roads pursuant to s.17 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and some that are subject to Traffic Regulation Orders.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, designated special roads pursuant to s.17 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and some that are subject to Traffic Regulation Orders.


That's a funny name for a road. 

There's a no pedestrian access road sign which I may have seen but can't think of any examples of, maybe on some industrial estates somewhere? I found a report of someone being arrested for walking along a motorway which is reputedly illegal but I can't find any examples of anyone actually being charged with anything. Pretty sure that nobody who objects to similar laws being introduced here is asking for the right to cross motorways on foot.

And I've found a couple of articles that claim that 'jaywalking' is illegal in NI but again no mention of what anyone's been charged with. I'm sure it's not called that on the relevant legislation though.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's a funny name for a road.
> 
> There's a no pedestrian access road sign which I may have seen but can't think of any examples of, maybe on some industrial estates somewhere? I found a report of someone being arrested for walking along a motorway which is reputedly illegal but I can't find any examples of anyone actually being charged with anything. Pretty sure that nobody who objects to similar laws being introduced here is asking for the right to cross motorways on foot.
> 
> And I've found a couple of articles that claim that 'jaywalking' is illegal in NI but again no mention of what anyone's been charged with. I'm sure it's not called that on the relevant legislation though.



You keep moving the goal posts.  Your original claim was that "[jaywalking is not]  a crime in the UK under any other name."  That's wrong, it is a crime (albeit the legislation doesn't refer to jaywalking i.e. it is 'under another name') in Northern Ireland, pursuant to s.38 The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (not "a couple of articles").  Furthermore, it is known as 'jaywalking' there, including by the police, as you'll see from this FOI correspondence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Motorways certainly though it's not known as jaywalking. Any sub 70mph roads you can name?




20mph limit: Google Maps


----------



## dessiato (Jun 2, 2021)

This looks tempting. Ford Mustang Mach E. 


Quite quick too. 



What's not to love?


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> You keep moving the goal posts.  Your original claim was that "[jaywalking is not]  a crime in the UK under any other name."  That's wrong, it is a crime (albeit the legislation doesn't refer to jaywalking i.e. it is 'under another name') in Northern Ireland, pursuant to s.38 The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (not "a couple of articles").  Furthermore, it is known as 'jaywalking' there, including by the police, as you'll see from this FOI correspondence.


I've decided NI doesn't count _at all_ now. Just so you know.

ETA: and I meant 'articles' as in newspaper articles. I'm not going to read the actual laws.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 20mph limit: Google Maps


And that's where I've seen no pedestrian signs. And on some of the other tunnels round E14. Though if you're in a tunnel on foot you're not just crossing the road.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 20mph limit: Google Maps



Pursuant to the original discussion undertaken in the notified thread, it is to be noted that under subsection 3(2)1.aC of the Daft Twat Act 1993.8, clarified in _Athos v the world [2006] EWHC 101 _a sign restricting access to pedestrians is not functionally and directly to be equivalentified with jaywalking.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

Cid said:


> Pursuant to the original discussion undertaken in the notified thread, it is to be noted that under subsection 3(2)1.aC of the Daft Twat Act 1993.8, clarified in _Athos v the world [2006] EWHC 101 _a sign restricting access to pedestrians is not functionally and directly to be equivalentified with jaywalking.



My learned friend will notice that I have not claimed otherwise.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I've decided NI doesn't count _at all_ now. Just so you know.



Oh, OK.  That leaves just three exceptions to your initial inaccurate claim, then: motorways, some non-motorway special roads, and some roads subject to TROs.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 2, 2021)

What are we arguing about now?  I’ve lost track.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2021)

kabbes said:


> What are we arguing about now?  I’ve lost track.



We’re arguing about whether you’re allowed to be on track.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

dessiato said:


> This looks tempting. Ford Mustang Mach E.
> View attachment 271440
> 
> Quite quick too.
> ...


Funnily enough, just now I went to read an article about low traffic neighbourhoods in the guardian, linked from another thread, and an advert for one of those things popped up.
Worth posting it here because it shows the kind of narcissistic idiots it's aimed at - they can't even be bothered to use a car park and walk down to the sea front, they are going to drive as far as possible, probably blocking access for lifeboats, and the guy is so obsessed with his toy car he is standing holding onto it instead of his girlfriend.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Funnily enough, just now I went to read an article about low traffic neighbourhoods in the guardian, linked from another thread, and an advert for one of those things popped up.
> Worth posting it here because it shows the kind of narcissistic idiots it's aimed at - they can't even be bothered to use a car park and walk down to the sea front, they are going to drive as far as possible, probably blocking access for lifeboats, and the guy is so obsessed with his toy car he is standing holding onto it instead of his girlfriend.
> 
> View attachment 271449



They need to have a look at the tides thread.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Funnily enough, just now I went to read an article about low traffic neighbourhoods in the guardian, linked from another thread, and an advert for one of those things popped up.
> Worth posting it here because it shows the kind of narcissistic idiots it's aimed at - they can't even be bothered to use a car park and walk down to the sea front, they are going to drive as far as possible, probably blocking access for lifeboats, and the guy is so obsessed with his toy car he is standing holding onto it instead of his girlfriend.
> 
> View attachment 271449


Yes. It's a great car, isn't it? Apparently it's the number 11 best selling new car in Norway. Prices from only $42k, so very affordable performance.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

kabbes said:


> What are we arguing about now?  I’ve lost track.


We're meant to be arguing _about_ something? I wish I'd been told this earlier.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ... the guy is so obsessed with his toy car he is standing holding onto it instead of his girlfriend.


Should've come by push bike, and he'd probably not have had a girlfriend to worry about.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Funnily enough, just now I went to read an article about low traffic neighbourhoods in the guardian, linked from another thread, and an advert for one of those things popped up.
> Worth posting it here because it shows the kind of narcissistic idiots it's aimed at - they can't even be bothered to use a car park and walk down to the sea front, they are going to drive as far as possible, probably blocking access for lifeboats, and the guy is so obsessed with his toy car he is standing holding onto it instead of his girlfriend.
> 
> View attachment 271449


I would imagine car adverts are aimed at an audience that might buy cars, clearly that isn't you of course but that's actually re-assuring since it proves that the algorithms aren't perfect. I would be far more concerned by algorithms capable of selectively picking out the odd anti-car nut from the crowd that I would be by some guy not using the car park and parking too near the beach.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Should've come by push bike, and he'd probably not have had a girlfriend to worry about.


Why's that?

This is the sort of thing a certain kind of man with certain views about women tends to say.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why's that?
> 
> This is the sort of thing a certain kind of man with certain views about women tends to say.



No, certain views about cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Oh, OK.  That leaves just three exceptions to your initial inaccurate claim, then: motorways, some non-motorway special roads, and some roads subject to TROs.


Exceptions are exceptions for reasons. 

The places where pedestrians are not allowed are blanket 'no pedestrian' areas. Walking on the hard shoulder is as illegal as crossing it. So nothing to do with so called "jaywalking".

And NI is culturally (and geographically) closer to the US than the rest of the UK; American English has had a far bigger impact on Irish English than it has on other UK dialects. In addition Eire has US style laws so it's disappointing but not surprising that they made it over the border.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, certain views about cyclists.


Is it your view that male cyclists don't want girlfriends?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> And NI is .... geographically ... closer to the US than the rest of the UK ...



Go on then ...


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Go on then ...


I just checked and I'm right. Assuming the closest point of the USA to either is the northeast corner of Maine, Belfast is closer than Penzance.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I just checked and I'm right. Assuming the closest point of the USA to either is the northeast corner of Maine, Belfast is closer than Penzance.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 271457


So you're saying all my maps are wrong and Ireland is to the East of the rest of the UK?


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Is it your view that male cyclists don't want girlfriends?


No.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Exceptions are exceptions for reasons.
> 
> The places where pedestrians are not allowed are blanket 'no pedestrian' areas. Walking on the hard shoulder is as illegal as crossing it. So nothing to do with so called "jaywalking".
> 
> And NI is culturally (and geographically) closer to the US than the rest of the UK; American English has had a far bigger impact on Irish English than it has on other UK dialects. In addition Eire has US style laws so it's disappointing but not surprising that they made it over the border.



Yes, I know what exceptions are, and why.  But that doesn't change the fact that they demonstrate that your initial claim was wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> So you're saying all my maps are wrong and Ireland is to the East of the rest of the UK?


I'm saying that if you were in charge at the time, we'd have lost the war. 

I'm half hoping you've got a killer point here because I'd love this to be true!


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm saying that if you were in charge at the time, we'd have lost the war.


So what part of the UK is closer to the USA than NI?

And of course I don't have a killer point. I've already said I'm arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## Cid (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm saying that if you were in charge at the time, we'd have lost the war.
> 
> I'm half hoping you've got a killer point here because I'd love this to be true!



Tbf I read it as you did, but he is absolutely right - NI is closer to the US than the rest of the UK.

Stupid language.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No.


What is it then?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Cid said:


> Tbf I read it as you did, but he is absolutely right - NI is closer to the US than the rest of the UK.



I know but I'm not going to admit it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> So what part of the UK is closer to the USA than NI?




Rockall.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rockall.


True. What are the laws regarding pedestrian road crossing there?


----------



## Winot (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Should've come by push bike, and he'd probably not have had a girlfriend to worry about.


Christ what is this, Loaded magazine? Get a fucking life sunshine.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> True. What are the laws regarding pedestrian road crossing there?




It's OK as long as you use the Puffin Crossing.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Is it your view that male cyclists don't want girlfriends?


All the squashing of the testicles means they probably can’t do much afterwards anyway.


----------



## Athos (Jun 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> Christ what is this, Loaded magazine? Get a fucking life sunshine.


I think you may be taking this thread a bit too seriously.  The whole thing's just a piss-take (in both directions).


----------



## Winot (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you may be taking this thread a bit too seriously.  The whole thing's just a piss-take (in both directions).


Great #bantz


----------



## T & P (Jun 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you may be taking this thread a bit too seriously.  The whole thing's just a piss-take (in both directions).


If only some other people got the memo....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Attempted murder.




The police have provided a statement to the Daily Mail confirming that the driver has been spoken to but that no arrests have been made. Also that the cyclist was part of a group of 30 that were hanging on to moving cars.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Also that the cyclist was part of a group of 30 that were hanging on to moving cars.


Stupid fucking cunts. That's attempted murder.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> Christ what is this, Loaded magazine? Get a fucking life sunshine.


"Sunshine"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The police have provided a statement to the Daily Mail confirming that the driver has been spoken to but that no arrests have been made. Also that the cyclist was part of a group of 30 that were hanging on to moving cars.


Hanging on to cars, ah right, that definitely excuses the driver then


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Stupid fucking cunts. That's attempted murder.


50% right.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Hanging on to cars, ah right, that definitely excuses the driver then



Yes, disabling the bicycle prevented the rider from continuing with such behaviour and further endangering himself.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> 50% right.



Not only has the driver not been arrested for attempted murder, they haven’t even been given a fixed penalty for careless driving.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> they haven’t even been given a fixed penalty for careless driving.


Which speaks volumes. Disgraceful.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which speaks volumes. Disgraceful.



Yes, disgraceful accusing the driver of attempted murder without actually knowing anything about the situation or the law.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, disgraceful accusing the driver of attempted murder without actually knowing anything about the situation or the law.


Nah. The situation was clear. Kids pissing about on bikes annoy a driver who then acted in a way that could have seriously injured or killed someone. 

There are thousands of people killed in the UK every year, where the person responsible often walks away with a minimal sentence or even less, simply because the weapon used was a fucking car.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nah. The situation was clear. Kids pissing about on bikes annoy a driver who then acted in a way that could have seriously injured or killed someone.
> 
> There are thousands of people killed in the UK every year, where the person responsible often walks away with a minimal sentence or even less, simply because the weapon used was a fucking car.



Really? Thousands? There are less than two thousand road deaths in total including single vehicle crashes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which speaks volumes.



Yes. Mainly about your legal awareness!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, disabling the bicycle prevented the rider from continuing with such behaviour and further endangering himself.



And others. Classic self defence.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Skitchin' is way more fun than driving a car boring tossers.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

A couple of days ago it was all about cyclists intimidating drivers. There was even some (not racist at all, honest guv) mention of mugging. Now it's all faux horror at some kids having a laugh and a driver let off from a serious attempted assault.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> A couple of days ago it was all about cyclists intimidating drivers. There was even some (not racist at all, honest guv) mention of mugging. Now it's all faux horror at some kids having a laugh and a driver let off from a serious attempted assault murder



Ftfy.

Otherwise pretty accurate


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Oh come on. It's genuinely funny that Bees' "attempted murderer" didn't even get a ticket. Moreso that it looks like he even got away with crushing the fuckwit's wheel.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> A couple of days ago it was all about cyclists intimidating drivers. There was even some (not racist at all, honest guv) mention of mugging. Now it's all faux horror at some kids having a laugh and a driver let off from a serious attempted assault.


Stop it it with that "not at all racist" shite. That's out of order. Have a look again at the video where he reaches down and tries to grab someone's bag. 
Fucking unbelievable that theyre framing this shit as 'we don't like knife crime'... Yeah, so let's go out bag snatching on bikes, ' cos at least no knives!


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have a look again at the video where he reaches down and tries to grab someone's bag.


Which video?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Which video?


The video posted where a lad on a bike is acting the prick on a public road and tries to steal someone's bag.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The video posted where a lad on a bike is acting the prick and tries to steal someone's bag.


The kid who got attacked by the maniac?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> The kid who got attacked by the maniac?


No. And racist? The bag snatcher was white!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> The kid who got attacked by the maniac?


This post. Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Criminal and anti-social behaviour is ok if you do it on cycles. This is Urban75, remember.

Fucking wallies


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> A couple of days ago it was all about cyclists intimidating drivers. There was even some (not racist at all, honest guv) mention of mugging. Now it's all faux horror at some kids having a laugh and a driver let off from a serious attempted assault.


If you were walking down the street and several seventeen year olds grabbed onto your jacket I’m sure you‘d just try and ignore them and would report yourself to the police for attempted murder if you trod on their toes.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> This post. Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


He doesn't take her bag; he just vaguely waves his hand in that direction.

And what the fuck's that got to do with the kid who got attacked by a maniac on a completely separate occasion?


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you were walking down the street and several seventeen year olds grabbed onto your jacket I’m sure you‘d just try and ignore them and would report yourself to the police for attempted murder if you trod on their toes.


I'd take them on a character building adventure holiday.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> He doesn't take her bag; he just vaguely waves his hand in that direction.
> 
> And what the fuck's that got to do with the kid who got attacked by a maniac on a completely separate occasion?


Apparently it's from the same channel. I dunno, I didn't look too far into it because it would be like looking to find which drop of rain got you wet. 
Cyclists, they're all wankers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> A couple of days ago it was all about cyclists intimidating drivers. There was even some (not racist at all, honest guv) mention of mugging. Now it's all faux horror at some kids having a laugh and a driver let off from a serious attempted assault.



30 kids having a laugh, hanging off moving cars, all very innocent fun, if your missus and kids were in a car and subjected to it I am sure you would see the funny side. Here is the driver’s pov of exactly that...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 30 kids having a laugh, hanging off moving cars, all very innocent fun, if your missus and kids were in a car and subjected to it I am sure you would see the funny side. Here is the driver’s pov of exactly that...



#notallcyclists


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 30 kids having a laugh, hanging off moving cars, all very innocent fun, if your missus and kids were in a car and subjected to it I am sure you would see the funny side. Here is the driver’s pov of exactly that...



Hijinx. We'd hardly be likely to chase them down and try and start a fight because one of them waved his foot at us. Also we'd hardly be likely to all be on motorcycles.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hijinx. We'd hardly be likely to chase them down and try and start a fight because one of them waved his foot at us.


There's only one real biker in that video, so he's obviously right.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Bless 'em.  

Poor little scrotes.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 30 kids having a laugh, hanging off moving cars, all very innocent fun, if your missus and kids were in a car and subjected to it I am sure you would see the funny side. Here is the driver’s pov of exactly that...



Motorcyclist provoking things by doing an overtaking move into oncoming traffic when there wasn't space. Lucky he didn't knock any of the cyclists over. Good on the 15 year old lad for not letting him get away with it.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Anyway, why don't you all get on with excusing this, and saying it's not attempted mass murder. He only got 5 years:









						Van driver who mowed down group in revenge attack has sentence cut
					

Luqman Aslam drove his vehicle onto the pavement after seeing red following an earlier clash with the group of men in Leicester city centre.




					www.leicestermercury.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hijinx. We'd hardly be likely to chase them down and try and start a fight because one of them waved his foot at us. Also we'd hardly be likely to all be on motorcycles.



It’s the same attitude of the kids that would boot and sent a motor, you used to control motors that cost a fair whack where the drivers would be expected to not show up with dented doors. How would your previous punters have reacted if they had to be shunted around in a dented heap if you kindly mentioned it was hi jinx? And the lovely chap in the video offering to stab the motorcyclist, #jinx


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

I'm still enjoying the "attempted murderer" getting away with a flea in his ear


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

Motorbike riders are the most vulnerable (ligitimate) road users, yet even motorcyclists hate cyclists, despite the fact that they should be closer to cyclists than they are to car drivers, but I guess cyclists are to motorcyclists as soap box cart riders are to grown-up drivers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Motorcyclist provoking things by doing an overtaking move into oncoming traffic when there wasn't space. Lucky he didn't knock any of the cyclists over. Good on the 15 year old lad for not letting him get away with it.



And you, now you are such a zealot that threats to knock people out are acceptable. Good on him. Not covering your cause in glory defending these wankers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm still enjoying the "attempted murderer" getting away with a flea in his ear


I didn't see the outcome but if that's what happened, then it's obvious who was at fault.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And you, now you are such a zealot that threats to knock people out are acceptable. Good on him. Not covering your cause in glory defending these wankers.


We'll note that a cyclist threatening to knock someone out (don't think he did, but anyway) is unacceptable whereas a car driver actually attempting to murder someone is completely fine and in fact just a bit of a laugh. It's when these attitudes are brought out in the open that I know this thread is working excellently.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Motorcyclist provoking things by doing an overtaking move into oncoming traffic when there wasn't space. Lucky he didn't knock any of the cyclists over. Good on the 15 year old lad for not letting him get away with it.


He made room for his overtake by forcing the scrotes to get over, which was the right thing to do.  They should have been thrown in the river.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And you, now you are such a zealot that threats to knock people out are acceptable. Good on him. Not covering your cause in glory defending these wankers.



The irony of course, is that those kids will think that people like teuchter and the other cycle wallies on this thread are the biggest bellends on the planet, and as soon as they're able will be swapping their bikes for stuff like this


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We'll note that a cyclist threatening to knock someone out (don't think he did, but anyway) is unacceptable whereas a car driver actually attempting to murder someone is completely fine and in fact just a bit of a laugh. It's when these attitudes are brought out in the open that I know this thread is working excellently.



You are defending people who tried to rob £1000’s of pounds with the threat of violence to back up you anti-car agenda. Step away and have a fucking word with yourself, this is unacceptable behaviour.


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Motorbike riders are the most vulnerable (ligitimate) road users, yet even motorcyclists hate cyclists, despite the fact that they should be closer to cyclists than they are to car drivers, but I guess cyclists are to motorcyclists as soap box cart riders are to grown-up drivers.


I reckon motorcyclists are all as bad as that cunt whose private videos you had on your YouTube channel. The one that could have easily killed someone. Obviously not as bad as a kid who waved a foot at someone though.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

The wealth flaunting, classist, aggressive, highway code disregarding motorcyclist can defend himself I think, but it doesn't surprise me that many here want to take his side.


----------



## Elpenor (Jun 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Criminal and anti-social behaviour is ok if you do it on cycles. This is Urban75, remember.
> 
> Fucking wallies


It would be ok if they were riding  a fixie


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The wealth flaunting, classist, aggressive, highway code disregarding motorcyclist can defend himself I think, but it doesn't surprise me that many here want to take his side.



You are seriously in favour of a gang of violent robbers if via some twisted logic you can make an anti-car argument.
That really is quite special.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are seriously in favour of a gang of violent robbers if via some twisted logic you can make an anti-car argument.
> That really is quite special.


The enemy of my enemy...


----------



## maomao (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are seriously in favour of a gang of violent robbers if via some twisted logic you can make an anti-car argument.
> That really is quite special.


Violent robbers that didn't actually hit anyone or rob anything.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Violent robbers that didn't actually hit anyone or rob anything.


Bahnhof Strasse is from Surrey. When they say "gang of violent robbers" they just mean some kids that don't look like they go to a private school.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Bahnhof Strasse is from Surrey. When they say "gang of violent robbers" they just mean some kids that don't look like they go to a private school.


Lord Snooty siding with the proles... Whatever next!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 30 kids having a laugh, hanging off moving cars, all very innocent fun, if your missus and kids were in a car and subjected to it I am sure you would see the funny side. Here is the driver’s pov of exactly that...




What's more dangerous, riding your bike straight at a group of oncoming cyclists or having a little lash out with your foot at the cunt who did it? Tricky one.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are defending people who tried to rob £1000’s of pounds with the threat of violence to back up you anti-car agenda. Step away and have a fucking word with yourself, this is unacceptable behaviour.


The motorcyclist is a twat. He turned around and followed the brats because he was determined to escalate a trivial matter so he would have something to generate views on youtube. When the scrote made a grab for his keys he thought he'd hit gold.  There are lots of bikers like that - sad bores trying to go viral. "Here I am, about to overtake the Prius.." Such excitement. The new Barry Sheene.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>



Macho twats on both sides there, all thinking that traffic is just something to be played in.  In carrying on their arguments whilst travelling, not a one of them is paying due care to what is happening around them.  All involved can go to hell.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> How would your previous punters have reacted if they had to be shunted around in a dented heap if you kindly mentioned it was hi jinx?


Do you know there are people in this world who really will phone the car company to complain about _external_ damage or dirt on the car they are travelling _inside_ of? Generally the same kind of people who will complain about the driver not wearing a tie, or get their PA to phone up and ask for an 'English' driver. These people ought to be shot. 

I'm also not sure what damage you're referring to in the first place. None of the cars involved were damaged that I can see. Except possibly the one that was deliberately driven into a bicycle.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The irony of course, is that those kids will think that people like teuchter and the other cycle wallies on this thread are the biggest bellends on the planet, and as soon as they're able will be swapping their bikes for stuff like this
> 
> View attachment 271561


And have no insurance,


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> And have no insurance,


Yep. Like cyclists. The driver in the video was doing a public service by crushing an uninsured vehicle that was being used on the road. It should happen more often really.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Violent robbers that didn't actually hit anyone or rob anything.



They attempted to do both though, but were too crap to succeed. You and toochy are trying to defend the indefensible, it is not acceptable to ride around with the sole purpose of intimidating folk and trying to knock others off their bikes. And if they came across gentryfying blowins like your new Scottish pal they would I am sure sit down with some tofu and discuss a car free future for London and not rob the silly cunt blind.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> to ride around with the sole purpose of intimidating folk and trying to knock others off their bikes.


That's not their purpose though. They're doing tricks and stuff.

In all your years organising raves did you never once encroach on public space in a way that might cause annoyance or fear?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's not their purpose though. They're doing tricks and stuff.



check out the other bike stormz videos, so yourself how happy you would be with your missus and kids in a car surrounded by males in bikes rocking her car demanding she flash her tits at them and so on. It’s pretty fucking nasty, they go out and get their kicks by intimidating, that’s their thing. My nephew sadly has to deal with a bunch who live on his estate in Elephant who do just this, they are not benign.



maomao said:


> In all your years organising raves did you never once encroach on public space in a way that might cause annoyance or fear?



I don’t believe we ever did, the whole idea was to not be noticed as much as possible.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

They have excellent riding skills, but by riding at people, by deliberately riding in a manner that is intended to frighten people, as they do, they show no interest in “doing tricks.” They are very deliberately riding this way to intimidate people. Their actions, comments, and attitudes make this very clear.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> so yourself how happy you would be with your missus and kids in a car surrounded by males in bikes rocking her car demanding she flash her tits at them and so on


Did this actually happen or is it another wild fantasy of yours like all these damaged cars?



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I don’t believe we ever did, the whole idea was to not be noticed as much as possible.


Pretty sure that even in my limited experience I helped scare the shit out of some early morning dog walkers. Scores of drugged up ravers can be just as intimidating as you seem to find children on bicycles.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 3, 2021)

If you’re too lazy to check out the videos I don’t see why you bother to comment, just carry on with you new pal being laughed at.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> They have excellent riding skills, but by riding at people, by deliberately riding in a manner that is intended to frighten people, as they do, they show no interest in “doing tricks.” They are very deliberately riding this way to intimidate people. Their actions, comments, and attitudes make this very clear.



Apparently it’s fine though cos they are on bikes.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you’re too lazy to check out the videos I don’t see why you bother to comment,


thought so


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

Watch the second one of these. Pretty sure it's someone who posts on this thread.


----------



## Doodler (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> People will be able to make them sound like whatever they want. We're going to have everything from herds of elephants to Typhoon jets.
> 
> We’ll be selecting car noises like we do ringtones.



An unlimited variety of sounds means pedestrians will find it harder to notice and react to approaching vehicles. There will probably be defined parameters of some kind within which there will be a small space for variation, as with number plates. Pushing at the boundaries of these limits or breaking them will become a thing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)

Doodler said:


> An unlimited variety of sounds means pedestrians will find it harder to notice and react to approaching vehicles. There will probably be defined parameters of some kind within which there will be a small space for variation, as with number plates. Pushing at the boundaries of these limits or breaking them will become a thing.


Any number plate from 2001 onwards has no variation at all allowed - the font, sizing and spacing are all precisely defined iirc.


----------



## Doodler (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Any number plate from 2001 onwards has no variation at all allowed - the font, sizing and spacing are all precisely defined iirc.


There is still one kind of user-selected variation allowed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Any number plate from 2001 onwards has no variation at all allowed - the font, sizing and spacing are all precisely defined iirc.


Yeah but that's prettymuch ignored by knobs and coppers alike. You see loads of nonsense formatted plates on the roads. I don't think you're likely to get a pull for it unless they're doing you for something else as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

Doodler said:


> An unlimited variety of sounds means pedestrians will find it harder to notice and react to approaching vehicles.



Of course, but still better than silent, which is what they are now.



> There will probably be defined parameters of some kind within which there will be a small space for variation, as with number plates. Pushing at the boundaries of these limits or breaking them will become a thing.



The thing with the direction we're heading is that cars are becoming computers. You've been able to "chip" them (increase performance by modifying the ECU) for years. What will happen in time is that a kid with a laptop will be able to change pretty much everything on his mum's car from the way it sounds to the way it accelerates.


----------



## Athos (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Watch the second one of these. Pretty sure it's someone who posts on this thread.




The last one, where he has the hump with the lorry driver despite that fact it's the cyclist who was in the wrong lane and overtaking on the inside.  The defense being "it's London"!  Fucking mental.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The last one, where he has the hump with the lorry driver despite that fact it's the cyclist who was in the wrong lane and overtaking on the inside.  The defense being "it's London"!  Fucking mental.



The vast majority of London cyclists _are _like that though. Completely incompetent.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Watch the second one of these. Pretty sure it's someone who posts on this thread.



The binmen were very laid back, The ones round back here would have stuffed him and his bike in the back of the bin lorry.  The one who got hit by the bus was a complete cretin and definitely a candidate for a Darwin Award, equally amazing that having seen what had happend to him another one tried to squeeze through after him. I couldn't see Boris in the video of the cyclists surrounding him but you could classify that as legitimate protest. The next couple were just plain idiots, it looked to me like one dropped his phone as he rode off. The truck driver was in the wrong at least as much as the cyclist, the cyclist shouldn't have tried to cut through on the inside but  the truck driver obviously wasn't paying attention and making proper allowance for other road users.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> The binmen were very laid back, The ones round back here would have stuffed him and his bike in the back of the bin lorry.  The one who got hit by the bus was a complete cretin and definitely a candidate for a Darwin Award, equally amazing that having seen what had happend to him another one tried to squeeze through after him.



Absolutely mental. And when it's reported in the news it's "cyclist hit by bus".

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, why don't you all get on with excusing this, and saying it's not attempted mass murder. He only got 5 years:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stop faffing around going on about bin lorries - you need to get to work finding a justification for this mass murder attempt.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Stop faffing around going on about bin lorries - you need to get to work finding a justification for this mass murder attempt.



Anyone deliberately driving at pedestrians on a pavement should get 10 years minimum. In the current climate in London, it's also liable to get you shot.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

Anyway, the threads about cyclists now. 

Check out these morons, proving that it's a global problem.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 3, 2021)

I think the rideouts during lockdown were great for kids to relax but Ive  seen two robberies on bikes around London Bridge recently now everyone is drunk and out.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah but that's prettymuch ignored by knobs and coppers alike. You see loads of nonsense formatted plates on the roads. I don't think you're likely to get a pull for it unless they're doing you for something else as well.


My ex traffic cop friend says they often used dodgy plates as an excuse to pull people over in order to find more serious issues, as the sort of twat who’d have one was inevitably doing other things wrong too


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> My ex traffic cop friend says they often used dodgy plates as an excuse to pull people over in order to find more serious issues, as the sort of twat who’d have one was inevitably doing other things wrong too


Fair.

We need him in London. Thousands of cars imported for “the season” in the summer by gulf states rich kids don’t even have UK plates on them.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Anyone deliberately driving at pedestrians on a pavement should get 10 years minimum. In the current climate in London, it's also liable to get you shot.


They don't get 10 years though, thanks to people on this thread.


----------



## IC3D (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Anyway, the threads about cyclists now.
> 
> Check out these morons, proving that it's a global problem.



I saw a van driver fail to apply their handbrake and leave the vehicle after an RTA and a car designed for a race track breaking the speed limit after a cyclist attempted to slow them down to the legal limit. Loads of other where drivers lacked awareness of their surroundings and created a dangerous situation.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They don't get 10 years though, thanks to people on this thread.



I agree. If cyclists were as critical of bike riding morons as motorists are of car driving ones, things would be less polarised and move on. As it stands, you're correct. Cyclists like those on this thread are the overwhelming problem.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I agree. If cyclists were as critical of bike riding morons as motorists are of car driving ones, things would be less polarised and move on. As it stands, you're correct. Cyclists like those on this thread are the overwhelming problem.


I see. So car drivers are trying to mass murder pedestrians because they are annoyed about being criticised by cyclists. It actually sounds plausible. The solution is to remove all cars of course.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)

“But tradesmen need their vans” etc etc


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So car drivers are trying to mass murder pedestrians because they are annoyed about being criticised by cyclists.


No. They're getting away with it because cyclists draw so much hate and attention to themselves that there's not much to spare for anyone else. That's actually true too. Very few groups of people are so universally detested (estate agents and paedophiles maybe). Look at the 'what irritates you most' thread. And half of them _are cyclists!_


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They don't get 10 years though, thanks to people on this thread.


I don't think there are many MP's and/or judges posting on U75 tbf


----------



## Winot (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “But tradesmen need their vans” etc etc



The window cleaners we use do it by bike (with on board water tank) and the last guy to paint the outside of our house uses a cargo bike. Both got our business for that reason and if this plumber was local to us he’d get our business too.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I don't think there are many MP's and/or judges posting on U75 tbf



I wouldn’t be surprised if Spymaster was a magistrate.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “But tradesmen need their vans” etc etc




In fairness plumbers generally carry pretty minimal tools. Harder with an entire kitchen.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Watch the second one of these. Pretty sure it's someone who posts on this thread.



What a bunch of odious, stupid fucking cunts most cyclists in that video were. Yet I suspect you'll still get some people here maintaing that motor vehicle drivers must surely be always at fault on all collisions regarding of the circumstances.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2021)

You could probably do a lot more if there was a change to road use culture though… in sheffield one of the big problems is that there’s a fucking huge waste site next to the central industrial area, big waste trucks barrelling along at all times of day. Not pleasant to cycle around.


----------



## Cid (Jun 3, 2021)

I wouldn’t be surprised if T & P had _tried_ to become a mags.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2021)

Cid said:


> I wouldn’t be surprised if T & P had _tried_ to become a mags.


Nah, I'm nowhere judgemental enough for that line of work.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

Cid said:


> I wouldn’t be surprised if Spymaster was a magistrate.



I withdrew my application when I remembered that birching is no longer a sentencing option.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

T & P said:


> What a bunch of odious, stupid fucking cunts most cyclists in that video were. Yet I suspect you'll still get some people here maintaing that motor vehicle drivers must surely be always at fault on all collisions regarding of the circumstances.


No comment on the thick as pig shit organ donor motorcyclist videos on this thread then? Obviously some kids doing wheelies is so much more threatening then people doing 200mph on public roads or starting fights on public thoroughfares.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Can any of the wannabe magistrate testosterone car people answer a question I have: is it in any way illegal to place an object in an open-topped sports car without the owner's consent?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Can any of the wannabe magistrate testosterone car people answer a question I have: is it in any way illegal to place an object in an open-topped sports car without the owner's consent?


Dunno, but I threw some discarded takeaway rubbish back through the offending drivers open window once. He went absolutely fucking mental


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

The one thing that comes out so very plainly here is that there are some absolute pollocks driving, and some on bicycles. The arrogance of assuming that your point of view is the only acceptable one is exactly that. An arrogant posturing. It is, to me, clear that there are some who should not be allowed out in/on their chosen mode of transport.

I say this as someone who has been both a cyclist doing many miles weekly, and as a driver of many years.

We all need to recognise this, and drive, cycle, with consideration for each other.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> No comment on the thick as pig shit organ donor motorcyclist videos on this thread then? Obviously some kids doing wheelies is so much more threatening then people doing 200mph on public roads or starting fights on public thoroughfares.


I tell you what. You give your thoughts on what you think of the cyclists on that particular video, and then I will give mine on the motorcyclist videos.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> It is, to me, clear that there are some who should not be allowed out in/on their chosen mode of transport.


I guess that doesn't include people who drive at 120mph on A-roads.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> The one thing that comes out so very plainly here is that there are some absolute pollocks driving, and some on bicycles. The arrogance of assuming that your point of view is the only acceptable one is exactly that. An arrogant posturing. It is, to me, clear that there are some who should not be allowed out in/on their chosen mode of transport.
> 
> I say this as someone who has been both a cyclist doing many miles weekly, and as a driver of many years.
> 
> We all need to recognise this, and drive, cycle, with consideration for each other.


You shouldn't be allowed to drive after what you admitted to here. Causing an accident by extreme speeding and then leaving the scene of the accident.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I withdrew my application when I remembered that birching is no longer a sentencing option.


You drew the line at birching; you surprise me, or is that just for cyclists?


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I guess that doesn't include people who drive at 120mph on A-roads.


If I still did it, of course. I accept I’ve done stupid things in my life, do you?

(Was it you who said you would like me to kill myself? Is that an acceptable thing to say to anyone, in any context? Ever?)


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dunno, but I threw some discarded takeaway rubbish back through the offending drivers open window once. He went absolutely fucking mental


I watched a little scene play out in front of my flat last week, where two vehicles had gone into each other in a very minor collision. One was a van driver driving his work van, the other was a puffed-up guy in a shiny Audi or similar with blacked out windows. The Audi guy had stopped his car right in the road and was having a go at the van guy. This was holding up the traffic and of course there was a load of hooting and driving on pavements and so on. After the argument had concluded, Audi man went and got some baby wipes or something and started polishing whatever minor cosmetic damage had occured to his precious toy. This is still with traffic waiting for him. Once he'd done that he chucked the dirty rags onto the street, basically in front of my front door and then sped off angrily. If I'd have been on the street I'd have had time to throw the baby wipes back through his window. I'd probably have got beaten up or something but it might have been worth it.

This was not what prompted my question though.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> If I still did it, of course. I accept I’ve done stupid things in my life, do you?
> 
> (Was it you who said you would like me to kill myself? Is that an acceptable thing to say to anyone, in any context? Ever?)


It wasn't him. Or me.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> You shouldn't be allowed to drive after what you admitted to here. Causing an accident by extreme speeding and then leaving the scene of the accident.


Are you saying that something stupid I did over 40 years ago should, as someone suggested, mean I should kill myself? I accept it was stupid, I have never done it since. I know I’ve done stupid, reckless things in the past.

eta I did not leave the scene of the accident.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> If I still did it, of course. I accept I’ve done stupid things in my life, do you?
> 
> (Was it you who said you would like me to kill myself? Is that an acceptable thing to say to anyone, in any context? Ever?)


No, it wasn't me and no it isn't.

So, your position is that people should be allowed to drive at 120mph on an A road once or twice, and get away with it.

When you say there are some people who should not be allowed out in their chosen mode of transport, what you mean is only if they do it continuously. If they kill some people on their free passes, so be it.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> It wasn't him. Or me.


I didn’t say it was you, nor did I suggest it was you.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it wasn't me and no it isn't.
> 
> So, your position is that people should be allowed to drive at 120mph on an A road once or twice, and get away with it.
> 
> When you say there are some people who should not be allowed out in their chosen mode of transport, what you mean is only if they do it continuously. If they kill some people on their free passes, so be it.


No. That is not what I said.


----------



## maomao (Jun 3, 2021)

dessiato said:


> Are you saying that something stupid I did over 40 years ago should, as someone suggested, mean I should kill myself? I accept it was stupid, I have never done it since. I know I’ve done stupid, reckless things in the past.
> 
> eta I did not leave the scene of the accident.


What happened to the other driver?

And I wouldn't even bother with a custodial sentence if nobody was hurt but it would be a lifetime driving ban.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> What happened to the other driver?
> 
> And I wouldn't even bother with a custodial sentence if nobody was hurt but it would be a lifetime driving ban.


Absolutely nothing happened to the other driver. He was shaken, as we all were. But, thankfully, that was all. I learned a lot from that.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 3, 2021)

I’m putting this thread on ignore. I don’t want to start getting “I wish you would kill yourself,” messages again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Can any of the wannabe magistrate testosterone car people answer a question I have: is it in any way illegal to place an object in an open-topped sports car without the owner's consent?



I once left the roof down outside a pub in Bristol, and got back to find traffic cones sat on each seat. 

I thought it was hilarious, tbf.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 3, 2021)

hash tag said:


> You drew the line at birching; you surprise me, or is that just for cyclists?


No, it would have just been for cunts. It just so happens that cyclists are heavily over-represented in that particular group.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I once left the roof down outside a pub in Bristol, and got back to find traffic cones sat on each seat.
> 
> I thought it was hilarious, tbf.


I took a group of mates to a pub on the Snake Pass in Derbyshire where we met up with some others who were bikers, the bikers left their helmets in my car. From the window we could people walking past and doing a double take at the sight of crash helmets in a car and obviously wondering what sort of driver owned that car.


----------



## deeyo (Jun 3, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I took a group of mates to a pub on the Snake Pass in Derbyshire where we met up with some others who were bikers, the bikers left their helmets in my car. From the window we could people walking past and doing a double take at the sight of crash helmets in a car and obviously wondering what sort of driver owned that car.



nothing wrong with car helmets.  



safety first.

then style.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

“But we need vans to move lots of stuff”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

“...yeah, but what if it was really big, you know, on a pallet”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

“Ambulances though...”


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

Excellent! Do you have that chap's number? I've been busy buying stuff online recently, and I need delivery of my new four-piece sofa, double-door American fridge-freezer, 10 garden fence panels, and a full size wardrobe. And on the last trip he can hopefully take away approximately half a ton of building rubble from the garden. Won't be a problem for him, will it?

The bike ambulance chaps will also be very handy in helping my high-dependency care aunt between hospitals for her regular appointments. Hopefully it won't be a rainy day, as she hates getting her hair wet.


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> Excellent! Do you have that chap's number? I've been busy buying stuff online recently, and I need delivery of my new four-piece sofa, double-door American fridge-freezer, 10 garden fence panels, and a full size wardrobe. And on the last trip he can hopefully take away approximately half a ton of building rubble from the garden. Won't be a problem for him, will it?
> 
> The bike ambulance chaps will also be very handy in helping my high-dependency care aunt between hospitals for her regular appointments. Hopefully it won't be a rainy day, as she hates getting her hair wet.


Yes that's right: we shouldn't use bikes for anything because we can't use them for everything. 

I


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> Excellent! Do you have that chap's number? I've been busy buying stuff online recently, and I need delivery of my new four-piece sofa, double-door American fridge-freezer, 10 garden fence panels, and a full size wardrobe. And on the last trip he can hopefully take away approximately half a ton of building rubble from the garden. Won't be a problem for him, will it?
> 
> The bike ambulance chaps will also be very handy in helping my high-dependency care aunt between hospitals for her regular appointments. Hopefully it won't be a rainy day, as she hates getting her hair wet.


Literally every item you’ve just described could be carried by PedalMe, with the slight limitation on your garden crap, as they have a mere 300kg maximum weight limit.

As for the ambulance, it’s almost as if switching response to bike based paramedics when suitable would create yet more space on the roads for those who need it, isn’t it?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

Also:


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> As for the ambulance, it’s almost as if switching response to bike based paramedics when suitable would create yet more space on the roads for those who need it, isn’t it?



Indeed. My son doesn't have much choice about coming home from the hospital in ambulance/patient transport but it took nearly two hours yesterday because the roads were packed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Also:
> 
> View attachment 271782



Cyclist kidnaps disabled pensioner


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclist kidnaps disabled pensioner


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “But we need vans to move lots of stuff”



Great parking, and on double yellow lines. Quelle surprise!


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes that's right: we shouldn't use bikes for anything because we can't use them for everything.
> 
> I


That's not what I said at all, and if you care to look you will see that I have liked and supported on this very thread initiatives to replace vehicle deliveries whenever possible with bike ones.

However beesonthewhatnow 's post appeared to suggest the overwhelming majority of van deliveries and jobs can be replaced by bike ones. That is simply nowhere near feasible. The one about the crate is particularly misleading and a tad ridiculous. Twenty bikes linked together operated by twenty Lance Armstrongs on extra steroids couldn't move an inch your average pile of heavy building materials mounted on a crate. Let alone just one bloke and his merry bike carrying it, say, eight miles from a builder's yard to its destination.

I'll repeat: I support replacing van deliveries with bike ones whenever possible, but there are hundreds of thousands of van movements per week carrying loads that can never in a million years be replaced by a bloke and his bike. Surely that should be obvious?


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

If I'm ever knocked down on the street by a cyclist jumping a traffic lights and need emergency assistance, can I please have fast response paramedics arriving by car or motorcycle? Because there's no fucking way either than an emergency blue-lights-flashing paramedic on a car, let alone a motorbike, is not going to be significantly faster than a bicycle even in the most gridlocked conditions imaginable.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> That's not what I said at all, and if you care to look you will see that I have liked and supported on this very thread initiatives to replace vehicle deliveries whenever possible with bike ones.
> 
> However beesonthewhatnow 's post appeared to suggest the overwhelming majority of van deliveries and jobs can be replaced by bike ones. That is simply nowhere near feasible. The one about the crate is particularly misleading and a tad ridiculous. Twenty bikes linked together operated by twenty Lance Armstrongs on extra steroids couldn't move an inch your average pile of heavy building materials mounted on a crate. Let alone just one bloke and his merry bike carrying it, say, eight miles from a builder's yard to its destination.
> 
> I'll repeat: I support replacing van deliveries with bike ones whenever possible, but there are hundreds of thousands of van movements per week carrying loads that can never in a million years be replaced by a bloke and his bike. Surely that should be obvious?


I think you need to learn what an eCargobike is.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> If I'm ever knocked down on the street by a cyclist jumping a traffic lights and need emergency assistance, can I please have fast response paramedics arriving by car or motorcycle? Because there's no fucking way either than an emergency blue-lights-flashing paramedic on a car, let alone a motorbike, is not going to be significantly faster than a bicycle even in the most gridlocked conditions imaginable.


You’re also wrong here. Why do you think LAS uses them?


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> If I'm ever knocked down on the street by a cyclist jumping a traffic lights and need emergency assistance, can I please have fast response paramedics arriving by car or motorcycle? Because there's no fucking way either than an emergency blue-lights-flashing paramedic on a car, let alone a motorbike, is not going to be significantly faster than a bicycle even in the most gridlocked conditions imaginable.


Good pushbike couriers are the fastest vehicles available in central London. And flashing lights are all very well if there's space for people to move out of your way.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> That's not what I said at all,


Yeah it is pretty much, just another variation on "if you want to remove certain kinds of car journeys then you'd better have never at any point in your life gone within 100m of, or directly looked at, any form of motor vehicle otherwise you are a dreadful hypocrite and worse than Hitler" which is what you've spent most of this thread typing out multiple times.


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yeah it is pretty much, just another variation on "if you want to remove certain kinds of car journeys then you'd better have never at any point in your life gone within 100m of, or directly looked at, any form of motor vehicle otherwise you are a dreadful hypocrite and worse than Hitler" which is what you've spent most of this thread typing out multiple times.


Still no sign of him condemning the behaviour of certain motorcyclists in this thread either.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Still no sign of him condemning the behaviour of certain motorcyclists in this thread either.


I'm very confident that anyone reading this thread can see that on one side of the argument are great ideals not untempered with an appropriate pragmatism, and on the other what can only be described as an utterly disgraceful moral vacuum.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> If I'm ever knocked down on the street by a cyclist jumping a traffic lights and need emergency assistance, can I please have fast response paramedics arriving by car or motorcycle? Because there's no fucking way either than an emergency blue-lights-flashing paramedic on a car, let alone a motorbike, is not going to be significantly faster than a bicycle even in the most gridlocked conditions imaginable.


At least if you're collected by a cyclist you can rest assured they won't be stopping for red lights.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm very confident that anyone reading this thread can see that on one side of the argument are great ideals not untempered with an appropriate pragmatism, and on the other what can only be described as an utterly disgraceful moral vacuum.



Do you mean the freedom to own a car and drive anywhere being pragmatically tempered by taxes and restrictions vs making it illegal to own or operate a private vehicle regardless of personal need, even if this means cleansing anywhere outside big cities of human habitation?


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Still no sign of him condemning the behaviour of certain motorcyclists in this thread either.


I said I would do that right after you did likewise about the cyclists shown in the video Spymaster posted a couple of days ago. Still waiting.


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> At least if you're collected by a cyclist you can rest assured they won't be stopping for red lights.


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> I said I would do that right after you did likewise about the cyclists shown in the video Spymaster posted a couple of days ago. Still waiting.



I think you're unwillingness to condemn or comment is revealing enough in itself. I don't actually need you to answer the question to prove my point. So why would I go watch a boring ten minute video?


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm very confident that anyone reading this thread can see that on one side of the argument are great ideals not untempered with an appropriate pragmatism, and on the other what can only be described as an utterly disgraceful moral vacuum.


Like the disgraceful moral vacuum displayed by those who froth at the mouth at the very suggestion that cyclists or pedestrians should also be subject to legislation to ensure their safety and that of others around them?

My recent suggestion that in 20 mph zones it would be perfectly reasonable to demand such speed limit is imposed on cyclists as well as greeted with a resounding "FUCK OFF!". What reason could anyone possibly have for opposing the idea of a speed limit on cyclists in some circumstances and areas if not utter selfishness?


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think you're unwillingness to condemn or comment is revealing enough in itself. I don't actually need you to answer the question to prove my point. So why would I go watch a boring ten minute video?


I think your unwillingness to even lightly criticise the behaviour any cyclists shown on various videos doing various actions that are undisputably wrong is telling enough and clear for all to see.

What's the holdup? I say I would if you will. Can't say fairer than that.


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> My recent suggestion that in 20 mph zones it would be perfectly reasonable to demand such speed limit is imposed on cyclists as well as greeted with a resounding "FUCK OFF!". What reason could anyone possibly have for opposing the idea of a speed limit on cyclists in some circumstances and areas if not utter selfishness?


It was probably a cumulative reaction to your humourless whining than an answer to that point in particular tbf


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> I think your unwillingness to even lightly criticise the behaviour any cyclists shown on various videos doing various actions that are undisputably wrong is telling enough and clear for all to see.
> 
> What's the holdup? I say I would if you will. Can't say fairer than that.


I'm watching Mulan 2 with my daughter. Chatting shit on my phone is one thing; I'm not going to start critiquing traffic videos. 

You've already seen those videos. You already have an opinion. I think your unwillingness to share it says everything


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> My recent suggestion that in 20 mph zones it would be perfectly reasonable to demand such speed limit is imposed on cyclists as well as greeted with a resounding "FUCK OFF!". What reason could anyone possibly have for opposing the idea of a speed limit on cyclists in some circumstances and areas if not utter selfishness?



Was it?

If anyone would actually enforce a 20mph limit properly anywhere, that would be grand. Put speed cameras everywhere. If it catches a miniscule number of cyclists along with the thousands of motorists it would ensnare then no problem. 

If you want to go out with a speed camera and only point it at cyclists - the ones that aren't getting mown down by 50mph cars or Saul Goodman at the 200mph you refuse to condemn him for - it's a less interesting proposition.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If you want to go out with a speed camera and only point it at cyclists - the ones that aren't getting mown down by 50mph cars or Saul Goodman at the 200mph you refuse to condemn him for - it's a less interesting proposition.


Do you have proof that I've ever broken the speed limit on a public road?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you have proof that I've ever broken the speed limit on a public road?


Why do you ask?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why do you ask?


Because you're accusing me of something I didn't do. Do you have evidence?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because you're accusing me of something I didn't do. Do you have evidence?


Are you stating that you have never broken the speed limit on a public road?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Are you stating that you have never broken the speed limit on a public road?


I'm stating that I'd like you to provide proof of something you've accused me of.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm stating that I'd like you to provide proof of something you've accused me of.


So you aren't denying that you have broken the speed limit on a public road, which is what you asked me whether I had proof of.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So you aren't denying that you have broken the speed limit on a public road, which is what you asked me whether I had proof of.


I'm not confirming or denying anything. That's not how it works. I can't accuse you of being a paedophile and expect you to prove that you're not. That would be impossible. 
Where's this evidence to back up your allegation?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm not confirming or denying anything. That's not how it works. I can't accuse you of being a paedophile and expect you to prove that you're not. That would be impossible.
> Where's this evidence to back up your allegation?


My allegation is that you posted up a video of someone on a motorcycle speeding on rural roads, I noted that this and two similar videos were posted on your own youtube account, and at this point you removed them as if you had something to hide. The evidence for my allegation is contained in this thread and all readers can come to their own conclusions.

Please can you confirm whether or not I have succeeded in winding you up or irritating you in this regard.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> My allegation is that you posted up a video of someone on a motorcycle speeding on rural roads, I noted that this and two similar videos were posted on your own youtube account, and at this point you removed them as if you had something to hide. The evidence for my allegation is contained in this thread and all readers can come to their own conclusions.
> 
> Please can you confirm whether or not I have succeeded in winding you up or irritating you in this regard.


You certainly didn't see two similar videos on my YouTube channel, that's a lie, but it's what I've come to expect from you, as you do appear to be a complete stranger to the truth.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You certainly didn't see two similar videos on my YouTube channel, that's a lie, but it's what I've come to expect from you, as you do appear to be a complete stranger to the truth.


One similar video, and another that also involved motorbikes but not with obvious speeding. Some might conclude it also contained something incriminating or you wouldn't have removed it. But supposedly you only removed them to wind me up so I'm not sure why you're now getting bothered about it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> One similar video, and another that also involved motorbikes but not with obvious speeding. Some might conclude it also contained something incriminating or you wouldn't have removed it. But supposedly you only removed them to wind me up so I'm not sure why you're now getting bothered about it.


I'm not getting bothered about anything. I'm merely asking you to back up your assertion with evidence, which you're unable to do, because there is none, which makes you a liar, that's all.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm stating that I'd like you to provide proof of something you've accused me of.


Let’s put it this way, if you’ve never broken the speed limit, you’ll be the only motorcycle rider in the known universe that has never done so


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 4, 2021)

Agreed. I don't know why we're labouring this point. It's dull. Shall I confess to naughty speeds on my Hayabusa so that someone can call me a cunt?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Agreed. I don't know why we're labouring this point. It's dull. Shall I confess to naughty speeds on my Hayabusa so that someone can call me a cunt?


We could certainly argue as to why bikes like the Hayabusa shouldn’t even be on sale...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2021)

T & P said:


> Like the disgraceful moral vacuum displayed by those who froth at the mouth at the very suggestion that cyclists or pedestrians should also be subject to legislation to ensure their safety and that of others around them?
> 
> My recent suggestion that in 20 mph zones it would be perfectly reasonable to demand such speed limit is imposed on cyclists as well as greeted with a resounding "FUCK OFF!". What reason could anyone possibly have for opposing the idea of a speed limit on cyclists in some circumstances and areas if not utter selfishness?



It's very brave of you to stand up to all the nobody who is suggesting that cyclists should ignore 20mph speed limits.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> We could certainly argue as to why bikes like the Hayabusa shouldn’t even be on sale...


The 200mph capability is necessary otherwise you can't safely overtake vehicles travelling at 180mph. That's the normal answer.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's very brave of you to stand up to all the nobody who is suggesting that cyclists should ignore 20mph speed limits.


It wouldn't work on a practical level because you'd need all bikes to have speedometers on them (and potentially registrations as well) to be able to prosecute it fairly. And there's already legislation to prosecute cyclists for cycling recklessly so it's entirely unnecessary. 

So I'd object to it on the basis that it would put more obstacles in the way of people cycling and that it's not needed.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 5, 2021)

I've had it on good authority that this is Saul Goodman in his green Lambo and badly mounted GoPro driving on the wrong side of the road and racing the police that he has presumably paid to turn a blind eye.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> It wouldn't work on a practical level because you'd need all bikes to have speedometers on them (and potentially registrations as well) to be able to prosecute it fairly. And there's already legislation to prosecute cyclists for cycling recklessly so it's entirely unnecessary.
> 
> So I'd object to it on the basis that it would put more obstacles in the way of people cycling and that it's not needed.


We could also explain the physics of a bicycle at 20mph vs a car doing the same speed...


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> We could also explain the physics of a bicycle at 20mph vs a car doing the same speed...



May as well say there's no point having speed limits for cars because lorries.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> We could also explain the physics of a bicycle at 20mph vs a car doing the same speed



No amount of physics or basic sense can defeat this mindless hatred of cyclists.

Remember we're dealing with people who sit in their cars whinging about a traffic jam they themselves have helped to create. One step up from pissing yourself and then blaming someone else for the fact you're sat in a puddle of piss.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> No amount of physics or basic sense can defeat this mindless hatred of cyclists.
> 
> Remember we're dealing with people who sit in their cars whinging about a traffic jam they themselves have helped to create. One step up from pissing yourself and then blaming someone else for the fact you're sat in a puddle of piss.



I hope you never complain about not being able to get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist, it’s just like pissing yourself.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> No amount of physics or basic sense can defeat this mindless hatred of cyclists.



No. The only thing that will do that is for cyclists to stop being such massive, all-round, arse wipes. Even that will take a while given how ingrained the hatred has become. I saw one go through a red on the A5 yesterday and get quite ferociously horned by a car going through the other way. A woman ped in front of us at the lights said, to no one in particular, "should have fucking hit him". It's coming to something when completely random people who have no idea who you are, _actually wish_ misfortune on you.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I hope you never complain about not being able to get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist, it’s just like pissing yourself.


That's not a useful or coherent analogy because those things don't have reasonable alternatives available. It's not like you could have jumped on a bus or a bike instead of going to a dentist. Though most people would feel guilty about wasting NHS time whereas motorists seem to feel no guilt at all about turning our urban centres into anti-human obstacle courses to serve their laziness and entitlement.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> May as well say there's no point having speed limits for cars because lorries.


You do know lorries have different speed limits to cars, yes?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's not a useful or coherent analogy because those things don't have reasonable alternatives available. It's not like you could have jumped on a bus or a bike instead of going to a dentist. Though most people would feel guilty about wasting NHS time whereas motorists seem to feel no guilt at all about turning our urban centres into anti-human obstacle courses to serve their laziness and entitlement.



It‘s a perfect analogy because there are always sanctimonious other people who assume you have alternatives yet know nothing about you. Jumping on a bike or asking a pharmacist isnt going to work for most people, and telling them to live next to a bus stop or stop being obese doesn’t help either.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I hope you never complain about not being able to get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist, it’s just like pissing yourself.


It's thanks to car drivers that the NHS is overstretched.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's thanks to car drivers that the NHS is overstretched.


It's thanks to drivers that the NHS functions.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It‘s a perfect analogy because there are always sanctimonious other people who assume you have alternatives yet know nothing about you. Jumping on a bike or asking a pharmacist isnt going to work for most people, and telling them to live next to a bus stop or stop being obese doesn’t help either.


Which is why the NHS has people like doctors' receptionists and GPs themselves to supervise the allocation of resources. Whereas you're arguing for a complete free-for-all in private transport.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It‘s a perfect analogy because there are always sanctimonious other people who assume you have alternatives yet know nothing about you. Jumping on a bike or asking a pharmacist isnt going to work for most people, and telling them to live next to a bus stop or stop being obese doesn’t help either.


If we're on about things that don't help we can add your posts to the list


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It‘s a perfect analogy because there are always sanctimonious other people who assume you have alternatives yet know nothing about you. Jumping on a bike or asking a pharmacist isnt going to work for most people, and telling them to live next to a bus stop or stop being obese doesn’t help either.


Also, as an obese person (BMI currently 31) I take offence at your suggestion that this somehow restricts my ability to get about without a car.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 5, 2021)

So, some cyclists actually appreciate that the vast majority of them are dangerous and rubbish, like the ones posting on this thread.

However, these two are actually trying to do something about it.

How not to be a dick on a bike ...





The main takeaway of course, is the recognition of the fact, _by cyclists_, that most cyclists _are dicks!_


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 5, 2021)

It's funny when they turn on each other.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's funny when they turn on each other.



Unlike when motorists do it when it's generally deeply disturbing and very very dangerous.









						Sharp rise in road rage crimes with victims stabbed, punched, bitten and spat at
					

Thousands of road rage offences are recorded in the last three years, including attempted murders and racist abuse incidents.




					news.sky.com
				





The main takeaway of course is that all motorists are racist, homicidal maniacs.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 5, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's funny when they turn on each other.




Don't know which of those two is the biggest bellend.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't know which of those two is the biggest bellend.


You can tell they are both car owners. (Haven't even watched the video)


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It's thanks to drivers that the NHS functions.


Another death machine apologist pops up.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Another death machine apologist pops up.



They should only use bikes I suppose:









						A34 crash: Pedestrian hit by ambulance dies
					

A 35-year-old man died at the scene, Thames Valley Police say.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't know which of those two is the biggest bellend.


Hard to say. Their actions are extremely bellendy but riding a child's toy makes them equally worthy of the title.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Another death machine apologist pops up.


Maybe one day you'll need an ambulance and it'll turn up only you'll croak not getting in no death machine. They'll shrug and go on to save someone else's life instead


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe one day you'll need an ambulance and it'll turn up only you'll croak not getting in no death machine. They'll shrug and go on to save someone else's life instead


Or maybe the ambulance will save three times as many lives on the _private_ car free roads that this thread is about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or maybe the ambulance will save three times as many lives on the _private_ car free roads that this thread is about.


How many lives do you think have been saved by private car drivers taking people to hospital? Conversely, how many lives do you think have been saved by cyclists carrying people to hospital?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

It's also a fact that if you arrive at hospital by ambulance, you're far more likely to die than if you arrive by private car. Make of that what you will.


----------



## xenon (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> How many lives do you think have been saved by private car drivers taking people to hospital? Conversely, how many lives do you think have been saved by cyclists carrying people to hospital?



You know that's not gonna work as the obvious follow up question is. How many lives have been taken by car accidents, vs push bikes.

Anyway, I was just passing, this thread's a bit... Rubbish.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe one day you'll need an ambulance and it'll turn up only you'll croak not getting in no death machine. They'll shrug and go on to save someone else's life instead


Ambulances are usually fairly clearly marked out and I reckon I'll not confuse one with one of the death machines whose drivers you want to make excuses for.

Let's remember that every car driver is a driver who, instead of driving an ambulance to save someone's life, is driving to a drive-thru McDonalds because they couldn't think of anything else to fill their time with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's also a fact that if you arrive at hospital by ambulance, you're far more likely to die than if you arrive by private car. Make of that what you will.


Tbh we all have a 100% chance of dying


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Ambulances are usually fairly clearly marked out and I reckon I'll not confuse one with one of the death machines whose drivers you want to make excuses for.
> 
> Let's remember that every car driver is a driver who, instead of driving an ambulance to save someone's life, is driving to a drive-thru McDonalds because they couldn't think of anything else to fill their time with.


I don't know how you think medical supplies arrive at hospitals but I can guarantee each delivery arrives accompanied by a driver. As I said above the NHS will grind to a halt without drivers


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> How many lives do you think have been saved by private car drivers taking people to hospital?


That's the most laughable reason for private car ownership I've ever heard. 

What percentage of the life saving trips to hospital were necessary because of private car accidents?

How many people didn't make it to hospital in time because their ambulance was held up by private traffic?

How many lives have been saved by diet and exercise regimes involving cycling?

How many lives have been ruined or ended early because of private car enabled sedentary lifestyles?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's also a fact that if you arrive at hospital by ambulance, you're far more likely to die than if you arrive by private car. Make of that what you will.


Seeing as there are about 10-20,000 hit & run incidents per year in the UK, we can probably quite confidently say that the number of people taken to hospital by a car driver after being injured is a negative one.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's also a fact that if you arrive at hospital by ambulance, you're far more likely to die than if you arrive by private car. Make of that what you will.


Yes because ambulances carry the victims of the most serious accidents you wally.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know how you think medical supplies arrive at hospitals but I can guarantee each delivery arrives accompanied by a driver. As I said above the NHS will grind to a halt without drivers


It seems that the hot weather is making your brain function particularly poorly this afernoon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems that the hot weather is making your brain function particularly poorly this afernoon.


Time for t


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know how you think medical supplies arrive at hospitals but I can guarantee each delivery arrives accompanied by a driver. As I said above the NHS will grind to a halt without drivers


You might want to revisit the OP. I'm pretty sure a negligible amount of medical supplies arrive in private cars. 

Anyway, once we've got rid of all the private cars we can get back to work on the canal network for routine deliveries.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems that the hot weather is making your brain function particularly poorly this afernoon.


You think stuff gets to hospitals without drivers?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You might want to revisit the OP. I'm pretty sure a negligible amount of medical supplies arrive in private cars.
> 
> Anyway, once we've got rid of all the private cars we can get back to work on the canal network for routine deliveries.


Once you've gone 25 pages let alone 76 appeals to be guided by the op smack of desperation


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Once you've gone 25 pages let alone 76 appeals to be guided by the op smack of desperation


Not as desperate as building obvious strawmen.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know how you think medical supplies arrive at hospitals but I can guarantee each delivery arrives accompanied by a driver. As I said above the NHS will grind to a halt without drivers


Private motorcyclists  play a huge role in medical deliveries in Ireland. 'Blood Bikes' offer their services for free.








						Blood Bike West
					

To contact us, visit the form on this link:   www.bloodbikewest.ie/contactus




					www.bloodbikewest.ie
				




I'm not sure if there's an equivalent cyclist group.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not as desperate as building obvious strawmen.


I'm not building a strawman at all. I just pointed out to teuchter (post 2250) that w/out drivers the NHS wouldn't function. And it wouldn't. I'm not claiming he's arguing anything he isn't, I'm not claiming you're arguing anything you're not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes because ambulances carry the victims of the most serious accidents you wally.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not building a strawman at all. I just pointed out to teuchter (post 2250) that w/out drivers the NHS wouldn't function. And it wouldn't. I'm not claiming he's arguing anything he isn't, I'm not claiming you're arguing anything you're not.


I haven't seen any of the anti private car lobby on this thread argue that the NHS could operate without motor vehicles (and the drivers who drive them) now or in the near future. I know the phrase strawman is largely used incorrectly on these boards but your last couple of posts are literally 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's actual argument'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I haven't seen any of the anti private car lobby on this thread argue that the NHS could operate without motor vehicles (and the drivers who drive them) now or in the near future. I know the phrase strawman is largely used incorrectly on these boards but your last couple of posts are literally 'an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's actual argument'.


I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument

I haven't misrepresented anyone's proposition.

But enjoy your evening, and your thread. Should have known better than to intrude one of teuchters hobby horse threads


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I haven't misrepresented anyone's argument
> 
> I haven't misrepresented anyone's proposition.


So are you arguing with thin air then? Because your post #2269 makes no sense otherwise. Unless you're claiming that it's because you're stupid or drunk or something.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Should have known better than to intrude one of teuchters hobby horse threads


You should have. But you'll still not have learned your lesson.


----------



## A380 (Jun 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I've had it on good authority that this is Saul Goodman in his green Lambo and badly mounted GoPro driving on the wrong side of the road and racing the police that he has presumably paid to turn a blind eye.



That's on the Isle of Man - which has no speed limits outside towns and villages all the time - it looks like during TT week/fortnight when side roads are closed off effectively making the main road a large race track...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So are you arguing with thin air then? Because your post #2269 makes no sense otherwise. Unless you're claiming that it's because you're stupid or drunk or something.


I'm returning to _my_ initial point that the NHS would grind to a halt w/o drivers. And so it would. Maybe not without car drivers. But for years there's been a sorry litany of stories about nurses and doctors having to pay parking charges at some hospital eg this from last year Hospitals shun guidance to offer staff free parking 'for the duration of the pandemic' until there's safe affordable public transport connecting hospitals to transport hubs through the night you'll get people needing to drive there


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

Imagine what might have happened to this poor delivery rider if the good samaritan in the private car hadn't intervened.

View attachment Vigilante Motorist Pulverizes Mugger On Bicycle.mp4


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm returning to _my_ initial point that the NHS would grind to a halt w/o drivers. And so it would. Maybe not without car drivers. But for years there's been a sorry litany of stories about nurses and doctors having to pay parking charges at some hospital eg this from last year Hospitals shun guidance to offer staff free parking 'for the duration of the pandemic' until there's safe affordable public transport connecting hospitals to transport hubs through the night you'll get people needing to drive there


Instead of demanding that paid staff who can afford a car get free parking, why not crank up the parking fee and use the revenue gained to subsidise travel fares for those staff members who aren't able to drive or can't afford to own a car?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Instead of demanding that paid staff who can afford a car get free parking, why not crank up the parking fee and use the revenue gained to subsidise travel fares for those staff members who aren't able to drive or can't afford to own a car?


It comes as no surprise that you want to punish our brave frontline workers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> That's on the Isle of Man - which has no speed limits outside towns and villages all the time - it looks like during TT week/fortnight when side roads are closed off effectively making the main road a large race track...




Was 100% legal. The UK should take note of the way the Isle of Man handles such things, seems to work well. Much lower tax rate too leaves more money for dog's bollocks motors.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Yup it works really well.









						Isle of Man serious road accident rate twice that of England
					

It is not known if the figure of 81.2 people per 100,000 includes race-related deaths and injuries.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yup it works really well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Includes TT race related deaths.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Instead of demanding that paid staff who can afford a car get free parking, why not crank up the parking fee and use the revenue gained to subsidise travel fares for those staff members who aren't able to drive or can't afford to own a car?



You know full well that the primary affect of such a policy would be to penalise staff who don’t live on public transport routes, forcing the lower paid such staff effectively below minimum wage. And no, increased parking fees won’t be sufficient to lay on buses for everyone.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 5, 2021)

Does anyone think there's the remotest chance of speed limits being enforced with black boxes? Or of insurance becoming unaffordable for those who don't have a black box and abide by the rules?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm returning to _my_ initial point that the NHS would grind to a halt w/o drivers. And so it would. Maybe not without car drivers. But for years there's been a sorry litany of stories about nurses and doctors having to pay parking charges at some hospital eg this from last year Hospitals shun guidance to offer staff free parking 'for the duration of the pandemic' until there's safe affordable public transport connecting hospitals to transport hubs through the night you'll get people needing to drive there




For the past 12 months I have been an NHS volunteer, nothing happened the first four or five months, then the alarm went off a couple of times a day, each time asking to take a recovering Covid patient home from hospital or deliver food/medicine (non-prescription) to people in need. So yeah, car drivers, scum.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm returning to _my_ initial point that the NHS would grind to a halt w/o drivers. And so it would. Maybe not without car drivers. But for years there's been a sorry litany of stories about nurses and doctors having to pay parking charges at some hospital eg this from last year Hospitals shun guidance to offer staff free parking 'for the duration of the pandemic' until there's safe affordable public transport connecting hospitals to transport hubs through the night you'll get people needing to drive there


Yes, a whole solution is needed; not banning cars alone. Other forms of transport need to be made better and more attractive as motoring is phased out. People who live in particularly remote locations may even need to drive to a transport hub. Provisions will be needed for the disabled. I don't personally see it happening without other major changes to the distribution of wealth in society but that's sort of the whole point.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't personally see it happening without other major changes to the distribution of wealth in society but that's sort of the whole point.


You mean until the lowest paid nurses have had every penny taken from them in parking fees to pay for your free/subsidised travel? Or is it just teuchter that wants that?


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You mean until the lowest paid nurses have had every penny taken from them in parking fees to pay for your free travel?


What?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> What?


See edit.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You mean until the lowest paid nurses have had every penny taken from them in parking fees to pay for your free/subsidised travel? Or is it just teuchter that wants that?


I'm not keen on solutions that allow rich people to do what they like by paying extra. Just ban the fucking lot and tax the rich till they squeak to pay for air conditioned luxury public transport and swish bicycles for all.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, a whole solution is needed; not banning cars alone. Other forms of transport need to be made better and more attractive as motoring is phased out. People who live in particularly remote locations may even need to drive to a transport hub. Provisions will be needed for the disabled. I don't personally see it happening without other major changes to the distribution of wealth in society but that's sort of the whole point.


None of these people seem able to comprehend the phasing out of private motorised transport as a necessary part of a larger picture. They can only do short-termist reactionary responses focussed on their own narrow self interests. Typical conservatives.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not keen on solutions that allow rich people to do what they like by paying extra. Just ban the fucking lot and tax the rich till they squeak to pay for air conditioned luxury public transport and swish bicycles for all.


How about just taxing fuck out of the rich and spending some of it on decent public transport, for those that want it?
Your one-size-fits-all solution will never fit all. Granted, it _might _work in cities, but not everyone lives in a city, and providing a viable public transport system for those who choose not to live in a stinking shithole of a city would be all but impossible, although if you can think of a way for my mother to get my father to the doctor/hospital at a moment's notice, I'm all ears?


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about just taxing fuck out of the rich and spending some of it on decent public transport, for those that want it?
> Your one-size-fits-all solution will never fit all. Granted, it _might _work in cities, but not everyone lives in a city, and providing a viable public transport system for those who choose not to live in a stinking shithole of a city would be all but impossible, although if you can think of a way for my mother to get my father to the doctor/hospital at a moment's notice, I'm all ears?


I just said I'm okay with cars in some rural  areas long as there are controls to make sure the privilege isn't abused for money. 

And a properly funded ambulance service for getting people to hospital. My boy has to be in hospital within an hour if his temperature hits 38 degrees. We just stick him in a buggy and run but the current patient transport system should be brought back into the NHS and expanded. Even the current fleet would get twice as much done and faster without the roads choked up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2021)

Anyway, who likes the tshirt I was bought for my birthday?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, who likes the tshirt I was bought for my birthday?
> 
> View attachment 272072


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Car drivers are so thick they can't even post a picture without doing an accidental triple post.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Not funny either, that's Tom Pidcock's bike, crashed whilst training. He had to have surgery for a broken collarbone.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not funny either, that's Tom Pidcock's bike, crashed whilst training. He had to have surgery for a broken collarbone.


Speeding on public roads.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Speeding on public roads.



It's fine to speed and race on public roads if you don't have an engine, and if any crash happens it won't be your fault.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Funny how many experts on Andorran traffic laws we have on these boards. I'm pretty sure that professional training camps in the Pyrenees will have suitable insurance for a start.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's fine to speed and race on public roads if you don't have an engine, and if any crash happens it won't be your fault.


He wasn't racing and you can't speed on a bicycle, next


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Oh, and surprise surprise, the crash was due to him being hit by a fucking driver.









						Tom Pidcock was hit by driver while training, coach confirms
					

The Brit suffered a broken collarbone in the collision




					www.cyclingweekly.com


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

Probably a driver pulling out without looking, on the way to the shop twenty metres from their house to buy a can of coke.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He wasn't racing and you can't speed on a bicycle, next



I was making a general point. You can of course you can speed where "speed" means traveling at a speed which is too fast for the conditions such that you're much more likely to have an accident, and which in the UK might garner you a charge of riding furiously.

He was training for a race by traveling at "a fairly high speed at the start of a descent" so I wouldn't be surprised if he rounded a bend too quickly to be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, and that the driver pulling out had zero chance of reacting in time.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I was making a general point. You can of course you can speed where "speed" means traveling at a speed which is too fast for the conditions such that you're much more likely to have an accident, and which in the UK might garner you a charge of riding furiously.
> 
> He was training for a race by traveling at "a fairly high speed at the start of a descent" so I wouldn't be surprised if he rounded a bend too quickly to be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, and that the driver pulling out had zero chance of reacting in time.


Well I wouldn't be surprised if he was mown down by a lazy twat who was texting and driving while on his way to MacDonalds.

Either way cycling is big business in the Pyrenees, especially Andorra that relies on the Tour and the Vuelta for tourism and is a base for a lot of professional cyclists. It seems unlikely that he was doing anything illegal.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well I wouldn't be surprised if he was mown down by a lazy twat who was texting and driving while on his way to MacDonalds.
> 
> Either way cycling is big business in the Pyrenees, especially Andorra that relies on the Tour and the Vuelta for tourism and is a base for a lot of professional cyclists. It seems unlikely that he was doing anything illegal.



I didn't suggest he was.

It does however seem obvious he was doing something risky, and got into a situation that someone cycling at a reasonable speed to the village shop to buy some furniture might not have found themselves.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I didn't suggest he was.
> 
> It does however seem obvious he was doing something risky, and got into a situation that someone cycling at a reasonable speed to the village shop to buy some furniture might not have found themselves


I agree. It is inherently risky allowing amateur car drivers onto roads where professional cyclists train to do their job. The solution seems obvious to me. Get rid of the cars.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I was making a general point. You can of course you can speed where "speed" means traveling at a speed which is too fast for the conditions such that you're much more likely to have an accident, and which in the UK might garner you a charge of riding furiously.
> 
> He was training for a race by traveling at "a fairly high speed at the start of a descent" so I wouldn't be surprised if he rounded a bend too quickly to be able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear, and that the driver pulling out had zero chance of reacting in time.


The driver _pulled out on him_. It is their fault.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh, and surprise surprise, the crash was due to him being hit by a fucking driver.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. Speeding.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yep. Speeding.


Speeding and ran into the side of a car. I hope he's prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 
It's madness that they're allowed to race on an open public road.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

Fast enough to break the bike in two. 

Wanton and furious cycling for sure.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The driver _pulled out on him_. It is their fault.



It has gone to court already has it?


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Speeding and ran into the side of a car.


He was hit _by_ the car. And he may have been 'speeding' as in going fast but he wasbn't breaking the speed limit unless you know something that isn't in any of the published articles. And if you want the relevant laws they're in Catalan so have fun with that.

Here's a story that not only illustrates just how fucking nasty some car drivers are but how the constant drip drip of anti-cyclist 'banter' encourages violence:









						Former police officer says driver threatened ‘to knock him off and kill him’ before crashing into him and fleeing the scene
					

The cyclist, a former senior investigative officer in fatal traffic collisions, started to investigate the driver himself




					www.cyclingweekly.com


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> I agree. It is inherently risky allowing amateur car drivers onto roads where professional cyclists train to do their job. The solution seems obvious to me. Get rid of the cars.



This wasn’t a dedicated cycling day when the roads are closed to cars, and I doubt you’ll get many residents of the area onboard with a permanent closure of the roads to cars, especially if it’s for people from out of the area to bomb about like lunatics.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It has gone to court already has it?


They should consider charging the lunatic cyclist with attempted murder.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> He was hit _by_ the car. And he may have been 'speeding' as in going fast but he wasbn't breaking the speed limit unless you know something that isn't in any of the published articles. And if you want the relevant laws they're in Catalan so have fun with that.
> 
> Here's a story that not only illustrates just how fucking nasty some car drivers are but how the constant drip drip of anti-cyclist 'banter' encourages violence:
> 
> ...


Nonsense


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It has gone to court already has it?


If you pull out into the path of an oncoming vehicle it’s your fault. Do we really need to argue this?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you pull out into the path of an oncoming vehicle it’s your fault. Do we really need to argue this?



We don’t know they pulled out into the path of the cyclist, it could have been a downhill road crossing a more major road and the cyclist should have given way. It could have been a been a bend that the cyclist came around so fast that there wouldn’t have been time for an attentive driver to see them in time. There are lots of things we don’t know.

We do know that the cyclist was on a public road travelling fast downhill training for a race.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Here's a story that not only illustrates just how fucking nasty some car drivers are but how the constant drip drip of anti-cyclist 'banter' encourages violence:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most people who've done a bit of cycling will have had something like this happen to them, even if they've never actually been hit. And/or they've watched it happen to someone close to them. No airbag between you and the driver who decides to pass you 10cm away at 60mph to teach you a lesson for being on the public road.

That's why, when I first saw the video of that cyclist nearly being run over by the road rage driver, I had a physical reaction to it and I doubt I was the only one reading this thread who could say that.

Just have to develop a thick skin in order to deal with those who want to make it a banter-suitable subject, and pity them for their ignorance. They've probably never deliberately tried to intimidate a cyclist but they've also probably never actually known what it feels like to literally have your life intentionally threatened by another vehicle.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If you pull out into the path of an oncoming vehicle it’s your fault. Do we really need to argue this?


What if you do it delineraty, to prevent a speeding cyclist from killing somebody?


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense


There are scores of articles detailing motorists assaults on cyclists online. And anyone whose cycled in the UK will tell you how hateful and inconsiderate a large proportion of car drivers can be. Meanwhile anti-cyclist banter is a thing (your posts are evidence enough of that) and encourages othering and violence against cyclists. What part of my post is nonsense?

You never even managed to get _one_ photo of a cyclist without lights at night on a London road by the way. After promising me three. I reckon that proves you haven't even seen one in the last eight months.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Meanwhile anti-cyclist banter is a thing (your posts are evidence enough of that) and encourages othering and violence against cyclists.


What encourages othering and violence against cyclists is the fact that the vast majority of them (in London at least) ride like twats. Even pedestrians hate them. Have you not noticed that cyclists aren't despised in Holland? It's because they don't ride like bellends there.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Just have to develop a thick skin in order to deal with those who want to make it a banter-suitable subject, and pity them for their ignorance. They've probably never deliberately tried to intimidate a cyclist but they've also probably never actually known what it feels like to literally have your life intentionally threatened by another vehicle.



I spent many years cycling on country roads etc before I could drive, and then many years both driving and cycling. I’ve encountered idiots, angry people and scary situations on both forms of transport.

However I seem to be able to cycle and drive without getting enraged or advocating for cars to abolished.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What encourages othering and violence against cyclists is the fact that the vast majority of them (in London at least) ride like twats. Even pedestrians hate them. Have you not noticed that cyclists aren't despised in Holland? It's because they don't ride like bellends there.


OK, so let’s have all our cities made to be like Dutch ones


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What encourages othering and violence against cyclists is the fact that the vast majority of them (in Londen at least) ride like twats. Even pedestrians hate them. Have you not noticed that cyclists aren't despised in Holland? It's because they don't ride like bellends there.


Given you can't even spell it I'm not ready to take you as an authority on London cycling. You know fuck all except what you've read on here and seen on YouTube.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Given you can't even spell it I'm not ready to take you as an authority on London cycling. You know fuck all except what you've read on here and seen on YouTube.


Can't spell what? 
Are you saying that all of those YouTube videos, where 90+% of cyclists are riding like bellends, are fake?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> OK, so let’s have all our cities made to be like Dutch ones


Will that stop cyclists riding like bellends?


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Can't spell what?
> Are you saying that all of those YouTube videos, where 90+% of cyclists are riding like bellends, are fake?


I'm saying that people don't label videos of responsible cyclists on their commutes as 'idiot cyclists' and share them on their Whatsapp group.

And I'm saying that every example of a cyclist riding badly is immediately attributed to 'cyclists' generally whereas the same doesn't happen for bad driving. There are shitloads of bad driving videos on YouTube too.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I spent many years cycling on country roads etc before I could drive, and then many years both driving and cycling. I’ve encountered idiots, angry people and scary situations on both forms of transport.
> 
> However I seem to be able to cycle and drive without getting enraged or advocating for cars to abolished.


Would you like a medal?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> I agree. It is inherently risky allowing amateur car drivers onto roads where professional cyclists train to do their job. The solution seems obvious to me. Get rid of the cars.



As so often you have this back to front; cycles restricted to velodromes (the clue is in the name) and cars to roads. Of course cycles can also use bridle paths so long as they slow/stop for horses. Had we adopted this sensible state of affairs this yon fella wouldn't have scratched a valuable vehicle and all this could have been avoided.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Would you like a medal?



Not at all, I'm just pointing out that "omg close pass" doesn't inevitably lead to car abolitionism, and that car abolitionists are an extreme fringe of cyclists, a bit like how most reasonable left wing people aren't members of the Spartacist League of Britain


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Will that stop cyclists riding like bellends?


Well, it seems to work for the Dutch. Let’s give it a go.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm saying that people don't label videos of responsible cyclists on their commutes as 'idiot cyclists' and share them on their Whatsapp group.
> 
> And I'm saying that every example of a cyclist riding badly is immediately attributed to 'cyclists' generally whereas the same doesn't happen for bad driving. There are shitloads of bad driving videos on YouTube too.


When there are a large number of individual cyclists in a video (not in a group or in a race), we can use that as sample data, and there is a measurable probability that the sample statistics are good estimates of the population parameters, so when almost every rider in a given video is riding dangerously, then it's safe to assume that the vast majority of bike riders ride like bellends.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not at all, I'm just pointing out that "omg close pass" doesn't inevitably lead to car abolitionism, and that car abolitionists are an extreme fringe of cyclists, a bit like how most reasonable left wing people aren't members of the Spartacist League of Britain


Just to clarify, I'm not currently a cyclist. I own a bicycle but haven't ridden it this year. My dislike of private cars predates my owning a bicycle and extended through many years (a decade plus) of not owning one. 

I would cycle daily with proper provision for cyclists though. The main reason I don't like cycling is the amount of agg I get from drivers when riding perfectly legally.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, it seems to work for the Dutch. Let’s give it a go.


I think 'not being bellends' is what stops them riding like bellends.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'm just pointing out that "omg close pass" doesn't inevitably lead to car abolitionism,


Did someone suggest that it does?

What I wrote about cyclists being attacked and threatened was in relation to the question of what things should be considered banter-worthy, and what part such banter might play in the continuing prevalence of such behaviour on the road.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> I would cycle daily with proper provision for cyclists though. The main reason I don't like cycling is the amount of agg I get from drivers when riding perfectly legally.



Well yes, me too. There are lots of things I would do more of if they were safer. But banning private cars as a response is an extreme infringement of other's rights not to mention unworkable, a bit like a 6pm curfew for men would be to make the streets safer for women.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think 'not being bellends' is what stops them riding like bellends.


You think wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Well yes, me too. There are lots of things I would do more of if they were safer. But banning private cars as a response is an extreme infringement of other's rights not to mention unworkable, a bit like a 6pm curfew for men would be to make the streets safer for women.


This thread really seems to have caused some kind of red mist to descend where you respond to absolutely everything as if the person you are arguing with wants to ban all cars in all situations, and to do so in some sort of context where nothing else changes at the same time.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> When there are a large number of individual cyclists in a video (not in a group or in a race), we can use that as sample data, and there is a measurable probability that the sample statistics are good estimates of the population parameters, so when almost every rider in a given video is riding dangerously, then it's safe to assume that the vast majority of bike riders ride like bellends.


YouTube videos are not a random sample.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> What part of my post is nonsense?


All of it.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Well yes, me too. There are lots of things I would do more of if they were safer. But banning private cars as a response is an extreme infringement of other's rights not to mention unworkable, a bit like a 6pm curfew for men would be to make the streets safer for women.


In what sense is driving a right? And even if it were it demands regulation and control because driving will always involve infringing other people's rights in some way.


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> All of it.


Wow. Well argued. I'll take that as an admission of defeat then.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This thread really seems to have caused some kind of red mist to descend where you respond to absolutely everything as if the person you are arguing with wants to ban all cars in all situations, and to do so in some sort of context where nothing else changes at the same time.



There are lots of people calling for a total ban on private cars, yet no one has come up with any feasible context where that could actually happen. Stuff like "everyone could cycle and use buses and live in cities" isn't something that's going to work or that anyone beyond a few nutters actually wants.

If you have a vision of being able to cycle around without ever being able to encounter a Ronnie Pickering you're going to have to come up with a process to achieve that which is capable of convincing the majority of people.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> In what sense is driving a right? And even if it were it demands regulation and control because driving will always involve infringing other people's rights in some way.



It's a de facto right as is being able to cycle, both appropriately regulated and controlled, and neither currently outlawable in a democracy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Wow. Well argued. I'll take that as an admission of defeat then.


Why?


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Why?


You've given up arguing. You did a long time ago tbf.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Stuff like "everyone could cycle and use buses and live in cities" isn't something that's going to work or that anyone beyond a few nutters actually wants.



Here you go, arguing against something no-one's said. Red mist again.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here you go, arguing against something no-one's said. Red mist again.



If the search function here wasn't so crap I'd show you were wrong, but you'll just have to take my word for it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There are lots of people calling for a total ban on private cars, yet no one has come up with any feasible context where that could actually happen. Stuff like "everyone could cycle and use buses and live in cities" isn't something that's going to work or that anyone beyond a few nutters actually wants.
> 
> If you have a vision of being able to cycle around without ever being able to encounter a Ronnie Pickering you're going to have to come up with a process to achieve that which is capable of convincing the majority of people.


A ban on private cars in city centres - with suitable exceptions for a small number of individuals/groups - is entirely workable, and really doesn’t require much imagination.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If the search function here wasn't so crap I'd show you were wrong, but you'll just have to take my word for it.


It's not the search function that's your problem. I've read the whole thread. No-one's said what you are imagining they have.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A ban on private cars in city centres - with suitable exceptions for a small number of individuals/groups - is entirely workable, and really doesn’t require much imagination.



Pedestrian zones are nothing new. That's not what is being advocated though.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's a de facto right


What does that even mean?

It's a privilege that's offered to a certain portion of the population, and one which can be withdrawn. That's why you have to have a license, and that's why there are some people who by law are not allowed to drive.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

Not sure I want to spend more of my Sunday afternoon arguing with fundamentalist extremists actually.

Also need to get on with sorting a car to borrow for a couple of weeks.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian zones are nothing new. That's not what is being advocated though.


Correct. What’s being advocated is the removal of all but a small number of privately owned cars from city centres, replacing them with sustainable alternatives.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What does that even mean?
> 
> It's a privilege that's offered to a certain portion of the population, and one which can be withdrawn. That's why you have to have a license, and that's why there are some people who by law are not allowed to drive.



That's a frequently trotted out argument but it's wrong. Just because something is licensable doesn't mean it's not a right. For example many US states (although a declining number) require firearms licences, despite gun ownership being a right.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's a frequently trotted out argument but it's wrong. Just because something is licensable doesn't mean it's not a right. For example many US states (although a declining number) require firearms licences, despite gun ownership being a right.


I get it, we'll take your car from your cold dead hands.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've given up arguing. You did a long time ago tbf.


I’m playing cricket


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I’m playing cricket


If you play as badly as you argue it's no wonder you're sitting down.  Enjoy your cucumber sandwiches.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2021)

Just look at it. How can anyone possibly see a city like this and not want theirs to be the same?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

Meanwhile, in the countryside...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> If you play as badly as you argue  ...


 I wasn’t arguing. If I wanted to do that I’d make an effort. This is a game I play with you. See how many keystrokes I can get out of you for the fewest of my own.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Meanwhile, in the countryside...



So you think taking the piss out of a wanton and furious cyclist is out of order but you fully condone a farmer knocking a bloke over with the bucket of a digger?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> So you think taking the piss out of a wanton and furious cyclist is out of order but you fully condone a farmer knocking a bloke over with the bucket of a digger?


I guess the farmer just hadn’t seen him. He really should have given the digger a bit more room. If only he’d been wearing hiviz and a helmet...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

The changes we need in our cities aren’t even that complicated:


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I guess the farmer just hadn’t seen him. If only he’d been wearing hiviz and a helmet...


Condoning attempted murder. Shameful. I bet maomao agrees with you too.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The changes we need in our cities aren’t even that complicated:



That sort of thing is being done all over the U.K. (I remember it being done in Epsom, in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, in Edinburgh, and other places) I spent time in when I lived there.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Condoning attempted murder. Shameful. I bet maomao agrees with you too.


He’d kicked the digger. And was on a road. Clearly it was his fault. The poor farmer probably felt threatened.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

dessiato said:


> That sort of thing is being done all over the U.K. (I remember it being done in Epsom, in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, in Edinburgh, and other places) I spent time in when I lived there.


It’s being done in odd places as a token gesture by various councils. We need more...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He’d kicked the digger. And was on a road. Clearly it was his fault. The poor farmer probably felt threatened.


I'm not surprised that someone like you thinks this. As I said, maomao will think the same.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> So you think taking the piss out of a wanton and furious cyclist is out of order but you fully condone a farmer knocking a bloke over with the bucket of a digger?


Yes. Funny and well-deserved.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. Funny and well-deserved.


I knew I could bring you round to our way of thinking.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I knew I could bring you round to our way of thinking.


That was always my way of thinking.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> That was always my way of thinking.


Nonsense.


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> So you think taking the piss out of a wanton and furious cyclist is out of order but you fully condone a farmer knocking a bloke over with the bucket of a digger?



It's not a digger and has no bucket.


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2021)

Car drivers always pretend they have the interests of the farmer at heart, but all they care about is being able to drive fast on the roads those farmers need, endangering their animals. They know nothing of agricultural vehicles.

It's what you expect from Tories I suppose.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2021)

It's as stupid to pretend that speeding roadies on country lanes pose no threat or cause no damage as it is stupid to pretend that a lot of car drivers aren't aggressive arseholes behind the wheel on those same roads.  A pox on all their houses.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Meanwhile, in the countryside...




Holy crap. There must be some interesting "previously" to this


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Holy crap. There must be some interesting "previously" to this


“Move your car”

“No”

“OK then...”


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Holy crap. There must be some interesting "previously" to this


Yes. There must be a reason the bloke's parked on the farm lane. It looks like he's blocked it on purpose and the farmer has fucked him off, but that hasn't come out of nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if they're related


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

I reckon they are both car owners which would explain the kind of behaviour we see.

I've never seen a non car owner knock someone over with a farm vehicle.


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. There must be a reason the bloke's parked on the farm lane. It looks like he's blocked it on purpose and the farmer has fucked him off, but that hasn't come out of nowhere. I wouldn't be surprised if they're related



It’s pretty common in the countryside - tourists from the cities think of farm access gates as convenient parking spaces.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

Cid said:


> It’s pretty common in the countryside - tourists from the cities think of farm access gates as convenient parking spaces.


He's half way down the track though. Well inside the gate when the fun starts.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 7, 2021)

heh, seems this was near Barnard Castle, so maybe he thought it was Dom's motor?


----------



## Cid (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's half way down the track though. Well inside the gate when the fun starts.



Ah, on review that’s not a track - minor road by the looks of things. The gate opens onto it. About 36 seconds in.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

Be interested to know how much that ended up costing the farmer.

The insurers of the car will be going for the jugular and I expect he'll get his collar felt too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

Very little sympathy for either tbh. One’s a car driver, the other almost certainly voted for Brexit.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.


Guff.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Be interested to know how much that ended up costing the farmer.
> 
> The insurers of the car will be going for the jugular and I expect he'll get his collar felt too.



Not necessarily. Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides lawful excuses for criminal damage. This includes:

 "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
(i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
(ii)that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

...so for a farmer if he was awaiting movement of sick livestock, or was preparing for a time-critical harvest etc, this could be a valid defence. The CPS even states this clause "has been interpreted widely so that the proximity between the act of damage by the perpetrator and the damage he seeks to prevent may be remote, and the causal link tenuous."


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> the proximity between the act of damage by the perpetrator and the damage he seeks to prevent may be remote, and the causal link tenuous."


Right. I'm off to key some paintwork and slash some tyres.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Right. I'm off to key some paintwork and slash some tyres.



Banter about sabotaging car tyres is fine is it? 



teuchter said:


> Just a bit of lighthearted banter about speeding!
> 
> Who cares if it actually kills and injures people and who cares if people reading this thread will have friends or family who have lost their lives or had their lives irretrievably altered by the consequences of people using rural roads as racetracks.
> 
> All just a bit of fun though. Got a reaction from me, so great work.





teuchter said:


> Maybe we can have some jokey banter about school shootings next.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not necessarily. Section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides lawful excuses for criminal damage. This includes:
> 
> "in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed—
> (i)that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
> ...


Yeah but he'd need to convince a court that the action was reasonable. Given that the driver is standing next to him, presumably with the keys in his pocket, I'm not sure he could. The worst bit is knocking the bloke over at the end. People have done time for less. Remember the fellow who got 5 years for smashing up that Travelodge reception? And he didn't knock anyone over.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Banter about sabotaging car tyres is fine is it?


I think so yes. Are you worried that car drivers are so dopey that they'd drive off without noticing I've slashed all their tyres and have an accident or something?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think so yes. Are you worried that car drivers are so dopey that they'd drive off without noticing I've slashed all their tyres and have an accident or something?



I am more interested in seeing the video of one big motherfucker catching you slashing his tyres, TBH.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 7, 2021)

We were talking about Richmond park a few pages back.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think so yes. Are you worried that car drivers are so dopey that they'd drive off without noticing I've slashed all their tyres and have an accident or something?



Oh right, I thought such banter encouraged othering and led to more general violence on the road, but perhaps it was one of other car-abolitionists on this thread who said that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> We were talking about Richmond park a few pages back.




Not trying hard enough with the cyclists.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> We were talking about Richmond park a few pages back.




Those statistics of course bear no relation to the actual number of offences committed or number of dangerous actions taken by drivers and cyclists. They are especially meaningless given that all but a handful of the driver offences will be for parking, for which there is no cyclist equivalent.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> I am more interested in seeing the video of one big motherfucker catching you slashing his tyres, TBH.


Back when I was an irresponsible youth a friends house backed onto a pub carpark. We used to take great delight in letting as many tyres down as we could  Only got busted once, think it was the fastest I’ve ever run in my life


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Oh right, I thought such banter encouraged othering and led to more general violence on the road, but perhaps it was one of other car-abolitionists on this thread who said that.



Because obviously minor property damage and violence against the person are in some way comparable.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because obviously minor property damage and violence against the person are in some way comparable.



So drivers threatening to slash bike tyres is top bantz about minor damage, and won’t engender a drivers vs cyclists environment leading to greater conflict and violence on the roads? Good to know.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Oh right, I thought such banter encouraged othering and led to more general violence on the road, but perhaps it was one of other car-abolitionists on this thread who said that.


I objected to the banter about speeding on rural roads because people getting killed by speeding vehicles is a real thing that kills real people, as in actual real people are killed by it. Many people who live in rural areas or have family in  rural areas will have had direct experience of this and live with it as a constant background worry. Likewise, many cyclists will have had experience of their safety being directly threatened by vehicles on the roads and might know people who've been killed or had life changing injuries as a result. Again many people live with the background worry that their parent or partner or child is not going to come home that day because of something that happens on the road.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that many motorists live in a state of anxiety that an "abolitionist" off the internet is going to come and damage their car. And even if they did, no-ones life or safety would be being threatened.

I hope this helps you understand some very basic concepts related to views on boundaries of what is or isn't ok to joke about.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So drivers threatening to slash bike tyres is top bantz about minor damage, and won’t engender a drivers vs cyclists environment leading to greater conflict and violence on the roads? Good to know.


Yes with the minor proviso that there was no 'threatening'. That's your hyperbole.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Right. I'm off to key some paintwork and slash some tyres.


On reflection, I realise that in the time since I posted this, many car owners across the UK have been standing anxiously next to their motors ready to protect them and hoping that I don't show up with firearms or a "violent bike gang".

So I should apologise for all the trauma caused.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

This idea that stabbing up car tyres isn’t dangerous is simply wrong. I suppose if someone slit all four tyres and let the air out it would be obvious and the driver wouldn’t drive off, but most militant cyclists would be too feeble and scared to do much more than hack away at one tyre with their shitty penknife, potentially leading to a blow-out at speed and killing numerous members of families.


----------



## klang (Jun 7, 2021)

fire starters on car tyres are much more effective and give plenty of time to calmly walk away.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This idea that stabbing up car tyres isn’t dangerous is simply wrong. I suppose if someone slit all four tyres and let the air out it would be obvious and the driver wouldn’t drive off, but most militant cyclists would be too feeble and scared to do much more than hack away at one tyre with their shitty penknife, potentially leading to a blow-out at speed and killing numerous members of families.


This is why I stick to keying them and smashing the fucking headlights.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> This is why I stick to keying them and smashing the fucking headlights.



I know cyclists don’t like lights but taking that out on cars seems a bit extreme.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This idea that stabbing up car tyres isn’t dangerous is simply wrong. I suppose if someone slit all four tyres and let the air out it would be obvious and the driver wouldn’t drive off, but most militant cyclists would be too feeble and scared to do much more than hack away at one tyre with their shitty penknife, potentially leading to a blow-out at speed and killing numerous members of families.


Slashing is different from stabbing. No-one's proposed to stab any tyres.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I know cyclists don’t like lights but taking that out on cars seems a bit extreme.


I only do the indicators, which drivers never use anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I know cyclists don’t like lights but taking that out on cars seems a bit extreme.



Don't be daft. The Dalai Lama's fucked over more motors than this lot. The closest any of these wallies have got to slashing tyres or keying cars is wanking over vids of it on here!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft. The Dalai Lama's fucked over more motors than this lot. The closest any of these wallies have got to slashing tyres or keying cars is wanking over vids of it on here!


teuchter will be unboxing one of his unopened Matchbox cars now, and scraping the key to his lunch box down the side of it,  just to prove you wrong.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 7, 2021)

Edit: sadly been done already


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

From this evening's stroll... Here's what happens when you let car owners make decisions for themselves. I think it must be a privately owned street. The car owners have decided that their convenience, sadly, just has to override the needs of anyone with mobility issues, anyone in a wheelchair, anyone pushing a buggy or pulling a trolley or with a sight impairment. They've thought it all through and no doubt it was a difficult decision, but unfortunately needs must.

They are free of the restrictions imposed by the state that apply to most streets. They'd like everywhere to be like this, a free for all, only the strongest survive. No more of their taxes wasted on traffic wardens and so on. They'd get rid of the NHS too and go to their private hospitals with giant car parks positioned far away from public transport so that they didn't have to mix with the wrong type of people. They would shoot all old people, because they take too long to cross the road, and complain too much if you run then over.

I bet some people who post on this thread live on this street. Or maybe they live round the corner and just park here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 7, 2021)

Imagine that, being able to park where you want on your own property! Next thing you know those cunts will be deciding for themselves what they want to eat! Won't somebody think of imaginary people who might trespass onto their property with a pram!


----------



## kabbes (Jun 8, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Imagine that, being able to park where you want on your own property! Next thing you know those cunts will be deciding for themselves what they want to eat! Won't somebody think of imaginary people who might trespass onto their property with a pram!


I don’t think you know what “trespass” and/or “private road” mean.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 272405
> 
> View attachment 272406


“Fed up residents take novel approach to combat pavement cycling”.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Imagine that, being able to park where you want on your own property! Next thing you know those cunts will be deciding for themselves what they want to eat! Won't somebody think of imaginary people who might trespass onto their property with a pram!


Rule 244. You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the *pavement* in *London*, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. *Parking* on the *pavement* can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.

You probably never got that far in the HIghway Code.

A twat in my road has the only house with a garage. Unfortunately his garage is full of junk, no room for a car and he decided this meant he was allowed to park on his 'drive' across the pavement. This was two years ago when my littlest was in a pram, his house is right on the corner and I'd have to go in the street with a baby in pram essentially nto a blind corner. He got daily tickets and somehow managed to contest them in court (fuck knows how, must have been some technicality because he was definitely not allowed to park there). I can't tell you how I got him to move it in the end because Spymaster will claim that I'm lying. Proper lazy fucker too. It's been nearly two years; I would have t-cut it myself by now.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Rule 244. You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the *pavement* in *London*, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it.



That's not London though.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That's not London though.


Where is it then? teuchter lives in London and said he walked there.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Where is it then? teuchter lives in London and said he walked there.



Bradford.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Where is it then? teuchter lives in London and said he walked there.


Somewhere not London. No one would routinely park like that in London and still expect their car to be there when they got back. Pavement (or at least partial-pavement) parking is allowed in some places, even in London. There are signs and road markings though and those pavements don't have them.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 8, 2021)

It's Bradford and an unadopted street that doesn't go anywhere.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bradford.


I know Bradford (my dad's hometown) and ime wouldn't have to walk far to see that or worse. Pavement parking outside London is a scourge and a nightmare for the disabled and non drivers with small kids. And just annoying and unsightly for those of us who aren't lazy twats and might want to walk somewhere once in a while.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I know Bradford (my dad's hometown) and ime wouldn't have to walk far to see that or worse. Pavement parking outside London is a scourge and a nightmare for the disabled and non drivers with small kids. And just annoying and unsightly for those of us who aren't lazy years and might want to walk somewhere once in a while.



Whilst this is true and moves are afoot to adopt the London model elsewhere, I doubt you’d need to walk do walk down Broad Street in Bradford, the one tooch claims to have strolled to, as it is a dead end street.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

I'm not sure what being a dead end's got to do with it. You think if a young mum who needs to push s buggy moves into the bottom house all those cunts are going to move?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

It's a national disgrace that still in 2020 properly banning it was still up for 'consultation'.









						End pavement parking in England
					

We should all be able to walk on pavements without worrying about vehicles blocking our way.




					www.livingstreets.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

mauvais said:


> It's Bradford and an unadopted street that doesn't go anywhere.


Just all these entrances to buildings.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not sure what being a dead end's got to do with it. You think if a young mum who needs to push s buggy moves into the bottom house all those cunts are going to move?




There are no houses down Broad Street. More to the point though, should your hypothetical young mum with a need to push a buggy down that street appear she can do so with ease as it is a no-through road so not filled with traffic, the cobbles will be her biggest problem, but as someone who lives in a town with cobbled streets I can say that pushing a buggy down them was never a big issue, more a bit bouncy for the brat.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 8, 2021)

Well that's told em...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Well that's told em...
> 
> View attachment 272428




89% lazy fuckers. Walking/cycling not even an option


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 89% lazy fuckers. Walking/cycling not even an option


No surprise that it crossed no-ones mind at the BMW death machine PR department.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No surprise that it crossed no-ones mind at the BMW death machine PR department.




BMW is a bicycle manufacturer; Bicycles | BMW Accessories | BMW UK

Probably just had some frothing, single-issue-nutjob like you on the case.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 8, 2021)

At the risk of agreeing with teuchter on something I do think that parking on the pavement should be banned, there also needs to be a lot more banning of parking on the street where it narrows the road to the point where 2 vehicles can't easily pass.
As for Broad St in Bradford, if it's unadopted then its effectively private property and no different from a car park and it's down to the companies based there or their landlord (since I presume they probably rent the space) to decide what restrictions they want to impose (or not) on parking.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> BMW is a bicycle manufacturer; Bicycles | BMW Accessories | BMW UK
> 
> Probably just had some frothing, single-issue-nutjob like you on the case.


Are any of them proper bicycles or are they all pedal assisted motorbikes?

Also but hard to get past the Nazi/Jimmy Savile connections with BMW whatever the type of vehicle.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Are any of them proper bicycles or are they all pedal assisted motorbikes?
> 
> Also but hard to get past the Nazi/Jimmy Savile connections with BMW whatever the type of vehicle.




Mixture of analogue and e-assist bikes.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 8, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> At the risk of agreeing with teuchter on something I do think that parking on the pavement should be banned, there also needs to be a lot more banning of parking on the street where it narrows the road to the point where 2 vehicles can't easily pass.
> As for Broad St in Bradford, if it's unadopted then its effectively private property and no different from a car park and it's down to the companies based there or their landlord (since I presume they probably rent the space) to decide what restrictions they want to impose (or not) on parking.



Agree about parking on pavements but historically parked cars have been used as a means of traffic calming.  The less space the slower the traffic moves.  Obviously there can be a negative side to that as well.

As for unadopted roads they are bit of issue for many reasons and there are a lot of grey areas in the law around them.  I should know as I live on one.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> As for Broad St in Bradford, if it's unadopted then its effectively private property and no different from a car park and it's down to the companies based there or their landlord (since I presume they probably rent the space) to decide what restrictions they want to impose (or not) on parking.


That's kind of the point of my post though; it shows the selfish behaviour motorists will default to if they are not actively policed.

In any case, whoever is responsible for managing the land ought to be doing so in a way that maintains accessibility and they are completely failing to do so. Doesn't matter if you want to designate it as a car park - you still have to provide safe and equitable access to all the building entrances. Plus there should be some provision for disabled parking.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Mixture of analogue and e-assist bikes.


Not sure what an e-assist bike is. Pedal assisted motorbikes have been around for donkeys years, it's what the word moped originally referred to. Making the engines electric doesn't actually change anything.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Now I'm in Carlisle and just watched someone on a mobility scooter have to shout at a driver who'd stopped on a pedestrian crossing to get out of the way, just so that they could get across the street while a green man was showing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not sure what an e-assist bike is. Pedal assisted motorbikes have been around for donkeys years, it's what the word moped originally referred to. Making the engines electric doesn't actually change anything.



E-assist is what's known as an e-bike, it does exactly what it says, the e(lectric engine) assists the pedalling. Unlike a motorbike an e-assist bike stops if you don't pedal. An electric motorbike is just that, a motorbike with an electric engine, no pedalling needed. But when people talk of e-bikes they mean electrically assisted bikes, which basically take the sting out of hills.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> E-assist is what's known as an e-bike, it does exactly what it says, the e(lectric engine) assists the pedalling. Unlike a motorbike an e-assist bike stops if you don't pedal. An electric motorbike is just that, a motorbike with an electric engine, no pedalling needed. But when people talk of e-bikes they mean electrically assisted bikes, which basically take the sting out of hills.


Motorised bicycle/motorbike. Same difference.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now I'm in Carlisle and just watched someone on a mobility scooter have to shout at a driver who'd stopped on a pedestrian crossing to get out of the way, just so that they could get across the street while a green man was showing.


If they'd called it Bikelisle it might never have happened.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 8, 2021)

The actions of this driver wanker have brought an entire rail system down.









						Car in collision with Hastings miniature railway
					

The Hastings miniature railway was closed briefly this afternoon (Monday, June 7) after a car was involved in a collision with the train.




					www.hastingsobserver.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Motorised bicycle/motorbike. Same difference.



Motorised bicycle (basically illegal in the UK)




Original moped (needs licence, insurance etc in the UK)




E-bike (same rules apply as for regular pedal bicycle)




hth


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> The actions of this driver wanker have brought an entire rail system down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That car's fookin' massive!


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Motorised bicycle (basically illegal in the UK)
> View attachment 272463
> 
> 
> ...


They're all basically the same thing though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Motorised bicycle/motorbike. Same difference.


No, completely different. Ebikes are brilliant.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> They're all basically the same thing though.




The first two you twist a throttle and off they go. An e-bike goes nowhere unless you pedal, and should you stop pedalling it stops moving.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The first two you twist a throttle and off they go. An e-bike goes nowhere unless you pedal, and should you stop pedalling it stops moving.


I bet I could get it to move with the assistance of the engine and without pedalling.


----------



## A380 (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That car's fookin' massive!
> 
> View attachment 272467


No, the train’s just far away.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I bet I could get it to move with the assistance of the engine and without pedalling.


Nope. Seriously, go Google them. They are fantastic and will form a huge part of sustainable urban transport in the future.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nope. Seriously, go Google them. They are fantastic and will form a huge part of sustainable urban transport in the future.


I could though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I could though.


Well I could probably graft the engine from a Honda Fireblade onto a kids trike, it wouldn’t make it a good idea or even remotely practical.

You got this wrong, admit it, learn, move on.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well I could probably graft the engine from a Honda Fireblade onto a kids trike, it wouldn’t make it a good idea or even remotely practical.
> 
> You got this wrong, admit it, learn, move on.


Without modification.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Without modification.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>


I'm clearly on a wind up but I'm also completely right. Without modification or pedalling I can make that bike move with the assistance of the engine and battery.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> If they'd called it Bikelisle it might never have happened.


I wouldn't be surprised if that was the original name until furious motorists demanded it was changed in the 50s. I'll just go and check Wikipedia.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> We could also explain the physics of a bicycle at 20mph vs a car doing the same speed...


So motorcycles should be granted the same privilege as pushbikes in 20 mph zones then, given that they are orders of magnitude lighter than cars and vans 

Alternatively, motorcycles could continue to be subject to speed limits as they are now, but granted access to NIMBY LTN zones. It is idiotic and nonsensical to put bikes in the same category as cars and vans/ trucks when applying street restrictions. Not everywhere of course, I wouldn't want bikes to be allowed on fully pedestrianised zones (then again nor should push bikes). But excluding motorbikes from NIMBY LTN zones is certainly putting pedestrians at additional risk outside of those zones, at least those who insist on behaving like zombie lemmings when crossing gridlocked streets, which unfortunately it's upwards of 75% of them IME.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well I could probably graft the engine from a Honda Fireblade onto a kids trike ...



Sounds like a job for Saul Goodman


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm clearly on a wind up but I'm also completely right. Without modification or pedalling I can make that bike move with the assistance of the engine and battery.



Chuck it off a cliff, a la Quadrophenia where Jimmy doesn't kill himself.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Chuck it off a cliff, a la Quadrophenia where Jimmy doesn't kill himself.


Nope. Wheels turning. On a road.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nope. Wheels turning. On a road.



The motor cuts out at 15mph, the log on mine recorded...



So it’s no biggie...


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The motor cuts out at 15mph, the log on mine recorded...
> 
> View attachment 272474
> 
> So it’s no biggie...


And faster than that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> And faster than that.




Any faster would be wanton and furious. As a car driver my main instinct is to stay within the law.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> So motorcycles should be granted the same privilege as pushbikes in 20 mph zones then, given that they are orders of magnitude lighter than cars and vans


Nope. A motorcycle is still way heavier than a bike, and likely to be travelling at greater speeds.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Any faster would be wanton and furious. As a car driver my main instinct is to stay within the law.



maomao definitely strikes me as a wanton and furious dude.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nope. A motorcycle is still way heavier than a bike, and likely to be travelling at greater speeds.


A 50cc small bike is heavier than a pushbike of course, but realistically you're going to be similary hurt by a bicyclist running into you at 20 mph as you would by a 50 cc scooterist at the same speed, even if the former has a combined mass of 95 kg and the latter 140 kg. They are broadly similar. If being hit above 20 mph by a mass of 140 kg is an unnacceptable risk, then sure as fuck so it is being hit by a 90 kg mass.

But even if you still objected to that, surely you would still have to admit that ebikes should be subject to such speed limits, becaue they are certainly a lot heavier than pushbikes, and a fat bloke on an ebike will probably weight just about as much as a small person on a silly 50cc scooter.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> that they are orders of magnitude lighter than cars and vans


Not orders of magnitude lighter unless you're comparing the lightest motorbikes with heavier cars. Even then maybe a single order of magnitude. Maybe check you know what words mean before using them in conversation.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> maomao definitely strikes me as a wanton and furious dude.


Furious cause my wontons are cold maybe.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not orders of magnitude lighter unless you're comparing the lightest motorbikes with heavier cars. Even then maybe a single order of magnitude. *Maybe check you know what words mean before using them in conversation.*


Says the man who endorses the term "death machines" to describe cars


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Says the man who endorses the term "death machines" to describe cars


They are machines that kill millions a year. It would only be slightly hyperbolic if I had actually ever used it. Whereas 'order of magnitude' has a specific mathematical meaning that you clearly don't know.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> They are machines that kill millions a year. It would only be slightly hyperbolic if I had actually ever used it. Whereas 'order of magnitude' has a specific mathematical meaning that you clearly don't know.


I am perfectly aware of its meaning. Good to see that you (or those in your camp) are allowed to use fucking ludicrious hyperboles, but others are not.

And kindly stick your attempts at condescension up your fucking arse, eh? There's a good lad.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> I am perfectly aware of its meaning. Good to see that you (or those in your camp) are allowed to use fucking ludicrious hyperboles, but others are not.
> 
> And kindly stick your attempts at condescension up your fucking arse, eh? There's a good lad.


It's not me that's being condescending. It's you that's thick.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's not me that's being condescending. It's you that's thick.


Being called thick by you it's rather like being lectured about children’s welfare by Jimmy Savile. Either way, cunt the fuck off. Seriously. Whatever weird obsession or grudge has prompted you to unleash the torrent of abuse you have showered me with for the last few days, just cunt the fuck off if you can't play nice.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> A 50cc small bike is heavier than a pushbike of course, but realistically you're going to be similary hurt by a bicyclist running into you at 20 mph as you would by a 50 cc scooterist at the same speed, even if the former has a combined mass of 95 kg and the latter 140 kg. They are broadly similar. If being hit above 20 mph by a mass of 140 kg is an unnacceptable risk, then sure as fuck so it is being hit by a 90 kg mass.
> 
> But even if you still objected to that, surely you would still have to admit that ebikes should be subject to such speed limits, becaue they are certainly a lot heavier than pushbikes, and a fat bloke on an ebike will probably weight just about as much as a small person on a silly 50cc scooter.


The goalposts are now moved from motorbike to 'silly 50cc scooter'. What speed are they limited to? If it's 20mph maybe we could consider your case. The other problem is their ridiculous noise pollution levels though. Why not just get an e-bike instead?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

We need Orang Utan back on this thread


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Being called thick by you it's rather like being lectured about children’s welfare by Jimmy Savile. Either way, cunt the fuck off. Seriously. Whatever weird obsession or grudge has prompted use to unleash the torrent of abuse you have graced me with for the last few days, just cunt the fuck off if you can't play nice.


You started the abuse with fuck all reason. As far as I'm concerned that gives me a license to cunt you off indefinitely. Just for kicks. 

Plus you are genuinely thick as two short planks which makes it funny.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Being called thick by you it's rather like being lectured about children’s welfare by Jimmy Savile. Either way, cunt the fuck off. Seriously. Whatever weird obsession or grudge has prompted you to unleash the torrent of abuse you have showered me with for the last few days, just cunt the fuck off if you can't play nice.


The thing is, most of the others on this thread trying (and failing) to counter the anti car propaganda are fairly obviously making overinflated arguments for comic effect. With you it seems like you're actually serious. I think that's why you come across as a bit stupid. I'd recommend ramping up the exaggeration a little, to signal to your audience that you don't actually believe the rubbish you're writing.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The thing is, most of the others on this thread trying (and failing) to counter the anti car propaganda are fairly obviously making overinflated arguments for comic effect. With you it seems like you're actually serious. I think that's why you come across as a bit stupid. I'd recommend ramping up the exaggeration a little, to signal to your audience that you don't actually believe the rubbish you're writing.


A bit?


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> You started the abuse with fuck all reason. As far as I'm concerned that gives me a license to cunt you off indefinitely. Just for kicks.
> 
> Plus you are genuinely thick as two short planks which makes it funny.


When did I do that, cunt face?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

I reckon cunt-face should be hyphenated


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon cunt-face should be hyphenated


Evidence of my intellectual shortcomings


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> When did I do that, cunt face?


1,967 I think. But you've been extremely annoying since well before then.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon cunt-face should be hyphenated


Single word. Cuntface.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Single word. Cuntface.


It's not an official scrabble word.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Single word. Cuntface.




Same as butthead.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's not an official scrabble word.




Butthead is.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> 1,967 I think. But you've been extremely annoying since well before then.


You do realise that post 1,967 was in direct response to (your) post 1,966, right? Which, er... would make _you_ the initiator of the abuse. I know I am pretty thick and all of that, but I'm still quite certain that 1,966 comes before 1,967.

Perhaps we can re-join school together to see if we can both boost our brain power at the same time. I'm not giving you a lift, though.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

2,503 posts now.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> You do realise that post 1,967 was in direct response to (your) post 1,966, right? Which, er... would make _you_ the initiator of the abuse. I know I am pretty thick and all of that, but I'm still quite certain that 1,966 comes before 1,967.
> 
> Perhaps we can re-join school together to see if we can both boost our brain power at the same time. I'm not giving you a lift, though.


Nope. A dig for using the phrase no-brainer and an accusation of being lazy don't warrant out and out pointless abuse. I'll use them to justify years of the same though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> 2,503 posts now.




To celebrate why not treat yourself to one of these?


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> To celebrate why not treat yourself to one of these?
> 
> 
> View attachment 272495


I think he'll struggle to find one of them to set fire to in Carlisle.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> To celebrate why not treat yourself to one of these?
> 
> 
> View attachment 272495


How much does it cost?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think he'll struggle to find one of them to set fire to in Carlisle.


Decided to leave Carlisle because of the name. I'm in Scotland now. Much better.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Evidence of my intellectual shortcomings



Don't worry, you're not as thick as maomao. Someone told him to cycle 50 miles a day for a week to keep fit and he's now 350 miles from home.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How much does it cost?



£750k.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nope. A dig for using the phrase no-brainer and an accusation of being lazy don't warrant out and out pointless abuse. I'll use them to justify years of the same though.


Fuck me, your understanding of the English language and what constitutes abuse are surprisingly poor for someone who likes to acusse others of being thick.

Still, bring it on. Let's try to out-cunt each other, what better use of this thread?


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

Still, it's your loss maomao . I could have been persuaded to give you a lift to the adult education centre in one of these... I don't think I will now.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> £750k.


I'm just going to go on the Orient express 100 times instead I think.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm just going to go on the Orient express 100 times instead I think.



Knowing the kind of people who gravitate towards that tasteless, fakery laden mode of transport I am not in the least surprised you'd happily go 100 times, full of swingers and dogging enthusiasts.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Knowing the kind of people who gravitate towards that tasteless, fakery laden mode of transport I am not in the least surprised you'd happily go 100 times, full of swingers and dogging enthusiasts.


Still better than being associated with that toy car thing.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Knowing the kind of people who gravitate towards that tasteless, fakery laden mode of transport I am not in the least surprised you'd happily go 100 times, full of swingers and dogging enthusiasts.


Upper class swingers and dogging enthusiasts, at that.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

Unlike the salt-of-the-earth affable types you get in a fucking Lambo.


----------



## Cid (Jun 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> To celebrate why not treat yourself to one of these?
> 
> 
> View attachment 272495



Jesus that's hideous.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Fuck me, your understanding of the English language and what constitutes abuse are surprisingly poor for someone who likes to acusse others of being thick.
> 
> Still, bring it on. Let's try to out-cunt each other, what better use of this thread?


I may have confused you with someone else because I thought it went back further than that. But I'm going to double down on it anyway car scum.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> I may have confused you with someone else because I thought it went back further than that. But I'm going to double down on it anyway car scum.


Oh dear, dear, dear... 

This must be a little bit embarrassing, eh?

You've missed the 'not', in "But I'm going to double down on it anyway car scum.", by the way.


----------



## maomao (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> This must be a little bit embarrassing, eh?


Not really. You're definitely a thick wanker so no harm done.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not really. You're definitely a thick wanker so no harm done.


I think it’s been made very clear who the thick wanker is


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2021)

Anyway, has teuchter made it to Scotland yet? It seems to be taking forever. He would probably have got there earlier by car. Or if he’d flown, he’d be on his fifth single malt Scotch at the hotel bar already.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Anyway, has teuchter made it to Scotland yet? It seems to be taking forever. He would probably have got there earlier by car. Or if he’d flown, he’d be on his fifth single malt Scotch at the hotel bar already.


Currently enjoying a nice cup of tea rolling along the Highland Main Line thanks. Not everyone understands the pleasures of deliberately taking one's time on a journey but I try not to look down on them too much.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Currently enjoying a nice cup of tea rolling along the Highland Main Line thanks. Not everyone understands the pleasures of deliberately taking one's time on a journey but I try not to look down on them too much.


Do you think motorists don't slow down whilst partaking of a cheeky snifter?
And Remy XO trumps Tetley, so you may find you're mistaken about who's looking down on whom.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2021)

Meanwhile, in Inverness


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 9, 2021)

Notice all the locals have fled since they heard you were in town.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 11, 2021)

Yet another car-berating two-wheeler fails to heed his own rage-addled advice:


----------



## maomao (Jun 14, 2021)

After all the faux horror at the thought that people might use public roads for exercise look at these cunts:









						Two boy racers who left 19 injured after crashing into crowd jailed
					

Shocking footage from the unauthorised event captured the cars colliding then veering into crowds in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, at the event in July 2019.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




I'm not that bothered about the short jail sentences given that the only people injured were the kind of people who think watching people driving is fun, but for some reason they've only been given temp driving bans, wtf? Why should people who behave in this manner be allowed behind the wheel of a car again?

Turns out that after all the whining about cyclists daring to use a form of transport that makes them fitter and better looking while they travel, the real danger is from motorists who think driving counts as a sport of some sort.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

To be fair the train did come out of nowhere.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> Turns out that after all the whining about cyclists ...



Yes, but as you pointed out before, cyclists _are _talentless twats too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 18, 2021)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 18, 2021)

The menace that is public transport.


----------



## NoXion (Jun 18, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>




Hmmm. Could be one of least two things happening here. Either the car is unable to move and the bus driver is a dick, or the car can move and its owner is the one being a prick. Can't tell which.

Less anti-car propaganda and more pro-"people need to chill the fuck out" propaganda.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2021)

I’m concerned about teuchter ’s radio silence. He was last seen posting in this forum from inside a car of all places, on a scenic drive in the beautiful Scottish countryside. I hope he hasn’t suddenly discovered the joys car travel brings, and switched to the Dark Side…


----------



## Elpenor (Jun 19, 2021)

I hear he's now posting on Pistonheads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 19, 2021)

But vans etc etc


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2021)

maomao said:


> cyclists daring to use a form of transport that makes them fitter and better looking while they travel


----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> View attachment 274321


Imagine how he'd look if he _didn't_ cycle.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> Imagine how he'd look if he _didn't_ cycle.



Yes, good on him for daring to cycle and improve himself, top bloke.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 20, 2021)

Would Urban's car-abolitionists like to see some of this in the UK, instead of 6 month suspended sentences and a £260 fine - just shoot the driver:









						Arizona police shoot driver who crashed into charity bike ride
					

Six cyclists and the suspect are critically injured after the incident at a charity bike ride.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Jun 20, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Would Urban's car-abolitionsits like to see some of this in the UK, instead of 6 month suspended sentences and a £260 fine - just shoot the driver:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would prefer hanging after a trial by jury but better than the UK system.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 20, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Would Urban's car-abolitionsits like to see some of this in the UK, instead of 6 month suspended sentences and a £260 fine - just shoot the driver:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We need roaming police motorcyclists to shoot at the traffic. The American ones used to have their throttles on the left so they could shoot 'n ride.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 20, 2021)

Obviously I won't post videos of the fuckwit cyclists who died, but look at these stupid cunts.


----------



## maomao (Jun 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Obviously I won't post videos of the fuckwit cyclists who died, but look at these stupid cunts.







__





						List of level crossing crashes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Thousands dead and not a bicycle in sight.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 20, 2021)

Meanwhile, in Paris, they’re doing things right.


----------



## Aladdin (Jun 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Meanwhile, in Paris, they’re doing things right.




That will look amazing. 

There's a move here towards "re-wilding". Basically councils are not cutting all grass along verges and in roundabouts. They cut one area only just around edges and leave the rest to grow. 
People in cities who have gardens are also being asked to let nature take over the garden a bit more.
Having a no mow lawn..only cutting it at the end of tje summer...
Planting or encouraging wild flowers etc.









						Re-Wilding & Biodiversity
					

Re-Wilding Ireland




					www.clayplants.ie


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 22, 2021)

Good solid use of cash for a precious 12 minutes saving


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Good solid use of cash for a precious 12 minutes saving




90,000 vehicles a day using it, so saving 18,000 hours every day, plus new cycle routes and crossing points for walkers and horses. Need much more of this


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Good solid use of cash for a precious 12 minutes saving



Strange way of looking at it. I'd say it's an excellent way to spend what Jeff Bezos makes in a few hours, to reduce the CO2 emissions from ~100,000 vehicles a day. It would make the roads safer for everyone, and create employment for many people. 
There aren't many better ways to spend money than to spend it on improving infrastructure.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 22, 2021)

Have people learnt nothing from HS2? It’s not about shaving a few minutes off the journey times it’s about capacity improvements and freeing up routes for local traffic.


----------



## T & P (Jun 22, 2021)

And in the case of motor vehicle traffic, shortening journeys and reducing congestion have additional environmental benefits of course. If anything, it’s the anti-car lot who should be the most enthusiastic backers of such schemes.


----------



## Aladdin (Jun 22, 2021)

Governments need to allow those who can to work from home. People can then choose to live wherever they want and not in expensive built up cities.

Congestion problem pretty much solved.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 24, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

David Clapson said:


>



That's excellent... if you're a fucking stupid gormless cunt. 
Carry on.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's excellent... if you're a fucking stupid gormless cunt.
> Carry on.


Touched a nerve? U OK hun?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

“Cars kill kids” 

Propaganda fail. Any true car abolitionist will be sure to tell you that it’s drivers not cars that kill people. In fact, if any journalist dares mention that a car left the road or hit something, they will invariably be subject to social media outrage from lycra warriors explaining that cars aren’t sentient beings.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 24, 2021)

Guns don't kill people. Guys with mustaches kill people.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2021)

Did that sign walk there by itself?


----------



## blairsh (Jun 24, 2021)

"Honking won't help" sounds like some kind self help group for angry geese.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Touched a nerve? U OK hun?


I'm fine, thanks. I'm just a tad miffed that paedophiles are allowed access to signs... Hun.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

Anyway, child cyclists are for more likely to die per journey and per passenger km than child car passengers, so it's obvious that parents who insist their kids save the planet by riding on busy roads are the real child killers.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway, child cyclists are for more likely to die per journey and per passenger km than child car passengers, so it's obvious that parents who insist their kids save the planet by riding on busy roads are the real child killers.


Surely it's the fuckers filling up the roads with cars that are 'insisting that kids ride on busy roads'.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway, child cyclists are for more likely to die per journey and per passenger km than child car passengers, so it's obvious that parents who insist their kids save the planet by riding on busy roads are the real child killers.


0/10


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2021)

Well done for being the type of cunt that uses child deaths to troll cyclists on the internet though.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> Well done for being the type of cunt that uses child deaths to troll cyclists on the internet though.


It's about the same level as Saul's dribbling projection.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> Well done for being the type of cunt that uses child deaths to troll cyclists on the internet though.



That sign, the tweet, and the post of it on this thread are where the trolling originated. Shame on cyclists for using child deaths in that way.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's about the same level as Saul's dribbling projection.


Oh I put Saul on ignore years ago on the basis that he added nothing of interest to the boards. P’sage is heading the same way.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 24, 2021)

I have to wonder about the mentality of the people behind that sign, do they seriously imagine it will have any impact whatsoever? That even one person will look at it and say 'Yep totally agree with that, tomorrow i will get the bus so I can be trapped in traffic with 50 smelly strangers rather than be trapped on my own'


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 24, 2021)

As someone who cycles, drives, walks and uses public transport everyone is a fucking wanker.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I have to wonder about the mentality of the people behind that sign, do they seriously imagine it will have any impact whatsoever? That even one person will look at it and say 'Yep totally agree with that, tomorrow i will get the bus so I can be trapped in traffic with 50 smelly strangers rather than be trapped on my own'


They certainly would have lost 100% of their target audience the very moment the message 'cars are death machines' flashes up, anyway.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> They certainly would have lost 100% of their target audience the very moment the message 'cars are death machines' flashes up, anyway.


So why do over 1.3 million people a year, nearly quarter of a million of them children, die in traffic accidents? Nothing to do with cars at all of course.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2021)

Are buses death machines too? Because they kill and maim plenty of people in London and across the world too...

And in answer to your question, no, it's nothing to with the cars themselves. It's to do with the consequences to the human body of hard impacts at speed or being crushed by heavy objects, that in most cases were being operated incorrectly or recklessly by humans. In plenty of other occasions it was actually the fault of the victim, while w're at that, but let's not go there for now.

Cars are not machines designed to kill, and calling them 'death machines' is one of the most fucking daft and stupid things ever uttered in the history of mankind, and guaranteed to turn away the very people you are trying to convert.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> So why do over 1.3 million people a year, nearly quarter of a million of them children, die in traffic accidents? Nothing to do with cars at all of course.



Moving about is a hazardous business. I bet the death rate for horse and cart was worse, plenty of people had their brains dashed out on the cobbles.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Moving about is a hazardous business. I bet the death rate for horse and cart was worse, plenty of people had their brains dashed out on the cobbles.


Bet how much?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Bet how much?


My SUV

But you'll need accurate figures for deaths per passenger km from horse and cart to prove me wrong, whereas I get to make my case simply by posting up grisly 19th century inquest reports.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> My SUV
> 
> But you'll need accurate figures for deaths per passenger km from horse and cart to prove me wrong, whereas I get to make my case simply by posting up grisly 19th century inquest reports.


Why? You're the one claiming something counter-intuitive. Plus you'll have to adjust for equivalent safety improvements in other areas of life. And if that was all the evidence you had it would just prove how rare such incidents were that they were worth reporting unlike nowadays when it needs to be particularly grisly to merit mention in the press at all. 

I'm free to pick up the SUV anytime btw.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2021)

Anyways, I challenge anyone who seriously mantains 'death machine' is an appropriate term for cars to declare whether they agree buses can also be described as such, and if they do not, explain why.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2021)

Double-deck death machines. And far more lethal peds and cyclists than cars at that. I knew buses were wrong'uns


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> Oh I put Saul on ignore years ago on the basis that he added nothing of interest to the boards. P’sage is heading the same way.


You read everything I post, because you can't help yourself


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

T & P said:


> Anyways, I challenge anyone who seriously mantains 'death machine' is an appropriate term for cars to declare whether they agree buses can also be described as such, and if they do not, explain why.



Yes, they are, and the safety mitigations necessary aren't possible with a road system that prioritises private cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why? You're the one claiming something counter-intuitive. Plus you'll have to adjust for equivalent safety improvements in other areas of life. And if that was all the evidence you had it would just prove how rare such incidents were that they were worth reporting unlike nowadays when it needs to be particularly grisly to merit mention in the press at all.
> 
> I'm free to pick up the SUV anytime btw.



If you’re not going to attempt to find evidence you’ll just have to take comfort in the fact that I know I’m right.


----------



## nick (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you’re not going to attempt to find evidence you’ll just have to take comfort in the fact that I know I’m right.



Though TBF that could be the Dunning - Kruger effect in action


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you’re not going to attempt to find evidence you’ll just have to take comfort in the fact that I know I’m right.


Given your track record I'm not that bothered whether you think you're right or not. When shall I pick up the SUV?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Given your track record I'm not that bothered whether you think you're right or not. When shall I pick up the SUV?



When you win the bet, unless you want to wait quite a few years until it’s worthless.

The point is that moving about is a risky business, and cars unfairly carry the blame for that at the moment. 

Do you reckon people used to refer to boats as death machines?

List of shipwrecks 
 etc


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> When you win the bet, unless you want to wait quite a few years until it’s worthless.
> 
> The point is that moving about is a risky business, and cars unfairly carry the blame for that at the moment.
> 
> ...


Ah. Well why didn't you say? People used to die in boats. Might as well do away with indicator lights and seatbelts then. 

They don't call you platinum 'often wrong' sage for nothing, do they.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

I don’t see you arguing for safety measures such as seatbelts and indicators though. Using the boats analogy you’d be there in 1849 calling for boats to be banned and replaced with swimming.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> So why do over 1.3 million people a year, nearly quarter of a million of them children, die in traffic accidents? Nothing to do with cars at all of course.


13% of those deaths occur in poor countries which have only 1% of the vehicles. whereas the developed world has 40% of the vehicles and only 7% of the deaths. Poor driver training, lax law enforcement. overcrowding and inadequate maintenance are far more relevant factors than  the simple existence of cars.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t see you arguing for safety measures such as seatbelts and indicators though. Using the boats analogy you’d be there in 1849 calling for boats to banned and replaced with swimming.


I'm not using the boat analogy you are and it doesn't make sense because you've abstracted era and mode of transport. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> 13% of those deaths occur in poor countries which have only 1% of the vehicles. whereas the developed world has 40% of the vehicles and only 7% of the deaths. Poor driver training, lax law enforcement. overcrowding and inadequate maintenance are far more relevant factors than  the simple existence of cars.


So are you saying a) that those people would have died _without_ the existence of cars and/or b) 6-800 child deaths a year (UK alone) is completely acceptable. 600 families utterly ruined. Because you're too good to share space with other people because you think they smell.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> So are you saying a) that those people would have died _without_ the existence of cars and/or b) 6-800 child deaths a year (UK alone) is completely acceptable. 600 families utterly ruined. Because you're too good to share space with other people because you think they smell.


"What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> "What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.


It can't be used to defend 'any' position. It can't for instance be used to defend my position that terrible as they were The Cranberries were significantly better than Oasis. It can only be used in arguments about things that actually do cause significant numbers of child deaths. Like motor transport does. And it's clear you're only fine with reducing deaths when it doesn't inconvenience you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> "What about the children?" is a shit argument and can be used to try and defend any position. All in favour of reducing road traffic deaths but yes at the end of the day banning cars isn't an acceptable route to preventing them.


Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK. 
I wonder how we could prevent this...


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK.
> I wonder how we could prevent this...


We could reduce it considerably by banning private cars. Glad you're finally beginning to see the light.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> We could reduce it considerably by banning private cars. Glad you're finally beginning to see the light.


We could reduce it 100% by banning bikes.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK.
> I wonder how we could prevent this...


I think these are the US figures btw.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> We could reduce it 100% by banning bikes.


Really? What other health impacts might banning cycling have?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Really? What other health impacts might banning cycling have?


Fewer pedestrians injured each year. Lower blood pressure for all road users. The benefits definitely outweigh the small inconvenience that a few might suffer.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Fewer pedestrians injured each year. Lower blood pressure for all road users. The benefits definitely outweigh the small inconvenience that a few might suffer.


Wrong. More sedentary behaviour. More heart attacks. More vehicles on the road. More emissions. More accidents. More asthma.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> .


Glad you realised how stupid _that_ argument was.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Wrong. More sedentary behaviour. More heart attacks. More vehicles on the road. More emissions. More accidents. More asthma.


Wrong. Get the bus or walk = fewer vehicles on the road... and do some exercise like normal people do.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Wrong. Get the bus or walk = fewer vehicles on the road... and do some exercise like normal people do.


How are you going to make people do that then? I thought you were all about freedom? Most cyclists who commute to work cycle a distance that is too far to walk and have access to a car. Why are they all going to walk and get the bus?


----------



## Cid (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Each year about 100 children are killed and around 250,000 are injured as a result of bicycle-related accidents in the UK.
> I wonder how we could prevent this...



Yes, we should ban children, then they can’t die.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> How are you going to make people do that then? I thought you were all about freedom? Most cyclists who commute to work cycle a distance that is too far to walk and have access to a car. Why are they all going to walk and get the bus?


That's the crux of it. Cyclists are selfish people. If they had any consideration for others they'd get the bus or walk.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's the crux of it. Cyclists are selfish people. If they had any consideration for others they'd get the bus or walk.


Correct though only a fraction as selfish as motorists.  Most people are selfish. That's why we need limits on wasting resources and the reckless endangerment of lives.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Correct though only a fraction as selfish as motorists.  Most people are selfish. That's why we need limits on wasting resources and the reckless endangerment of lives.


We really don't. We need to remove all restrictions from everything, and allow evolution to take its own course. I can't wait for the Mad Max era to arrive.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> We really don't. We need to remove all restrictions from everything, and allow evolution to take its own course. I can't wait for the Mad Max era to arrive.


Well, quite. If you're in favour of most of the population dying then you're going the right way about it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well, quite. If you're in favour of most of the population dying then you're going the right way about it.


Absolutely. There are far too many people on the planet for the finite resources we have.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2021)

It's interesting that as soon as a thread is started trying to discuss what society would be like without cars, the petrolheads move in and try to takeover with their polluting and unnecessary posts.

Like the dull bloke boring on in the pub they haven't clocked that they are dinosaurs and that no one is interested in what they have to say.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> It's interesting that as soon as a thread is started trying to discuss what society would be like without cars, the petrolheads move in and try to takeover with their polluting and unnecessary posts.
> 
> Like the dull bloke boring on in the pub they haven't clocked that they are dinosaurs and that no one is interested in what they have to say.



This is exactly the hubris of the crypto-currency rampers. Their vision of the future is a certainty and anyone who disagrees is a boomer dinosaur.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 24, 2021)

Cars kill, kids. Watch Children's Heroes: Alvin Stardust - BFI Player

But so do rugs. Watch The Fatal Floor - BFI Player

Hang on, cars are having another go. Watch Worn Tyres Can Kill - BFI Player

I think the cars are winning. Watch The Sewing Machine - BFI Player


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> It's interesting that as soon as a thread is started trying to discuss what society would be like without cars, the petrolheads move in and try to takeover with their polluting and unnecessary posts.
> 
> Like the dull bloke boring on in the pub they haven't clocked that they are dinosaurs and that no one is interested in what they have to say.


Self-awareness isn't your forte, is it. 
Imagine a pub table surrounded by boring cunts talking about how the world would be a better place without cars. It'd be like listening to Austin Purcell talking about raffle tickets.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

Jaguar Land Rover cabin purification system prevents virus spread​Another excellent reason to own a car.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Jaguar Land Rover cabin purification system prevents virus spread​Another excellent reason to own a car.


Yeah but..





__





						Physical inactivity is associated with a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a study in 48 440 adult patients | British Journal of Sports Medicine
					





					bjsm.bmj.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> I think the cars are winning. Watch The Sewing Machine - BFI Player


Yep, child neglect is definitely the fault of everyone and anyone except the person doing the neglecting. 
Oh, wait... Mother jailed after son drowned as she checked Facebook and took call


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yeah but..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah but... Most people don't spend their entire life in a car.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah but... Most people don't spend their entire life in a car.


Car owners exercise less. People are lazy. Whine all you want, it's a fact:





__





						Physical inactivity is associated with a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes: a study in 48 440 adult patients | British Journal of Sports Medicine
					





					bjsm.bmj.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Car owners exercise less. People are lazy. Whine all you want, it's a fact:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not catching Covid 19 results in a lower risk of severe Covid 19 symptoms.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not catching Covid 19 results in a lower risk of severe Covid 19 symptoms.


apologies, wrong link









						Association of car ownership and physical activity across the spectrum of human development: Modeling the Epidemiologic Transition Study (METS) - BMC Public Health
					

Background Variations in physical activity (PA) across nations may be driven by socioeconomic position. As national incomes increase, car ownership becomes within reach of more individuals. This report characterizes associations between car ownership and PA in African-origin populations across 5...




					bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not catching Covid 19 results in a lower risk of severe Covid 19 symptoms.


Well yes, but even your posh range rover is unlikely to guarantee that.


----------



## nick (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well yes, but even your posh range rover is unlikely to guarantee that.


Now I'm confused

I was of the assumption that, if only on this one point, all factions of U75 were united in a dislike of Range Rovers.

Did I miss a memo?


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

nick said:


> Now I'm confused
> 
> I was of the assumption that, if only on this one point, all factions of U75 were united in a dislike of Range Rovers.
> 
> Did I miss a memo?


My mistake, it was a Jaguar land rover. All the same to me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well yes, but even your posh range rover is unlikely to guarantee that.


How much more likely do you think you are to catch Covid 19 on a bus than you are to catch it in your own car, even without special cabin filtration? 
Public transport is dangerous, and bicycles aren't really a suitable mode of transport for most people over 16 years of age. I do realise its not what you want to hear but the private car is here to stay. No doubt the government will try to ensure that only the wealthy can afford them, which will make a few people here happy, but private cars aren't going away any time soon.


----------



## nick (Jun 24, 2021)

For an example of a  symbiotic relationship between cars and bikes (and big fuck off coaches)* - we should all tune into the start of the Tour de France on Saturday


*ETA and performance enhancing pharmaceuticals


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2021)

nick said:


> For an example of a  symbiotic relationship between cars and bikes (and big fuck off coaches)* - we should all tune into the start of the Tour de France on Saturday
> 
> 
> *ETA and performance enhancing pharmaceuticals


Drug-fuelled cheating bastards.


----------



## maomao (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Public transport is dangerous, and bicycles aren't really a suitable mode of transport for most people over 16 years of age.


Public transport is on average ten times safer (or 10% as dangerous) as private car travel and bicycles are useful for short trips for all ages.

People can catch covid in lots of places other than their mode of transport and one of the biggest risk factors for severe covid is low activity levels which correlate enormously strongly with car ownership.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah but... Most people don't spend their entire life in a car.


Useful for driving to the gym


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 24, 2021)

This fella's got an 11 year sentence for killing 2 cyclists when he was driving stoned Stoned driver who mowed down two cyclists jailed for their deaths 

We're about due for something similar in Brixton - a lot of people think it's normal and 'cool' to drive stoned. One of my neighbours ran me over when he was high. 

The street which joins mine to the main road is all of 30 yards wrong, but 10 pedestrians were run over in a 9 month period. (That's just the ones who reported it, which doesn't include me.) The council's remedy is to make the street one way. No talk of extra policing.  

When people do get pulled over around here, it's become quite common for the driver to lock the doors and sit tight. It sometimes works because a crowd gathers and the Police have to give up or get major reinforcements. In the cases I saw, they gave up on one occasion (on the street where I and the other 10 people were run over) and on the other occasion 9 police cars attended and the officers very carefully got into the car, trussed up the driver with lots of sets of straps, and removed him. It took about 40 minutes. 

Everybody knows this is an option now. It's probably a better gamble than just giving in, knowing you'll be banned.  It's also become normal to drive through red lights here. Either they don't stop, or they stop for a few seconds, wait for gap in the pedestrians. and just push through.  If there's no traffic light camera, which there hardly ever is, they think it's fine.  I usually step into the road when the light's red, and challenge them to stop or run me over. They always look amazed. One guy only just missed my toes last year so I slapped the roof of his car. He went nuts. Wanted to fight me. But the security guards in Superdrug came out and stood behind me. I'll probably end up getting a pasting from some fucker. 

There was a survey in the papers the other day, but I can't find it...something about 3 out of 4 drivers thinking they can do what they want without being caught. And that's the way it is. Hardly any traffic police doing stops. Their numbers in the Met have been cut a lot. Nearly all the motorcycle cops have been put on VIP protection because of terrorism. You actually have to leave London to see a motorbike cop doing traffic work. The ones in cars are busy either investigating fatal crashes or using ANPR to catch thieves or the 2 million drivers in the UK without insurance, many of whom have no licence either.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Car owners exercise less. People are lazy. Whine all you want, it's a fact:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Even if that is true on average, it certainly doesn’t mean that owning a car and doing regular exercise are mutually exclusive  activities. It’s up to the individual’s habits and lifestyle, as most things in life tend to be.

A great many individuals who only cycle when commuting to work and do no other exercise will invariably be less healthy than plenty of car drivers who jog regularly, or play sports. There are plenty of lazy unhealthy drivers about as well of course, but not because they own a car.

Cycling is beneficial but countless people who only get on their bikes to commute a few short miles to work at a sedated speed so not to break sweat will not necessarily be any healthier than someone who commutes by car but goes running several times a week, or plays tennis, squash, 5-a-side football or other high aerobic sports regularly.

I’ve met plenty of commute-only cyclists who are very averse to any cycling that gets them out of breath or is deemed as an effort. More than one colleague at work cycling on my general route home will get off the bike and push it up hilly sections, such as the pathetically mild uphill climb on Latchmere Road leading up to the police station (if you happen to know it). Such people are either far lazier and/or unfit than plenty of us at work who don’t cycle regularly but do other sport or exercise.

Bottom line: it’s all down to individual lifestyles and the extent and intensity of the exercise.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> Even if that is true on average, it certainly doesn’t mean that owning a car and doing regular exercise are mutually exclusive  activities. It’s up to the individual’s habits and lifestyle, as most things in life tend to be.
> 
> A great many individuals who only cycle when commuting to work and do no other exercise will invariably be less healthy than plenty of car drivers who jog regularly, or play sports. There are plenty of lazy unhealthy drivers about as well of course, but not because they own a car.
> 
> ...


Statistics show you’re wrong here, but I’m sure your anecdotal examples are proof to you.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

This whole cycling makes you fit so people should use bikes to get from A to B thing is a nonsense.

Let’s remove lifts from buildings because people ought to walk up the stairs and be healthier. Why not ban washing machines too? People who spend hours doing laundry by hand are healthier.

We really need to ban any modern conveniences and force people to engage in as much physical drudgery as possible when going about their daily lives.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 25, 2021)

The getting fit is merely a bonus effect of cycling. Try concentrating on the efficiency, safety, and lack of pollution aspects instead


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> Even if that is true on average, it certainly doesn’t mean that owning a car and doing regular exercise are mutually exclusive  activities. It’s up to the individual’s habits and lifestyle, as most things in life tend to be.
> 
> A great many individuals who only cycle when commuting to work and do no other exercise will invariably be less healthy than plenty of car drivers who jog regularly, or play sports. There are plenty of lazy unhealthy drivers about as well of course, but not because they own a car.
> 
> ...


You've seriously just argued against a peer-reviewed scientific survey with some anecdotes about people you know. And you think you've got a killer argument don't you.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This whole cycling makes you fit so people should use bikes to get from A to B thing is a nonsense.
> 
> Let’s remove lifts from buildings because people ought to walk up the stairs and be healthier. Why not ban washing machines too? People who spend hours doing laundry by hand are healthier.
> 
> We really need to ban any modern conveniences and force people to engage in as much physical drudgery as possible when going about their daily lives.


Are people who spend hours doing laundry by hand healthier? I bet they suffer from terrible posture and numerous skin complaints.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Are people who spend hours doing laundry by hand healthier? I bet they suffer from terrible posture and numerous skin complaints.



At least they're getting a physical workout, in the same way that cyclists do despite experiencing common cycling injuries.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This whole cycling makes you fit so people should use bikes to get from A to B thing is a nonsense.
> 
> Let’s remove lifts from buildings because people ought to walk up the stairs and be healthier. Why not ban washing machines too? People who spend hours doing laundry by hand are healthier.
> 
> We really need to ban any modern conveniences and force people to engage in as much physical drudgery as possible when going about their daily lives.



Well yes, except that cycling is generally one of the fastest ways to get around major cities. Unless you're lucky enough to live next to a tube station with a direct connection to your work or something.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> At least they're getting a physical workout, in the same way that cyclists do despite experiencing common cycling injuries.



Most of those are conditions of cycling as a sport activity, specifically for the kind of people who read Cycling Weekly (roadies). And they're often fixable by paying a bit more attention to proper fit, building core strength etc. The shoes one annoys me, but this applies to all - ahem - walks of life really. There are a few manufacturers making more spacious cycling shoes now.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> Well yes, except that cycling is generally one of the fastest ways to get around major cities. Unless you're lucky enough to live next to a tube station with a direct connection to your work or something.



Speed isn't a priority for everyone when selecting their preferred transport method for a particular journey.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> At least they're getting a physical workout, in the same way that cyclists do despite experiencing common cycling injuries.


Unlike driving it's definitely a net gain.





__





						Driving: A Road to Unhealthy Lifestyles and Poor Health Outcomes
					





					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Speed isn't a priority for everyone when selecting their preferred transport method for a particular journey.



You were talking about convenience of different activities.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> You were talking about convenience of different activities.


Well it's not about convenience it's about laziness and entitlement.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well it's not about convenience it's about laziness and entitlement.



My point being that even if you’re lazy and entitled, cycling should still present itself as a convenient mode of transport. Unlike doing your washing by hand.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> You were talking about convenience of different activities.



Convenience isn't the same as speed. Not everyone wants to get drenched in pissing rain and arrive covered in sweat.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Convenience isn't the same as speed. Not everyone wants to get drenched in pissing rain and arrive covered in sweat.



True enough, which is why I tend to leave room for light electric vehicles. But if you’ve got a shower at work, it’s no great inconvenience.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> True enough, which is why I tend to leave room for light electric vehicles. But if you’ve got a shower at work, it’s no great inconvenience.



Sure but they don't have a shower at the barbers or the dentist, and sitting in their chairs covered in sweat and road spray isn't much fun. 

Cycling isn't something you can simply substitute for cars in a "ditch your killing machine and cycle instead" kind of way. There are numerous scenarios where it's unviable, not all of them merely convenience-related.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> My point being that even if you’re lazy and entitled, cycling should still present itself as a convenient mode of transport. Unlike doing your washing by hand.


I live at the opposite end of a foot tunnel from my daughter's school. It's a four minute walk with a small child, I've done it in two. Despite this I have a neighbour who drives her son to school over a distance nearly ten times as far involving two roundabouts and three sets of traffic lights. And then parks over the dropped kerb knowing full well that there will be dozens of buggies there. The entitled driver's mind doesn't seem particularly adept at recognising convenience.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> I live at the opposite end of a foot tunnel from my daughter's school. It's a four minute walk with a small child, I've done it in two. Despite this I have a neighbour who drives her son to school over a distance nearly ten times as far involving two roundabouts and three sets of traffic lights. And then parks over the dropped kerb knowing full well that there will be dozens of buggies there. The entitled driver's mind doesn't seem particularly adept at recognising convenience.



That’s astonishingly stupid, though we should probably expect that going by the pro-car posters on here.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Sure but they don't have a shower at the barbers or the dentist, and sitting in their chairs covered in sweat and road spray isn't much fun.
> 
> Cycling isn't something you can simply substitute for cars in a "ditch your killing machine and cycle instead" kind of way. There are numerous scenarios where it's unviable, not all of them merely convenience-related.



They probably don’t have a parking space either.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> They probably don’t have a parking space either.



Nor a cycle parking facility. Thankfully both are available within walking distance.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

It's almost like the ideal situation would be one where people had the freedom to choose the most appropriate transport method for their circumstances, which is exactly how things are now.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's almost like the ideal situation would be one where people had the freedom to choose the most appropriate transport method for their circumstances, which is exactly how things are now.



No it isn’t. Private car use and the design of infrastructure around it severely restricts access to other forms of transport.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's almost like the ideal situation would be one where people had the freedom to choose the most appropriate transport method for their circumstances, which is exactly how things are now.


Except the unacceptable level of death and injury, effect on health through inactivity and pollution and destruction of urban spaces all suggest it's far from ideal or even the best option.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Cid said:


> No it isn’t. Private car use and the design of infrastructure around it severely restricts access to other forms of transport.



Really? I thought cycling was currently supposed to be quick and convenient.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Except the unacceptable level of death and injury, effect on health through inactivity and pollution and destruction of urban spaces all suggest it's far from ideal or even the best option.



I think your sunlit uplands of a world where everyone cycles to town in order to do a spot of bird watching are an illusion.


----------



## Cid (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Really? I thought cycling was currently supposed to be quick and convenient.



It is, but it’s also rendered dangerous by cars. As are covered LEVs etc. I want people to cycle if they can, I understand why they don’t. The solution is not ‘oh yeah, it’s all fine’.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I think your sunlit uplands of a world where everyone cycles to town in order to do a spot of bird watching are an illusion.



If I'm enthusiastic it's because any reduction in motor traffic has immediate benefits for my life. And I'm pretty sure your 'freedom to choose' is an even bigger illusion anyway.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> Even if that is true on average, it certainly doesn’t mean that owning a car and doing regular exercise are mutually exclusive  activities. It’s up to the individual’s habits and lifestyle, as most things in life tend to be.
> 
> A great many individuals who only cycle when commuting to work and do no other exercise will invariably be less healthy than plenty of car drivers who jog regularly, or play sports. There are plenty of lazy unhealthy drivers about as well of course, but not because they own a car.
> 
> Cycling is beneficial but countless people who only get on their bikes to commute a few short miles to work at a sedated speed so not to break sweat will not necessarily be any healthier than someone who commutes by car but goes running several times a week, or plays tennis, squash, 5-a-side football or other high aerobic sports regularly.


I'm not sure how typical that experience is of bike commuters but low intensity steady state exercise is highly beneficial especially for longer periods. I choose not to push it in the bike though I do sweat as I take higher intensity exercise elsewhere.


----------



## T & P (Jun 25, 2021)

Any stats on the general fitness of the tens of millions of people in this country who don't own a car but don't own a bicycle either, and commute to work solely by public transport? The fucking unhealthy lazy bastards... 

ETA: extra cunty points awarded to those who use double-decker death machines as part of their commute.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 25, 2021)

The good thing about double decker death machines is that the cunty points get shared out among all the passengers, as opposed to all being awarded to the driver. The more people on each death machine, the fewer cunty points each person accrues, which should help them through the pearly gates.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

There appears to be an assumption here that everyone who owns a car sits behind a desk all day. This might come as a shock to people in London but there are people who do actual physical work. They're fucked at the end of the day and the last thing they want or need is a 5 mile bike ride home.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> There appears to be an assumption here that everyone who owns a car sits behind a desk all day. This might come as a shock to people in London but there are people who do actual physical work. They're fucked at the end of the day and the last thing they want or need is a 5 mile bike ride home.



You need a cushy desk job to be able to contemplate commuting by car in most of London.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> You need a cushy desk job to be able to contemplate commuting by car in most of London.


Again, it may come as a shock but there are places that aren't London.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> You need a cushy desk job to be able to contemplate commuting by car in most of London.



There's like a whole country outside of London where stuff like tube trains every 3 minutes and buses going everywhere every five minutes is simply not viable.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Again, it may come as a shock but there are places that aren't London.


Yes, we all know you live in a field and were driving tractors at six or whatever but in the large urban centres where most people live, commuting by car is expensive and indicates a reasonably well paid job. Buses exist in the first place for a reason.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There's like a whole country outside of London where stuff like tube trains every 3 minutes and buses going everywhere every five minutes is simply not viable.


20% of the UK population is defined as 'rural' and most of those people live in small towns where public transport exists and could be improved.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

Let's pick a random example. You live in Wolsingham and work in Barnard Castle. A 16 mile journey of 30 minutes by car. Or a 2 hour journey on 2 to 3 buses. 

Is it reasonable to have a direct bus route between the two? How frequent should that be. How many passengers would you expect on each bus?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Let's pick a random example. You live in Wolsingham and work in Barnard Castle. A 16 mile journey of 30 minutes by car. Or a 2 hour journey on 2 to 3 buses.
> 
> Is it reasonable to have a direct bus route between the two? How frequent should that be. How many passengers would you expect on each bus?




One hour on an ebike, not working up a sweat.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Let's pick a random example. You live in Wolsingham and work in Barnard Castle. A 16 mile journey of 30 minutes by car. Or a 2 hour journey on 2 to 3 buses.
> 
> Is it reasonable to have a direct bus route between the two? How frequent should that be. How many passengers would you expect on each bus?


You'd probably be better off looking for work in Darlington (or en route to Darlington) which you'll be able to reach in 45 minutes on the new express bus than a randomly chosen town that isn't even particularly well-served by roads. Or consider moving to Barnard Castle. What's the job? How much does it pay?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, we all know you live in a field and were driving tractors at six or whatever but in the large urban centres where most people live, commuting by car is expensive and indicates a reasonably well paid job. Buses exist in the first place for a reason.


Typical reply I'd expect from a Londoner. They're so self-absorbed that they can't even imagine life from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to live in a stinking shithole. 
What's really funny, though, is living in a stinking shithole and complaining that it stinks. It's like sticking your hand in the fire and complaining when you start melting. Nobody is forcing you to live there. If you don't want to be breathing the exhaust fumes from millions of cars, and you don't want to be mowed down by a selfish London driver, there is a fairly simple solution. But no doubt if you moved to the countryside you'd be trying to get farms shut down because the sheep are too loud. 
And you say car drivers have a sense of entitlement


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> You'd probably be better off looking for work in Darlington (or en route to Darlington) which you'll be able to reach in 45 minutes on the new express bus than a randomly chosen town that isn't even particularly well-served by roads. Or consider moving to Barnard Castle. What's the job? How much does it pay?



If you banned cars and limited recruitment and employment opportunities to public transport routes this would have a devastating effect on pretty much everything from the total number of jobs available through to housing surpluses and shortages in different areas. People in towns don't all work in the factory at the end of their road any more. Having the ability to change jobs to anywhere within a drivable radius of where you live is of huge benefit to society.


----------



## klang (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Speed isn't a priority for everyone when selecting their preferred transport method for a particular journey.



that's right, people tend to drive because it's slower


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Having the ability to change jobs to anywhere within a drivable radius of where you live is of huge benefit to society.


Only to the boss class who want a casualised mobile workforce. The kind of mobility you're talking about wasn't available half a century ago before the the casualisation of labour. Housing's only an issue because that's been left to the private sector too.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Only to the boss class who want a casualised mobile workforce. The kind of mobility you're talking about wasn't available half a century ago before the the casualisation of labour. Housing's only an issue because that's been left to the private sector too.



Again, not everyone works in the factory at the end of the road. Not everyone wants to either. I'm sure these car drivers in towns outside London we are talking about would absolutely love it if, after telling them they must cycle or use rural buses even if it means changing jobs and homes, that you then tell them they must then remain in whatever job they have found for the rest of their working lives.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Again, not everyone works in the factory at the end of the road. Not everyone wants to either. I'm sure these car drivers in towns outside London we are talking about would absolutely love it if, after telling them they must cycle or use rural buses even if it means changing jobs and homes, that you then tell them they must then remain in whatever job they have found for the rest of their working lives.


Because no-one values job security? Work, housing and travel is terribly organised in the UK as a whole. In London the tubes are full of people crossing London at their own (party subsidised) expense to do shit and mostly unnecessary minimum wage jobs often 10-15 miles from where they live. It sounds like your hypothetical Wolsingham resident is doing 200+ miles a week at their own expense just to help the Tim Martins of this world keep wages down.

Incidentally the population of Wolsingham is already aging because people of working age don't want to be driving, and paying to drive, 20 miles to work in 
Wetherspoons at Barnard Castle; they want to be close to work. The only thing that will revitalise towns like Wolsingham is local opportunities to work, not minimum wage jobs in Barnard Castle.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Overworked rural working class man kills man and leaves family heartbroken while on way home from work in a car barely fit to be on the road:









						Driver who hadn't slept for THREE DAYS jailed for causing fatal head-on collision
					

A DRIVER who hadn’t slept for three days has left a family heartbroken after he killed a ‘loving’ husband in a horrific head-on crash.




					www.thenorthernecho.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

What happens when Mrs Wolsingham calls her employer, the Boss of Wolsingham Ltd, a cunt and gets sacked for gross misconduct. There are no other employers offering that role in Wolsingham for which she is trained, and she can’t commute to a slightly better paid job at Barnard Castle because she doesn’t have time to cycle there and back every day and also look after her kids.   Contrary to what some communists may think, job flexibility is actually a valuable thing for most people, or at least the potential for it is.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 25, 2021)

Not all of us outside London do unnecessary minimum wage jobs you know, many of us have well paid very necessary jobs that need doing.  Mudslinging aside for the moment, I understand you (maomao) are or are training to be a teacher?
What do you do with all the stuff that this involves? My wife is a secondary teacher and she seems to have loads of stuff that needs to be logged back and forth between the school on a regular basis. She has a Micra and especially around the year end, I've seen her with a full boot  I suspect it would be a lot more impractical for her to take it on the bus with her,  what do you do? Wheel it back and forth to school in a wheelbarrow?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Overworked rural working class man kills man and leaves family heartbroken while on way home from work in a car barely fit to be on the road:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm guessing you have a point. Care to share it?


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Not all of us outside London do unnecessary minimum wage jobs you know, many of us have well paid very necessary jobs that need doing.  Mudslinging aside for the moment, I understand you (maomao) are or are training to be a teacher?
> What do you do with all the stuff that this involves? My wife is a secondary teacher and she seems to have loads of stuff that needs to be logged back and forth between the school on a regular basis. She has a Micra and especially around the year end, I've seen her with a full boot  I suspect it would be a lot more impractical for her to take it on the bus with her,  what do you do? Wheel it back and forth to school in a wheelbarrow?


I walk with a backpack; at my previous school I took a train with a backpack. It easily holds a class worth of exercise books, textbooks, lunch etc. Sometimes I do the shopping on the way home too. One backback and one carrier bag; if it's raining I get a bus most of the way. Plenty of teachers don't drive. My mentor is five foot nothing and doesn't drive but somehow she manages.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> job flexibility is actually a valuable thing for most people, or at least the potential for it is.


Somewhere between communist China assigning you to a work unit at birth and not having your dole cut off for turning down a job within an hour's drive would be nice wouldn't it? Again, flexibility is a bigger advantage if you do a well-paid job in the first place. You're very black and white in your thinking.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Overworked rural working class man kills man and leaves family heartbroken while on way home from work in a car barely fit to be on the road:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Somebody died doing something. Somebody got jail. 









						Prison sentence after scaffolder dies from 30ft fall
					

A scaffolding and roofing company boss has been jailed after a scaffolder fell 30ft to his death while dismantling a temporary roof in Kensington.




					scaffmag.com


----------



## klang (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm guessing you have a point.


.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Somebody died doing something. Somebody got jail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. That article proves my point perfectly. In your example the employer was correctly prosecuted for causing a death in the workplace. In my example the boss got off scot free despite contributing to the conditions of the accident and benefiting from a system whereby the rural poor are expected to pay for and take liability for travel to and from workplaces that would have been considered laughably far from home just a few decades ago.

Cheers for that.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 25, 2021)

There's absolutely no evidence that all that Barker's job or employer had anything to do with the crash, it just says that he was on his way home from work. Nor does it mention how far away he lived from work. The accident was clearly Barkers fault and he was punished for it though (like you I suspect) I think he deserved a stiffer sentence.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Thanks. That article proves my point perfectly. In your example the employer was correctly prosecuted for causing a death in the workplace. In my example the boss got off scot free despite contributing to the conditions of the accident and benefiting from a system whereby the rural poor are expected to pay for and take liability for travel to and from workplaces that would have been considered laughably far from home just a few decades ago.
> 
> Cheers for that.


You're very welcome, I do try to help whenever possible. But what does this have to do with cars? All this proves is that the system is badly broken.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> There's absolutely no evidence that all that Barker's job or employer had anything to do with the crash, it just says that he was on his way home from work. Nor does it mention how far away he lived from work. The accident was clearly Barkers fault and he was punished for it though (like you I suspect) I think he deserved a stiffer sentence.


You've managed to contradict yourself in the space of your first sentence there. The accident happened because he was tired on the way home from work. Unless he worked as a mattress tester in a bed factory I think we can assume his work contributed to his tiredness.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've managed to contradict yourself in the space of your first sentence there. The accident happened because he was tired on the way home from work. Unless he worked as a mattress tester in a bed factory I think we can assume his work contributed to his tiredness.


How about the fact that he hadn't slept for three days? are you suggested he spent all of those three days at work? Was he a junior doctor then? A group that whilst often overworked aren't really poor.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> How about the fact that he hadn't slept for three days? are you suggested he spent all of those three days at work? Was he a junior doctor then? A group that whilst often overworked aren't really poor.


We don't know why he was awake for so long we only know that there appears to be no drink or drugs involved (or it would surely have been mentioned) and that he'd been working in the hours directly preceding the crash when he should probably have been sleeping. 

And given the state of his car he's unlikely to have been in a well-paid job.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Rural transport problem - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> The rural transport problem refers to difficulties experienced in providing transport links to rural communities. Low rural population density makes viable public transport difficult, though people in rural areas usually have a greater need for transport than urban dwellers. High levels of car ownership can diminish the problem, but certain rural groups (the young, old or poor) always require public transport. *Increasing car ownership may put pressure on existing rural public transport, prompting a diminished service, which in turn encourages even higher car ownership, creating a vicious circle of public transport decline*.



Private cars just aren't the solution to the problem.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Rural transport problem - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are, because public transport can never function efficiently in rural areas.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Rural transport problem - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If private cars aren't the answer, what is? Private cars are the _only_ answer we have at present, and nobody is going to ditch them in the hope that something might replace them at some time in the future. The only way to replace them is to put a system in place that effectively replaces them. I won't hold my breath on that happening any time soon.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They are, because public transport can never function efficiently in rural areas.


How do they solve the problem for people who can't drive? They just remove people with money and the physical ability to drive from the community making public transport provision worse.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> How do they solve the problem for people who can't drive? They just remove people with money and the physical ability to drive from the community making public transport provision worse.


Subsidised taxis for non-drivers. Should be cheaper than HS2 per passenger. And a million times better for everyone than buses or bikes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> How do they solve the problem for people who can't drive? They just remove people with money and the physical ability to drive from the community making public transport provision worse.


Where I live, people without cars get a lift from someone with a car. We're nice like that, us car drivers, who don't live in London.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

How can anyone think that buses and bikes can solve any transport needs outside cities?


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Where I live, people without cars get a lift from someone with a car. We're nice like that, us car drivers, who don't live in London.


Well you're properly rural and probably have very few neighbours. You get some sort of exemption to use it in certain places. We're talking about people who are classified as 'rural' but live in settlements of several thousand people.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> How can anyone think that buses and bikes can solve any transport needs outside cities?


Anyone who can see that private cars clearly haven't solved transport needs outside cities.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Anyone who can see that private cars clearly haven't solved transport needs outside cities.



They obviously have, the only problem being people who don't own a car or can't drive. Perhaps we need to offer free cars and driving lessons to people who need them and slash petrol prices. Free taxis for blind and drunk people etc. Funded by scrapping all buses and not having done Crossrail/HS2.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well you're properly rural and probably have very few neighbours. You get some sort of exemption to use it in certain places. We're talking about people who are classified as 'rural' but live in settlements of several thousand people.


I live in a town of seven and a half thousand people, we get a single decker  bus once every thirty minutes Mon-Sat and hourly on Sunday, they're going to have to lay on a LOT more to make many converts around here.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They obviously have, the only problem being people who don't own a car or can't drive. Perhaps we need to offer free cars and driving lessons to people who need them and slash petrol prices. Free taxis for blind and drunk people etc. Funded by scrapping all buses and not having done Crossrail/HS2.


Maybe you could use larger vehicles than standard taxis and see if any of the people are going in the same direction at the same sort of time. Bound to work out cheaper and safer.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I live in a town of seven and a half thousand people, we get a single decker  bus once every thirty minutes Mon-Sat and hourly on Sunday, they're going to have to lay on a LOT more to make many converts around here.


What percentage of the population is dependant on them? Probably less than 20% right? So a bus every six minutes or buses every twelve minutes on two routes once private cars are removed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Anyone who can see that private cars clearly haven't solved transport needs outside cities.



They clearly _have_ solved transport needs outside cities.
The only use for a bike outside a city is for exercise. There are other ways to exercise without endangering yourself on a public road.
Buses would have to be massively subsidised to work in rural areas, and they'd be far worse for the environment than private cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maybe you could use larger vehicles than standard taxis and see if any of the people are going in the same direction at the same sort of time. Bound to work out cheaper and safer.



Like rural buses now you mean? Not many people want to go from Rural Location A to Random Location B at the same time, because not many people live in Rural Location A.


----------



## MickiQ (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maybe you could use larger vehicles than standard taxis and see if any of the people are going in the same direction at the same sort of time. Bound to work out cheaper and safer.


That's your problem they're not. In a city of millions there's bound to be lots of people want to go the same place as you, to the point you can have buses, trains and trams. Here not so much. We get a bus every half hour that follows one route through the town. In fact since they are going in alternate directions it would be more accurate to say we get one bus an hour with a choice of two destinations (a small city and a large town) you can get other buses onwards but journey times just go up and up.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Like rural buses now you mean? Not many people want to go from Rural Location A to Random Location B at the same time, because not many people live in Rural Location A.


So jobs and start times, shop locations and opening times etc. are randomly distributed throughout the countryside? Or is it the case that the majority of people are using cars to do the same or similar journeys individually?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> So jobs and start times, shop locations and opening times etc. are randomly distributed throughout the countryside? Or is it the case that the majority of people are using cars to do the same or similar journeys individually?



Not randomly but broadly enough that a bus service will never be able to serve most people as well as car ownership, and no, it’s not the case.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> That's your problem they're not. In a city of millions there's bound to be lots of people want to go the same place as you, to the point you can have buses, trains and trams. Here not so much. We get a bus every half hour that follows one route through the town. In fact since they are going in alternate directions it would be more accurate to say we get one bus an hour with a choice of two destinations (a small city and a large town) you can get other buses onwards but journey times just go up and up.


Without going outside, you may know the whole world.
Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.

Thus the sage knows without travelling;
He sees without looking;
He works without doing.

Unless someone can invent a form of transport with a genuinely low environmental impact pretty soon we're all going to have to get used to travelling less.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> So jobs and start times, shop locations and opening times etc. are randomly distributed throughout the countryside? Or is it the case that the majority of people are using cars to do the same or similar journeys individually?


You think that everyone leads the exact same life, and all go shopping at the exact same time on the same day?


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You think that everyone leads the exact same life, and all go shopping at the exact same time on the same day?


I think that only a relatively small percentage of people worldwide have a lot of choice in when and where they're travelling and that for most people most of the time, travel is an expense and a liability. You're a very lucky person living where you do and solutions that you see as rights are not attainable for the majority of the world's population. 

Or maybe everyone should move to rural Ireland?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think that only a relatively small percentage of people worldwide have a lot of choice in when and where they're travelling and that for most people most of the time, travel is an expense and a liability. You're a very lucky person living where you do and solutions that you see as rights are not attainable for the majority of the world's population.
> 
> Or maybe everyone should move to rural Ireland?


Thank you for making my point. So now we agree that it's unfeasible to expect everyone to travel at the same time, and that people do need to travel, it's surely obvious that buses aren't the answer in rural areas?
The only places where buses make sense is cities. The vast majority of the planet isn't cities.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Thank you for making my point. So now we agree that it's unfeasible to expect everyone to travel at the same time, and that people do need to travel, it's surely obvious that buses aren't the answer in rural areas?
> The only places where buses make sense is cities. The vast majority of the planet isn't cities.


Most of the planet may not be cities but over three quarters of the world population is urban. Also, define rural. Is a town of seven thousand rural? Because the vast majority of the part of the UK population defined as rural live in settlements of several thousand people.  Enough to run a fairly decent public transport system when it's one that everyone uses.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most of the planet may not be cities but over three quarters of the world population is urban. Also, define rural. Is a town of seven thousand rural? Because the vast majority of the part of the UK population defined as rural live in settlements of several thousand people.  Enough to run a fairly decent public transport system when it's one that everyone uses.


I'd say several thousand people is nowhere near enough to run a viable public transport system, especially now with the advent of EVs.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd say several thousand people is nowhere near enough to run a viable public transport system, especially now with the advent of EVs.


What have EVs got to do with it? Current batteries are unsustainable and the vast majority of the power comes from fossil fuels.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> What have EVs got to do with it? Current batteries are unsustainable and the vast majority of the power comes from fossil fuels.


Emissions per mile per person. Significantly lower than those of an empty bus.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Emissions per mile per person. Significantly lower than those of an empty bus.


Not lower than an electric bus. And far from emission free. Tyre particles still flying about killing people in town and fossil fuel emissions still contributing to global warming. Not currently much of a solution at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

I know at least 27 people who have been killed by flying tyre particles, very sad.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I know at least 27 people who have been killed by flying tyre particles, very sad.


Sadly that's only a small proportion of UK child asthma deaths. Non exhaust emissions are a genuine health hazard and contribute more to air pollution than exhaust emissions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not lower than an electric bus. And far from emission free. Tyre particles still flying about killing people in town and fossil fuel emissions still contributing to global warming. Not currently much of a solution at all.


Much lower than an empty electric bus.

An electric bus death machine recently.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> Sadly that's only a small proportion of UK child asthma deaths. Non exhaust emissions are a genuine health hazard and contribute more to air pollution than exhaust emissions.



Most PM2.5s that children are exposed to come from non-car sources such as cooking, arable agriculture and the sea.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Most PM2.5s that children are exposed to come from non-car sources such as cooking, arable agriculture and the sea.


In central London?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> In central London?



I thought we were talking about the UK, but you’re still stuck in your London bubble I see.


----------



## maomao (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I thought we were talking about the UK, but you’re still stuck in your London bubble I see.


Or central Birmingham, Bradford, Stoke or Manchester then. Most people live in cities. Poor people more so. Poor people also tend to live in the most polluted parts of cities.


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not randomly but broadly enough that a bus service will never be able to serve most people as well as car ownership, and no, it’s not the case.


There's a difference between a town of seven and a half thousand and a village or farm in the middle of know where. With the former there will almost certainly be a large number of people heading to a nearby town of similar or larger size at least twice a day.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 26, 2021)

CNT36 said:


> There's a difference between a town of seven and a half thousand and a village or farm in the middle of know where. With the former there will almost certainly be a large number of people heading to a nearby town of similar or larger size at least twice a day.



Even if not a bus route that goes from a-d and passes rural area b and c frequently enough means people will get on the bus, especially young people.

The figures for what type of car journeys  people take are quite impressive though.



> *20% *of journeys in Britain are *under 1 mile* (a distance easily cycled in around 5 minutes);
> 38% are under 2 miles (a distance easily cycled in around 10 minutes);
> 66% are under 5 miles (a distance easily cycled in around 25 minutes).







__





						Active travel: increasing levels of walking and cycling in England - Transport Committee - House of Commons
					






					publications.parliament.uk


----------



## CNT36 (Jun 26, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Even if not a bus route that goes from a-d and passes rural area b and c frequently enough means people will get on the bus, especially young people.
> 
> The figures for what type of car journeys  people take are quite impressive though.
> 
> ...


I think they're a bit generous with the easily there for the five miles time.
A lot though not all of those journeys could be eliminated without major hardship. It's worth mentioning that a miles journey in a car could be a lot further or shorter than making that journey by foot or bike. Around here people make a lot of short trips due to parking issues as well.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or central Birmingham, Bradford, Stoke or Manchester then. Most people live in cities. Poor people more so. Poor people also tend to live in the most polluted parts of cities.



I bet the number of deaths from flying tyre particles is less than the number of deaths from cooking, the sea and agriculture, even in Birmingham.

Shouldn't we restrict those things too? If we replace cars with buses because of tyre particles surely we should replace individualistic home cooking with deliveries from a centralised facility, to stop the kids at home dying from cooking particles.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Even if not a bus route that goes from a-d and passes rural area b and c frequently enough means people will get on the bus, especially young people.
> 
> The figures for what type of car journeys  people take are quite impressive though.
> 
> ...



"Easily" for some people in some situations, but there are obviously loads of times when completing such a journey by bike will simply not be an option.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2021)

Have to say, I was on the pedestrian’s side in the pedestrian vs peloton crash on the Tour De France. It would not have happened if the cyclists had kept a safe distance from one another


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 27, 2021)

The gendarmes are after her for leaving the scene of an accident, and the race organiser wants to sue her.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The gendarmes are after her for leaving the scene of an accident, and the race organiser wants to sue her.


Free The Tour De France One!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 27, 2021)

It was a girl holding a flimsy cardboard sign. I find it hard to believe how a professional cyclist could be floored by a bit of cardboard, he’s the one who should be sued/banned/hang up his lycra.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Have to say, I was on the pedestrian’s side in the pedestrian vs peloton crash on the Tour De France. It would not have happened if the cyclists had kept a safe distance from one another


This isn't the first time Peloton has run over an innocent pedestrian. It's probably something to do with drugs. But it was a small sacrifice.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 27, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Have to say, I was on the pedestrian’s side in the pedestrian vs peloton crash on the Tour De France. It would not have happened if the cyclists had kept a safe distance from one another


Lots of cyclists being brought down   
You will be buying a 4x4 next.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> This isn't the first time Peloton has run over an innocent pedestrian. It's probably something to do with drugs. But it was a small sacrifice.


At least they don't die in the same numbers that spectators do at Motorsport events.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> At least they don't die in the same numbers that spectators do at Motorsport events.



Correct, but for the hard of thinking, these signs kinda give you a clue... just in case you didn't already realise that a ton of metal moving at 100mph could fuck you up.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> At least they don't die in the same numbers that spectators do at Motorsport events.


I bet you fucking Googled that before you posted! 😜


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Correct, but for the hard of thinking, these signs kinda give you a clue... just in case you didn't already realise that a ton of metal moving at 100mph could fuck you up.


They didn't have those up at that rally in Scotland where three people got killed (which is why the organisers were sued) and I bet they didn't have them in Lemans in 55.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I bet you fucking Googled that before you posted! 😜


I didn't need Google to tell me that less people have died watching cycling in the history of cycling than died in Lemans in 55.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 27, 2021)

This thread goes from strength to strength.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 27, 2021)

If you need a sign to tell you that you shouldn't stand on the outside of a slippery bend when people are chucking cars at you as fast as they can, then probably watching toddlers on trikes cycle on pavements is too much for you and you should stay in bed.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you need a sign to tell you that you shouldn't stand on the outside of a slippery bend when people are chucking cars at you as fast as they can, then probably watching toddlers on trikes cycle on pavements is too much for you and you should stay in bed.


Well the enquiry into the deaths of three spectators at a rally car 'race' in Scotland in 2014 didn't agree with you and 'concluded there was a "weak, ambiguous and inadequate" system for checking the warnings to people of unsafe vantage points '









						Rally death spectators 'not warned' by organisers, inquiry finds
					

Three people died when a car, with Irish driver David Carney at the wheel, skidded off the road and ploughed into the crowd.




					news.sky.com
				







While at Le Mans in 55 a bonnet flew off one of the cars and flew through the crowd decapitating people. 83 people in total died, most of them not in the front row. Should they have expected that before they went?


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 27, 2021)

Next: airshow disasters. "Flying cars kill".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> They didn't have those up at that rally in Scotland where three people got killed (which is why the organisers were sued) and I bet they didn't have them in Lemans in 55.


Which only goes to prove how fucking stupid some people are and how fucked up the world is.
It wasn't too long ago that the owners manual of a car showed you how to adjust the valves. Today it warns you not to drink the contents of the battery.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 27, 2021)

So when unlit cyclists get killed, we should really be asking - "where were the warning signs telling them not to cycle along there in the dark"?


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Which only goes to prove how fucking stupid some people are and how fucked up the world is.
> It wasn't too long ago that the owners manual of a car showed you how to adjust the valves. Today it warns you not to drink the contents of the battery.


It may just be that the kind of people that think watching someone driving somehow counts as a sport are dimmer than average. To my mind it seems only right to take the low intelligence of motorsport spectators into account when planning an event.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So when unlit cyclists get killed, we should really be asking - "where were the warning signs telling them not to cycle along there in the dark"?



I don't get what you're trying to say. The vast majority of cyclists on the road at night have lights and not having lights would constitute contributory negligence in any accident that resulted. What's your point?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't get your point. The vast majority of cyclists on the road at night have lights and not having lights would constitute contributory negligence in any accident that resulted. What's your point?



The whole "we need more signs to tell people not to do obviously dangerous things" thing isn't always the answer.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> It may just be that the kind of people that think watching someone driving somehow counts as a sport are dimmer than average. To my mind it seems only right to take the low intelligence of motorsport spectators into account when planning an event.


I guess watching a load of overgrown children on bicycles is the mark of a genius? Like a 4 month old baby watching hamsters on a wheel.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The whole "we need more signs to tell people not to do obviously dangerous things" thing isn't always the answer.


Some people are so fucking stupid you have to tell them not to put their hands into a rotating saw blade, and if you don't tell them and they chop their hands off, the law sides with the thick fuck.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I guess watching a load of overgrown children on bicycles is the mark of a genius? Like a 4 month old baby watching hamsters on a wheel.


I very rarely watch sports other than a few snatches of the Olympics myself but I can understand why people enjoy watching physical challenge and competition. Enjoying watching metal boxes go round and round In circles strikes me as particularly dull though. Worse than watching golf or darts even.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The whole "we need more signs to tell people not to do obviously dangerous things" thing isn't always the answer.


I agree. Ban motorsports instead.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> I very rarely watch sports other than a few snatches of the Olympics myself but I can understand why people enjoy watching physical challenge and competition. Enjoying watching metal boxes go round and round In circles strikes me as particularly dull though. Worse than watching golf or darts even.


You can understand why people enjoy watching overgrown children show how strong their legs are? I prefer to watch sports with a little more skill involved


----------



## souljacker (Jun 27, 2021)

This is the worst thread on Urban by far and all you lot on both sides are cunts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

souljacker said:


> This is the worst thread on Urban by far and all you lot on both sides are cunts.


We like it. Put it on ignore if you don't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2021)

souljacker said:


> This is the worst thread on Urban by far and all you lot on both sides are cunts.


That’s the idea - keep it all in one place


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> I agree. Ban motorsports instead.


Now that is something I support. When I did endurance racing on motorbikes it struck me that nobody should be allowed to go round and round in circles at full throttle. A tank of petrol lasted an hour, a set of tyres for three hours. The pit crew spent the weekend ingesting nasty chemicals. The teams and spectators and officials drove huge distances, because the tracks were supposed to be spread over the whole of GB to be fair to everyone. It's mad. 

I'd also ban press launches for cars. Lots of the journalists and bloggers and youtubers and other hangers on are getting three or four return flights every week so they can drive around in circles in order to increase the demand for more cars. 

I'd also ban purposeless journeys. Some youngsters do lots of driving just to cruise or show off.  Foot to the floor for no reason, except showing off. Loud exhausts which aren't road legal, just to show off. Other people are trying to cut emissions, while these cunts pay hundreds of pounds to get their vehicle to break all the legal emissions limits, and then drive around in circles, because it's fun.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You can understand why people enjoy watching overgrown children show how strong their legs are? I prefer to watch sports with a little more skill involved


The amount of skill involved is debatable. If they were any good at it they wouldn't crash so often.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 27, 2021)

souljacker said:


> This is the worst thread on Urban by far and all you lot on both sides are cunts.




It is a Teuchter thread, so what do you expect?

Where is the miserable tosser anyway? Last seen in a car in the highlands. Not been posting cos denied bail I imagine.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Now that is something I support. When I did endurance racing on motorbikes it struck me that nobody should be allowed to go round and round in circles at full throttle. A tank of petrol lasted an hour, a set of tyres for three hours. The pit crew spent the weekend ingesting nasty chemicals. The teams and spectators and officials drove huge distances, because the tracks were supposed to be spread over the whole of GB to be fair to everyone. It's mad.
> 
> I'd also ban press launches for cars. Lots of the journalists and bloggers and youtubers and other hangers on are getting three or four return flights every week so they can drive around in circles in order to increase the demand for more cars.
> 
> I'd also ban purposeless journeys. Some youngsters do lots of driving just to cruise or show off.  Foot to the floor for no reason, except showing off. Loud exhausts which aren't road legal, just to show off. Other people are trying to cut emissions, while these cunts pay hundreds of pounds to get their vehicle to break all the legal emissions limits, and then drive around in circles, because it's fun.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> The amount of skill involved is debatable. If they were any good at it they wouldn't crash so often.




It is very physical though, for reasons I have met a lot of racing drivers, skinny midgets with the thickest necks you have ever seen. Shoemaker was the first to not smoke and drink but gym it up, he won hands down, ever since they have all been top athletes.


----------



## maomao (Jun 27, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is very physical though, for reasons I have met a lot of racing drivers, skinny midgets with the thickest necks you have ever seen. Shoemaker was the first to not smoke and drink but gym it up, he won hands down, ever since they have all been top athletes.


I thought he won by being a thug and a cheat? Didn't he once deliberately ram another driver in a race?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> I thought he won by being a thug and a cheat? Didn't he once deliberately ram another driver in a race?


More than once. He was a proper nasty cheating bastard. Everybody hated him. He'd have made a good cyclist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 27, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is very physical though, for reasons I have met a lot of racing drivers, skinny midgets with the thickest necks you have ever seen. Shoemaker was the first to not smoke and drink but gym it up, he won hands down, ever since they have all been top athletes.


And now look at him


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I thought he won by being a thug and a cheat? Didn't he once deliberately ram another driver in a race?



That’s just high spirits.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 28, 2021)

This 1959 short film is a gem.  

 


Such breezy optimism about speeding up the motor car's transit of London. People from Essex would actually drive to Wales and the west country via Oxford Street.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

Drivers frustrated at new £336m road's 50mph plan - BBC News
					

After years changing a five-mile stretch into a dual carriageway, its speed limit could stay.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




“Boo boo can’t drive car as fast as I want I’ll scweam and scweam until I’m sick…”


----------



## maomao (Jun 28, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That’s just high spirits.


Indeed. High spirits while in charge of 800kg of car travelling at over 200mph. If they want to race they should do it on foot or on bicycles like normal people.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drivers frustrated at new £336m road's 50mph plan - BBC News
> 
> 
> After years changing a five-mile stretch into a dual carriageway, its speed limit could stay.
> ...



Imagine if HS2 trains are limited to 70mph. It would totally undermine the funding case for building it in the first place.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine if HS2 trains are limited to 70mph. It would totally undermine the funding case for building it in the first place.


Hot off the press: Cars and trains found to not be the same things. Standby for further updates.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Hot off the press: Cars and trains found to not be the same things. Standby for further updates.



Frustration at infrastructure being designed so as to undermine the case for it is the same regardless of what it's for:

"I read on the consultation paperwork that they've said due to the engineering design, a 50mph speed limit was more suitable. It makes me wonder why they built a road that's only suitable for 50mph in this day and age."

It's like a cycle lane that's 90cm wide or something.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Frustration at infrastructure being designed so as to undermine the case for it is the same regardless of what it's for:
> 
> "I read on the consultation paperwork that they've said due to the engineering design, a 50mph speed limit was more suitable. It makes me wonder why they built a road that's only suitable for 50mph in this day and age."
> 
> It's like a cycle lane that's 90cm wide or something.


Or maybe 50mph is plenty.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 28, 2021)

Having driven on the M4 a couple of times this year, I have to say I love the average speed check 50mph bits where they're doing the Smart Motorway work. No wankers treating the road like a slalom, less tailgating, less stress.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Having driven on the M4 a couple of times this year, I have to say I love the average speed check 50mph bits where they're doing the Smart Motorway work. No wankers treating the road like a slalom, less tailgating, less stress.


But people have paid all that money for cars capable of double the national limit and it’s their _right_ to use it!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> If they want to race they should do it on foot or on bicycles like children from a bygone era


----------



## maomao (Jun 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


>



It isn't particularly hurtful to be constantly accused of being a child by a middle aged weirdo who gets most of his amusement from joking about drunk driving and paedophilia, thinks driving a motorbike at horrendously dangerous speeds is funny and seems to derive much of his identity as an adult from the fact that he drives a car, something that a good three quarters of people do anyway. 

And penny farthings are cool though far too dangerous to race.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> It isn't particularly hurtful to be constantly accused of being a child by a middle aged weirdo who gets most of his amusement from joking about drunk driving and paedophilia, thinks driving a motorbike at horrendously dangerous speeds is funny and seems to derive much of his identity as an adult from the fact that he drives a car, something that a good three quarters of people do anyway.
> 
> And penny farthings are cool though far too dangerous to race.


I rarely drive a car, they're far too slow, but I do enjoy winding up you and teuchter about them.


----------



## maomao (Jun 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I rarely drive a car, they're far too slow, but I do enjoy winding up you and teuchter about them.


Well you missed your target with that splendid photo of penny farthing racers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 28, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Free The Tour De France One!


Apparently she's already escaped, but the cycle world is still seething and baying for blood. 
I watched the video. The woman was stood at the side of the road, facing the wrong way and didn't move. The cyclist had loads of time to react but assumed the pedestrian could see out the back of her head and she'd move out of his way because he's important. The cyclist made no attempt whatsoever to avoid her. He deliberately ran into her, and because the other riders don't understand braking distances or how to safely ride in a group, lots of them ran into each other. 
The poor woman should sue the organisers and the cyclist who tried to kill her.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The poor woman should sue the organisers and the cyclist who tried to kill her.



She should also sue maomao and Orang Utan. It's comments like theirs on this thread that enable this kind of thing to happen.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She should also sue maomao and Orang Utan. It's comments like theirs on this thread that enable this kind of thing to happen.


I think OU agrees that it was the cyclist's fault.


----------



## nick (Jun 28, 2021)

I wager that if you watch the highlights of Tdf, you won't see even one of the buggers stopping at a red light. and some of them even go on the wrong side of the road


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 28, 2021)

If only the race organisers had realised that racing in such close proximity, with no barriers between the riders and the public, could be dangerous, but these multi-toy pile-ups seem to happen quite often and they still haven't learned. It's almost as if they want to see crashes.
Maybe they should seek a bit of advice from those who know how to organise a proper racing event.


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2021)

‘Ordinary’ killers risk being criminalised if anti-killing laws are introduced.


(from here Government urged to create post-Covid 'golden age' of cycling)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 30, 2021)

Winot said:


> ‘Ordinary’ killers risk being criminalised if anti-killing laws are introduced.
> 
> View attachment 276057
> (from here Government urged to create post-Covid 'golden age' of cycling)


It’s very simple. If you can make a car travel at 30mph you can, by definition, make it travel at 20. If you choose not to do this when told to do so, you deserve points on your license and a fine. If this “inconveniences” you or any subsequent ban causes “hardship”, tough shit. It was down to a choice you made, deal with it.


----------



## David Clapson (Jun 30, 2021)

Did anyone notice Keir Starmer's big announcement about anti-social vehicle users last week? Another stunning PR success for him.


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s very simple. If you can make a car travel at 30mph you can, by definition, make it travel at 20. If you choose not to do this when told to do so, you deserve points on your license and a fine. If this “inconveniences” you or any subsequent ban causes “hardship”, tough shit. It was down to a choice you made, deal with it.


And on a practical note I think he's wrong - it would be easier for drivers to stick to a 20mph limit if it is the consistent limit i.e. on all residential roads.


----------



## maomao (Jun 30, 2021)

Winot said:


> And on a practical note I think he's wrong - it would be easier for drivers to stick to a 20mph limit if it is the consistent limit i.e. on all residential roads.


He's wrong about a lot more than that. The 'Alliance of British Drivers' are a bunch of climate change denying nutters who want the abolition of all speed limits on motorways. The kind of people the papers phone when they want some motorist 'fury'. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 30, 2021)

I see that poor woman who was almost killed by a bike gang in France has been arrested for "involuntarily causing injury and putting the lives of others at risk."   Apparently, the cowardly bikers are also going to sue her for holding a cardboard sign telling her grandparents that she loves them.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

Just saw this today, the former station building at Welshpool. What better use for an old rail track bed than a more versatile and useful form of transport infrastructure?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Did anyone notice Keir Starmer's big announcement about anti-social vehicle users last week? Another stunning PR success for him.



Anti social vehicle users like SUV drivers who run down cyclists?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anti social vehicle users like SUV drivers who run down cyclists?



No, first he came for the mountain bikes: "Starmer highlighted the blight of antisocial behaviour, such as off-road bikes and high-powered cars being raced through residential neighbourhoods."


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, first he came for the mountain bikes: "Starmer highlighted the blight of antisocial behaviour, such as off-road bikes and high-powered cars being raced through residential neighbourhoods."


I think in context that he means off-road motorbikes.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think in context that he means off-road motorbikes.



As a barrister and former head of the prosecutors, I'm sure he wouldn't be so foolish as to say bikes when he meant motorbikes.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> As a barrister and former head of the prosecutors, I'm sure he wouldn't be so foolish as to say bikes when he meant motorbikes.


Off-road bicycles are called mountain bikes. I'm not aware of any mountain bike races taking place in residential areas. Racing mountain bikes on the road would be very 1980s.


----------



## Cid (Jul 1, 2021)

Dunno, wouldn't surprise me in the least if Starmer had done some prosecutorial stints in various bits of South America:


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> As a barrister and former head of the prosecutors, I'm sure he wouldn't be so foolish as to say bikes when he meant motorbikes.


We don't know what he said, because it's written by the journalist and is not a quote of Starmer's words. As a car person, your inattention to detail is unsurprising.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We don't know what he said, because it's written by the journalist and is not a quote of Starmer's words. As a car person, your inattention to detail is unsurprising.


I did notice that and checked to see what he actually said. I didn't find a direct quote, but he did retweet the Guardian article in which those words were written, so obviously endorses them as an accurate reflection of what he said.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Off-road bicycles are called mountain bikes. I'm not aware of any mountain bike races taking place in residential areas. Racing mountain bikes on the road would be very 1980s.



He's not talking about organised races, because high-powered car races in residential streets aren't a thing either. I suspect he's referring to people using roads legally but in a manner that upsets curtain-twichers. That's what anti-social behavior is anyway, e.g. kids kicking balls against walls and loitering in pavements. Anything actually illegal is by definition already covered under existing police powers.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> He's not talking about organised races, because high-powered car races in residential streets aren't a thing either. I suspect he's referring to people using roads legally but in a manner that upsets curtain-twichers. That's what anti-social behavior is anyway, e.g. kids kicking balls against walls and loitering in pavements. Anything actually illegal is by definition already covered under existing police powers.


Well, exactly.  People driving cheap, incredibly noisy, excessively polluting off-road motorbikes with no number plates is an antisocial problem.  I’m not aware of inner-city gangs of mountain bikers.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> He's not talking about organised races, because high-powered car races in residential streets aren't a thing either. I suspect he's referring to people using roads legally but in a manner that upsets curtain-twichers. That's what anti-social behavior is anyway, e.g. kids kicking balls against walls and loitering in pavements. Anything actually illegal is by definition already covered under existing police powers.


He talks about low level crime so what he is talking about includes stuff that's already illegal. But lots of illegal behaviour on the roads goes on without the police doing anything about it, because enforcement is a low political priority thanks to people like the car people on this thread, who continually resist any restrictions on their freedom to drive around injuring people.

The majority of car people on this thread live in their gated mansions in the home counties, so may be unaware of what things are like in many urban areas, where it's just normal to see cars and motorbikes being raced around the streets for fun. I don't have curtains so can't twitch them but regularly see this going on from my window. Sometimes the racers take a junction too fast and end up on the pavement metres from my front door. The last one went right through a front garden wall and smashed the window into someone's living room. It's just a bit of a lark though, so if some day it happens while someone is walking on the relevant bit of the pavement, I'll post up a description on here so that we can all have a laugh about it.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> He's not talking about organised races, because high-powered car races in residential streets aren't a thing either. I suspect he's referring to people using roads legally but in a manner that upsets curtain-twichers. That's what anti-social behavior is anyway, e.g. kids kicking balls against walls and loitering in pavements. Anything actually illegal is by definition already covered under existing police powers.


You've shifted goalposts slightly there. Drift races in supermarket carparks are definitely a thing and supermarkets are often in residential neighbourhoods. Did you forget the car drivers a few pages ago given token punishments for ploughing into spectators at an illegal race meet?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Just saw this today, the former station building at Welshpool. What better use for an old rail track bed than a more versatile and useful form of transport infrastructure?


The "old track bed" of which you speak was the terminating end of the Welshpool and Llanfair light railway, which had street-level running through the town, only operated for 29 years and closed to passenger service in 1931. The defunct part of the station wasn't built on until the 1990s.

The main line is still in place on the other side of the road, with a new station at the other end of the bridge in your photo.








						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

In Lambeth, south London we've recently had the outcome of a court case which essentially looked at whether or not the council had implemented experimental low traffic neighbourhoods according to the law. A major part of this was whether or not they had followed their duty to consider potential negative effects for disabled people. The conclusion was that the council did follow the law.

The groups who initiated the court case, having had their claims all dismissed, are increasingly losing the plot. Over the past months there's been a general ramping up of the message that LTNs are intrinsically racist, sexist and ablist.

But they've cranked it up a further notch now, with an elected conservative councillor describing it as "eugenics":


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 1, 2021)

LTN's do seem to have got some people very hot under the collar.  I'd say its too much sun but there hasn't been any of that recently.


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

It would be complete fruitcake bollocks for anyone to suggest LTNs are intrinsically racist, sexist and ablist.

In a great many cases however they amount to nothing more than middle-class fucking NIMBYism at its most cynical, hypocritical and nauseating. Not to mention damaging to the poor sods outside the areas who now live among pretty much permanent traffic jams during all daylight hours when before they only happened at peak rush hour, and not even every day.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 1, 2021)

If closing smaller residential roads to through traffic creates permanent jams elsewhere that means _there are too many fucking cars, not that LTN’s are wrong._


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If closing smaller residential roads to through traffic creates permanent jams elsewhere that means _there are too many fucking cars, not that LTN’s are wrong._


No, it means that the LTNs are wrong and/or we need more roads. 
"Hey, I have a great solution to the increasing traffic problem, let's close roads!"   
NIMBYism at its finest. 
The brief was more along the lines of 'How can we make our houses worth more', and it's no surprise that certain posters are siding with this.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If closing smaller residential roads to through traffic creates permanent jams elsewhere that means _there are too many fucking cars, not that LTN’s are wrong._



What nonsense. If you close small bus stops and this creates large queues at principle bus stops, does it mean you ought not to have closed those bus stops, or that there are too many fucking bus passengers? 

If you really did need to close those bus stops because nearby residents simply could not stand the sight of loitering bus passengers, then an appropriate solution might be to compulsorily purchase some of their houses to make way for a new guided busway.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What nonsense. If you close small bus stops and this creates large queues at principle bus stops, does it mean you ought not to have closed those bus stops, or that there are too many fucking bus passengers?


What if there's a permanent traffic jam but all the buses are a quarter full? What does that mean? We need larger buses with SUV styling?


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No, it means that the LTNs are wrong and/or we need more roads.
> "Hey, I have a great solution to the increasing traffic problem, let's close roads!"
> NIMBYism at its finest.
> The brief was more along the lines of 'How can we make our houses worth more', and it's no surprise that certain posters are siding with this.


I'm sure it's just a meaningless coincidence that so many of these LTNs have ended up being used to regulate not single streets or small cluster of local streets near a junction that had been traditionally used for so-called rat runs, but for entire vast 'triangles' and conservation areas comprising fine Victorian housing stock, high property values and a decisively middle class local population, and which already enjoyed low levels of traffic. Such as the estate agent-tastic 'ABC Avenues' conservation area in Streatham, or vast chunks of Parsons Green and other parts of leafy Fulham.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> I'm sure it's just a meaningless coincidence that so many of these LTNs have ended up being used to regulate not single streets or small cluster of local streets near a junction that had been traditionally used for so-called rat runs, but for entire vast 'triangles' and conservation areas comprising fine Victorian housing stock, high property values and a decisively middle class local population, and which already enjoyed low levels of traffic. Such as the estate agent-tastic 'ABC Avenues' conservation area in Streatham, or vast chunks of Parsons Green and other parts of leafy Fulham.


Anyone capable of critical thinking knows exactly what LTNs are for and who they benefit. The nonsense that they are designed to reduce pollution is fucking laughable.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anyone capable of critical thinking knows exactly what LTNs are for and who they benefit. The nonsense that they are designed to reduce pollution is fucking laughable.


You'll know all about LTNs from your shed in rural Ireland won't you. I lived on a ratrun when I was a kid. It was shit.


----------



## nick (Jul 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> I'm sure it's just a meaningless coincidence that so many of these LTNs have ended up being used to regulate not single streets or small cluster of local streets near a junction that had been traditionally used for so-called rat runs, but for entire vast 'triangles' and conservation areas comprising fine Victorian housing stock, high property values and a decisively middle class local population, and which already enjoyed low levels of traffic. Such as the estate agent-tastic 'ABC Avenues' conservation area in Streatham, or vast chunks of Parsons Green and other parts of leafy Fulham.


I have no idea of the motivation for choosing the LTN areas, but I doubt it was as mendacious as I infer you are suggesting
The ABC roads were a great rat run to nip the corner off the south circular / A23 cross-over. I used to use them as a matter of course
Now I am limited to using the crown & sceptre junction. 
It is of no consolation to be people living on those A roads, but it certainly reduces the rat running through minor residential roads


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> You'll know all about LTNs from your shed in rural Ireland won't you. I lived on a ratrun when I was a kid. It was shit.


I lived on a main road into Manchester when I was a kid. It was a road, for vehicles. It facilitated people getting to where they needed to be.
One of our cats got run over and killed on the road one day, and it was traumatic. Fortunately, my mother and the green cross code man taught us that the road was for cars, and wasn't for playing on, and it worked, we didn't die on the road.
Roads are for vehicles...


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I lived on a main road into Manchester when I was a kid. It was a road, for vehicles. It facilitated people getting to where they needed to be.
> One of our cats got run over and killed on the road one day, and it was traumatic. Fortunately, my mother and the green cross chose man taught us that the road was for cars, and wasn't for playing on, and it worked, we didn't die on the road.
> Roads are for vehicles...


I didn't live on a main road but it had 200 yards if straight line so there was always some wanker breaking the speed limit trying to get round the inevitable traffic jam elsewhere. 

Cities are for people.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't live on a main road but it had 200 yards if straight line so there was always some wanker breaking the speed limit trying to get round the inevitable traffic jam elsewhere.
> 
> Cities are for people.


So your answer is to move the cars away from your front door and put them outside my front door?
What's that acronym again... Something to do with back yards?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 1, 2021)

.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What nonsense. If you close small bus stops and this creates large queues at principle bus stops, does it mean you ought not to have closed those bus stops, or that there are too many fucking bus passengers?
> 
> If you really did need to close those bus stops because nearby residents simply could not stand the sight of loitering bus passengers, then an appropriate solution might be to compulsorily purchase some of their houses to make way for a new guided busway.


I think you need to Google “false equivalence”


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> So your answer is to move the cars away from your front door and put them outside my front door?
> What's that acronym again... Something to do with back yards?


No. The point is to make car travel less convenient altogether and encourage people onto public transport. 

Only about a third of Londoners use cars as their main form of transport. Not only are very few of them making journeys that could be described as essential but most of them are getting in the way of those that are.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't live on a main road but it had 200 yards if straight line so there was always some wanker breaking the speed limit trying to get round the inevitable traffic jam elsewhere.
> 
> Cities are for people.



Cars are driven by people, they aren't abstract monsters. Cities are about living in close proximity for the efficiency gains, but this inevitably comes with compromises for individuals, which you no doubt took into account when deciding to live in London and not somewhere like Sark.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. The point is to make car travel less convenient altogether and encourage people onto public transport.
> 
> Only about a third of Londoners use cars as their main form of transport. Not only are very few of them making journeys that could be described as essential but most of them are getting in the way of those that are.


We're in the middle of a pandemic. Who in their right mind will want to use public transport?


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> We're in the middle of a pandemic. Who in their right mind will want to use public transport?


The buses never stopped and were never empty. Check your privilege.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Check your privilege.


🤣
Privilege is buying a house in London, then doing everything in your power to increase the value of your house, to the detriment of those less well off than you.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I lived on a main road into Manchester when I was a kid. It was a road, for vehicles. It facilitated people getting to where they needed to be.
> One of our cats got run over and killed on the road one day, and it was traumatic. Fortunately, my mother and the green cross code man taught us that the road was for cars, and wasn't for playing on, and it worked, we didn't die on the road.
> Roads are for vehicles...



I was up in Scotland the other week, the rural and car dependent area that I grew up in.

Most times I'm there I hear about a recent road fatality. This time it wasn't long after I arrived that we drove past a certain point at which it was mentioned 3 teenage pedestrians had been hit by a car. It's a road I know pretty well, and the incident happened at a curve that's at the end of a straight that I know people often speed on. One of the teenagers is now dead and another has life changing injuries that they'll never recover from.





__





						Teenager dies following serious road crash on the A82, near Lochend - Police Scotland
					

A 16-year-old boy who was involved in a collision with a white Audi Q3 on the A82 at Kirkton, near Lochend, Inverness on Thursday, 3 June, has now died in hospital.



					www.scotland.police.uk
				




It's really a shame that neither of these teenagers' had sufficient family pets killed, and were subject to deficient parenting. So many missed opportunities to ram it home to them that they will get what they deserve if they go near dangerous drivers getting to where they need to be.

Roads are for vehicles and lets hope this teaches other kids a lesson.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I was up in Scotland the other week, the rural and car dependent area that I grew up in.
> 
> Most times I'm there I hear about a recent road fatality. This time it wasn't long after I arrived that we drove past a certain point at which it was mentioned 3 teenage pedestrians had been hit by a car. It's a road I know pretty well, and the incident happened at a curve that's at the end of a straight that I know people often speed on. One of the teenagers is now dead and another has life changing injuries that they'll never recover from.
> 
> ...



There was a problem like that near here, a school route too. To avoid accidents such as the one you mention, the council solved it by buying a strip of land alongside the road, on the other side of the hedgerow, and creating a path for pedestrians so they didn't have to walk in the road.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Cars are driven by people, they aren't abstract monsters. Cities are about living in close proximity for the efficiency gains, but this inevitably comes with compromises for individuals, which you no doubt took into account when deciding to live in London and not somewhere like Sark.


No. Like most people my decisions about where I live have been based mainly on economic factors. I would imagine a very small proportion of the human race gets to choose where they live on any other basis. 

Like your mythical northerners who aren't taking that job in Barnard Castle because they've already moved where the work is.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There was a problem like that near here, a school route too. To avoid accidents such as the one you mention, the council solved it by buying a strip of land alongside the road, on the other side of the hedgerow, and creating a path for pedestrians so they didn't have to walk in the road.


What's your point?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I was up in Scotland the other week, the rural and car dependent area that I grew up in.
> 
> Most times I'm there I hear about a recent road fatality. This time it wasn't long after I arrived that we drove past a certain point at which it was mentioned 3 teenage pedestrians had been hit by a car. It's a road I know pretty well, and the incident happened at a curve that's at the end of a straight that I know people often speed on. One of the teenagers is now dead and another has life changing injuries that they'll never recover from.
> 
> ...


What does that have to do with cars or LTNs? That's entirely the fault of cunts, who happen to be in a car. 
300 people a year in the UK are killed by knife attacks, and about 5000 hospitalised. Should we ban knives? Of course not, because that would be fucking stupid, wouldn't it?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What's your point?



I'm not sure what your point was, but my point is that we need to build better roads, so that when humans inevitably make mistakes the consequences are less likely to be bad.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Privilege is buying a house in London, then doing everything in your power to increase the value of your house, to the detriment of those less well off than you.


Where do the 46% of Londoners who use public transport daily fit into this? 

And not everyone who owns a house is speculating on the value. I own a house (or rather the bank does and I am mortgaged for most of my remaining life) but have no interest at all in house prices going up. I'm sure there's technically some value I could extract from prices going up but I'll probably due in this house and it just makes it less likely my kids can move out.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What does that have to do with cars or LTNs? That's entirely the fault of cunts, who happen to be in a car.
> 300 people a year in the UK are killed by knife attacks, and about 5000 hospitalised. Should we ban knives? Of course not, because that would be fucking stupid, wouldn't it?


You're not allowed to walk down the road with a knife. How about we make it so cars are only allowed in kitchens?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're not allowed to walk down the road with a knife. How about we make it so cars are only allowed in kitchens?


You're not allowed to drive like a cunt, but both happen, evidently.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. Like most people my decisions about where I live have been based mainly on economic factors. I would imagine a very small proportion of the human race gets to choose where they live on any other basis.



Of course they do. No one buys or rents a home simply based on the price. Were there no existing cul-de-sacs you could have chosen to live on? You thought it would be a good idea to live on a through road despite hating moving vehicles?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Where do the 46% of Londoners who use public transport daily fit into this?
> 
> And not everyone who owns a house is speculating on the value.


I've no idea. Do they own a house, an if so, where is it? Do they own a car? Are they trying to get cars moved from their front door? Etc. 

And yeah, people don't care how much their house is worth...  🤣


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not sure what your point was, but my point is that we need to build better roads, so that when humans inevitably make mistakes the consequences are less likely to be bad.


So would you agree that all rural roads should have sub-40mph speed limits implemented until they have been provided with fully segregated pedestrian footpaths? And where there is no space for a segregated footpath to be built alongside the existing road, would you be happy for not only a speed limit to be implemented, but the roadway narrowed by as much as is necessary to accommodate a proper footpath?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What does that have to do with cars or LTNs?



It has to do with your treating the issue of pedestrian deaths as a joke.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So would you agree that all rural roads should have sub-40mph speed limits implemented until they have been provided with fully segregated pedestrian footpaths? And where there is no space for a segregated footpath to be built alongside the existing road, would you be happy for not only a speed limit to be implemented, but the roadway narrowed by as much as is necessary to accommodate a proper footpath?



Speed limits don't stop speeding do they, certainly not speeding by the people likely to have single-vehicle accidents. And narrow roads don't stop vehicles departing from the road in crashes, in fact a narrow road with a narrow pavement is just about the worst layout imaginable.

The only thing that actually stops speeding is density of traffic. Scrapping useless rural buses and introducing subsidised e-taxis for everyone in remote areas would certainly help in that regard, and would also help with the problem of pedestrians walking on rural A-roads.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Of course they do. No one buys or rents a home simply based on the price. Were there no existing cul-de-sacs you could have chosen to live on? You thought it would be a good idea to live on a through road despite hating moving vehicles?


If I meant 'price of house' when I said economic factors them obviously I could just buy a house in Sunderland or somewhere where they're cheap and commute to my London based job from there. And no, not a lot of cul-de-sacs where I live.

And I don't live on a through road, I said I grew up on one. The bottom of the road I live in was bollarded decades before I moved here  to stop it being a ratrun. We're still the pissheads' shortcut home on Friday and Saturday nights though.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> And yeah, people don't care how much their house is worth... 🤣


Completely separate argument but I don't see how it benefits me. I'll never own two properties so I'll only ever be swapping like for like and if house prices keep going up the kids'll never go. I'm sure there's some value I could extract somehow but at the moment the only positive is it's cheaper than renting.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It has to do with your treating the issue of pedestrian deaths as a joke.


Hasn't happened, but nice try.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Speed limits don't stop speeding do they, certainly not speeding by the people likely to have single-vehicle accidents. And narrow roads don't stop vehicles departing from the road in crashes, in fact a narrow road with a narrow pavement is just about the worst layout imaginable.
> 
> The only thing that actually stops speeding is density of traffic. Scrapping useless rural buses and introducing subsidised e-taxis for everyone in remote areas would certainly help in that regard, and would also help with the problem of pedestrians walking on rural A-roads.


Speed limiters would stop speeding.

So, fit speed limiters to all vehicles, set speed limits appropriate to the width of the roadway that's left over after a proper footpath has been built and we're all happy, right?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Completely separate argument but I don't see how it benefits me. I'll never own two properties so I'll only ever be swapping like for like and if house prices keep going up the kids'll never go. I'm sure there's some value I could extract somehow but at the moment the only positive is it's cheaper than renting.


By the time you retire you'll be able to swap it for a mansion outside the city. How is that not a benefit?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Speed limiters would stop speeding.
> 
> So, fit speed limiters to all vehicles, set speed limits appropriate to the width of the roadway that's left over after a proper footpath has been built and we're all happy, right?


There is one - and only one - argument against gps based speed limiters. “I’m a selfish twat who wants to drive fast where I shouldn’t”.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> By the time you retire you'll be able to swap it for a mansion outside the city. How is that not a benefit?


My house isn't worth nearly as much as you think it is. I live in zone six.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There is one - and only one - argument against gps based speed limiters. “I’m a selfish twat who wants to drive fast where I shouldn’t”.


Usually expressed as "but then I can't overtake safely [where it's not safe to do so]"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There is one - and only one - argument against gps based speed limiters. “I’m a selfish twat who wants to drive fast where I shouldn’t”.


Then there's the one that GPS can be quite inaccurate, and when these GPS speed limiters were tested, cars were braking on the motorway when they drove near roads with lower speed limits, which, as you must agree, is extremely dangerous?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Then there's the one that GPS can be quite inaccurate, and when these GPS speed limiters were tested, cars were braking on the motorway when they drove near roads with lower speed limits, which, as you must agree, is extremely dangerous?


Yeah, but the thing is, that's not how they actually work. It's proven technology and it's going to start being introduced from next year (at last).


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, but the thing is, that's not how they actually work. It's proven technology and it's going to start being introduced from next year (at last).



The ones that read road signs are even worse, because they react to signs on oblique side roads. And yes, the proposal isn't for braking but for engine limitation, which is just as bad if you're trying to join a motorway. Anyway they can be over-ridden by flooring it, so they won't actually limit the kind of people who cause most accidents.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The ones that read road signs are even worse, because they react to signs on oblique side roads. And yes, the proposal isn't for braking but for engine limitation, which is just as bad if you're trying to join a motorway. Anyway they can be over-ridden by flooring it, so they won't actually limit the kind of people who cause most accidents.


It's funny how you can go on about how wonderful every other aspect of road safety is these days (despite the thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities) but suddenly there are loads of problems with something that stops you breaking the law.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The ones that read road signs are even worse, because they react to signs on oblique side roads. And yes, the proposal isn't for braking but for engine limitation, which is just as bad if you're trying to join a motorway. Anyway they can be over-ridden by flooring it, so they won't actually limit the kind of people who cause most accidents.


Oh well. Looks like we're back to banning cars altogether as the only feasible solution then.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's funny how you can go on about how wonderful every other aspect of road safety is these days (despite the thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities) but suddenly there are loads of problems with something that stops you breaking the law.



Yeah I'm more interested in things that stop you having accidents than I am in things that stop you breaking the law.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Oh well. Looks like we're back to banning cars altogether as the only feasible solution then.



Or we just let people get on with their lives. Doctors make errors of judgement that kill people, all the time. We don't ban doctors becaue they have a net benefit, the same way that cars do.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Or we just let people get on with their lives. Doctors make errors of judgement that kill people, all the time. We don't ban doctors becaue they have a net benefit, the same way that cars do.


Cars don't have a net benefit. Maybe for some lucky individuals but for most their own is a liability, other people's are a nuisance and the system is slowly choking the world to death (that's if you're lucky enough not to be killed or maimed).

Apart from the odd day out in the countryside what possible benefit (let alone a net one) would one have for me?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Or we just let people get on with their lives. Doctors make errors of judgement that kill people, all the time. We don't ban doctors becaue they have a net benefit, the same way that cars do.


Don't start with that whole critical thinking and sensible posting thing. It's too much for some to get their head around, and it'll ruin the tone of the thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cars don't have a net benefit. Maybe for some lucky individuals but for most their own is a liability, other people's are a nuisance and the system is slowly choking the world to death (that's if you're lucky enough not to be killed or maimed).
> 
> Apart from the odd day out in the countryside what possible benefit (let alone a net one) would one have for me?



You're the lucky city-dweller who can see no need for a car. Most people aren't in your position.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You're the lucky city-dweller who can see no need for a car. Most people aren't in your position.


Most people live in cities.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most people live in cities.


Most people can see the need for a car.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most people live in cities.



Yes but they are lucky:



maomao said:


> Only about a third of Londoners use cars as their main form of transport.



Maybe most city-dwellers see the need for a car, but many don't, and even those that do drive less that people outside cities.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Maybe most city-dwellers see the need for a car, but many don't, and even those that do drive less that people outside cities.


'People who are less likely to need cars' in 'Are less likely to see the need for a car' shocker!


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

Guys, please, give it up. No car can ever possibly be of benefit to anyone ever. Nobody can ever be in need of using a private motor vehicle, anywhere. How many times do we have to go over this?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Or we just let people get on with their lives. Doctors make errors of judgement that kill people, all the time. We don't ban doctors becaue they have a net benefit, the same way that cars do.


If we took the same approach to doctors that we do to cars, we'd give them a medical qualification after a half hour playing the game "operation", and only stop them practicing if they killed more than 100 people per day.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Most people can see the need for a car.



Like city dwellers I used to work with who were childishly proud of not having been on public transport since they left school but couldn't manage a 100 yard walk to the shop on their break and spent the first hour of their day crying about the Blackwall Tunnell. All making rational decisions based on free choice I suppose.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If we took the same approach to doctors that we do to cars, we'd give them a medical qualification after a half hour playing the game "operation", and only stop them *practicing* if they killed more than 100 people per day.


I'm glad you used that word. It's a lot like *driving*. The more you do, the better you get.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If we took the same approach to doctors that we do to cars, we'd give them a medical qualification after a half hour playing the game "operation", and only stop them practicing if they killed more than 100 people per day.



We'd imprison them frequently when they caused deaths through their standard of care falling far below that which was expected.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> We'd imprison them frequently when they caused deaths through their standard of care falling far below that which was expected.


So not like drivers at all then.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Guys, please, give it up. No car can ever possibly be of benefit to anyone ever. Nobody can ever be in need of using a private motor vehicle, anywhere. How many times do we have to go over this?


I suppose if I'm scratching around for silver linings then as long as London remains ruled by the private car the possibility exists that you might get run over.


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I suppose if I'm scratching around for silver linings then as long as London remains ruled by the private car the possibility exists that you might get run over.


You need help.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I suppose if I'm scratching around for silver linings then as long as London remains ruled by the private car the possibility exists that you might get run over.



There are private cars in London, but to claim London is ruled by them is a rather warped viewpoint not aligned with reality.


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There are private cars in London, but to claim London is ruled by them is a rather warped viewpoint not aligned with reality.


No shit Sherlock. Cars, being machines, are incapable of weilding power or authority. It may have been metaphor, hyperbole or both. We are allowed to make use of rhetorical techniques other than analogy you know.


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> No shit Sherlock. Cars, being machines, are incapable of weilding power or authority. It may have been metaphor, hyperbole or both. We are allowed to make use of rhetorical techniques other than analogy you know.


I'm not


----------



## maomao (Jul 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> I'm not


platinumsage certainly posts as if he believes he's not. Every other post is a ridiculous analogy or false equivalence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 1, 2021)

All those who want to see an end to cars, you had your chance last week, but now teuchter’s back from his car dependant area it’s too late to have the positive effect of standing him up there, there’s really no other plus side to your plans, so I shall be seeking a 4ltr for the replacement bahnmobile.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All those who want to see an end to cars, you had your chance last week, but now teuchter’s back from his car dependant area it’s too late to have the positive effect of standing him up there, there’s really no other plus side to your plans, so I shall be seeking a 4ltr for the replacement bahnmobile.


I thought you were going to go all eco-warrior on us and buy some hippy hybrid


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 1, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I thought you were going to go all eco-warrior on us and buy some hippy hybrid



I tried starting with a bike, but today I had to drive it to Chessington as the charging port has failed, therefore my conclusion is e/hybrid is bollocks and a meaty ICE is king. May even pair it with an SUV, in case I get a bad back.


----------



## T & P (Jul 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All those who want to see an end to cars, you had your chance last week, but now teuchter’s back from his car dependant area it’s too late to have the positive effect of standing him up there, there’s really no other plus side to your plans, so I shall be seeking a 4ltr for the replacement bahnmobile.


teuchter has been surprisingly quiet about his various car journeys during his Scotland trip.

The fact that he couldn’t resist sharing a couple of images of roadside beauty spots goes to show that even a hardline anti car fundamentalist like him accepts cars can be sometimes be not just a crucial and irreplaceable mode of transportation, but also bring amazing enjoyment to their users.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> teuchter has been surprisingly quiet about his various car journeys during his Scotland trip.
> 
> The fact that he couldn’t resist sharing a couple of images of roadside beauty spots goes to show that even a hardline anti car fundamentalist like him accepts cars can be sometimes be not just a crucial and irreplaceable mode of transportation, but also bring amazing enjoyment to their users.


I've not been quiet really - I deliberately posted those images to give you and others a chance to write a post like this and feel all pleased with yourselves.

Successful clickbait.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> platinumsage certainly posts as if he believes he's not. Every other post is a ridiculous analogy or false equivalence.


We should also be careful posting from a purely hyperbolic standpoint when discussing such important matters.


T & P said:


> teuchter has been surprisingly quiet about his various car journeys during his Scotland trip.
> 
> The fact that he couldn’t resist sharing a couple of images of roadside beauty spots goes to show that even a hardline anti car fundamentalist like him accepts cars can be sometimes be not just a crucial and irreplaceable mode of transportation, but also bring amazing enjoyment to their users.


'Hypocrite' in 'Doesn't want  to shout it from the rooftops'  shocker!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

The narrator is an idiot, but my ambition is to feature in one of these videos some day and not as one of the spoilt brats revving their toy cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The narrator is an idiot, but my ambition is to feature in one of these videos some day and not as one of the spoilt brats revving their toy cars.



My ambition is to knock someone the fuck out that tries that on a car of mine. I'm saving up for a Lambo to make it happen.


----------



## T & P (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've not been quiet really - I deliberately posted those images to give you and others a chance to write a post like this and feel all pleased with yourselves.
> 
> Successful clickbait.


Though also generously providing free ammunition for future hypocrisy charges if you choose to further support calls to ban all those evil death machines blighting our very existence


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> Though also generously providing free ammunition for future hypocrisy charges if you choose to further support calls to ban all those evil death machines blighting our very existence


You're still struggling to grasp what it is I want to ban.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 2, 2021)

Pretty much everyone in that video came across as an idiot except possibly the driver of the last Lamborghini who managed to restrain himself from thumping the guy who kicked his car. I was surprised by the kickers and keyers themselves though, most of them looked like respectable upstanding citizens who would just tut-tut rather than react aggressively.
Best bit by a long way was the cop telling the guy with the phone he was seizing it as evidence, "What no you can't have my phone!"


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've not been quiet really - I deliberately posted those images to give you and others a chance to write a post like this and feel all pleased with yourselves.
> 
> Successful clickbait.



I think you had fun blatting around the countryside in your hatchback, definitely not keeping at sub-40 mph speeds and absolutely delighted that you weren’t in a succession of buses.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I was surprised by the kickers and keyers themselves though, most of them looked like respectable upstanding citizens who would just tut-tut rather than react aggressively.


Kickers and keyers are by definition respectable upstanding citizens.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The narrator is an idiot, but my ambition is to feature in one of these videos some day and not as one of the spoilt brats revving their toy cars.




In fairness, half of these cars are on foreign plates and the assaults are in and around Knightsbridge. Every year there's an influx of these fucking things where rich kids from Monaco and the Gulf States fly their cars over for what they call "the season" and wreak havoc, knowing full well they can't be done unless they're physically arrested. If that happens they often get diplomatic immunity somehow. I'd be quite happy if all their cars were crushed.


----------



## maomao (Jul 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> In fairness, half of these cars are on foreign plates and the assaults are in and around Knightsbridge. Every year there's an influx of these fucking things where rich kids from Monaco and the Gulf States fly their cars over for what they call "the season" and wreak havoc, knowing full well they can't be done unless they're physically arrested. If that happens they often get diplomatic immunity somehow. I'd be quite happy if all their cars were crushed.


Great post.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Kickers and keyers are by definition respectable upstanding citizens.




If only you could summon up the bollocks to join them, rather than fantasising about it on message boards.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The narrator is an idiot, but my ambition is to feature in one of these videos some day and not as one of the spoilt brats revving their toy cars.



All twats.  The drivers and the angry kickers/keyers.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> All twats.  The drivers and the angry kickers/keyers.



The last driver was a thoroughly decent bloke!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The last driver was a thoroughly decent bloke!


Yes he was.  I should have said "except the last driver"!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The last driver was a thoroughly decent bloke!


No he wasn't - he had a stupid car, was revving it uneccessarily, and then tried to gaslight the man who took completely reasonable action.

The guy shouldn't have apologised; he should have escalated to keying, seeing as the driver hadn't learned his lesson from the milder action.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The guy shouldn't have apologised; he should have escalated to keying, seeing as the driver hadn't learned his lesson from the milder action.


Straight to keying? And miss out the terrible 2s and feet stamping?


----------



## T & P (Jul 2, 2021)

Like teuchter I'm all for direct action against anti-social road users. We could, for instance, spray entitled zombie lemmings who don't wait for the green man at traffic light pedestrian crossings with a water gun, or slash the tyres of cyclists caught riding on the pavement or jumping traffic lights.

This type of actions, coupled with those targetting antisocial car drivers, would sure ensure every road user, whether on foot, two wheels or four, would soon learn to behave responsibly and respectfully when out and about


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Straight to keying? And miss out the terrible 2s and feet stamping?


The terrible 2s and foot stamping is reserved for car owners, as demonstrated in the video.


----------



## maomao (Jul 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> as demonstrated in the video.


And on this thread.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2021)

Proper speeding laws:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2021)

Epic level work


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 15, 2021)

Funny enough, I collected a mate from Brighton hospital yesterday, and there's loads of cyclists acting like complete twats in the city, I've never witnessed such behaviour, maybe the sun got to them.

I always leave plenty of space when I overtake them, yet they are happy to speed past on the inside with just inches to spare, or cut across in front of me to turn right, with no warning whatsoever, and forcing me to brake hard, suddenly weaving out of the cycling lane into the car lane, to over take, without even looking, etc. etc. 

Having to put up with that behaviour all day long, on a daily basis, it's hardly surprising that some professional drivers get aggressive with some of the cycling twats.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 15, 2021)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 15, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


>





Beep the cunt for for doing 12 in a 40, that kind of thing?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


>




Sarah's a moron.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 15, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Sarah's a moron.


It's in the highway code that you should give at least as much room to a cylist as you would to car when overtaking


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It's in the highway code that you should give at least as much room to a cylist as you would to car when overtaking



And?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 15, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And?


so her advice is correct and she is not a moron


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> so her advice is correct and she is not a moron



No. This is wrong.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2021)

Call the police if you see a cyclist cycling along pavements, it might be a terrorist.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Call the police if you see a cyclist cycling along pavements, it might be a terrorist.



Practically a certainty in London.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Proper speeding laws:



read an article in the news this morning. A woman got her Dad's car confiscated after "insane" driving whilst under the influence of drugs. 

The anti car brigade are missing a trick. Be nice to Lamborgini drivers so they allow you to borrow their car. Then go fucking mental, and the police seize the vehicle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Practically a certainty in London.


you often hear that the police target criminals' use of the roads, on the basis that people who break one law may well break another. sadly they only target this at drivers. for some reason cyclists who break the law by riding on pavements or commit infractions of road traffic legislation are only subject to an at best token targeting by the police. yet it would seem foolish to assume that cyclists are all morally pure. i suspect more drug dealing than you'd expect involves a cycle at some point. and if anti-social criminals know that they can ditch the motor for a pushbike and evade police interference then you can be sure they'd do so.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The narrator is an idiot, but my ambition is to feature in one of these videos some day and not as one of the spoilt brats revving their toy cars.





Sarah says we must throw coffee at cyclists now.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2021)

I guess we should also scratch them with keys and slash their tyres, as advocated by the warrior car-abolitionists here.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> suddenly weaving out of the cycling lane into the car lane



Just FYI, there's no such thing as a "car lane".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Funny enough, I collected a mate from Brighton hospital yesterday, and there's loads of cyclists acting like complete twats in the city, I've never witnessed such behaviour, maybe the sun got to them.
> 
> I always leave plenty of space when I overtake them, yet they are happy to speed past on the inside with just inches to spare, or cut across in front of me to turn right, with no warning whatsoever, and forcing me to brake hard, suddenly weaving out of the cycling lane into the car lane, to over take, without even looking, etc. etc.
> 
> Having to put up with that behaviour all day long, on a daily basis, it's hardly surprising that some professional drivers get aggressive with some of the cycling twats.



What's your genius plan for turning right from a cycle lane then?

Newer cycle lanes are designed to encourage cyclists to move into primary position at junctions; primary position being what the centre of what ignorant motorists from the 70's call a 'car lane'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Just FYI, there's no such thing as a "car lane".



OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'. 

Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'.
> 
> Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.


I'm afraid you've just demonstrated the misunderstanding that I feared your wording indicated.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> OK, 'lane meant for motorised vehicles and separated from a bollard lined cycle lane, designed for the safely of cyclists, but ignored by some cycling twats, with a death wish, that just weave out beyond the bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking'.
> 
> Bit long winded, but that's basically a 'car lane'.



The only place you'll find a lane for the exclusive use of motorised vehicles is on a (the clue is in the name) motorway.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm afraid you've just demonstrated the misunderstanding that I feared your wording indicated.



So, you think it's OK for cyclists to weave out beyond these bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, you think it's OK for cyclists to weave out lemming-like beyond these bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking?
> 
> View attachment 278676


C4U


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 15, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> What's your genius plan for turning right from a cycle lane then?



In this case, wait until the lights turn red for cars going straight ahead, cycle across the lane, in time for the turn right light to change green.

Much better than suddenly crossing the traffic moving forward, risking life, only to have to pause at the red right turn light, because the other carriage [2 lanes] is moving faster.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, you think it's OK for cyclists to weave out beyond these bollards into the path of motorised vehicles, without signalling or even looking?
> 
> View attachment 278676


Not sure why you think I'd reckon that was a good idea. If I wanted to move into the lane that you seem to think cyclists shouldn't be in, I'd look, and signal.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

Anyway, another entitled car owner - who thinks she owns the pavement too. 











						Virgin Media installs huge connection box across woman's drive
					

Cable TV giant Virgin Media said the new box on Beeley Road, Grimsby replaced an old one in the same place - but that was MUCH smaller




					www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2021)

I mean, there's quite literally no way she could drive around it. Nope.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

"Huge" connection box, says woman standing in front of box dwarfed by massive SUV.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> "Huge" connection box, says woman standing in front of box dwarfed by massive SUV.



Worse than an SUV, it’s a massive pick up truck.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Call the police if you see a cyclist cycling along pavements, it might be a terrorist.


And/or a paedo.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2021)

Here's more very typical car driver behaviour.









						Cheshunt: Police hurt before stolen car driven along railway line
					

Video footage shows what one eyewitness described as "like a scene from Grand Theft Auto".



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




In this case, a repressed urge to travel by rail, which they know deep down is better. But they saw a Range Rover advert on TV with lots of revving noises, some kind of twisting mountain roads or a beach or something, an implication that they would suddenly find an attractive partner by having a shiny metal thing, their testosterone levels went out of control and they went out and stole one. Now look at them, no cash to buy a train ticket, limited intellectual capacity due to being a car fancier and here's what happens.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here's more very typical car driver behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A train geek stole a car because he didn't want to mix with train types, but soon realised that the only roads he knew were railroads.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, another entitled car owner - who thinks she owns the pavement too.
> 
> View attachment 278679
> 
> ...


Tbf to the woman this is one of those things that are tragic when they happen to you but funny when they happen to someone else. But her complaints have zero legal standing, No-one owns the pavement in front of their house and unless there is a dropped kerb then there is no right to drive across it. It's clear from the 2009 photo there was never an initial right of access and she took out the original wall. I would imagine her chance of getting her dropped kerb now have gone as well since any council surveyor is going to see the box and say 'Nope'. They can't 'just' move it anyway since that means a lot of cables would have to be relaid.
There is a lot of unrelated 'entitlement' in that article. What has the fact that she spent money on the house got to do with this? She also doesn't have a driveway, she has a front garden which she has paved over.
Besides all it means is that she and presumably her husband will just have to shuffle cars about each morning or make sure that whoever goes out first is parked on the left. Before  I had our front lawn paved over Mrs Q and I parked our cars one in front of the other and whoever was gone second had to park first.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

Yes, not only has she actively and selfishly degraded the streetscape (like anyone who paves over their front garden) but she shouldn't have been driving across that bit of pavement anyway and was therefore possibly doing damage to the public realm physically as well as aesthetically. Typical car owner.


----------



## maomao (Jul 16, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Tbf to the woman this is one of those things that are tragic when they happen to you but funny when they happen to someone else. But her complaints have zero legal standing, No-one owns the pavement in front of their house and unless there is a dropped kerb then there is no right to drive across it. It's clear from the 2009 photo there was never an initial right of access and she took out the original wall. I would imagine her chance of getting her dropped kerb now have gone as well since any council surveyor is going to see the box and say 'Nope'. They can't 'just' move it anyway since that means a lot of cables would have to be relaid.
> There is a lot of unrelated 'entitlement' in that article. What has the fact that she spent money on the house got to do with this? She also doesn't have a driveway, she has a front garden which she has paved over.
> Besides all it means is that she and presumably her husband will just have to shuffle cars about each morning or make sure that whoever goes out first is parked on the left. Before  I had our front lawn paved over Mrs Q and I parked our cars one in front of the other and whoever was gone second had to park first.


My twattiest neighbour decided he owned the whole pavement when he moved in. His house has a garage and a dropped kerb and because the garage is full of junk he decided to park in front of it forcing every wheelchair and buggy into the road. Talking to him didn't help. Notes through the door did nothing. Parking tickets had no effect (and he claimed in our street's group chat to have got out of paying them in court somehow, god knows why as he was ge uinely causing an obstruction). However, he moved it quick smart when some enterprising buggy-pusher keyed the fuck out of his bonnet. Entitled piece of shit, same as the idiot in the article. I have flowers in my front garden to try and keep the street looking nice. That's what front gardens are for. Not putting fucking cars on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2021)

i’ve just ordered a load of You Park Like A Cunt stickers to slap on the windscreen of pavement parkers. can’t wait to use them


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> i’ve just ordered a load of You Park Like A Cunt stickers to slap on the windscreen of pavement parkers. can’t wait to use them


Please post some pictures when you get around to it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Please post some pictures when you get around to it.


i’m not sure i’ll want to hang around too long after doing so, but i’ll do my best


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 16, 2021)

There is no such thing as an obligation to maintain the streetscape, if you want to grow flowers on it and make it look pretty that is your right to do so, but she has an equal right to pave over it if she wants it's her property not that of the street.
As indeed did I (though we have always had a dropped kerb). In my own case my need was driven by my eldest daughter passing her test and my realisation that there was a great deal of valuable parking land that was going to waste and was costing me effort to maintain but was bringing me no benefit. The rear garden is great, we can have barbecues and just sit out there when the weather is nice but the front garden was basically just a burden.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> i’ve just ordered a load of You Park Like A Cunt stickers to slap on the windscreen of pavement parkers. can’t wait to use them



I used to keep a pad of them in the car.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2021)

As if OU would have the bottle to do that, similar to toocher's keying wet-dreams.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As if OU would have the bottle to do that, similar to toocher's keying wet-dreams.



I reckon he might do it at night. Really quickly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As if OU would have the bottle to do that, similar to toocher's keying wet-dreams.


it’s now to do with bottle, just fed up of constant every day pavement parking


----------



## David Clapson (Jul 16, 2021)

In Berlin it was the thing to pop a firelighter on the tyre.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> it’s now to do with bottle, just fed up of constant every day pavement parking


Talk of "bottle" is only to be expected from the toxic masculinity, macho posturing petrol head dinosaur motorist brigade.

The implication that someone taking action to protect the public by placing a sticker, should be prepared for or invite direct confrontation is just a kind of victim blaming. Again, just what you'd expect from the toxic masculinity, macho posturing petrol head dinosaur motorist brigade.


----------



## nick (Jul 16, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> i’ve just ordered a load of You Park Like A Cunt stickers to slap on the windscreen of pavement parkers. can’t wait to use them


To save me the 180 seconds of googling, it would be great if you could post a link to the site from where you ordered them, please.
I have a need


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 16, 2021)

I’ll repeat my old top tip - if somone has parked like a cunt then a friendly message letting them know this, written on the windscreen with a lipstick, is _really_ hard to remove. Learnt this from an ex girlfriend who happened to be a wheelchair user…


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 16, 2021)

nick said:


> To save me the 180 seconds of googling, it would be great if you could post a link to the site from where you ordered them, please.
> I have a need


amazon


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 16, 2021)

nick said:


> To save me the 180 seconds of googling, it would be great if you could post a link to the site from where you ordered them, please.
> I have a need











						Home - You Park Like a C***
					

Welcome to YPLAC [wai.plak] A rogues’ gallery of the world’s very worst parking, created by you. Submit a pic… Latest C***s Oh, the absolute irony! Medication cunt Two for one at Aldi, lads. Pass me the tin-opener Pavement cunt Garden variety Audi cunt. White Range Rover in Cunt Parking Shocker...




					yplac.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2021)

It's ok to murder people with your car, if you get into an argument with them, UK court decides.









						Essex man cleared of murdering woman he 'accidentally' ran over with his car
					

A motorist has been cleared of murdering a woman who was crushed under his car following a minor collision, a court has heard.




					www.eppingforestguardian.co.uk
				






> The court heard how Mrs Pirali-Dashti had been travelling towards Brent Cross with her husband, Asghar Moradmand, when their Honda Civic bumped into Barrow’s Volkswagen Touareg.
> Prosecutor Deanna Heer alleged that Barrow “lost his temper” following the minor collision and punched Mr Moradmand in the face.
> 
> Mrs Pirali-Dashti was standing in front of the defendant’s car on the phone to the police when Barrow knocked her to the ground, jurors heard.
> ...



Even Daily Mail readers think it's disgusting -


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

More proof that we need to register these death machines. 


> Cyclist 'jumped red light and killed pedestrian Peter McCombie'​*A cyclist killed a 73-year-old pedestrian after riding through a red light, leaving him "bleeding" in the road, a court has heard.*
> 
> Ms Heer said the lights had been "on red for over five seconds" but Mr Loka continued cycling and crashed into Mr McCombie.
> She added: "As he lay on the road, bleeding and unconscious, the defendant - who had also fallen down - *picked up his bike and cycled away, leaving others to call an ambulance for Mr *











						Cyclist 'jumped red light and killed pedestrian Peter McCombie'
					

Peter McCombie died from severe brain injuries after he was struck in Tower Hamlets last year.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

Is there no end to this madness!


> E-bike cyclist killed pedestrian while ‘travelling 10mph over speed limit’ in London, court told​At the time of the collision, the 32-year-old was travelling at speeds of 30mph on a road limited to 20mph, jurors were told.











						E-bike cyclist killed pedestrian while ‘travelling 10mph over speed limit’ in London, court told
					

Thomas Hanlon accused of causing death by careless driving after colliding with Sakine Cihan




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2021)

NB the second one of those is a motorcycle.


----------



## maomao (Jul 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> NB the second one of those is a motorcycle.


I know there's a lot of love for e-bikes on these boards but there are tonnes of 'e-bikes' on the road where I live that are in fact electric motorbikes, largely delivery companies like Deliveroo etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> NB the second one of those is a motorcycle.


It's a cyclist with ideas above his station.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

maomao said:


> I know there's a lot of love for e-bikes on these boards but there are tonnes of 'e-bikes' on the road where I live that are in fact electric motorbikes, largely delivel


They're everywhere. They're supposed to be pedal assisted (or is it motor assisted?) but there's videos all over YouTube of cyclists flying along at breakneck speeds without a single twist of the crank.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a cyclist with ideas above his station.


I'm not too bothered about what you want to call motorcyclists. But it's good that you have finally realised that they are a lethal hazard, even at 30mph. The next step is to reflect on your own behaviour and start making some changes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm not too bothered about what you want to call motorcyclists.


They're cheating cyclists. No different to the drug-fuelled frenzy cyclists who attack pedestrians in the Rage De France.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's ok to murder people with your car, if you get into an argument with them, UK court decides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps the Daily Mail readers aren't aware of the full facts of the case. For example, the victim died of coronavirus in hospital, and that would be entirely unforeseen and unconnected with the defendant's act. Perhaps the prosecution should have gone for a lesser charge if they weren't confident of convincing a jury that murder was the appropriate charge in this case.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I guess we should also scratch them with keys and slash their tyres, as advocated by the warrior car-abolitionists here.


There is a happy medium, where tolerance is upheld from all sides based on respect for others and the actions that may impact others in a negative way.Only when this tolerance and respect is broken should we key the cars. Big fucking multi panel scratches down to the primer . I speak as a medium ranking petrol head here


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> There is a happy medium, where tolerance is upheld from all sides based on respect for others and the actions that may impact others in a negative way.Only when this tolerance and respect is broken should we key the cars. Big fucking multi panel scratches down to the primer . I speak as a medium ranking petrol head here



Are you up for keying cyclists down to the blood if they aren't tolerant and respectful too?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2021)

Dog shit on their handlebars


----------



## bimble (Jul 21, 2021)

I love driving. Sunny morning, country road, singing badly & loudly. It’s great. Wasted on the young.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Are you up for keying cyclists down to the blood if they aren't tolerant and respectful too?


Bring back the chariot, I say.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps the Daily Mail readers aren't aware of the full facts of the case. For example, the victim died of coronavirus in hospital, and that would be entirely unforeseen and *unconnected with the defendant's act. *


Why did they go for manslaughter then?


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Are you up for keying cyclists down to the blood if they aren't tolerant and respectful too?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why did they go for manslaughter then?


Because they were fucking idiots? 
The jury only get to decide if the defendant is guilty (in their view) of what they're charged with. They don't get to find them guilty of a lesser charge if they're not charged with one. 
The CPS obviously fucked up. You can't blame the jury for that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Are you up for keying cyclists down to the blood if they aren't tolerant and respectful too?



You know cars don't feel pain right?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 21, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You know cars don't feel pain right?


i keyed a pavement parker last night. will see if they’re still there this evening.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 21, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because they were fucking idiots?
> The jury only get to decide if the defendant is guilty (in their view) of what they're charged with. They don't get to find them guilty of a lesser charge if they're not charged with one.
> The CPS obviously fucked up. You can't blame the jury for that.


I’m not surprised if the CPS were wary of trying to prove murder.  They would need to prove that the driver intentionally _wanted_ to hurt her, but he claims that he wasn’t aware that she was lying there. Manslaughter is much easier to go for, as you only need to show that he acted recklessly and negligently in a way that could have been foreseen to endanger life.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> i keyed a pavement parker last night.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 279787


dunno why you doubt me. it’s very easy to do, much easier than putting the stickers i have on the car


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 21, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> i keyed a pavement parker last night. will see if they’re still there this evening.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You know cars don't feel pain right?



It sounds like you wish they did.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It sound like you wish they did.



What a fucking weird thing to say.


----------



## maomao (Jul 22, 2021)

Entitled driver of the week is the mother of one of my daughter's friends. I had to walk in the road to get to school this morning because her cuntmobile was parked across the whole pavement. Then she has a screaming match with the traffic warden who was trying to give her a ticket in front of all the kids and then drives off at top speed having to brake hard to slow down for her corner less than a hundred yards away. With primary school kids all over the shop. Silly cunt lives less than ten minutes walk away and can't have been on her way to work unless she's a professional nightwear model. I gave the poor warden a friendly nod and told him to give them all fucking tickets. Absolute arseholes. Why should.cunts like this be allowed driving licenses?


----------



## maomao (Jul 22, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> What a fucking weird thing to say.


He is entirely unable to conceive that people might actually be genuinely inconvenienced by his and others' entitled behaviour so he assumes objections are based on jealousy and hatred or something. In fact unless you're amused by really fucking stupid and pointless analogies he's not worth bothering with at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 22, 2021)

Jeremy Vine cycling like a twat again:





Big debate in the comments but with Beano-style comic lolz he even claims he knew the driver was going to turn but decided to plough through and use his horn rather than hang back like the Highway Code requires.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Jeremy Vine cycling like a twat again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

Meanwhile, this is symbolic of motorists' entitled and selfish attitude in general:









						Highways England may have to reverse concreting of Victorian bridge arch
					

Agency must apply for retrospective planning permission after filling in railway arch in Cumbria




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## T & P (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> *Meanwhile, this is symbolic of motorists' entitled and selfish attitude in general:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice try


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Meanwhile, this is symbolic of motorists' entitled and selfish attitude in general:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the most boring post on this thread.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Meanwhile, this is symbolic of motorists' entitled and selfish attitude in general:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That has nothing to do with motorists. It is the Highways of England that did it. Not the motorists.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is the most boring post on this thread.


I thought it was quite funny, watching teuchter clutching at straws.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is the most boring post on this thread.


It's also one of the most stupid. It's nothing to do with motorists except they use the bridge, but so do cyclists , horse riders, and pedestrians etc. It's just teuchter being teuchter and looking for anything to suggest motorists are to blame, no matter how tenuously.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 22, 2021)

T & P said:


> Nice try


Not really, just him trying to wind up the cyclists into another anti car frenzy.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

It's prompted a frenzy of 6 petrol-head numpty posts in a row though. In less than an hour. Rushing to the defence of their beloved mass concrete, with which they'd ideally pave over the entirety of the UK.


----------



## T & P (Jul 22, 2021)

dessiato said:


> It's also one of the most stupid. It's nothing to do with motorists except they use the bridge, but so do cyclists , horse riders, and pedestrians etc. It's just teuchter being teuchter and looking for anything to suggest motorists are to blame, no matter how tenuously.


Yet he continues to ignore far more troubling associations, such as Hitler's fondness for bicycles and trains. I know which group I'd rather fall into.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's prompted a frenzy of 6 petrol-head numpty posts in a row though. In less than an hour. Rushing to the defence of their beloved mass concrete, with which they'd ideally pave over the entirety of the UK.


Cycle lanes paved in fine bone china then are they?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's prompted a frenzy of 6 petrol-head numpty posts in a row though. In less than an hour. Rushing to the defence of their beloved mass concrete, with which they'd ideally pave over the entirety of the UK.



This is poor, has the heat got to you?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's prompted a frenzy of 6 petrol-head numpty posts in a row though. In less than an hour. Rushing to the defence of their beloved mass concrete, with which they'd ideally pave over the entirety of the UK.


Have you been sniffing crotch lycra again?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

The numpty response rate is now up at 16 posts per hour. 

I note we're on page 100 of this thread now.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> .
> I note we're on page 100 of this thread now.



Yet still no functional anti-car propaganda has been posted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I note we're on page 100 of this thread now.


You're welcome, but we couldn't have done it without you to take the piss out of.


----------



## T & P (Jul 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're welcome, but we couldn't have done it without you to take the piss out of.


I mean, this is what this thread is really all about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 22, 2021)

T & P said:


> I mean, this is what this thread is really all about.


It's quite funny that teuchter thinks otherwise.


----------



## maomao (Jul 22, 2021)

_yawn_ 

teuchter has run rings round most of you dullards. It's only the thick ones that even bother anymore.


----------



## T & P (Jul 22, 2021)

If his Highways Agency effort is an example of him running rings round anyone, god help us all.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's only the thick ones that even bother anymore.



I've noted this too.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 22, 2021)

Had to post this somewhere so here will do.

Driving through Kentish Town earlier there's a bit of a queue at some traffic lights. The car in front of me was sensibly quite close to the kerb, probably to dissuade cyclists from filtering down the inside and knocking door mirrors etc. This didn't stop one bellend from trying though, and he squeezed along the side leaning his cuntraption over the pavement. A bloke was walking a dog on the pavement and as the cycle moron put his foot down the dog bit him really hard! 

Made my day!!!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

Dogs should have licenses, numberplates and insurance.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> _yawn_
> 
> teuchter has run rings round most of you dullards. It's only the thick ones that even bother anymore.


Except this isn't true. The anti car posters have done little except attract piss taking and general ridicule. Even the most brain dead can see the hypocrisy of much of their arguments. The I don't need a car except when I need a car argument often posted here sticks two fingers up at their own arguments. 

“First they ignore you, then *they* laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ― Mahatma Gandhi.

And that is how the anti car brigade is doing here. Your own arguments are ridiculous. If you had any intelligence you could see this. But your own closed mindedness means you can't see the ridiculousness of your arguments. We, the more open minded, the ones who can see the many sides of the arguments have won.


----------



## maomao (Jul 22, 2021)

Sorry, when I said 'thick' what I meant was 'entirely devoid of intelligence or self-awareness'.


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Dogs should have licenses, numberplates and insurance.


Except if they’re on bicycles of course


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 22, 2021)

Pedestrians are most in need of licensing. Perhaps stepping off a pavement should be illegal for the unlicensed unless wearing his-vis and accompanied by a fully licensed adult.


----------



## T & P (Jul 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrians are most in need of licensing. Perhaps stepping off a pavement should be illegal for the unlicensed unless wearing his-vis and accompanied by a fully licensed adult.


Alternatively, making them wear contact mines attached to various parts of their body could finally do the trick and awaken their self-preservation instinct whilst out and about.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 22, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2021)

New book out.

Some readers of this thread may need to start emailing their local bookshops to demand that this kind of radical propaganda is not made available to the populace.









						Curbing Traffic
					






					islandpress.org


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2021)

On the contrary, I'm all for ensuring masturbatory aids are readily available to anyone who needs them.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> New book out.
> 
> Some readers of this thread may need to start emailing their local bookshops to demand that this kind of radical propaganda is not made available to the populace.
> 
> ...



There’s no need when we have evangelists like you to parrot their arguments. 

Do they mention anything about mundane issues such as Park & Ride and people who don’t live in cities among their chapters on Feminism and Prosperity, or is it all sunlit uplands?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2021)

dessiato said:


> Except this isn't true. The anti car posters have done little except attract piss taking and general ridicule. Even the most brain dead can see the hypocrisy of much of their arguments. The I don't need a car except when I need a car argument often posted here sticks two fingers up at their own arguments.
> 
> “First they ignore you, then *they* laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” ― Mahatma Gandhi.
> 
> And that is how the anti car brigade is doing here. Your own arguments are ridiculous. If you had any intelligence you could see this. But your own closed mindedness means you can't see the ridiculousness of your arguments. We, the more open minded, the ones who can see the many sides of the arguments have won.



It's actually quite impressive to have posted the single most pompous thing ever seen on this forum, particularly considering the many formidable competitors in that field, so congratulations I guess?


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's actually quite impressive to have posted the single most pompous thing ever seen on this forum, particularly considering the many formidable competitors in that field, so congratulations I guess?


I think you have to be right in some way to count as pompous. But to include a quote that's not only misattributed but seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you're trying to say is just embarrassingly thick.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 27, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's actually quite impressive to have posted the single most pompous thing ever seen on this forum, particularly considering the many formidable competitors in that field, so congratulations I guess?





maomao said:


> I think you have to be right in some way to count as pompous. But to include a quote that's not only misattributed but seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you're trying to say is just embarrassingly thick.


I was very curious to see who would respond, and how. I was very disappointed it took you so long. Are you just a bit off your game?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think you have to be right in some way to count as pompous. But to include a quote that's not only misattributed but seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you're trying to say is just embarrassingly thick.



I _loved_ the Ghandi quote. Particularly as Ghandi was definitely talking about the right of middle aged men to mask their insecurities by cunting about in needlessly fast cars regardless of the consequences.


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I _loved_ the Ghandi quote. Particularly as Ghandi was definitely talking about the right of middle aged men to mask their insecurities by cunting about in needlessly fast cars regardless of the consequences.


It wasn't even Gandhi.





dessiato said:


> I was very curious to see who would respond, and how. I was very disappointed it took you so long. Are you just a bit off your game?


I responded almost immediately. I just didn't quote you.


----------



## dessiato (Jul 27, 2021)

maomao said:


> It wasn't even Gandhi.
> I responded almost immediately. I just didn't quote you.


Is that what it was supposed to be? It looked like you were just making a vague insult to anyone who isn't you.


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2021)

dessiato said:


> Is that what it was supposed to be? It looked like you were just making a vague insult to anyone who isn't you.


See. That's what I meant by lacking self-awareness.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

This was posted on the estate agents thread.

Congratulations, car people. Truly you are building a great world for us to live in.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 28, 2021)

You do realise that clearly someone ha converted their own house which they have an absolute right to do and that any new buyer has an equally absolute right to convert it back again


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2021)

That property is unique in an estate of otherwise identikit new builds. I think it's great that it represents some unusual variety in the housing stock, in this case catering for someone who wants lots of storage space, perhaps for motor vehicles, perhaps for their collection of miniature steam engines or whatever.

Not everyone wants a bay window, and twee small patch of grass and a bush in front of their house.


----------



## maomao (Jul 28, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> You do realise that clearly someone ha converted their own house which they have an absolute right to do and that any new buyer has an equally absolute right to convert it back again



I don't think anyone on this thread is in a position to challenge the rights of property owners so pop your hair back on. It's fucking ugly and its one saving grace is the size of that front patio makes it far more likely to flood.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> You do realise that clearly someone ha converted their own house which they have an absolute right to do and that any new buyer has an equally absolute right to convert it back again


Firstly, no someone has not converted it; it's a new development and built like this.

Secondly, no-one has an "absolute right" to convert part of their property to a garage.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This was posted on the estate agents thread.
> 
> Congratulations, car people. Truly you are building a great world for us to live in.
> 
> View attachment 280912



That's mental is every respect.  Startlingly cheap and ugly construction before you even get to the 3 garage set up and massive driveway.  Unless you have a soft top no one actually uses garages for cars.  Why would anyone need that much storage?


----------



## T & P (Jul 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That property is unique in an estate of otherwise identikit new builds. I think it's great that it represents some unusual variety in the housing stock, in this case catering for someone who wants lots of storage space, perhaps for motor vehicles, perhaps for their collection of miniature steam engines or whatever.
> 
> Not everyone wants a bay window, and twee small patch of grass and a bush in front of their house.


And if the family in question has the need for three cars, that's only the the fault of the likes of teuchter and fellow car-botherers up and down the country. Nowdays every functioning family needs at least three cars: a 4x4 to navigate the countless speed bumps that blight almost every town and city in the nation, a small electric car for those urban trips to city centres that have restrictions on fossil fuel vehicles, and a large and comfortable family car for long distance trips. Our parents' generation made do fine with one car as no such malakey existed then. Some food for thought for the anti-carxxers here...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That property is unique in an estate of otherwise identikit new builds.


It's not unique - I can spot at least three others in the same development, which looks to have been built immediately adjacent to convenient access to a dual carriageway, and without any amenities in easy walking distance.

This kind of development, the planners that allow it, and the portion of the populace who encourage them are the reasons why public transport is so bad in rural areas. Not that any of the car people on this thread have any genuine interest in rural public transport.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

It also prioritises garage space over anyone who needs level access such as wheelchair users.

In fact I'm not really sure how it was allowed to be built because building regs say that generallly in a newbuild you should have a level access entrance to the living area and an accessible toilet.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 28, 2021)

If it's new build that i do (amazing as that might seem) find myself agreeing with teuchter that it is fugly. Is it one house or three flats in a common block with a shared entrance though? If the latter then I can see that each one might need their own garage. You can store lots of stuff in a garage,in the 20 years we lived here we have never put a car in the garage. It does contain  two bicycles though.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

It's a "two bedroom detached house".


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 28, 2021)

Would most modern cars even fit in those garages?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It also prioritises garage space over anyone who needs level access such as wheelchair users.
> 
> In fact I'm not really sure how it was allowed to be built because building regs say that generallly in a newbuild you should have a level access entrance to the living area and an accessible toilet.


Fuck off, Victor. One minute you're moaning that people park on the pavement, next minute you're moaning that someone has taken the initiative to build a house that means they don't have to park on the pavement.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Would most modern cars even fit in those garages?



It’s probably owned by a professional cyclist and full of expensive bikes. Thankfully such people can find somewhere suitable to live within their budget.


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This was posted on the estate agents thread.
> 
> Congratulations, car people. Truly you are building a great world for us to live in.
> 
> View attachment 280912


its a coach house and probably only one of the garages belongs to the property above, the other garages would most likely belong to other properties on the development.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> its a coach house and probably only one of the garages belongs to the property above, the other garages would most likely belong to other properties on the development.


Doesn't really matter who owns the garages; the point is that priority is given to vehicle storage such that the humans are forced up some pokey stairs and nothing is offered to the street except an expanse of paving.


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't really matter who owns the garages; the point is that priority is given to vehicle storage such that the humans are forced up some pokey stairs and nothing is offered to the street except an expanse of paving.


You do realise that humans need to go up stairs in the vast majority of  properties?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2021)

Forgot to post this great example of design, that I came across the other day.

My guess is the estate was originally built with the footpath on the right continuing to the junction, but at some point someone decided it was more important to squash in some extra parking spaces, and wheelchair users can just take their chances on the road.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> You do realise that humans need to go up stairs in the vast majority of  properties?


Please refer to my previous post:



teuchter said:


> It also prioritises garage space over anyone who needs level access such as wheelchair users.
> 
> In fact I'm not really sure how it was allowed to be built because building regs say that generallly in a newbuild you should have a level access entrance to the living area and an accessible toilet.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Would most modern cars even fit in those garages?



My car wouldn't.



teuchter said:


> Secondly, no-one has an "absolute right" to convert part of their property to a garage.




Shame as my garage is integral to my house and contains five bicycles and a workshop area to service them. Never thought you'd be so anti-bikes, but there we are.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 29, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> its a coach house and probably only one of the garages belongs to the property above, the other garages would most likely belong to other properties on the development.


Can't say I'm overly keen on that idea myself, I can see great potential for neighbourly disputes when someone needs a early night or is working shifts and one of their neighbours is working on their motorbike whilst listening to heavy metal directly below.


teuchter said:


> Forgot to post this great example of design, that I came across the other day.
> 
> My guess is the estate was originally built with the footpath on the right continuing to the junction, but at some point someone decided it was more important to squash in some extra parking spaces, and wheelchair users can just take their chances on the road.
> 
> ...


You've moved from being the champion of cyclists to the equally unwanted champion of wheelchair users now? What about motability vehicles? they're cars. I take it your in favour of their confiscation and the forcing of their users back onto public transport.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> You've moved from being the champion of cyclists to the equally unwanted champion of wheelchair users now? What about motability vehicles? they're cars. I take it your in favour of their confiscation and the forcing of their users back onto public transport.



This is _almost_ as stupid as something T & P would write.


----------



## T & P (Jul 29, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Shame as my garage is integral to my house and contains five bicycles and a workshop area to service them. Never thought you'd be so anti-bikes, but there we are.


After his experience travelling the Scottish Highlands in a car, teuchter is a changed man.

I recknon he secretly likes cars so much, he hates garages as they deprive him of the sight of the things parked on the street.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 29, 2021)

T & P said:


> After his experience travelling the Scottish Highlands in a car, teuchter is a changed man.




I heard he's been eyeing up helicopter lessons.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

It's encouraging to hear this morning of the revisions to the highway code. I haven't gone though them in detail but they seem to be positive and recognise a hierarchy of road users with pedestrians at the top as they should be.

I don't think we can rule out the possibility that people at the DfT follow this thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> You do realise that clearly someone ha converted their own house which they have an absolute right to do and that any new buyer has an equally absolute right to convert it back again



That's far from clear because 'coach houses' like this are a standard part of new developments.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's encouraging to hear this morning of the revisions to the highway code. I haven't gone though them in detail but they seem to be positive and recognise a hierarchy of road users with pedestrians at the top as they should be.
> 
> I don't think we can rule out the possibility that people at the DfT follow this thread.


Lots of extra ambiguity added, it's mostly bad.

This one for cyclists is good to see though:

"ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

becomes

"ride in single file when drivers wish to overtake and it is safe to let them do so"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Would most modern cars even fit in those garages?



No and it's profoundly annoying that people with garages park their cars on the street or the pavement because the bloated monstrosities that are in production today don't fit in them. Although tbf people being too lazy to back into the garage, and street/pavement parking being so universally tolerated, doesn't help either.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of extra ambiguity added, it's mostly bad.
> 
> This one for cyclists is good to see though:
> 
> ...


I don't think the final wording for that one has been announced yet.

I think the proposed new wording above is better than the old one anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> What about motability vehicles? they're cars. I take it your in favour of their confiscation and the forcing of their users back onto public transport.



I reckon you'd have to have some basis for an accusation like that, or run the risk of coming off as a bit of a cunt.

Cars being so ubiquitous, along with the traffic congestion and parking chaos that results, is obviously bad for those who genuinely need them. This is so obvious in fact that I refuse to accept that even you are too dim to figure it out.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of extra ambiguity added, it's mostly bad.
> 
> This one for cyclists is good to see though:
> 
> ...


Cyclists don't know what is and isn't safe. You'd have to assume all cyclists are also motorists, which clearly isn't the case. And because most cyclists are twats, they'll simply say "I didn't think it was safe". 
It's like the Highway code is being edited by wooly liberals.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Would most modern cars even fit in those garages?



The standard UK garage door is 7 feet wide (2.13m). A full fat Range Rover is 1.9m wide so you might have to push it in. Or get a BMW X5 that you can remote park with the key.


----------



## Doodler (Jul 30, 2021)

Just received a signed secondhand copy of Heathcote Williams's 'Autogeddon', published around 1990 or 1991, quite influential in its day. A long illustrated poem with a good collection of quotes and news reports as an appendix.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of extra ambiguity added, it's mostly bad.
> 
> This one for cyclists is good to see though:
> 
> ...


That will work. Forget the highway code; Cyclists can't appreciate when it is safe to cross through a red light.
I nearly touched the front wheel of one a day or two back when pulling away from a green light and a red light cycling
jumped a red light in the other direction. Had I sped away for lights I would have hit them.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of extra ambiguity added, it's mostly bad.
> 
> This one for cyclists is good to see though:
> 
> ...


If that is the wording then great. You’ll pass when I deem it safe to do so. Which is exactly how I ride now, but it’ll be nice to have the code to back it up at last


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not everyone wants a bay window, and twee small patch of grass and a bush in front of their house.



I feel called out here


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

hash tag said:


> That will work. Forget the highway code; Cyclists can't appreciate when it is safe to cross through a red light.
> I nearly touched the front wheel of one a day or two back when pulling away from a green light and a red light cycling
> jumped a red light in the other direction. Had I sped away for lights I would have hit them.


You should have hit him. I think I might start mowing down red light jumpers for the lulz.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If that is the wording then great. You’ll pass when I deem it safe to do so. Which is exactly how I ride now, but it’ll be nice to have the code to back it up at last


Exactly as I said. Cyclists will now ride like even bigger cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If that is the wording then great. You’ll pass when I deem it safe to do so. Which is exactly how I ride now, but it’ll be nice to have the code to back it up at last



Controlling a lane and riding two abreast are separate things. You can, and should, control your lane even if riding by yourself if it is unsafe for other road users to overtake you.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If that is the wording then great. You’ll pass when I deem it safe to do so. Which is exactly how I ride now, but it’ll be nice to have the code to back it up at last



If it went to court the judge would ask whether a reasonable cyclist ought to have  facilitated overtaking, so keep that in mind.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You should have hit him. I think I might start mowing down red light jumpers for the lulz.


Cyclists are perfectly justified in jumping reds in your presence given your proclivity for taking pervy crotch shots at traffic lights.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If it went to court the judge would ask whether a reasonable cyclist ought to have  facilitated overtaking, so keep that in mind.


Are we about to see a bunch of red-faced drivers taking cyclists to court for not letting them overtake? That'll be a good laugh.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Are we about to see a bunch of red-faced drivers taking cyclists to court for not letting them overtake? That'll be a good laugh.



More likely cyclists needlessly holding up huge queues of vehicles for miles, perhaps including ambulances responding to a terrorist outrage or whatever, great stuff.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More likely cyclists needlessly holding up huge queues of vehicles for miles, perhaps including ambulances responding to a terrorist outrage or whatever, great stuff.


Most cyclists don't actually want to hold up traffic they just want you to wait till it's safe so it sounds like it'll work fine to me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most cyclists don't actually want to hold up traffic they just want you to wait till it's safe so it sounds like it'll work fine to me.


Bullshit. Most cyclists are jealous of car drivers, and would deliberately hold them up given any opportunity.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Bullshit. Most cyclists are jealous of car drivers, and would deliberately hold them up given any opportunity.


The last place any cyclist wants a murderous psychopath in a killing machine is directly behind them.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> The last place any cyclist wants a murderous psychopath in a killing machine is directly behind them.



No, there’s a subset that delight in asserting their perceived entitlements, regardless of the risk to themselves or others.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, there’s a subset that delight in asserting their perceived entitlements, regardless of the risk to themselves or others.


More likely they just haven't noticed you seething at not being able to drive 5mph faster. Or it's not actually safe.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> The last place any cyclist wants a murderous psychopath in a killing machine is directly behind them.


Like I said, it's exactly what jealous cyclists want.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More likely cyclists needlessly holding up huge queues of vehicles for miles, perhaps including ambulances responding to a terrorist outrage or whatever, great stuff.


I look forward to these court cases brought by red-faced drivers claiming that a cyclist was holding them up while they were pretending to be an ambulance responding to a terrorist outrage.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Bullshit. Most cyclists are jealous of car drivers, and would deliberately hold them up given any opportunity.



85% of adult cyclists also drive.









						How many drivers cycle, and how many cyclists drive? - a Freedom of Information request to Department for Transport
					

Based on the results of the latest National Travel Survey, please could you tell me:  a.	How many of the people who hold driving licences also cycle (at any frequency); b.	How many of the people who cycle and hold driving licences also drive (i.e. are active drivers, at any frequency); c.	How...




					www.whatdotheyknow.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Bullshit. Most cyclists are jealous of car drivers, and would deliberately hold them up given any opportunity.


Depends on what car they’re driving.

Audi, BMW or Range Rovers are gonna have a long wait


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Like I said, it's exactly what jealous cyclists want.



I'd like to see what happened before the filming started. I'd love it if cyclists were picking on supercar twats but I seriously doubt they are in large numbers and I'm sure that's not the whole incident. 

And he breaks the HC overtaking him. But drivers routinely break the HC anyway. They only get upset about cyclists jumping red lights because they're jealous.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'd like to see what happened before the filming started. I'd love it if cyclists were picking on supercar twats but I seriously doubt they are in large numbers and I'm sure that's not the whole incident.
> 
> And he breaks the HC overtaking him. But drivers routinely break the HC anyway. They only get upset about cyclists jumping red lights because they're jealous.


Yup, the toy car driver is jealous that the cyclist can hold them up but they can't hold the cyclist up. You can see how angry they are when they drive off. Enjoyed watching that, even though I've seen it before.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> 85% of adult cyclists also drive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No they don't. We've been here before. Cycling to the shops twice a year doesn't make you a cyclist, any more than putting air in the tyres of your car makes you a mechanic. Cyclists are a different species.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No they don't. We've been here before. Cycling to the shops twice a year doesn't make you a cyclist, any more than putting air in the tyres of your car makes you a mechanic. Cyclists are a different species.



I don't think you even drive do you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't think you even drive do you.


I much prefer motorbikes but I drive cars, HGVs, 360 degree tracked excavators, mobile cranes... Pretty much anything, but motorbikes aren't always practical. I have a car for such occasions.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No they don't. We've been here before. Cycling to the shops twice a year doesn't make you a cyclist, any more than putting air in the tyres of your car makes you a mechanic. Cyclists are a different species.


Any cyclist wearing lycra and riding two abreast _definitely_ has a car. Us lifelong cyclists are safely on the pavement away from the psychopaths in cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> Any cyclist wearing lycra and riding two abreast _definitely_ has a car. Us lifelong cyclists are safely on the pavement, mowing down frail old ladies.


CFY


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> CFY


I would never come within 10 metres of a pedestrian let alone challenge them for space but I'll be fucked if I'm putting my life in the hands of idiots when there are empty pavements.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2021)

The proposed changes to the highway code have caused a huge amount of weeping and wailing from perpetually angry drivers, most of whom have pretty clearly read neither the existing highway code nor the updated version.

Apparently all cyclists are always on the pavement, while also always being in the road holding up traffic. And they all want to die just as they all want to get rich by hurling themselves under a range rover and then suing the driver. And no motorist has ever driven on, obstructed or otherwise misused a pavement or cycle lane. 

Thank god we here on our progressive forum with our educated and enlightened constituency aren't troubled by any whinging twats denying basic logic, the evidence of their senses and any pertinent research that doesn't suit their unpaid shilling for a car lobby that doesn't care if they live or die.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 31, 2021)

My main problem with the Highway Code changes is that the code is meant to explain and clarify the laws and regulations. By introducing lots more "should"s, none of which are supported by changes in legislation, it just creates more ambiguity. This leads to greater differences between how individual road users act, leading to more surprises and more accidents.

Take giving way to pedestrians at side roads for example. It's proposed to "recommend" that drivers give way to pedestrians waiting to cross side roads. This means some drivers will stop if there's someone loitering on the pavement near a junction, or a jogger heading towards the junction, whereas others will not follow the recommendation and not give way to someone clearly waiting to cross. Meanwhile some pedestrians waiting to cross will expect drivers to stop, and may misinterpret a hand gesture or slowing down as a sign that the driver is giving them priority when in fact they aren't. There will be a lot more surprised drivers and pedestrians, sudden stops and accidents.

If the intention is that drivers give way to pedestrians at side roads, why not just make it law?


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2021)

I've just realised platinum sage is bloody Bi0boy. I knew there were no genuine newbies.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2021)

maomao said:


> I've just realised platinum sage is bloody Bi0boy. I knew there were no genuine newbies.



I don't recall bioboy being quite that much of a twat but then these types do tend to go downhill over time.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't recall bioboy being quite that much of a twat but then these types do tend to go downhill over time.


I won't go through the similarities but it very obviously is. I'm sure he's sorted out the banned returner status with the mods though after getting a bollocking for coming back as Mrs D.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

Good to see Specialized getting stuck into some anti car propaganda.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Good to see Specialized getting stuck into some anti car propaganda.



14 grand for a bike? 🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Good to see Specialized getting stuck into some anti car propaganda.




It's worse than the car adverts that feature only empty country roads. Cyclists are always complaining about other traffic, usually involving near-death incidents, and the idea that it's easy to find somewhere to park such expensive bikes where they won't get nicked is ridiculous. Someone really should complain to the ASA but they're useless.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> 14 grand for a bike? 🤣


I assume that's the euro price (for the most expensive bike they sell) but still cheaper than a Hayabusa and they're both basically motorbikes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> 14 grand for a bike? 🤣


Yeah, much more sensible to spend £50K or more on a car


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

It was really hard to predict who'd respond to me posting that advert, and the sort of thing they'd say.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2021)

A regular hybrid style ebike is around £1500-2000, which is a lot but they do make for a viable alternative to cars, when its not raining. But there very much needs to be something sorted with parking the things, having seen videos of battery powered angle grinders cutting through the toughest of locks in seconds in broad daylight on crowded streets, as thieving toerags work out how much these things are worth they'll be flying off the cycle stands. I have locked my one up outside the swimming baths a couple of times, in full view of reception and with a thick chain and small D lock, but have not been able to enjoy the swim for worry. It's not even losing the thing, insurance may pay out, but getting a new one could easily take six months, or more for a specialist mtb, a long time to be without wheels.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2021)

Which is why motorcycles, in particular heavier ones with electronic parking brakes that immobilise the wheels and are next to impossible to nick without a crane to lift them off, are in fact the perfect vehicles for cities. Fast, immune to traffic jams, free parking almost everywhere, and can carry passengers, shopping, and take you to holiday destinations hundreds of miles away as well as to your place of work.

But nice try anyway, Specialized


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It was really hard to predict who'd respond to me posting that advert, and the sort of thing they'd say.



It's almost like the anti-car propaganda is so inept that barely a handful of posters can bother to engage with it, presumably out of boredom.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

Anyway back on topic, here's some actual "entirely unashamed anti car propaganda", in this case anti electric-car:


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> I assume that's the euro price (for the most expensive bike they sell) but still cheaper than a Hayabusa and they're both basically motorbikes.


It's a pedal bike with a battery, for 14 thousand euros...  🤣  🤣  🤣


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a pedal bike with a battery, for 14 thousand euros...  🤣  🤣  🤣


Nuts!  Pretty much the only thing to commend a pushbike over a motorbike is the price (probably because they're mostly for kids). For £14K you could buy a Fireblade with less than 3K miles on the clock!


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2021)

I couldn’t ride a Fireblade though


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I couldn’t ride a Fireblade though


I'm sure some cyclists could be taught to.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

And I could buy a house for the price of some cars. Expensive or not the price of the bike is likely to be more directly connected to the cost of the components than supercars that trade on brand names. No ones paying for the logo on a Specialised bike.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> And I could buy a house for the price of some cars. And expensive or not the price of the bike is likely to be more directly connected to the cost of the components than supercars that trade on brand names. No ones paying for the logo on a Specialised bike.


If £14k represents the price of components, it must be made of gold! 

But you're right about so-called 'super' cars; the prices are crazy, given the performance usually comes nowhere near a motorcycle that costs a tenth of the price.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> If £14k represents the price of components, it must be made of gold!
> 
> But you're right about so-called 'super' cars; the prices are crazy, given the performance usually comes nowhere near a motorcycle that costs a tenth of the price.




Don't get wet when it rains though.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> If £14k represents the price of components, it must be made of gold!
> 
> But you're right about so-called 'super' cars; the prices are crazy, given the performance usually comes nowhere near a motorcycle that costs a tenth of the price.



Most supercar owners could save themselves six figures by just getting 'thick cunt' tattooed on their foreheads. The overall effect would be more or less the same.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Don't get wet when it rains though.


Rain gear.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

Each to their own. Not my thing at all, but I don't really get the hatred towards them.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm sure some cyclists could be taught to.


I’m scary enough if I ever get on a bicycle. The idea of me on a motorbike shoukd be enough to bring right-minded people out in a cold sweat. The idea of me on a _Fireblade_…


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’m scary enough if I ever get on a bicycle. The idea of me on a motorbike shoukd be enough to bring right-minded people out in a cold sweat. The idea of me on a _Fireblade_…


The faster you go, the more the gyroscopic effect keeps you upright.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway back on topic, here's some actual "entirely unashamed anti car propaganda", in this case anti electric-car:




That's the one where Toyota lie about their self-charging bullshit.  A big old con they've been getting away with for years now.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a pedal bike with a battery, for 14 thousand euros...  🤣  🤣  🤣


I could quite easily spec one for that price _without_ a battery and motor


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The faster you go, the more the gyroscopic effect keeps you upright.


It contributes almost nothing to keeping you upright.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It contributes almost nothing to keeping you upright.


Much like your posts.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I could quite easily spec one for that price _without_ a battery and motor


Why though? Surely, unless you're an elite athlete, the marginal utilitiy is so trivial that it's really just a pound-shop version of the supercar dick waving?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Why though? Surely, unless you're an elite athlete, the marginal utilitiy is so trivial that it's really just a pound-shop version of the supercar dick waving?


Oh absolutely. Like any hobby out there there’s a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in for the average user.

Still would if I had the money


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh absolutely. Like any hobby out there there’s a point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in for the average user.
> 
> Still would if I had the money


You'd be better off forgoing the Swavorski crystal spokey-dokies and saving up for a motorbike.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> You'd be better off forgoing the Swavorski crystal spokey-dokies and saving up for a motorbike.


Nah, if I’m going to risk my life on two wheels I may as well do it in a way that keeps me fit.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> You'd be better off forgoing the Swavorski crystal spokey-dokies and saving up for a motorbike.


That's either very weak banter or you really do get some sort of sense of self worth from the fact that, like 75% of the population, you have a car. Though I suppose it's better than you picking on people in knobbing and sobbing.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nah, if I’m going to risk my life on two wheels I may as well do it in a way that keeps me fit.


A famous motorcyclist:

A famous pushbike rider:


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's either very weak banter or you really do get some sort of sense of self worth from the fact that, like 75% of the population, you have a car. Though I suppose it's better than you picking on people in knobbing and sobbing.



Strictly speaking, I don't; my wife does.  I have motorbikes - much better than cars or pushbikes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Strictly speaking, I don't; my wife does.  I have motorbikes - much better than cars or pushbike.


Nice little reference to how minted you are again. Classy.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nice little reference to how minted you are again. Classy.



Lol, motorbikes cost a fraction of what cars do.  You don't need to be minted at all to own them.  Unlike the £14k pushbike you were advocating a few moments ago!


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol, motorbikes cost a fraction of what cars do.  You don't need to be minted at all to own them.  Unlike the £14k pushbike you were advocating a few moments ago!


'again'. It's a bit of a theme with you or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Have + plural. Just making sure every one knows you've got a few and it's a bit of a hobby. I bet you get a little semi on every time you manage to slip a reference in.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

There's a special higher rate of road tax for cars that cost more than £40k

Perhaps they should introduce a tax for expensive bikes too, because the logic behind the car one clearly has nothing to do with climate change, it's about extracting more money from people who buy expensive cars.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There's a special higher rate of road tax for cars that cost more than £40k
> 
> Perhaps they should introduce a tax for expensive bikes too, because the logic behind the car one clearly has nothing to do with climate change, it's about extracting more money from people who buy expensive cars.


So progressive taxation is a bad thing?


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> 'again'. It's a bit of a theme with you or I wouldn't have mentioned it. Have + plural. Just making sure every one knows you've got a few and it's a bit of a hobby. I bet you get a little semi on every time you manage to slip a reference in.


A theme?  This is desperate stuff: I've been in this site for the best part of twenty years and I'd be surprised if I've mentioned it three times. Yes it's a hobby, but by no means an expensive one (in my case, at least).  The rest is your imagination/projection/inadequacy.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> A theme?  This is desperate stuff: I've been in this site for the best part of twenty years and I'd be surprised if I've mentioned it three times. Yes it's a hobby, but by no means an expensive one (in my case, at least).  The rest is your imagination.


The theme is wealth not motorbikes.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> The theme is wealth not motorbikes.


When have I ever referred to that?


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> When have I ever referred to that?


I'm not trawling through two decades of posts. I'll point it out next time I see it.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not trawling through two decades of posts. I'll point it out next time I see it.


Lol, can't find any evidence to back up your made-up claim. Clown.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol, can't find any evidence to back up your made-up claim. Clown.


No, just can't be arsed. I'm clear what impression you've given me.


----------



## Athos (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, just can't be arsed. I'm clear what impression you've given me.


Purely your own projection.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Purely your own projection.


Whatever, Lionel.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There's a special higher rate of road tax for cars that cost more than £40k
> 
> Perhaps they should introduce a tax for expensive bikes too, because the logic behind the car one clearly has nothing to do with climate change, it's about extracting more money from people who buy expensive cars.


So, just what part of people with lots of money paying more tax do you have an issue with?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I could quite easily spec one for that price _without_ a battery and motor


Yes, but doing so would make you something of a toilet sniffer.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, much more sensible to spend £50K or more on a car


It would be much more sensible to spend 14 grand on a 14 grand motorbike. You can buy a nice ZERO electric motorbike fur less than 14k


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, just what part of people with lots of money paying more tax do you have an issue with?



Did I say I had a problem? I just think it should be replicated with expensive bikes, so it’s you that seems to have the problem with higher taxes on expensive stuff if you disagree with that.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Did I say I had a problem?


The following sentence read like a complaint:



> the logic behind the car one clearly has nothing to do with climate change, it's about extracting more money from people who buy expensive cars



Fwiw, bring on the luxury taxes but there's nothing shocking about fourteen grand bikes in a world where you can buy twenty grand guitars and hundred grand watches.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> The following sentence read like a complaint:
> 
> 
> 
> Fwiw, bring on the luxury taxes but there's nothing shocking about fourteen grand bikes in a world where you can buy twenty grand guitars and hundred grand watches.



It was a complaint that they changed it from a graduated tax based on CO2 emissions designed to incentivise the purchase of lower-CO2 emitting vehicles to just another flat rate duty with a single higher rate for £40k+ cars, yes.

But that’s what they’ve done so now there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to expensive bikes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It was a complaint that they changed it from a graduated tax based on CO2 emissions designed to incentivise the purchase of lower-CO2 emitting vehicles to just another flat rate duty with a single higher rate for £40k+ cars, yes.
> 
> But that’s what they’ve done so now there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be extended to expensive bikes.


I think you'll struggle to find anyone objecting to higher taxation on luxury bicycles round here.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think you'll struggle to find anyone objecting to higher taxation on luxury bicycles round here.



A consensus on U75 for cyclists to pay road tax?  

However I would have thought that the most deluded car-abolitionists here would want even luxury bikes to be kept tax-free, in the unrealistic hope of enticing Range Rover drivers to ditch and switch.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It would be much more sensible to spend 14 grand on a 14 grand motorbike. You can buy a nice ZERO electric motorbike fur less than 14k



You can't legally drive either after 2 pints. An ebike has the drunk in charge limit, which is pretty much if you are that smashed you'd never find it let alone be able to ride it...


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> Which is why motorcycles, in particular heavier ones with electronic parking brakes that immobilise the wheels
> 
> But nice try anyway, Specialized



What motorbike has this? The OEM immobilisers (HISS, etc) use rolling encryption keys in the key fob to authenticate to the ECU. So if the the ECU doesn't see the right key it won't power the ignition for fuel systems.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> If £14k represents the price of components, it must be made of gold!
> 
> But you're right about so-called 'super' cars; the prices are crazy, given the performance usually comes nowhere near a motorcycle that costs a tenth of the price.



In a straight line... Cars have far better grip. I can lap our local track faster in my Toyota 86 time attack special than I can on my ZX-10RR. This is partly better grip through aero and bigger tyres but also the fact that I'll take more risks in the car.


----------



## Athos (Aug 4, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> In a straight line... Cars have far better grip. I can lap our local track faster in my Toyota 86 time attack special than I can on my ZX-10RR. This is partly better grip through aero and bigger tyres but also the fact that I'll take more risks in the car.


True enough. But, on the road, you'll make better progress on a bike bike times out of ten, given the acceleration and ease of overtaking and filtering.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> What motorbike has this? The OEM immobilisers (HISS, etc) use rolling encryption keys in the key fob to authenticate to the ECU. So if the the ECU doesn't see the right key it won't power the ignition for fuel systems.


Oh, I guess technically speaking it's not an immobiliser- certainly not an engine immobiliser. It's an electronic parking brake that locks the wheels, and as the bike has a smart key rather than a physical key, one cannot hotwire it to turn the bike on and disable the parking brake. The end result is the same- no fucker is rolling or driving off with the bike unless they have the smart key for it, and at 280 kg, no fucker and his mates are going to load it into a truck or van by hand either. It's a Peugeot Metropolis.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> It's a Peugeot Metropolis.


That's one of those back-to-front robin reliants with no roof, right?


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2021)

Peugeot Metropolis isn't a motorbike. Anyone who thinks it is can't fucking count.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's one of those back-to-front robin reliants with no roof, right?


Not quite. It is a three wheeled motorcycle-rated vehicle that car drivers can ride without a licence, but bitter envious people without either a car or bike licence cannot. It has the added advantage (like all types of motorcycles) of seemly piss off the anti-car Taliban brigade, as most of their arguments against the evil motor vehicle fall flat when applied to proper internal combustion engined bikes.

And I am sorry if I further annoy you, maomao and anyone else who (rightly) points out it is not a motorcycle, that it still enjoys full motorcycle privileges such as bus lane use, reduced vehicle excise duty fees, and free motorcycle parking. But hey, perhaps the two of you can start writing letters to the government and all the local authorities to protest about that, and who knows, you may suceed in having such privileges removed from my three-wheeled not-a-fucking-motorcycle vehicle


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Peugeot Metropolis isn't a motorbike. Anyone who thinks it is can't fucking count.



Can Yamaha count?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> The end result is the same- no fucker is rolling or driving off with the bike unless they have the smart key for it, and at 280 kg, no fucker and his mates are going to load it into a truck or van by hand either. It's a Peugeot Metropolis.


Don't count on it. This is exactly what happens every minute of the day. Bikes with a bike lock get that wheel lifted as it's dragged and lifted into the back of a van. The system you speak of is as strong as the flexible rubber brake pipe, which is no match for a hungry mouse, far less the sharp knife or cordless angle grinder that all bike thieves are equipped with.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> View attachment 282041
> Can Yamaha count?


Yes, that's why, like Peugeot, they studiously avoid calling it a bike. They call it a three wheel motorcycle.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, that's why, like Peugeot, they studiously avoid calling it a bike. They call it a three wheel motorcycle.


So, a motorbike then.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, a motorbike then.


No.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, a motorbike then.


No. Bikes have two wheels.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. Bikes have two wheels.


The clue's in the name


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2021)

Has engine, ridden by middle aged men in leather. Close enough.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Has engine, ridden by middle aged men in leather. Close enough.


Using that logic, bicycles must be sheep.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> Not quite. It is a three wheeled motorcycle-rated vehicle that car drivers can ride without a licence, but bitter envious people without either a car or bike licence cannot. It has the added advantage (like all types of motorcycles) of seemly piss off the anti-car Taliban brigade, as most of their arguments against the evil motor vehicle fall flat when applied to proper internal combustion engined bikes.
> 
> And I am sorry if I further annoy you, maomao and anyone else who (rightly) points out it is not a motorcycle, that it still enjoys full motorcycle privileges such as bus lane use, reduced vehicle excise duty fees, and free motorcycle parking. But hey, perhaps the two of you can start writing letters to the government and all the local authorities to protest about that, and who knows, you may suceed in having such privileges removed from my three-wheeled not-a-fucking-motorcycle vehicle


Doesn't particularly annoy me - sorry. I remain pleased that anti-car propaganda has meant that you use one of these tricycles instead of a car.

Hopefully all internal combustion vehicles will be gone quite soon, and you will have to replace it with an electric tricycle.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't particularly annoy me - sorry. I remain pleased that anti-car propaganda has meant that you use one of these tricycles instead of a car.
> 
> Hopefully all internal combustion vehicles will be gone quite soon, and you will have to replace it with an electric tricycle.


I will be delighted to be able to replace my current internal combustion engined tricyle with an electric one, actually. The acceleration of electric vehicles in general is astounding, I would imagine even more so on bikes & trikes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> I will be delighted to be able to replace my current internal combustion engined tricyle with an electric one, actually. The acceleration of electric vehicles in general is astounding, I would imagine even more so on bikes & trikes.


They're all but silent, too, which should make for some excellent fun scaring cyclists.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 8, 2021)

AwOOOga!

At 8.45 on Talking Pictures TV there's a look at the trials and tribulations of drivers trying to find a parking space, back in the '60s. The title is "Prison on Wheels".  

And it's the best channel on the telly.

*Virgin 445
Freeview 81
Sky channel 328
Freesat 306
Youview 81*


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 8, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> AwOOOga!
> 
> At 8.45 on Talking Pictures TV there's a look at the trials and tribulations of drivers trying to find a parking space, back in the '60s. The title is "Prison on Wheels".


Good job we've seen sense and converted loads of that green shit into parking spaces.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Like I said, it's exactly what jealous cyclists want.



fair play to the cyclist! those cars have no place on city streets


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Tulse Hill yesterday.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Like I said, it's exactly what jealous cyclists want.




Haha - are you joking? Jealous of that ridiculous waste of money?

Surely illegal noise levels as well.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Haha - are you joking? Jealous of that ridiculous waste of money?
> 
> Surely illegal noise levels as well.


As if to prove my point


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

In Rutger Bregman’s Humankind, he writes about a study by Dacher Keltner (a psychologist who studies the now-discredited Machiavellian ideas on political philosophy).

 In the study, he looked at "the psychological effect of an expensive car":
 "Here, the first set of subjects were put behind the wheel of a beat-up Mitsubishi or Ford Pinto and sent in the direction of a crosswalk where a pedestrian was just stepping off the kerb. All the drivers stopped as the law required.
 But then in part two of the study, subjects got to drive a snazzy Mercedes. This time 45% failed to stop for the pedestrian. In fact, the more expensive the car, the ruder the road manners. 'BMW drivers were the worst', one of the researchers told the _New York Times. _(This study has now been replicated twice with similar results.
 Observing how the drivers behaved, Keltner eventually realised what it reminded him of. The medical term is 'acquired sociopathy': a non-hereditary antisocial personality disordered, first diagnosed by psychologists in the nineteenth century. It arises after a blow to the head that damages key regions of the brain and can turn the nicest people in the world into the worst kind of Machievellian."

so driving an expensive car turns you into a psychocunt. Well I never.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> In Rutger Bregman’s Humankind, he writes about a study by Dacher Keltner (a psychologist who studies the now-discredited Machiavellian ideas on political philosophy).
> 
> In the study, he looked at "the psychological effect of an expensive car":
> "Here, the first set of subjects were put behind the wheel of a beat-up Mitsubishi or Ford Pinto and sent in the direction of a crosswalk where a pedestrian was just stepping off the kerb. All the drivers stopped as the law required.
> ...


Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to read it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Haha - are you joking? Jealous of that ridiculous waste of money?
> 
> Surely illegal noise levels as well.


It's what Saul Goodman is jealous of.

In case you're not up to speed with the thread - he can't afford a supercar so drives a relatively cheap motorbike around irish country lanes at 200mph instead to vent the frustration.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's what Saul Goodman is jealous of.
> 
> In case you're not up to speed with the thread - he can't afford a supercar so drives a relatively cheap motorbike around irish country lanes at 200mph instead to vent the frustration.


Have you seen my car?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you have a link to this study? I'd like to read it.


Kentner writes about it in pages 4-49 of this book:




__





						The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence eBook : Keltner, Dacher: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
					

The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence eBook : Keltner, Dacher: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store



					www.amazon.co.uk
				



but a quick search in Google Scholar finds this, which is presumaby the study cited: Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Tulse Hill yesterday.
> 
> View attachment 282896



A mk1 Mazda 3, that model is 17 years old. Hopefully their next car will be a newer one with object detection and autobraking.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Kentner writes about it in pages 4-49 of this book:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, but that doesn't appear to say the same thing your previous post is suggesting. His study appears to suggest that rich people tend to be cunts, not that putting people into expensive cars turns people into cunts. It's a subtle but important difference, although entirely predictable.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Thanks, but that doesn't appear to say the same thing your previous post is suggesting. His study appears to suggest that rich people tend to be cunts, not that putting people into expensive cars turns people into cunts. It's a subtle but important difference, although entirely predictable.


you've read the headline, not the actual study then


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> A mk1 Mazda 3, that model is 17 years old. Hopefully their next car will be a newer one with object detection and autobraking.


Does that help them stick to the 20mph speed limit and stay on the correct side of the road?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Thanks, but that doesn't appear to say the same thing your previous post is suggesting. His study appears to suggest that rich people tend to be cunts, not that putting people into expensive cars turns people into cunts. It's a subtle but important difference, although entirely predictable.



Surely the correlation’s that cunts like expensive cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Does that help them stick to the 30mph speed limit and stay on the correct side of the road?



Intelligent speed assist and lane keep aid certainly would, but apparently modern cars are big bad monstrosities compared to older ones.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Intelligent speed assist and lane keep aid certainly would, but apparently modern cars are big bad monstrosities compared to older ones.


How about GPS speed limit capping if drivers are so poor they need help?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> you've read the headline, not the actual study then


One of us hasn't read it but it isn't me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely the correlation’s that cunts like expensive cars.


No, that's what's known as a fallacy of conflation.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No, that's what's known as a fallacy of conflation.


Personally, I’d call it an opinion. It’s worked well for me so far.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How about GPS speed limit capping if drivers are so poor they need help?



Compared to the other safety features I’ve mentioned, that one wouldn’t
have prevented this crash.

And if you think it’s only poor drivers who crash I hope you don’t drive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Personally, I’d call it an opinion. It’s worked well for me so far.
> 
> View attachment 282908


You look like that Jeremy Clarkson fella.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> One of us hasn't read it but it isn't me.


so you must have read the method section then? "Upper class drivers" were those percieved to be by the coders conducting the field study - they could only guess at their socal class by observing the status of the type of car they were driving


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Compared to the other safety features I’ve mentioned, that one wouldn’t
> have prevented this crash.
> 
> And if you think it’s only poor drivers who crash I hope you don’t drive.


Or we could reduce car usage and place restrictions on them!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> so you must have read the method section then? "Upper class drivers" were those percieved to be by the coders conducting the field study - they could only guess at their socal class by observing the status of the type of car they were driving


Yes, I read that, but where does it mention placing ordinary people into expensive cars, and those people proceeding to drive like cunts?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Or we could reduce car usage and place restrictions on them!


Or we could make cars faster and teach people not get in their way.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or we could make cars faster and teach people not get in their way.


Sorry, new to this thread, hadn’t realised you were a parody 👍


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, new to this thread, hadn’t realised you were a parody 👍


Try to keep up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 9, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> In Rutger Bregman’s Humankind, he writes about a study by Dacher Keltner (a psychologist who studies the now-discredited Machiavellian ideas on political philosophy).
> 
> In the study, he looked at "the psychological effect of an expensive car":
> "Here, the first set of subjects were put behind the wheel of a beat-up Mitsubishi or Ford Pinto and sent in the direction of a crosswalk where a pedestrian was just stepping off the kerb. All the drivers stopped as the law required.
> ...



They follow that up with a study on arboreal papal defecation?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2021)

Was just listening to this









						BBC Radio 4 - Positive Thinking, Can we make road deaths a thing of the past?
					

Sangita Myska meets Matts-Åke Belin who has a vision to eliminate traffic fatalities.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




It's good that certain viewpoints about transport are gradually becoming discussed and presented to a more mainstream audience.


----------



## glitch hiker (Aug 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or we could make cars faster and teach people not get in their way.


Those two idea are at odds with each other


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

Jeremy Vine seems to have enraged twatty drivers by saying cyclists shouldn’t ride single file to stop dangerous overtaking - this video’s a shocking advert for just that.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Was just listening to this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Volvo have been talking about zero road deaths for years, and they have certainly contributed more to the cause than the car abolitionists and their ilk.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Volvo have been talking about zero road deaths for years, and they have certainly contributed more to the cause than the car abolitionists and their ilk.


You got any figures for that claim?

Seems to be about zero deaths IN Volvos & seems rather like tobacco companies introducing low tar versions - capping speeds at 112mph!!!









						'No Deaths' by 2020: Is Volvo's Audacious Goal Possible?
					

Volvo has a goal is to have no fatalities in its vehicles by 2020. Today, it announced some new ways it plans to accomplish this lofty goal.




					gearjunkie.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Volvo have been talking about zero road deaths for years, and they have certainly contributed more to the cause than the car abolitionists and their ilk.


They "certainly have", huh? Sure.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Jeremy Vine seems to have enraged twatty drivers by saying cyclists shouldn’t ride single file to stop dangerous overtaking - this video’s a shocking advert for just that.



that’s horrible but they could have ridden further out in single file to prevent them overtaking


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You got any figures for that claim?
> 
> Seems to be about zero deaths IN Volvos & seems rather like tobacco companies introducing low tar versions - capping speeds at 112mph!!!
> 
> ...



I see the Volvo XC90 has had zero occupant deaths in the UK but you have to imagine how many outside - it looks like a tank FFS.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Presumably this guy’s out stag hunting to need such a huge vehicle in a park…


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Presumably this guy’s out stag hunting to need such a huge vehicle in a park…



You realise he probably doesn't _only_ drive it in the park, right?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You realise he probably doesn't _only_ drive it in the park, right?


Yeah, there’ll be the school run too.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You realise he probably doesn't _only_ drive it in the park, right?


I doubt he needs that size vehicle for anything tbh.

I don't know if you've been following but there's be a big debate about whether through traffic should be allowed in Richmond Park (the answer is no by the way).


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I doubt he needs that size vehicle for anything tbh.
> 
> I don't know if you've been following but there's be a big debate about whether through traffic should be allowed in Richmond Park (the answer is no by the way).



Of course they should. The only form of transport that has been banned from RP is, quite correctly, cycling, although restrictions on the vile creatures have recently been lifted.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Of course they should. The only form of transport that has been banned from RP is, quite correctly, cycling, although restrictions on the vile creatures have recently been lifted.


No, sorry - it's a park.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, sorry - it's a park



Pfft


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, sorry - it's a park.


Are you suggesting people with disabilities shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My car wouldn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  I know of an architect who rebuilt his cotswold house to handle his handful of Porsches- literally parked  next to the living room  - you couldn’t tell from the outside, it just looks like a good sized stone house with a sympathetic stone extension and big big foldable glass doors . It can be done


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you suggesting people with disabilities shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it?


As a through route?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> As a through route?


You could petition to get a roundabout placed at each end, and make them drive round in circles until the end of time, but I predict a tailback might ensue after a short time.
Or you could allow them to drive through slowly and enjoy the scenery on their way, kinda like it is now.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You could petition to get a roundabout placed at each end, and make them drive round in circles until the end of time, but I predict a tailback might ensue after a short time.
> Or you could allow them to drive through slowly and enjoy the scenery on their way, kinda like it is now.


Ah okay, happy to ban all through traffic accept blue badge holders. Glad we agree. 🙂


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 12, 2021)

I've thought for years that the circular road in Richmond Park should be made one way.  It would stop a certain amount of rat running if people knew they had to drive the long way round.  It would also mean the far reaches of the park are still accessible for those that want to walk there but are not able to shleck there under their own steam.

You could then divide the road in two and make the other lane for cyclists.  It would also prevent the dickhead motorists who are always trying to overtake because 20mph in a fucking deer park is too slow apparently.  Fucking dicks.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah okay, happy to ban all through traffic accept blue badge holders. Glad we agree. 🙂


Ah, OK, so it's just people with autism and other non-visible disabilities you wish to discriminate against, and those who don't wish to apply for a blue badge or have been refused one on stupid grounds?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, OK, so it's just people with autism and other non-visible disabilities you wish to discriminate against, and those who don't wish to apply for a blue badge or have been refused one on stupid grounds?


Love how people always suddenly care about people with disabilities when their right to drive everywhere is slightly curtailed. We see you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love how people always suddenly care about people with disabilities when their right to drive everywhere is slight curtailed. We see you.


That's rather presumptuous of you. You have no idea who has what ailment or is driving for someone who has.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's rather presumptuous of you. You have no idea who has what ailment or is driving for someone who has.


Well why don't you talk about how we could manage exemptions rather than just using the issue as a reason not to make any restrictions?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well why don't you talk about how we could manage exemptions rather than just using the issue as a reason not to make any restrictions?


Because I don't believe there should be restrictions, apart from maybe cyclists, who are obviously able-bodied.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because I don't believe there should be restrictions, apart from maybe cyclists, who are obviously able-bodied.


Well just say that rather than talking about people with disabilities -quite distasteful really.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> apart from maybe cyclists, who are obviously able-bodied.


This comment shows a lot about where you're coming from.

I see the guy below going to work most days & this is a great charity: Campaigning for inclusive cycling, Wheels for Wellbeing


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well just say that rather than talking about people with disabilities -quite distasteful really.


Hang on a minute. You're the one proposing a ban on cars. I'm telling you why there shouldn't be, you muppet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This comment shows a lot about where you're coming from.
> 
> I see the guy below going to work most days & this is a great charity: Campaigning for inclusive cycling, Wheels for Wellbeing
> 
> View attachment 283304


I did say the ones who are obviously able-bodied.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I did say the ones who are obviously able-bodied.


the comma says otherwise


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2021)

is it illegal to cycle in Richmond Park? It wasn't when I cycled round it when I was in London - how long ago did this happen, and why? Motorised transport, excepting parks staff, should be banned instead


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I did say the ones who are obviously able-bodied.


liar


----------



## maomao (Aug 12, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> is it illegal to cycle in Richmond Park? It wasn't when I cycled round it when I was in London - how long ago did this happen, and why? Motorised transport, excepting parks staff, should be banned instead


Some dickless buffoon from the royal parks office managed to get them banned during Covid because of their 'plume of exhalation' lol. No longer banned because it's fucking ridiculous; it's cars that shouldn't be in parks.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I doubt he needs that size vehicle for anything tbh.
> 
> I don't know if you've been following but there's be a big debate about whether through traffic should be allowed in Richmond Park (the answer is no by the way).


I assumed it already banned it? Last week Google Maps’ suggested route between South London and Trowbridge sent us to Richmond Park en route to the M3, but when we arrived at the gate by the Priory there was no motorised through traffic allowed….


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 12, 2021)

T & P said:


> I assumed it already banned it? Last week Google Maps’ suggested route between South London and Trowbridge sent us to Richmond Park en route to the M3, but when we arrived at the gate by the Priory there was no motorised through traffic allowed….



The covid ban on through traffic in Bushy Park is still in place.  You can still get to the car parks.  Despite it being dead close to where I live I've not been to Richmond Park for months.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> liar


Penis.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because I don't believe there should be restrictions, apart from maybe cyclists, who are obviously able-bodied.


God, you can’t even get this right.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> The covid ban on through traffic in Bushy Park is still in place.  You can still get to the car parks.  Despite it being dead close to where I live I've not been to Richmond Park for months.


Google Maps is usually reliable when it comes to route restrictions for motor traffic, but this time they got it wrong, for the first time ime. So I thought it had just been introduced.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> God, you can’t even get this right.


Thanks, but let's not be too formal, just call me Sir.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Some dickless buffoon from the royal parks office managed to get them banned during Covid because of their 'plume of exhalation' ...



That wasn't the only reason though was it, silly?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That wasn't the only reason though was it, silly?


I think it was something to do with cyclists running over pedestrians.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think it was something to do with cyclists running over pedestrians.



No. They kick the deer. 

Evil cunts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No. They kick the old dears.
> 
> Evil cunts.


CFY


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Kills 2 people & injures 10 and gets 9 years on prison - seems as good as we can get after having become accustomed to low sentences.

11.5 years driving ban seems pretty stupid when most of those he’ll be in jail. Why not a ban for life?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Kills 2 people & injures 10 and gets 9 years on prison - seems as good as we can get after having become accustomed to low sentences.
> 
> 11.5 years driving ban seems pretty stupid when most of those he’ll be in jail. Why not a ban for life?



This happened just up the road from me.

Heavier (not heavy enough) sentencing because he was off his face on cocaine when he did it and had his twelve year old son in the car with him. One of the people he killed was a 48 year old standing at a bus stop with his wife and son. He'll only do four and a half years and back in the car when he's fifty. Even contemplating letting this piece of shit behind a wheel is unjustifiable. I think the fact he was doing somewhere between 88 and 104mph on a 30mph road is a very strong argument for GPS speed limiting.

But obviously bicycles in parks is the real issue. Arseholes.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> This happened just up the road from me.
> 
> Heavier (not heavy enough) sentencing because he was off his face on cocaine when he did it and had his twelve year old son in the car with him. One of the people he killed was a 48 year old standing at a bus stop with his wife and son. He'll only do four and a half years and back in the car when he's fifty. Even contemplating letting this piece of shit behind a wheel is unjustifiable. I think the fact he was doing somewhere between 88 and 104mph on a 30mph road is a very strong argument for GPS speed limiting.
> 
> But obviously bicycles in parks is the real issue. Arseholes.


FFS - evenly the seemingly harsh sentences are bloody lenient.

We treat drivers like babies and let them take fuck all responsibility.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2021)

An idea I like is that rather than having GPS actually limit a cars speed, all we need is a system where the 3 points are automatically put on a drivers license whenever they speed. 

I reckon more than half the people on the roads would lose their license within a week.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I reckon more than half the people on the roads would lose their license within a week.



Within a day, I reckon. That's why it'll never happen.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Within a day, I reckon. That's why it'll never happen.


And yet also why it should.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And yet also why it should.


Nah. The car lobby is far too powerful and contributes way too much money for any government too fuck it over completely, which is what most of these silly suggestions like yours would do.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nah. The car lobby is far too powerful and contributes way too much money for any government too fuck it over completely, which is what most of these silly suggestions like yours would do.


Which is, again, precisely why it should be done.

It shows how fucked up the situation is though. All my suggestion would do is _actually enforce the current law_. Yet apparently it's a "silly" thing to do. Why would any driver possibly object?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which is, again, precisely why it should be done.
> 
> It shows how fucked up the situation is though. All my suggestion would do is _actually enforce the current law_. Yet apparently it's a "silly" thing to do. Why would any driver possibly object?



They'd object because they'd lose their licences. Speeding is the main one, isn't it. Nobody observes speed limits on motorways because they're too slow in clear traffic and good conditions and 70 isn't enforced anyway; so raise them. Same with blanket 20mph zones. There are many, many, situations where 20 (or even lower) is appropriate but also many where it's ridiculous. Where it's ridiculous people will largely ignore it and government won't seek to nick everyone because they'd lose too much money. The result is that wallies like you and will keep getting upset whilst dickheads like me blast around in obscenely powerful cars with impunity, giving you wanker signs out of the window.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2021)

The only reason people think any particular limit is too slow is because we have a fucking horrendous car culture.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 283435


What’s the one second from the bottom?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

kabbes said:


> What’s the one second from the bottom?


Taxis. More than private cars cause dead mileage to and from pickups.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The only reason people think any particular limit is too slow is because we have a fucking horrendous car culture.



Well that (which is a good thing) ... and because in many cases they're too low.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Like how the 2 pro car people here are really demonstrating why we need a lot more restrictions on vehicles!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Like how the 2 pro car people here are really demonstrating why we need a lot more restrictions on vehicles!


I love that certain people are busting blood vessels because it isn't happening


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I love that certain people are busting blood vessels because it isn't happening



Even the ones who aren't replying, like maomao, are quietly fuming


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

I'm not. I'm watching a cartoon about monster trucks with my kids. This is just the old 'accuse your opponents of being angry so you can convince yourself that your boring shit has wound someone up' trick.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2021)

As this is a propaganda thread the most important things are that it's constantly near the top of the new posts page, and one of the most active threads in the transport forum. It's performing astoundingly well on both counts.

Keep posting, everyone.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not. I'm watching a cartoon about monster trucks with my kids. This is just the old 'accuse your opponents of being angry so you can convince yourself that your boring shit has wound someone up' trick.



Nah, it's just a game for when there's not much happening in the cricket. I PMd Saul telling him I could get you to post.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nah, it's just a game for when there's not much happening in the cricket. I PMd Saul telling him I could get you to post.


Well, well done on squeezing an unexpected 338th post out of me on a thread where I am the third most prolific poster and post at least weekly. Mind control skills eh.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well, well done on squeezing an unexpected 338th post out of me on a thread where I am the third most prolific poster and post at least weekly. Mind control skills eh.



Ah yes, but that's not all there was too it. There are still a couple of side bets going on but you're being annoyingly uncompliant with one in particular.  We'll get there though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nah, it's just a game for when there's not much happening in the cricket. I PMd Saul telling him I could get you to post.


I was flying a drone around the garden and decided to stop for a nice cold beer. It was a choice between going back into the house for a shit or posting some here. The toilet can wait


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I was flying a drone around the garden and decided to stop for a nice cold beer. It was a choice between going back into the house for a shit or posting some here. The toilet can wait


I think you should go to the toilet.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Like how the 2 pro car people here are really demonstrating why we need a lot more restrictions on vehicles!



You don't actually believe that though.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Drones! What a fun hobby 🙄


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drones! What a fun hobby 🙄



Aye. You stick to crochet.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drones! What a fun hobby 🙄


Probably noncing the neighbours through the bathroom window. He has form for taking secret crotch shots in public.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Aye. You stick to crochet.


Knitting yoghurt would be my guess.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drones! What a fun hobby 🙄


It surely beats hand wringing. 



maomao said:


> Probably noncing the neighbours through the bathroom window. He has form for taking secret crotch shots in public.


You seem to have a more than fleeting interest in men's crotches. Is there something you'd like to share?


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You seem to have a more than fleeting interest in men's crotches. Is there something you'd like to share?



I didn't say anything about men's crotches. Nor did I surreptitiously take photos of men's crotches and post them on the internet. I'm just sad the Irish upskirting law took so long to get through parliament.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't say anything about men's crotches. Nor did I surreptitiously take photos of men's crotches and post them on the internet. I'm just sad the Irish upskirting law took so long to get through parliament.


But its why you ride a bike.


----------



## maomao (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But its why you ride a bike.


In the hope of having my crotch admired by dirty little panty sniffers like you? That's just one of the reasons I ride a bike.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> In the hope of having my crotch admired by dirty little panty sniffers like you? That's just one of the reasons I ride a bike.


No, so you can ogle over other men's crotches.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Just picked up a hire car - this is a compact, hardly any room inside but bloody huge. Car manufacturers & owners are taking the piss, this is why we need LTNs.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Just picked up a hire car - this is a compact, hardly any room inside but bloody huge. Car manufacturers & owners are taking the piss, this is why we need LTNs.
> 
> View attachment 283491


You've just fucking hired it!  🤣


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drones! What a fun hobby 🙄


Just coming back to this. I now have a new hobby... Buzzing cyclists with drones. Thanks for planting the seed


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You've just fucking hired it!  🤣



Yep - and this is the standard for new cars now, it’s a joke.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - and this is the standard for new cars now, it’s a joke.


You're the reason there are so many on the road. 
Why didn't you hire something smaller?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're the reason there are so many on the road.
> Why didn't you hire something smaller?


It’s a compact, the 2nd smallest available.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s a compact, the 2nd smallest available.


Why didn't you get the smallest?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why didn't you get the smallest?


Because we have luggage - that was still ridiculously large. Not sure if you’ve noticed but cars are getting bigger and bigger.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Because we have luggage - that was still ridiculously large.



You need smaller luggage. It's greedy consumerism like yours that's caused car bloat.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Because we have luggage - that was still ridiculously large. *Not sure if you’ve noticed but cars are getting bigger and bigger.*


Good job really, or you'd have had to hire two to carry your luggage


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s a compact, the 2nd smallest available.



Its
A
Mercedes

😳


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You need smaller luggage.



No - we need to stop making ridiculously oversized cars. There’s no more room in there than an old Fiesta.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Imagine coming home to your missus and saying "FFS, have you seen the fucking size of this car I've just bought!"  🤣


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Its
> A
> Mercedes
> 
> 😳


Didn’t choose the make or even know it - cheapest there was.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - we need to stop making ridiculously oversized cars. There’s no more room in there than an old Fiesta.



One of the main reasons they've got bigger is to accomodate larger crumple zones and safety features. Plus of course, greedy people like you who insist on filling them with loads of luggage.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

It’s not that there getting any bigger inside.









						10 Images That Show Just How Fat Cars Have Become
					

Only when you line up modern cars next to their ancestors, do you realise just how obese the automotive sector has become




					www.carthrottle.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s not that there getting any bigger inside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would you rather people died if they were involved in an accident?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> One of the main reasons they've got bigger is to accomodate larger crumple zones and safety features.



Yep - and roads aren’t getting any wider.





Saul Goodman said:


> Would you rather people died if they were involved in an accident?



We’ve made cars safer rather than drivers, that’s why we should be having restrictions on speed and through traffic. Crumble zones don’t make it any safer for people outside the car - in fact the opposite.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Cars getting longer & wider surely has a big impact on congestion but let’s not looks at that but focus on cyclists instead.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Cars getting longer & wider surely has a big impact on congestion but let’s not looks at that but focus on cyclists instead.


You're learning...


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Crumble zones don’t make it any safer for people outside the car - in fact the opposite.



Incorrect.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Incorrect.



Really? Any evidence for that? This doesn’t look any safer.


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 13, 2021)

I doubt hire car fleets have the smaller models of cars as they’re less likely to be suitable for the reasons people hire cars.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really? Any evidence for that? This doesn’t look any safer.
> 
> View attachment 283501



Tons. Google "pedestrian impact protection".


----------



## Cid (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - and roads aren’t getting any wider.
> 
> We’ve made cars safer rather than drivers, that’s why we should be having restrictions on speed and through traffic. Crumble zones don’t make it any safer for people outside the car - in fact the opposite.



I want to go to the crumble zone, a final sweet release from all the madness...


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Tons. Google "pedestrian impact protection".


Yep - seems to be niche thing, certainly not standard and not the reason cars are getting bigger and bigger.


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 13, 2021)

Cid said:


> I want to go to the crumble zone, a final sweet release from all the madness...


that looks delicious


----------



## Athos (Aug 13, 2021)

I've hired a car that's too big.
Why didn't you get a smaller one, then?
It wouldn't fit all of our luggage.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - seems to be niche thing, certainly not standard and not the reason cars are getting bigger and bigger.



It's one of the very well known and documented causes of car bloat. It's not niche at all. Do some reading before you post on this again.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've hired a car that's too big.
> Why didn't you get a smaller one, then?
> It wouldn't fit all of our luggage.



I think you’re missing the point - it’s like a reverse tardis, there’s bugger all room instead but massive outside. It’s what goes for a small car nowadays.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've hired a car that's too big.
> Why didn't you get a smaller one, then?
> It wouldn't fit all of our luggage.


You couldn't make it up


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's one of the very well known and documented causes of car bloat. It's not niche at all. Do some reading before you post on this again.



I’m struggling here - happy for you to help me out.





__





						crumple zones pedestrians - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think you’re missing the point - it’s like a reverse tardis, there’s bugger all room instead but massive outside. It’s what goes for a small car nowadays.



I have a small car. A toyota yaris. Its big inside...relatively to how it looks on the outside. 
A six foot 4 person would be very comfortable in it
.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> I have a small car. A toyota yaris. Its big inside...relatively to how it looks on the outside.
> A six foot 4 person would be very comfortable in it
> .


He's just making excuses for his luggage greed.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

I mean it’s a fact cars are getting bigger but no one ever blames congestion on this as car drivers are never at fault & just look for any other excuse. Again drivers never taking responsibility for the damage they cause.

I’m happy to take my blame for the one week of the year I drive but I’m not going to moan about it and blame it on cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m struggling here



You certainly are.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m struggling here



You certainly are.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Great example of how efficient cycling is and how inefficient cars are!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great example of how efficient cycling is and how inefficient cars are!



Jesus fucking christ, did you not notice that the cars travelling the same direction as the bikes are travelling faster than the bikes? 🤣


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Would you rather people died if they were involved in an accident?


If car drivers were more at risk of death in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, that would be excellent for road safety. I don't think it was me that came up with the idea of a spike being installed in the middle of steering wheels - maybe activated in all areas with a speed limit under 50.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If car drivers were more at risk of death in collisions with pedestrians and cyclists, that would be excellent for road safety. I don't think it was me that came up with the idea of a spike being installed in the middle of steering wheels - maybe activated in all areas with a speed limit under 50.


So you think killing people is the best way to prevent deaths? Why doesn't this surprise me.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Jesus fucking christ, did you not notice that the cars travelling the same direction as the bikes are travelling faster than the bikes? 🤣



Yep - 5 cars with maybe 7 people in then versus 11 bikes!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> So you think killing people is the best way to prevent deaths? Why doesn't this surprise me.


Oh, you’re an ACTUAL idiot.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - 5 cars with maybe 7 people in then versus 11 bikes!


Are you actually so stupid that you believe that video proves anything but cars are faster than bikes?  🤣


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you actually so stupid that you believe that video proves anything but cars are faster than bikes?  🤣



Please see my post above.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Please see my post above.


Then the answer is yes, you are actually that stupid.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

I thought Saul Goodman & Spymaster were kids until they said they liked drones and cricket when I realised they must be middle aged Jeremy Clarkson wannabes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 13, 2021)

You're not very good at this, edcraw. You make teuchter look intelligent. Maybe you should sit on the sideline for a while and observe how it works


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I thought Saul Goodman & Spymaster were kids until they said they liked drones and cricket when I realised they must be middle aged Jeremy Clarkson wannabes.


They are way older than that. I bet they could tell you how they had to do double declutching when they first learnt to drive. Maybe those wind-up handles on the radiator too, and something about woman drivers not being able to park. I don't worry too much about them. Better to focus on what younger more dynamic generations are doing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They are way older than that. I bet they could tell you how they had to do double declutching when they first learnt to drive. Maybe those wind-up handles on the radiator too, and something about woman drivers not being able to park. I don't worry too much about them. Better to focus on what younger more dynamic generations are doing.


My nephew bought a VW Golf GTD. Its a lovely car and surprisingly fast, but you can make it so much faster with just a computer! Last time he was here we got stoned and decided to flash the ECU, and upped the BHP from 184 to 240, and the torque from 380 to 450 Nm. It's fast as fuck now.
Thats what the younger, more dynamic generations are doing these days.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 14, 2021)

Another good reason to ban cars as they emit these particles too









						Wildfire smoke has caused rise in Covid infections and deaths, study finds
					

Researchers speculate that smoke helps spread the virus and weakens lungs, making symptoms more severe




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Another good reason to ban cars as they emit these particles too
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So does your frying pan, so we should ban you.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> So does your frying pan, so we should ban you.


I don't fry things.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I don't fry things.


Do you burn candles?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2021)

I think it’s a shame that Saul and Spy repeatedly shut down any form of discussion in so many threads with stupid bad faith trolling that other idiots then feel compelled to actually respond to, as if the two stooges in question in any way actually believe the preposterously stupid things they have come out with.  I think we could have some genuinely interesting discussions about this stuff.  It can’t happen though, because the threads are spammed with stupidity instead. Well done, guys.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s a shame that Saul and Spy repeatedly shut down any form of discussion in so many threads with stupid bad faith trolling that other idiots then feel compelled to actually respond to, as if the two stooges in question in any way actually believe the preposterously stupid things they have come out with.  I think we could have some genuinely interesting discussions about this stuff.  It can’t happen though, because the threads are spammed with stupidity instead. Well done, guys.



That’s just really forums isn’t - prob shouldn’t respond but they do demonstrate what idiots the people are that defend car culture.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s just really forums isn’t - prob shouldn’t respond but they do demonstrate what idiots the people are that defend car culture.


They aren’t idiots, they’re doing it on purpose because they enjoy winding people up. They know as well as you do that what they’re saying is ridiculous. That’s the art of trolling


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s a shame that Saul and Spy repeatedly shut down any form of discussion in so many threads with stupid bad faith trolling that other idiots then feel compelled to actually respond to, as if the two stooges in question in any way actually believe the preposterously stupid things they have come out with.  I think we could have some genuinely interesting discussions about this stuff.  It can’t happen though, because the threads are spammed with stupidity instead. Well done, guys.



If threads are started as bad faith trolls (as Teuchter has repeatedly stated that this one was)  you can’t really blame people for trolling them. There used to be a silly cyclist thread where frustrations were vented but the cycle wallies got it shut so these get the treatment instead. Having posters like edcraw turn up and be wrong about everything they post is a fun bonus though!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Having posters like edcraw turn up and be wrong about everything they post is a fun bonus though!



Oh sorry, are you not a middle aged Clarkson wannabe?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2021)

Oh look - car owners much more likely to be Tory voters.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2021)

This thread is kind of open to some hyperbole and messing around, and it kind of helps make the point if anything, but it's not so great that Saul Goodman feels the need to splurge the same old stuff on virtually every transport thread including ones that are obviously supposed to be serious, for example the one about dangerous driving in South London.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you actually so stupid that you believe that video proves anything but cars are faster than bikes?  🤣


Are you so daft that you actually believe cars are more efficient/quicker at moving large numbers of people round an urban environment than bikes?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s a shame that Saul and Spy repeatedly shut down any form of discussion in so many threads with stupid bad faith trolling that other idiots then feel compelled to actually respond to, as if the two stooges in question in any way actually believe the preposterously stupid things they have come out with.  I think we could have some genuinely interesting discussions about this stuff.  It can’t happen though, because the threads are spammed with stupidity instead. Well done, guys.


What discussion? The thread is a pure troll


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s a shame that Saul and Spy repeatedly shut down any form of discussion in so many threads with stupid bad faith trolling that other idiots then feel compelled to actually respond to, as if the two stooges in question in any way actually believe the preposterously stupid things they have come out with.  I think we could have some genuinely interesting discussions about this stuff.  It can’t happen though, because the threads are spammed with stupidity instead. Well done, guys.


It's easy to just put them on 'ignore'. It's one of the best features about the forum software. But a lot of people do reply to the trolling here. I suppose it's something to do.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> It's easy to just put them on 'ignore'. It's one of the best features about the forum software. But a lot of people do reply to the trolling here. I suppose it's something to do.


Also, I don’t really want to ignore them because when they aren’t being irritating and ruining conversation, they can be quite entertaining and interesting. Plus their trolling is successful enough to ruin the thread anyway.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 14, 2021)

But this is where it all goes wrong! If you really do ignore them, and others do likewise, you get more participation from the non-trolls who are driven away from these threads. You end up with a real discussion, with people contributing new information and educating each other. Wouldn't you rather have that than fuckwits on stilts?


----------



## Athos (Aug 14, 2021)

Surely this whole thread is a to troll, in both directions?  And intentionally so?  This was never the place to have a sensible discussion about this topic. And, within that context, it's a bit of fun.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely this whole thread is a to troll, in both directions?  And intentionally so?  This was never the place to have a sensible discussion about this topic. And, within that context, it's a bit of fun.


That was my understanding, but Clapson wouldn't even recognise fun if it was a 2 page colour pop-up in his Daily Mail.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 14, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely this whole thread is a to troll, in both directions?  And intentionally so?  This was never the place to have a sensible discussion about this topic. And, within that context, it's a bit of fun.



Indeed.

But edcraw IS a plonker.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 14, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely this whole thread is a to troll, in both directions?  And intentionally so?  This was never the place to have a sensible discussion about this topic. And, within that context, it's a bit of fun.


It’s not confined to this thread though, unfortunately.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 14, 2021)

U75 has a dearth of emissions reduction chat. Bit of a shame really. This is one of the very few relevant threads. Maybe it all points to general public apathy...the impossibility of individuals averting disaster. I've yet to find a forum with high quality advice for people who want to do their bit.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It’s not confined to this thread though, unfortunately.


It’s a tit for tat thing. The cycling chat thread largely gets left alone because it’s just a bunch of wallies rubbing each other off about carbon fibre and cycle clips. All of the petrol-head threads get rounded on by wombats like maomao and Orang Utan so they’re fair game anywhere in transport. I got (reasonably) told off by Bees yesterday for trolling Bahnhof Strasse’s thread, which was fair enough, so I desisted. This one’s a pure fishing thread though.


----------



## Athos (Aug 14, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It’s not confined to this thread though, unfortunately.


Yeah, that's fair enough; I, too, would welcome a sensible discussion on this subject, and would like to think all trolling would be confined to this thread.


----------



## maomao (Aug 14, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that's fair enough; I, too, would welcome a sensible discussion on this subject, and would like to think all trolling would be confined to this thread.


Your trolling certainly isn't confined to this thread.


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 14, 2021)

I would hope we can have a serious discussion about transport decarbonisation in the proposed new climate change sub folder, if it is created.

There was a decent discussion on the Electric Cars thread recently where even Saul seemed to accept the need for change.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> I would hope we can have a serious discussion about transport decarbonisation in the proposed new climate change sub folder, if it is created.
> 
> There was a decent discussion on the Electric Cars thread recently where even Saul seemed to accept the need for change.


I'd get involved in a discussion on a serious thread but this isn't one, like all of teuchter's threads.


----------



## Athos (Aug 14, 2021)

maomao said:


> Your trolling certainly isn't confined to this thread.


Eh?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd get involved in a discussion on a serious thread


Indeed. This is the problem we face.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Indeed. This is the problem we face.


Oh, I forgot that you and your pedalphile mates just want a lycra-clad circle jerk.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 14, 2021)

_  i_


Orang Utan said:


> i keyed a pavement parker last night. will see if they’re still there this evening.


this is annoying. there’s another pavement parker. i’ve now posted different stickers all over the car that i’m at war with to no avail. first was ‘stop parking like an idiot’. second was ‘ Stupidity is not a handicap. Park elsewhere’ There are two more stages but they involve the word ‘cunt’ so i’m reluctant to employ that tactic. 
it is so much easier to just get a key out and hold it against the car as you pass, but that may be illegal possibly. 
will see if it’s still there on Monday.
the code red final measure to apply after the cunt stickers involves tape, cable ties and other stuff to festoon the car with, but am not sure i’ve got the bottle for it as it’s on the main road, though i doubt the owner will see owt as the house is up a driveway


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 14, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> _  i_
> 
> this is annoying. there’s another pavement parker. i’ve now posted different stickers all over the car that i’m at war with to no avail. first was ‘stop parking like an idiot’. second was ‘ Stupidity is not a handicap. Park elsewhere’ There are two more stages but they involve the word ‘cunt’ so i’m reluctant to employ that tactic.
> it is so much easier to just get a key out and hold it against the car as you pass, but that may be illegal possibly.
> ...


Go for it, but we'll need pictures.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 14, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Go for it, but we'll need pictures.


no way, i’m not daft


----------



## edcraw (Aug 15, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

Here is a map board, put up on the (for pedestrians) pavement to help pedestrians find their way on foot when they come out of the tube.

Presumably knocked over by a speeding cyclist.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



Oh that’s just glorious


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2021)

This is interesting - people are using Google data to set up Twitter bots to highlight speeding:





__





						Loading…
					





					twitter.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2021)

That's interesting but as far as I can see there are loads of places where it's known there's a speeding problem, but no money or desire for the police to do anything about it.

The warm weather seems to bring them out in South London... Lots of speeding cars on my road over the weekend.



edcraw said:


> This is interesting - people are using Google data to set up Twitter bots to highlight speeding:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lazythursday (Aug 16, 2021)

The brutal (and outrageous) truth is that most local authorities will only do something about speeding on a road once there have been fatalities. And just the one unlikely to be enough. 

I think that Twitterbot is potentially useful though as it gives a much more reliable source of data than complaining residents.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2021)

I think a big part of the problem is that local authorities don’t get any of the money from enforcement but have to pay for cameras so they just don’t do it.

That twitter bot could help to highlight the problem and maybe deal with it through better street design rather than enforcement.

Also just highlights how lots of drivers are complete twats.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 16, 2021)

For some time I've been trying to push for better street design near me - in particular a junction where there are regularly collisions and vehicles ending up on the pavement...the answer that comes back is that there is insufficient collision data for it to be prioritised. Yup it looks like you have to wait for someone to actually die before it's considered something that needs attention.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

Driving 30mph over the speed limit after taking cocaine, cannabis and ketamine!! 6.5 year ban WTF! 









						Distressing video captures the scene after six-year-old boy is hit by drug driver
					

THE family of a boy who was seriously injured in a collision by a driver under the influence of drugs has joined Cleveland Police to support a…




					www.thenorthernecho.co.uk
				




Why should he ever be allowed to drive again? We seem to treat it as there’s some god given right to drive.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Driving 30mph over the speed limit after taking cocaine, cannabis and ketamine!! 6.5 year ban WTF!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Poor little kid - can only hope he recovered OK.  What an total scumbag driver.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 17, 2021)

lazythursday said:


> The brutal (and outrageous) truth is that most local authorities will only do something about speeding on a road once there have been fatalities. And just the one unlikely to be enough.
> 
> I think that Twitterbot is potentially useful though as it gives a much more reliable source of data than complaining residents.


It's a good idea, and ideally every tweet would tag the local highways authority and police.  There should be average speed cameras set up everywhere, with fines issued automatically.  It would also be good if there was a government site listing everyone done for speeding.

The authorities should also be able to install software on all the offenders' electronic devices to force them to display all text in comic sans too.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It's a good idea, and ideally every tweet would tag the local highways authority and police.  There should be average speed cameras set up everywhere, with fines issued automatically.  It would also be good if there was a government site listing everyone done for speeding.
> 
> The authorities should also be able to install software on all the offenders' electronic devices to force them to display all text in comic sans too.



er… most petrolheads already use, and indeed _like_ comic sans.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It's a good idea, and ideally every tweet would tag the local highways authority and police.  There should be average speed cameras set up everywhere, with fines issued automatically.  It would also be good if there was a government site listing everyone done for speeding.
> 
> The authorities should also be able to install software on all the offenders' electronic devices to force them to display all text in comic sans too.


If you really want to humiliate them, just turn them into cyclists.


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

The trouble with tweeting how often people exceed the speed limit (without sanction) is that it might be unproductive insofar as it normalises speeding, and appears to show that speeding doesn't cause accidents.  It'd be better to have effective traffic calming measures, effective enforcement, and meaningful sanctions.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

A cunt in a Tesla puts 5 children and a adult in hospital:









						Investigation continues after six children and adult hit by car  | ITV News
					

Six children and one adult were injured after a car collided with them in Ardingly in Sussex. | ITV News Meridian




					www.itv.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> It'd be better to have effective traffic calming measures, effective enforcement, and meaningful sanctions.



Along with sensible road layouts and speed control. Loads of Sadiq Khan's silly 'war on motorists' stuff is being quietly ditched in London at the moment. Look around and you'll see stretches of blanket 20mph zones being re-signed as 30mph and roads that were designated as bus/cycle lanes being put back to car use. The tell-tale signs are lots road markings visibly rubbed-out and sudden lack of traffic chaos. One of the favourite "cycle friendly" measures was to close one lane of a 2 lane road to cars. All that happened was that you got an enormous tailback alongside an empty lane that had one bus and a couple of cycles go down it occasionally. Most of those have now fortunately been binned but it does seem sometimes that TfL's road planning department is populated by people with the intelligence of edcraw .


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

New Cycleway 9 extension taking shape:







__





						Cycleway 9
					

Cycleway 9 will create a continuous, largely-segregated route between Kensington Olympia and Brentford town centre, via Hammersmith and Chiswick




					tfl.gov.uk


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A cunt in a Tesla puts 5 children and a adult in hospital:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bit harsh*, given we've no idea what happened; they could have had a heart attack at the wheel.  ETA: some of the reports are suggesting they might not have even been behind the wheel! 

*Especially given they've chosen one of the safest and most environmentally friendly cars available!


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Along with sensible road layouts and speed control. Loads of Sadiq Khan's silly 'war on motorists' stuff is being quietly ditched in London at the moment. Look around and you'll see stretches of blanket 20mph zones being re-signed as 30mph and roads that were designated as bus/cycle lanes being put back to car use. The tell-tale signs are lots road markings visibly rubbed-out and sudden lack of traffic chaos. One of the favourite "cycle friendly" measures was to close one lane of a 2 lane road to cars. All that happened was that you got an enormous tailback alongside an empty lane that had one bus and a couple of cycles go down it occasionally. Most of those have now fortunately been binned but it does seem sometimes that TfL's road planning department is populated by people with the intelligence of edcraw .


I guess there's an element of trial and error to see what works where.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess there's an element of trial and error to see what works where.


Except we know what works. We just don’t do it in this country.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> Bit harsh*, given we've no idea what happened; they could have had a heart attack at the wheel.  ETA: some of the reports are suggesting they might not have even been behind the wheel!
> 
> *Especially given they've chosen one of the safest and most environmentally friendly cars available!



They were driving a Tesla so I’m confident in my assessment.

Also, electric cars really aren’t the answer.









						Electric Vehicles Won’t Save Us
					

Why EV’s are false prophets in the fight for a better world




					marker.medium.com


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> The trouble with tweeting how often people exceed the speed limit (without sanction) is that it might be unproductive insofar as it normalises speeding, and appears to show that speeding doesn't cause accidents.  It'd be better to have effective traffic calming measures, effective enforcement, and *meaningful sanctions*.


Put speeding drivers in the stocks.  That's pretty meaningful as a sanction - and fun for all the family.


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Put speeding drivers in the stocks.  That's pretty meaningful as a sanction - and fun for all the family.



Yeah, whilst I think the limit should be increased on motorways, people speeding in built-up areas should receive much stiffer penalties.


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They were driving a Tesla so I’m confident in my assessment.
> 
> Also, electric cars really aren’t the answer.
> 
> ...



What do you have against Tesla drivers?

Whilst electric cars aren't a panacea, they're a step in the right direction to alleviate some of the problems caused by the ICE.

Overall, it seems strange to brand the driver* in this case a cunt without knowing the circumstances or what's happened. (*If they were even driving!)


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> What do you have against Tesla drivers?
> 
> Whilst electric cars aren't a panacea, they're a step in the right direction to alleviate some of the problems caused by the ICE.
> 
> Overall, it seems strange to brand the driver* in this case a cunt without knowing the circumstances or what's happened. (*If they were even driving!)


Personally care more about the kid that was airlifted to hospital rather than the small possibility the cars owner isn’t a cunt.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> Whilst electric cars aren't a panacea, they're a step in the right direction


No, they’re not. They’re a step sideways at best. A papering over the crack. They solve fuck all.


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, they’re not. They’re a step sideways at best. A papering over the crack. They solve fuck all.


Surely the help with air quality in towns?


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Personally care more about the kid that was airlifted to hospital rather than the small possibility the cars owner isn’t a cunt.


Me too.  It was you who raised the cunt issue.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> Me too.  It was you who raised the cunt issue.


Okay, so we’ll just assume they are especially as, as you point out, they may not have even been driving in which case they’d be a total cunt.


----------



## Athos (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay, so we’ll just assume they are especially as, as you point out, they may not have even been driving in which case they’d be a total cunt.


You can assume what you like; I'll wait until we know what happened before coming to any conclusion on the question of cuntiness.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely the help with air quality in towns?


Assuming that all ICE car journeys are replaced 1 for 1 with electric vehicles yes they would. The danger is that numbers of cars increase because they are now presented as 'harmless' when they are not.

We already see it all the time - people justifying their decision to use a car rather than public transport "because I have an electric car now".


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

Certain posters on this thread will be completely enraged by this guy's videos so I'm going to post them up now and again over the next few days.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

Pretty sure some people will have a complete meltdown when they watch this one.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We already see it all the time - people justifying their decision to use a car rather than public transport "because I have an electric car now".



I've never seen or heard it once. Not here, not anywhere.

I don't even know anyone that's got an electric car.  Who are you hanging around with to be hearing this all the time and why do you hang around with them?  I guess beggars can't be choosers but they don't sound like your sort of people.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 18, 2021)

Times over the limit in charge of an HGV - if this guy doesn’t lose his HGV license permanently something’s v wrong:


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

edcraw is a banned returner





__





						Commuters saw man have sex with goat
					

A judge today said he was "sceptical" that any sex offenders' programme had yet been designed that could help a man who had sex with a goat while a train-load of passengers looked on in disbelief.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Times over the limit in charge of an HGV - if this guy doesn’t lose his HGV license permanently something’s v wrong:




Never mind the driving ban, that should be prison for attempted murder.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Never mind the driving ban, that should be prison for attempted murder.


Who was the attempt made on?  

Why do you say there was an intent to kill, which is what attempted murder requires?

Murder isn’t just unlawful killing.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 18, 2021)

I'm not quite sure what an incident involving a lorry is doing on a thread about car ownership, particularly private car ownership.  Whatever you may think of motor vehicles its going to be a long time till we don't need lorries and trucks that is if we still want _you know_ stuff like food and somewhere to live.

As for the a suitable punishment you can be sent to prison for drink driving but courts seem generally unwilling to impose custodial sentences unless there is a serious incident involving a 3rd party or it is a repeat offender.  Without knowing any more about this case I'd say this person should not be allowed behind a wheel for a very long time.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 18, 2021)

They shouldn’t be allowed behind the wheel of a car ever again ffs


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 18, 2021)

For ever is a long time.  

Its only just gone nine.  I don't think its healthy to be this angry so early.  You've got the whole day to build up a head of steam.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> edcraw is a banned returner



Name names or shut up.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Name names or shut up.


Tobyjug


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Tobyjug



“Bike-happy” - when it becomes necessary, in extremis, to shoot someone on a bike for the safety of others


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Never mind the driving ban, that should be prison for attempted murder.


Are you still a fighter pilot, or are you back to being a children’s cycling instructor nowadays?

If the latter, perhaps they could use the same law to imprison you for attempted paedophilia.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> “Bike-happy” - when it becomes necessary, in extremis, to shoot someone on a bike for the safety of others


It's not Tobyjug lol. It's just Spymaster flinging turds because he knows he lost this argument many years ago.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's not Tobyjug lol. It's just Spymaster ...



Blimey, that one was easy.



You used to make me work for these. I guess this is what happens when cycle wallies get old and infirm!


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Blimey, that one was easy!
> 
> View attachment 284139


I know that being able to occasionally predict people's behaviour on the basis of their previously observed  behaviour must seem like some fantastic dark art to you but it's really a very basic human ability. But if it's getting you hard, have a wank on me.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> ... have a wank on me.



Christ no!

I think edcraw might oblige if you ask politely though.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Who was the attempt made on?
> 
> Why do you say there was an intent to kill, which is what attempted murder requires?
> 
> Murder isn’t just unlawful killing.



There was no intent not to kill either.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> There was no intent not to kill either.




Ha! None of yer fancy-pants stuff, just deal with some real logiczzz kabbes !!!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

Aaaaaaaand just when you thought Plank couldn't be a bigger bellend ...



SpookyFrank said:


> There was no intent not to kill either


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> There was no intent not to kill either.


Top Gun one week, Judith Sheindlin the next... Your talent knows no bounds.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Top Gun one week, Judith Sheindlin the next... Your talent knows no bounds.



Even maomao's cringing at this one.


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Even maomao's cringing at this one.


Yes. Cringing at the thick old twats that can't recognise an obvious joke and think they've scored a massive point.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank's early morning provocation post has been at least twice as successful as Spymaster's.

Good work SpookyFrank.

42,000 views of anti car propaganda so far, thanks to this thread's continuing success.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. Cringing at the thick old twats that can't recognise an obvious joke and think they've scored a massive point.



Oooh yeah, he got us there!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. Cringing at the thick old twats that can't recognise an obvious joke and think they've scored a massive point.


SpookyFrank joking like a boss.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Top Gun one week, Judith Sheindlin the next... Your talent knows no bounds.



Him and maomao often make similar legal pronouncements and then try to pass them off as jokes

Take that, Law Society!


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Oooh yeah, he got us there!


Well technically yes because he made an obvious joke and you two got excited and started posting up cartoon 'Tada's and GIFs. I'd anyone ever read this thread that would be one internet point right there.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well technically yes because he made an obvious joke and you two got excited and started posting up cartoon 'Tada's and GIFs. I'd anyone ever read this thread that would be one internet point right there.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well technically yes because he made an obvious joke and you two got excited and started posting up cartoon 'Tada's and GIFs. I'd anyone ever read this thread that would be one internet point right there.


Did he tell you that you could be his wingman?


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Yeah, whatever, I'm on holiday, I don't give a shit. But you both responded as if a comment made in jest was serious. You lose by your own rules.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Did he tell you that you could be his wingman?
> 
> View attachment 284161



Check out the Begum thread if you want to see Plank & Maomao Solicitors, in full flow!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't give a shit.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 18, 2021)

Fuck - it’s like watching a private circle jerk.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Check out the Begum thread if you want to see Plank & Maomao Solicitors, in full flow!


Lionel Hutz in da house







Spymaster said:


> View attachment 284162


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck - it’s like watching a private circle jerk.


We do try to break it up once in a while but it's an inevitable consequence of these threads.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck - it’s like watching a private circle jerk.



You got there in the end!


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Check out the Begum thread if you want to see Plank & Maomao Solicitors, in full flow!


No thanks. I couldn't really take the sight of you rimming Athos while getting excited about killing teenage girls all over again.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> No thanks. I couldn't really take the sight of you rimming Athos while getting excited about killing teenage girls all over again.






You owe me a tenner Saul Goodman


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Along with sensible road layouts and speed control. Loads of Sadiq Khan's silly 'war on motorists' stuff is being quietly ditched in London at the moment. Look around and you'll see stretches of blanket 20mph zones being re-signed as 30mph and roads that were designated as bus/cycle lanes being put back to car use. The tell-tale signs are lots road markings visibly rubbed-out and sudden lack of traffic chaos. One of the favourite "cycle friendly" measures was to close one lane of a 2 lane road to cars. All that happened was that you got an enormous tailback alongside an empty lane that had one bus and a couple of cycles go down it occasionally. Most of those have now fortunately been binned but it does seem sometimes that TfL's road planning department is populated by people with the intelligence of edcraw .


Round here it’s full on LTN and streets being blocked


----------



## maomao (Aug 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 284165
> 
> You owe me a tenner Saul Goodman


Are you claiming to have predicted that I would accuse you of tonguing Athos's ring-piece? Either way I'll take it as an admission of guilt.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 18, 2021)

Now now maomao


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2021)

Went on a little ride around town this evening. Here is a virtually unused bike lane of the type that all the car people are getting all frantic about because it's denying them their human rights to be in a car traffic jam in the same location.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 21, 2021)

Maybe Spymaster & Saul Goodman could stand as Tory councillors- they seem to have what it takes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Maybe Spymaster & Saul Goodman could stand as Tory councillors- they seem to have what it takes.



I hate the Tories even more than I hate Labour, but the hatred pales into insignificance compared to my hatred of cyclists. I think I'd rather be locked in a room with HRH Sweaty Nonce than with a cyclist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I hate the Tories even more than I hate Labour, but the hatred pales into insignificance compared to my hatred of cyclists. I think I'd rather be locked in a room with HRH Sweaty Nonce than with a cyclist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 21, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 284678


All of my nightmares at one time. Worse than the one I had about the cameras coming alive in teuchter's shitter.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 21, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I hate the Tories even more than I hate Labour, but the hatred pales into insignificance compared to my hatred of cyclists.



Ah, a UKIP voter, should’ve guessed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah, a UKIP voter, should’ve guessed.


I don't vote, because none of the useless fucks have cyclist genocide on their manifesto.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 21, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don’t vote



Probably for the best.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Probably for the best.


Absolutely, for cyclists.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah, a UKIP voter, should’ve guessed.




I doubt UKIP appear on many ballot papers in Ireland.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 22, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I doubt UKIP appear on many ballot papers in Ireland.



Only in the occupied 6 counties. 

That could change.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Quite a good piece in Vice









						American Cars Are Now Almost As Big As the Tanks That Won WWII
					

These legendary war implements were not much bigger than the vehicles millions of Americans now drive every day.




					www.vice.com
				




The title image is a top class bit of antic car propaganda.


----------



## T & P (Aug 23, 2021)

Yeah, well, it's a well known fact that Americans can't car.

Small is beautiful anyway. If I ever buy another car, which I doubt, I might go for one of these frugal things...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Quite a good piece in Vice
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They need big cars for their large people. Are you saying fat people shouldn't be allowed to drive?


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They need big cars for their large people. Are you saying fat people shouldn't be allowed to drive?


I'm not sure that's why the cars are so big but car dependency is a major contributing factor to weight problems and obesity in developed countries in the first place so whatever the problem bigger cars aren't really the answer.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not sure that's why the cars are so big but car dependency is a major contributing factor to weight problems and obesity in developed countries in the first place so whatever the problem bigger cars aren't really the answer.


Have you not seen them trying to get to Dr. Now's clinic on My 600lb Life? Bigger cars are the _only_ answer!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Meanwhile, at the weekend I left my local area where according to some people a fascist dictatorship is imposing restrictions on the motorist, and visited part of Car Land outside of London.

This was a post-war housing development that, unlike Victorian housing developments, had the private motor car very much in mind. So all the houses are provided with off street parking and/or a garage. Its designers also wanted to make things tolerable for those on foot, and perhaps had an intention that the street scene even in a car oriented design could be made pleasant.

So, as well as giving everyone some space to store their death machines on their own property, there are lots of grassy verges, some of them separating the roadway from the main footpath.

Unfortunately they didn't have any idea quite how much motor vehicles would come to dominate nor the selfish attitudes that they generate in their owners. So now, not only is the roadway lined with cars, but some of them are blocking the pavements and some of them are dumped on the grassy areas that ought to be part of the communal public realm. They don't just look a mess in themselves but churn up the ground and destroy kerbs and pathways.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Even ambulance drivers don't care about wheelchair users or people pushing prams.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Already filled up your own front garden with range rovers etc? No problem if you want a third vehicle, just dump it on the grass that's supposed to be there to make other people's lives a little happier.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

I think this sign probably says something about not driving onto the verges but someone has got the paint out because their desire to park their car near their front door over-rides anything that anyone else might like or need.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you not seen them trying to get to Dr. Now's clinic on My 600lb Life? Bigger cars are the _only_ answer!











						Health & Fitness
					

From weight training to healthy exercise programs, find health and fitness information for a healthy lifestyle.




					www.webmd.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

This photo pretty much sums up how the priorities lie.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 284852


Obviously obscured by a cyclist. 



maomao said:


> Health & Fitness
> 
> 
> From weight training to healthy exercise programs, find health and fitness information for a healthy lifestyle.
> ...


These people don't own cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This photo pretty much sums up how the priorities lie.
> 
> View attachment 284853



I hope they're making a parking bay for a car. 
If the council had any sense they'd concrete over all that grass.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2021)

Teuchter spent his weekend photographing parked cars


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Teuchter spent his weekend photographing parked cars


It makes my time wasted on this thread worthwhile.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> These people don't own cars.


I don't watch channel 5 so I have very little idea what you're on about but towns and cities designed for cars contribute to sedentary behaviour generally. And I would guess that people that are so obese that they're essentially disabled get driven by other people a lot.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Teuchter spent his weekend photographing parked cars


Only takes a minute to take a couple of snaps. Unless it's cyclists without lights in NW8, in which case it takes several years apparently.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Teuchter spent his weekend photographing parked cars


Not for the first time. Car people can never rest easily. We're coming after you and we're winning the propaganda war.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't watch channel 5 so I have very little idea what you're on about but towns and cities designed for cars contribute to sedentary behaviour generally. And I would guess that people that are so obese that they're essentially disabled get driven by other people a lot.


The only exercise they get is answering the door to collect 6 pizzas and 15 burgers from the delivery person, and that's just breakfast. 
When they do get driven anywhere, not surprisingly it's in a large vehicle.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The only exercise they get is answering the door to collect 6 pizzas and 15 burgers from the delivery person, and that's just breakfast.
> When they do get driven anywhere, not surprisingly it's in a large vehicle.


That's kind of my point. Dependant on cars even though they don't drive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's kind of my point. Dependant on cars even though they don't drive.


Would you rather they died?
Without cars they wouldn't get the help they need.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Would you rather they died?
> Without cars they wouldn't get the help they need.


Medical transport is not private car ownership.   Even when using private health providers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> Medical transport is not private car ownership.   Even when using private health providers.


They only get an ambulance if they're unable to source alternative transport. Ambulances should only be used in emergencies.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They only get an ambulance if they're unable to source alternative transport. Ambulances should only be used in emergencies.


Again. Medical transport is not the same as an emergency ambulance. For instance, cancer patients are often advised against public transport when their immune systems are particularly low. We've discussed this before.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> Again. Medical transport is not the same as an emergency ambulance. For instance, cancer patients are often advised against public transport when their immune systems are particularly low. We've discussed this before.


Is it medical transport if its a large friend transporting them?


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Is it medical transport if its a large friend transporting them?


A proportion of necessary journeys are made in private cars. More so in countries with ridiculous healthcare systems. This is not an argument for private car ownership, it's an argument for socialism.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> A proportion of necessary journeys are made in private cars. More so in countries with ridiculous healthcare systems. This is not an argument for private car ownership, it's an argument for socialism.


The argument was over the size of cars in America. Now that one has been put to bed, with an resounding victory for the common sense party, we can get back to arguing about the things that matter.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The argument was over the size of cars in America. Now that one has been put to bed, with an astounding victory for the common sense party, we can get back to arguing about the things that matter.


I'm not even sure what you're actual argument was. That all US cars need to be that large in case they need to carry someone in the top 0.1% for bodyweight?

Bigger cars are producing more emissions and kill more pedestrians. The US has one of the highest rates of asthma in the world and US road deaths are roughly equal to US non-suicide gun deaths. Big cars are a problem unless you're some sort of individual-before-all-else libertarian alt-right twat.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 23, 2021)

I have a suspicion that Saul isn’t even pro-car in real life. I think he’s just anti-teuchter.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I have a suspicion that Saul isn’t even pro-car in real life. I think he’s just anti-teuchter.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 23, 2021)

When even Coronation Street are against you you’ve probably lost the argument.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> When even Coronation Street are against you you’ve probably lost the argument.



Coronation Street... the harbinger of transport future. 

FYI, Len Fairclough was an avid cyclist.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Coronation Street... the harbinger of transport future.
> 
> FYI, Len Fairclough was an avid cyclist.


The Mrs had this on tonight. It was hilarious!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Mrs had this on tonight. It was hilarious!


Yeah, and you _just happened_ to be watching it too


----------



## edcraw (Aug 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> FYI, Len Fairclough was an avid cyclist.





beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, and you _just happened_ to be watching it too



Seems we’ve got a couple of secret Corrie fans here.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, and you _just happened_ to be watching it too


I pretty much always watch Corrie by default over the top of the computer screen. I watched tiis one properly though as it was so laughable. They had a kid doing some comedy choking in the street. Then kid’s mum goes up to the owner of a van and says the van has to be taken off the road, like it was THAT VAN that caused the kid to choke. Then an ambulance arrives but can’t get through because of too many parked car’s. Then kid’s mum is reminded that she “drives a tank” but says “yeah but I’m selling it” not realising that that just means someone else will be driving it. Then kid’s mum smashes the van up with an iron bar.

It was fantastically shit!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I have a suspicion that Saul isn’t even pro-car in real life. I think he’s just anti-teuchter.



The way Saul talks about cars and driving makes me think he has never actually driven anything. Like a teenage boy talking about sex.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Drones, Corrie, fast cars - what exciting lives!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2021)

I don't watch soap operas but I imagine that in the past they had story lines that introduced modern ideas about gay rights or racism or mental health or sexism to conservative audiences, who will have laughed them off at the time. It doesn't really matter if the writing is clunky, it gets people thinking and brings the discussion into the mainstream, where eventually most people will accept what's right (in this case getting shot of private cars) because it's a no brainer once you get all the old fashioned nonsense ideas out of the way. Anyway, it's another clear indication that the propaganda war is gradually being won.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drones, Corrie, fast cars - what exciting lives!



Says the bloke who just posted a Corrie Twitter thread


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I pretty much always watch Corrie by default over the top of the computer screen. I watched tiis one properly though as it was so laughable. They had a kid doing some comedy choking in the street. Then kid’s mum goes up to the owner of a van and says the van has to be taken off the road, like it was THAT VAN that caused the kid to choke. Then an ambulance arrives but can’t get through because of too many parked car’s. Then kid’s mum is reminded that she “drives a tank” but says “yeah but I’m selling it” not realising that that just means someone else will be driving it. Then kid’s mum smashes the van up with an iron bar.
> 
> It was fantastically shit!




All those Soaps are utterly shite.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't watch soap operas but I imagine that in the past they had story lines that introduced modern ideas about gay rights or racism or mental health or sexism to conservative audiences, who will have laughed them off at the time. It doesn't really matter if the writing is clunky, it gets people thinking and brings the discussion into the mainstream, where eventually most people will accept what's right (in this case getting shot of private cars) because it's a no brainer once you get all the old fashioned nonsense ideas out of the way. Anyway, it's another clear indication that the propaganda war is gradually being won.



Except this one is being done as anti-environmentalism. Maybe not on purpose but that's what they're achieving. All of the fuckwits are the campaigners. Much like RL, I suppose! Apparently their next campaign is an animal rights one which they'll illustrate with edcraw shagging a monkey out of "love".


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck - it’s like watching a private circle jerk.




What a strange thing to write......especially as the phrase was coined here on urban a few years ago.

Are you by any chance a banned returner?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> What a strange thing to write......especially as the phrase was coined here on urban a few years ago.


No it wasn’t


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> What a strange thing to write......especially as the phrase was coined here on urban a few years ago.
> 
> Are you by any chance a banned returner?



Erm I’m not a returner and that phrase is pretty old.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> What a strange thing to write......especially as the phrase was coined here on urban a few years ago.
> 
> Are you by any chance a banned returner?


The band formed in 1979 must have been time travellers then:









						Circle Jerks - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Except this one is being done as anti-environmentalism. Maybe not on purpose but that's what they're achieving. All of the fuckwits are the campaigners. Much like RL, I suppose! Apparently their next campaign is an animal rights one which they'll illustrate with edcraw shagging a monkey out of "love".


Sounds a bit like your comparing gay rights to beastiality there. Maybe you could get a column in the Daily Mail.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sounds a bit like your comparing gay rights to beastiality there.



Yes. That's exactly about the level of comprehension we've come to expect from you!


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No it wasn’t




I've only read it posted on here by a very small number of posters.

But ok..

A relatively brand new poster using the phrase just triggered my spidey senses.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> A relatively brand new poster using the phrase ust triggered my spidey senses.



He's not brand new. Pretty sure he's the poster who used to be known as Diesel.


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sounds a bit like your comparing gay rights to beastiality there. Maybe you could get a column in the Daily Mail.



Sounds like you're trying to be a monumental prick.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Sounds like you're trying to be a monumental prick.



You should have seen his last incarnation!


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's not brand new. Pretty sure he's the poster who used to be known as Diesel.




Ah ok. Cant find that poster.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's not brand new. Pretty sure he's the poster who used to be known as Diesel.



Erm - no.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Ah ok. Cant find that poster.



Banned and burned with prejudice. Looks like he's been released from prison early.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2021)

Pretty sure Diesel doesn't have internet privileges in his current prison. If only we could lock up all our RW posters like that.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Quite a lot of navel gazing to go with the circle jerking.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Quite a lot of navel gazing to go with the circle jerking.



Yeah but maomao's alright most of the time though.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Quite a lot of navel gazing to go with the circle jerking.


It's only Spymaster and Saul Goodman. Don't think that counts as a circle jerk. A 69 maybe.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's only Spymaster and Saul Goodman. Don't think that counts as a circle jerk. A 69 maybe.



He's better at it than you are.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's better at it than you are.


He's had more practice.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> He's had more practice.


Certainly, if you only consider the consensual stuff.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2021)

.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> He's had more practice.


On your mum.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> On your mum.


My mum doesn't do men. That would explain a lot though. Overcompensating.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The way Saul talks about cars and driving makes me think he has never actually driven anything. Like a teenage boy talking about sex.


I can absolutely guarantee I've driven more miles and owned more cars than you ever will. Even if you include all of the air miles you do training fighter pilots.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Good news - even with self driving cars Audi owners will still be twats:


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 26, 2021)

SMELL THE TESTOSTERONE!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good news - even with self driving cars Audi owners will still be twats:




Audis: Not Even Once


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

So true


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good news - even with self driving cars Audi owners will still be twats:





Would imagine the car is not legally his. No one who owns a >£100k car openly drinks whisky and smokes weed as they drive the thing. Sounds like someone with issues that you're mocking here.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would imagine the car is not legally his. No one who owns a >£100k car openly drinks whisky and smokes weed as they drive the thing. Sounds like someone with issues that you're mocking here.


Fragile motorists lol. 

All drunk drivers should be banned for life, including retrospective bannings, regardless of the value of the car the crime was committed in.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Fragile motorists lol.
> 
> All drunk drivers should be banned for life, including retrospective bannings, regardless of the value of the car the crime was committed in.




You think it is any way normal to be drinking whisky from the bottle and smoking weed at 11am? Doesn't sound like your normal drink driver to me. Typical of cyclists to mock the afflicted though.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would imagine the car is not legally his. No one who owns a >£100k car openly drinks whisky and smokes weed as they drive the thing. Sounds like someone with issues that you're mocking here.



It's a 1st gen. You can pick up a V8 one for under 30 grand.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No one who owns a >£100k car openly drinks whisky and smokes weed as they drive the thing.



I keep my booze in a brown paper bag whilst I'm driving.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 26, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> It's a 1st gen. You can pick up a V8 one for under 30 grand.




Will have been ragged to fuck then, further cementing the fact that the driver is a loon and that maomao is a rotter for mocking.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Will have been ragged to fuck then, further cementing the fact that the driver is a loon and that maomao is a rotter for mocking.


I didn't mock the driver. I mocked you.

Drunk drivers should be permanently removed from the road for everyone's safety, including people like Spymaster who haveescaped with shorter bans in the past. I don't see this as a punishment, merely removing unsafe drivers from the road to protect lives. People with psychiatric problems (who it's normally considered impolite to refer to as 'loons' btw) should receive the professional help they need. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to drive. There are a host of psychiatric and physical conditions that drivers can have their licenses removed for and I don't see this as any different. Or do you think we should allow the blind to drive rather than discriminate against the disabled?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't mock the driver. I mocked you.
> 
> Drunk drivers should be permanently removed from the road for everyone's safety, including people like Spymaster who haveescaped with shorter bans in the past.



I just never get caught. Which is amazing given the way I drive and the fact that I'm pissed most of the time.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't mock the driver. I mocked you.
> 
> Drunk drivers should be permanently removed from the road for everyone's safety, including people like Spymaster who haveescaped with shorter bans in the past.



I just never get caught. Which is amazing given the way I drive and the fact that I'm pissed most of the time.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> the fact that I'm pissed most of the time.


We can tell. 

You have been done in the past though haven't you? All I'm suggesting is that everyone with a drink drive charge on their records have their licenses removed permanently.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> We can tell.
> 
> You have been done in the past though haven't you? All I'm suggesting is that everyone with a drink drive charge on their records have their licenses removed permanently.



And mandatory cycling lessons


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> You have been done in the past though haven't you?



Yes but that was the early-80s. Everyone use to drive pissed then. Now it's just a few of us.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 26, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> And mandatory cycling lessons




Also their favourite car should be crushed, and an illustration of their crushed car should be tattood onto their foreheads.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> And mandatory cycling lessons



Start by giving those to cyclists! 

The average cyclist in London is even less competent at cycling than edcraw is at spelling.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Also their favourite car should be crushed ...



My favourite car would be yours.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would imagine the car is not legally his. No one who owns a >£100k car openly drinks whisky and smokes weed as they drive the thing. Sounds like someone with issues that you're mocking here.


Wow - you posted this straight after the one about motorists never getting the blame! Well done 👏


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Start by giving those to cyclists!
> 
> The average cyclist in London is even less competent at cycling than edcraw is at spelling.


Man - you just love tagging me. 💜


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Man - you just love tagging me. 💜


It'll be PMs with dick pics next.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> It'll be PMs with dick pics next.



No, they’re just for you.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 26, 2021)

DownwardDog said:


> It's a 1st gen. You can pick up a V8 one for under 30 grand.


30 grand, lol


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The average cyclist in London is even less competent at cycling than edcraw is at spelling.


I hear he's not bad at keeping inside the lines with his crayons.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

All this attention lads 😘


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

The equivalent of 10 Hyde Parks is given over to people storing their private property in London.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Streets could be so much nicer if we reduced this.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The equivalent of 10 Hyde Parks is given over to people storing their private property in London.



Simple solution... Move out of London.


----------



## maomao (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Simple solution... Move out of London.


Yeah, everyone go and live in rural Ireland. That'll work. 

As cities go, London has a well-functioning public transport system and a fair amount of green space. Lots of places are proportionally even worse.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Simple solution... Move out of London.



Surely it’s worse outside of London as car ownership is higher.

You’re shitty, Daily Mail style comment did remind me of this great website though:





__





						spEak You're bRanes
					





					web.archive.org


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely it’s worse outside of London as car ownership is higher.
> 
> You’re shitty, Daily Mail style comment did remind me of this great website though:
> 
> ...


Do you own a car?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you own a car?


No - I live in London. Hardly anyone here needs to own a car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - I live in London. Hardly anyone here needs to own a car.


That's great, it means you're not taking up space that someone with a car could be using.
It would also be great if you have off-road parking you could give up to a nice neighbour with a car.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's great, it means you're not taking up space that someone with a car could be using.
> It would also be great if you have off-road parking you could give up to a nice neighbour with a car.


Or we charge a market rate for on street parking, encourage people to give up cars and redesign streets making better use of this space.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Or we charge a market rate for on street parking, encourage people to give up cars and redesign streets making better use of this space.


Isn't it strange how miserable people either want an outright ban on the things they don't do, or want to charge others for doing them?  Do you not see how very selfish this is? How would you feel if frottaging was banned or taxed out of existence?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Isn't it strange how miserable people either want an outright ban on the things they don't do, or want to charge others for doing them?  Do you not see how very selfish this is? How would you feel if frottaging was banned or taxed out of existence?


Haha - for a minute there I thought you might be actually adding something useful to this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Haha - for a minute there I thought you might be actually adding something useful to this thread.


I see you still haven't worked out what this thread is about or how it works.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 26, 2021)

It's a virtual fight club, right?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Anyway - I’m case you were trying to make a serious point it’s about charging people for what they actually use. Car owners are subsidised in London and higher income people are more likely to be car owners. We should be looking to address this.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anyway - I’m case you were trying to make a serious point it’s about charging people for what they actually use. Car owners are subsidised in London and higher income people are more likely to be car owners. We should be looking to address this.


Everybody living or working in London should be taxed at least 20% more than the rest of the country. It makes absolute sense, as more public money is spent in London than anywhere else in the country.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Everybody living or working in London should be taxed at least 20% more than the rest of the country. It makes absolute sense, as more public money is spent in London than anywhere else in the country.


True for England but not the rest of the UK:



However your 20% tax for everyone is falls into the fallacy that everyone in London is well off which really isn’t the case. And also, by that logic, those freeloaders in NI need to start paying their way!


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> True for England but not the rest of the UK:
> 
> View attachment 285391
> 
> However your 20% tax for everyone is falls into the fallacy that everyone in London is well off which really isn’t the case. And also, by that logic, those freeloaders in NI need to start paying their way!


 The 6 counties didn't ask to be occupied, tbf


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2021)

As has already been established, my life is so empty that I try and fill the void of meaninglessness by taking pictures of parked cars.

I was in Oxford in the week.

You often hear death machine drivers banging on about why are cyclists in the road if there's a cycle lane for them.



Sometimes you just have to make sure that you are simultaneously blocking the pavement and also the cycle lane - two birds with one stone.

That last one with the blue van, me taking the photo triggered a passing motorist in the same way that these photos will successfully trigger the usual suspects on this thread. He was shouting at me out of his window, calling me a "count" I think. Not sure why he was calling me a "count".


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2021)

In the interests of balance, this isn't really ok either:


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As has already been established, my life is so empty that I try and fill the void of meaningless by taking pictures of parked cars.
> 
> I was in Oxford in the week.
> 
> ...



Way to judge people - for all we know these drivers may all have had medical emergencies and needed to stop straight way. We need to find out what exactly happened in each case before we can comment.

Shame on you!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2021)

People who operate needlessly loud vehicles for fun are basically getting off on an act of violence.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Way to judge people - for all we know these drivers may all have had medical emergencies and needed to stop straight way. We need to find out what exactly happened in each case before we can comment.
> 
> Shame on you!


Certainly the professional taxi driver would only be parking on a pavement, a cycle lane and a double yellow line all at the same time, if in his professional opinion an emergency was occurring.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 28, 2021)

The problem with the cycle lanes being blocked is the presence of the cycle lanes. Remove them and cyclists wouldn’t feel compelled to cycle in them, and thus wouldn’t feel aggrieved when motor vehicles enter them, which they’re perfectly entitled to do in those instances.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In the interests of balance, this isn't really ok either:
> 
> View attachment 285593


Five inconsiderate cunts in one single shot. That's not taking into account the ones behind you that you didn't photograph. Proof that cyclists are at least 5x more likely to be cunts than any other road user.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Five inconsiderate cunts in one single shot. That's not taking into account the ones behind you that you didn't photograph. Proof that cyclists are at least 5x more likely to be cunts than any other road user.



Meh, pedestrians are the worst


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Meh, pedestrians are the worst


Yeah but they're not strictly road users. Granted, they're a fucking nightmare, with as much regard for their own safety as cyclists, but at least they don't do much damage to others.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Isn't it strange how miserable people either want an outright ban on the things they don't do, or want to charge others for doing them?  Do you not see how very selfish this is? How would you feel if frottaging was banned or taxed out of existence?


How does a sexual fetish compare to something that gives kids asthma and cancer (when it isn't killing and maiming them outright on the street)?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> How does a sexual fetish compare to something that gives kids asthma and cancer (when it isn't killing and maiming them outright on the street)?


I've no idea, I haven't tried it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah but they're not strictly road users. Granted, they're a fucking nightmare, with as much regard for their own safety as cyclists, but at least they don't do much damage to others.



If only everything was roads and everyone were car drivers


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I've no idea, I haven't tried it.


You've never been stimulated or stimulated someone else through clothing? Are you permanently naked or something? Actually, please don't answer that. 

Cars just aren't the harm-free hobby you think they are. And we can't all live in rural Ireland.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've never been stimulated or stimulated someone else through clothing? Are you permanently naked or something? Actually, please don't answer that.
> 
> Cars just aren't the harm-free hobby you think they are. And we can't all live in rural Ireland.



Tbf, it's not all cars in rural Ireland. There's plenty of cycling going on.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Tbf, it's not all cars in rural Ireland. There's plenty of cycling going on.


I know because I've seen the crotch shots of cyclists that Saul Goodman puts in the internet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've never been stimulated or stimulated someone else through clothing? Are you permanently naked or something? Actually, please don't answer that.
> 
> Cars just aren't the harm-free hobby you think they are. And we can't all live in rural Ireland.


Of course they're not harm free. They're probably the most harmful thing on the road, but until someone comes up with a workable alternative, we're kinda stuck with them. The current government couldn't give a flying fuck about the problem. The money they're spunking away on the HS2 could be put to much better use. They could have spent it on park and ride, or a multitude of other things that would keep cars out of cities, but instead they're spending it to get more people into London, when they should be moving people out.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I know because I've seen the crotch shots of cyclists that Saul Goodman puts in the internet.



Probably just neighborhood watch stuff


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I know because I've seen the crotch shots of cyclists that Saul Goodman puts in the internet.


You're only jealous.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're only jealous.


Neighborhood crotch stuff


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Of course they're not harm free. They're probably the most harmful thing on the road, but until someone comes up with a workable alternative, we're kinda stuck with them. The current government couldn't give a flying fuck about the problem. The money they're spunking away on the HS2 could be put to much better use. They could have spent it on park and ride, or a multitude of other things that would keep cars out of cities, but instead they're spending it to get more people into London, when they should be moving people out.



Park & ride 😂 you’re really up on your transport planning there.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 28, 2021)

“Transport planning”


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Park & ride 😂 you’re really up on your transport planning there.


Yeah, I was talking about riding bikes, but you're obviously a bit behind the door.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 28, 2021)

Am more than ever convinced that the anti-cyclists secretly own bicycle tandems and indulge in vegan holidays when it suits


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Of course they're not harm free. They're probably the most harmful thing on the road, but until someone comes up with a workable alternative, we're kinda stuck with them. The current government couldn't give a flying fuck about the problem. The money they're spunking away on the HS2 could be put to much better use. They could have spent it on park and ride, or a multitude of other things that would keep cars out of cities, but instead they're spending it to get more people into London, when they should be moving people out.


You're all over the place. One minute it's a harmless hobby, the next minute it's harmful but all the government's fault. One minute cyclists are all evil, the next you're masturbating over them at traffic lights. It's easy to pretend to win an argument if you change you're position every two minutes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're all over the place. One minute it's a harmless hobby, the next minute it's harmful but all the government's fault. One minute cyclists are all evil, the next you're masturbating over them at traffic lights. It's easy to pretend to win an argument if you change you're position every two minutes.


I've never changed my position. I never said cars are harmless, and I've never strayed from the fact that the Vast majority of cyclists are cunts and shouldn't be allowed on the road, and I still believe that all road users should have to pass a test to prove they're competent to be on the road, and third party insurance should be mandatory for all road users. 
Have I left anything out?


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I've never changed my position. I never said cars are harmless, and I've never strayed from the fact that the Vast majority of cyclists are cunts and shouldn't be allowed on the road, and I still believe that all road users should have to pass a test to prove they're competent to be on the road, and third party insurance should be mandatory for all road users.
> Have I left anything out?


But you or your mates doing 200 on a public road is a laugh and none of this harm is actually worth doing anything about. 

Not only unwilling to do anything about it but determined to mock anyone who wants to. Sitting in your garden, getting pissed in daylight hours and winding people up on the internet for the attention. You've got no right to call anyone a cunt, you're a cunt _on purpose_.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've got no right to call anyone a cunt, you're a cunt _on purpose_.


Me?!?!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Sitting in your garden, getting pissed in daylight hours and winding people up on the internet for the attention.


I wasn't getting pissed, by the way. I was enjoying a nice cold beer on a nice sunny day after working hard all morning.
Jeez, talk about begrudgery. Is this why you hate motorists, because they might be enjoying something?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wasn't getting pissed, by the way. I was enjoying a nice cold beer on a nice sunny day after working hard all morning.
> Jeez, talk about begrudgery. Is this why you hate motorists, because they might be enjoying something?


I think the problem is they aren’t enjoying it - constantly stuck in traffic and trying to blame it on something other than too many cars.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think the problem is they aren’t enjoying it - constantly stuck in traffic and trying to blame it on some tho ghee than too many cars.



In fairness, some tho ghee _is_ a pain in the arse.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> In fairness, some tho ghee _is_ a pain in the arse.


Nonsense. Ghee is an excellent lubricant.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 28, 2021)

Paris showing how it can be done


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Paris showing how it can be done



I think all London boroughs have gone that way already   It’s broadly very good.   There was some issue where the road was still multi-carriageway, but near me they solved that by slowing the road down in other ways (wide segregated cycle lane, road narrowing, elevated pedestrian crossings) - so now those roads feel residential too, even if they’re not.  
Anyway. Yeah. Make cities 20mph, unless actual motorways or similar.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> I think all London boroughs have gone that way already   It’s broadly very good.   There was some issue where the road was still multi-carriageway, but near me they solved that by slowing the road down in other ways (wide segregated cycle lane, road narrowing, elevated pedestrian crossings) - so now those roads feel residential too, even if they’re not.
> Anyway. Yeah. Make cities 20mph, unless actual motorways or similar.



Real problem of it being enforced though - we have GPS speed limiters for e-scooters time to do it on cars.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Paris showing how it can be done



Have you been in Paris recently?  Good luck getting up to as much as 30kph.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Real problem of it being enforced though - we have GPS speed limiters for e-scooters time to do it on cars.


Yep. Give drivers a choice - they can have one that actually limits the car, or one that automatically sends the fine and points when they go over


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Real problem of it being enforced though - we have GPS speed limiters for e-scooters time to do it on cars.


Yes. I’d be happy with that too.  City driving isn’t - for most people - about driving fast.  In many cases it’s faster because it’s direct, door to door, and leaves on demand. But 20 limits aren’t a hardship.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Paris showing how it can be done





Good, will help the snipers get a clearer shot at Macron.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think the problem is they aren’t enjoying it - constantly stuck in traffic and trying to blame it on something other than too many cars.


I love driving, and riding motorbikes. I guess it depends who 'they' are.


----------



## T & P (Aug 28, 2021)

Surely everyone realises that speed limits are a type of realpolitik unspoken compromise between road users and the authorities, right?

The urban speed limit reductions taking place across cities in Europe do work in reducing average speeds, but the intention is not and will never be to expect and implement a strict enforcement of a 20 mph limit. What it does is reducing average speeds in the longer term from slightly over 30 mph to mid 20s, which is an acceptable compromise for all concerned.

Anyone who seriously campaigns for a strict 20 mph enforcement and would support people being prosecuted for doing even 3-4 mph above it don’t have the first fucking clue what they’re talking about, and most likely can’t drive or are barely competent and unduly terrified of driving.

And before anyone starts peddling the tired ‘typical arrogant selfish drivers thinking they know better than the experts’, let’s state what should already be obvious: speed limits in this country are of course set by politicians with little regard for any truly impartial data. Plenty of speed limits are actually too high, such as in loads of 50 mph country roads. And many if not most drivers will tell you that- so you can knock off the argument that drivers want to be allowed to drive as fast as possible without any regard for safety too.

Bottom line. It is perfectly safe to break the speed limit to a moderate degree in some circumstances. And in other circumstances it would actually be reckless for a driver to be doing more than 40-42 mph on a government-sanctioned 50 mph road. The government and the Highway Code are not infallible and actually get it wrong: deal with it.

So the authorities most definitely don’t always know best, and frankly, anyone who feels they need a roadside sign to tell them what the safe speed limit might be for any given stretch of road should quit driving immediately and undertake additional driving training, because they are undoubtedly unsafer than millions of drivers who shock horror break the speed limit to an appropriate degree in the right circumstances.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Surely everyone realises that speed limits are a type of realpolitik unspoken compromise between road users and the authorities, right?
> 
> The urban speed limit reductions taking place across cities in Europe do work in reducing average speeds, but the intention is not and will never be to expect and implement a strict enforcement of a 20 mph limit. What it does is reducing average speeds in the longer term from slightly over 30 mph to mid 20s, which is an acceptable compromise for all concerned.
> 
> ...



tldr?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> So the authorities most definitely don’t always know best, and frankly, anyone who feels they need a roadside sign to tell them what the safe speed limit might be for any given stretch of road should quit driving immediately and undertake additional driving training, because they are undoubtedly unsafer than millions of drivers who shock horror break the speed limit to an appropriate degree in the right circumstances.



The drivers who assume they have the best driving skills and need not concern themselves with speed limits are exactly the drivers who shouldn't be trusted to make that call. The rule should therefore be you can go faster than the speed limit, provided you're not the sort of arrogant twat who actually wants to.

I am however in favour of enforcing the drink drive limit on a 'give or take twelve pints' basis. We can trust drivers to decide what their own capabilities are, and if they decide that they can drive safely after a quantity of pear schnapps that renders them legally blind then it's not for any government busybody or liberal do-gooder to tell them otherwise.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. Give drivers a choice - they can have one that actually limits the car, or one that automatically sends the fine and points when they go over



Self-crushing cars. Three strikes and you're out, or at least you'd better hurry up and get out before the five-second warning klaxon stops.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> tldr?



Say you can speed if you want to
If you don't, nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And you can act like an imbecile


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Surely everyone realises that speed limits are a type of realpolitik unspoken compromise between road users and the authorities, right?
> 
> The urban speed limit reductions taking place across cities in Europe do work in reducing average speeds, but the intention is not and will never be to expect and implement a strict enforcement of a 20 mph limit. What it does is reducing average speeds in the longer term from slightly over 30 mph to mid 20s, which is an acceptable compromise for all concerned.
> 
> ...


I ride on the pavement and jump red lights to an appropriate degree in the right circumstances.


----------



## T & P (Aug 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The drivers who assume they have the best driving skills and need not concern themselves with speed limits are exactly the drivers who shouldn't be trusted to make that call. The rule should therefore be you can go faster than the speed limit, provided you're not the sort of arrogant twat who actually wants to.
> 
> I am however in favour of enforcing the drink drive limit on a 'give or take twelve pints' basis. We can trust drivers to decide what their own capabilities are, and if they decide that they can drive safely after a quantity of pear schnapps that renders them legally blind then it's not for any government busybody or liberal do-gooder to tell them otherwise.


And I still put it to you (and as a fact rather than an opinion) that many of the drivers who religiously observe the stated speed limit at all times are incapable of judging safe speeds on their own, and thus far more dangerous to themselves and others.

Are you contesting the fact that plenty of stretch of A-roads in this country have an inappropriately high speed limit of 50 mph? Because they undoubtedly do. So it”s certainly not at all about all limits are too low and we want to go faster, as I said before.


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Surely everyone realises that speed limits are a type of realpolitik unspoken compromise between road users and the authorities, right?
> 
> The urban speed limit reductions taking place across cities in Europe do work in reducing average speeds, but the intention is not and will never be to expect and implement a strict enforcement of a 20 mph limit. What it does is reducing average speeds in the longer term from slightly over 30 mph to mid 20s, which is an acceptable compromise for all concerned.
> 
> ...


Also: this is the best argument I've heard for gps speed limiters.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Surely everyone realises that speed limits are a type of realpolitik unspoken compromise between road users and the authorities, right?
> 
> The urban speed limit reductions taking place across cities in Europe do work in reducing average speeds, but the intention is not and will never be to expect and implement a strict enforcement of a 20 mph limit. What it does is reducing average speeds in the longer term from slightly over 30 mph to mid 20s, which is an acceptable compromise for all concerned.
> 
> ...


I’m sorry, I don’t see it.  I’m not sure what’s so critical to you about the difference between 20 and your unofficial 25mph. The benefits to reducing casualties in collisions are convincing for 20.  I drive every day.  I enjoy it - except on country roads, which I do agree with you about. I’m not scared or easily confused.  I just accept that there has to be some give and take because we want to keep driving heavy lumps of metal around areas of high density population for our own convenience.


----------



## T & P (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I ride on the pavement and jump red lights to an appropriate degree in the right circumstances.


I have no problem with it on principle, and if you were bored enough to want to check my past posts on the subject, you would see that I have said as much plenty of times. It is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red light pedestrian crossing on a deserted street at night. Just as it can be going _a bit_ over the stated limit in certain circumstances.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 28, 2021)

Most country roads have a default limit of 60mph.


----------



## T & P (Aug 28, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Most country roads have a default limit of 60mph.


Even worse then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 28, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Most country roads have a default limit of 60mph.



It's something to do with local authority juristictions IIRC. If a road is not adopted by a specific town or parish or whatever then its 60mph by default. There are many single-lane, glorified donkey tracks round here with 60 limits. Most people get that you can't actually drive that fast on them but you do still get grim accidents involving utter gurnips in range rovers who assume everything works like a bypass in Swindon.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I ride on the pavement and jump red lights to an appropriate degree in the right circumstances.


Like motorists speeding in the right circumstances?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's something to do with local authority juristictions IIRC. If a road is not adopted by a specific town or parish or whatever then its 60mph by default. There are many single-lane, glorified donkey tracks round here with 60 limits. Most people get that you can't actually drive that fast on them but you do still get grim accidents involving utter gurnips in range rovers who assume everything works like a bypass in Swindon.




Dorset seems to have made most of them 50, which is still faster than you would wish to go, but by doing so they have introduced loads of 50 signs on thick metal poles that will kill you should you hit one. The same county that told my dad on a speed awareness course that motorways are the safest roads in terms on deaths per mile, which is great, how many miles of motorway are there in Dorset?


----------



## Aladdin (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think the problem is they aren’t enjoying it - constantly stuck in traffic and trying to blame it on something other than too many cars.



Says the "newbie" 
Or returnee... 
You're not covering yourself in glory...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 28, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Says the "newbie"
> Or returnee...
> You're not covering yourself in glory...


----------



## maomao (Aug 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Like motorists speeding in the right circumstances?


Duh. That's my point. Are we all allowed to make up our own rules as long as we're happy with them?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's something to do with local authority juristictions IIRC. If a road is not adopted by a specific town or parish or whatever then its 60mph by default. There are many single-lane, glorified donkey tracks round here with 60 limits. Most people get that you can't actually drive that fast on them but you do still get grim accidents involving utter gurnips in range rovers who assume everything works like a bypass in Swindon.



Not really. All single-carriageway roads are 60mph by default unless they have lampposts a certain distance apart in which case they're 30 by default. Any other speed limit must have been imposed on a specified length of road by a relevant highway authority.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Says the "newbie"
> Or returnee...
> You're not covering yourself in glory...



Yeah - cos covering myself in glory with you guys is what does it for me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Duh. That's my point. Are we all allowed to make up our own rules as long as we're happy with them?


You've already admitted on this thread that you ride on the pavement.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2021)

T & P said:


> And I still put it to you (and as a fact rather than an opinion) that many of the drivers who religiously observe the stated speed limit at all times are incapable of judging safe speeds on their own, and thus far more dangerous to themselves and others.
> 
> Are you contesting the fact that plenty of stretch of A-roads in this country have an inappropriately high speed limit of 50 mph? Because they undoubtedly do. So it”s certainly not at all about all limits are too low and we want to go faster, as I said before.


It seems a bit like you don't really understand what a speed limit is.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems a bit like you don't really understand what a speed limit is.


It's something you try to adhere to when there are coppers or speed vans around.


----------



## maomao (Aug 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You've already admitted on this thread that you ride on the pavement.


So? I'm not talking about whether I do or not. I'm talking about whether it's okay for me, and everyone else, to just make up our own rules.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 29, 2021)

T & P said:


> And I still put it to you (and as a fact rather than an opinion) that many of the drivers who religiously observe the stated speed limit at all times are incapable of judging safe speeds on their own, and thus far more dangerous to themselves and others.
> 
> Are you contesting the fact that plenty of stretch of A-roads in this country have an inappropriately high speed limit of 50 mph? Because they undoubtedly do. So it”s certainly not at all about all limits are too low and we want to go faster, as I said before.



So you'd say it's a fact that someone who never drives over 20 in a 20 zone will also drive at exactly 50 on all 50mph roads in all circumstances? Observing a limit means driving _at or below _the stated speed.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> So? I'm not talking about whether I do or not. I'm talking about whether it's okay for me, and everyone else, to just make up our own rules.



Certainly not you. That would be ridiculous. As for who can; that depends on what car they drive. Most traffic regulations only apply to those who drive vehicles under 300 PS.


----------



## _Russ_ (Aug 29, 2021)

I Drive a Car, Ride  Motorcycle and a Mountain bike. In all honesty there are plonkers in all camps and Im far from perfect.

The decreasing manners and arrogant lack of respect for others unless virtue signalling is evident in all aspects of life these days and perhaps even amplified when protected from repercussions by the surrounding protection of 2 ton of SUV
Those who Drive but never cycle can't get that it is sometimes safer for everyone if you temporarily pull off the road onto the pavement (I even do it when safe to allow a car to get by easier.)
I'm not even going to try and explain why, you'll never get a car driver to understand this unless they go cycling a few days.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 29, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> I Drive a Car, Ride  Motorcycle and a Mountain bike. In all honesty there are plonkers in all camps and Im far from perfect.
> 
> The decreasing manners and arrogant lack of respect for others unless virtue signalling is evident in all aspects of life these days and perhaps even amplified when protected from repercussions by the surrounding protection of 2 ton of SUV
> Those who Drive but never cycle can't get that it is sometimes safer for everyone if you temporarily pull off the road onto the pavement (I even do it when safe to allow a car to get by easier.)
> I'm not even going to try and explain why, you'll never get a car driver to understand this unless they go cycling a few days.



I stopped reading at "bike".


----------



## _Russ_ (Aug 29, 2021)

No you didn't


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

Thoughts & prays for the driver here - must have been quite a medical emergency for their BMW to mount the pavement and for them not to know what happened and so left the scene. 









						Car crash baby death: Parents pay tribute to two-week-old hit by car
					

The parents of a two-week-old boy whose pram was crushed say their "hearts will always ache".



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 29, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> No you didn't



Did too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Thoughts & prays for the driver here - must have been quite a medical emergency for their BMW to mount the pavement and for them not to know what happened and so left the scene.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah but the rules don't apply if you drive a fast car, as spymaster says in yet another of his hilarious 'opinions' which are definitely jokes at the expense of uptight cyclists and not at the expense of the victims of arsehole motorists.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 29, 2021)

There's an interesting debate to be had on cars/bicycles.

Sadly, this thread isn't one.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 29, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah but the rules don't apply if you drive a fast car, as spymaster says.



You're learning, Plankie boy. Well done.  

ETA>Nice to see you've taken me off ignore by the way. I knew you'd be back eventually. We'll consider it step 1, on your path to enlightenment.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 29, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Sadly, this thread isn't one.



Correct. Though not sure about the _sadly_ bit.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I stopped reading at "bike".





_Russ_ said:


> No you didn't



The essence of this thread summed up in two posts. It continues to perform its function perfectly.


----------



## maomao (Aug 29, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> There's an interesting debate to be had on cars/bicycles.
> 
> Sadly, this thread isn't one.


It's not to be had on these boards. That's been made clear.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 29, 2021)

Every time I go out on my bike I think about this thread and have a giggle.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> So? I'm not talking about whether I do or not. I'm talking about whether it's okay for me, and everyone else, to just make up our own rules.


You obviously think it is.


----------



## T & P (Aug 29, 2021)

Most people on this Earth do certainly think it is, certainly when it comes to certain aspects of their lives. Bringing two cartons of cigs per person back from a foreign trip instead of one is illegal. So is getting drunk in a pub. So is taking drugs. So is dodging the TV Licence. Or fare dodging. Or countless other things we might choose to view as harmless or morally justified.

As I’ve said plenty of times before, I believe in the concept of an individual being able to work out whether breaking the law can sometimes be right, safe, and justified, depending on what the act is naturally.

But anyone peddling the argument that one can’t really choose which motoring laws to obey or disregard better check their own conduct is 100% law compliant. Because at the end of day, person A judging it is sometimes okay to break the speed limit in the right circumstances is as entitled to do so as person B believing it is okay to consume illegal drugs, or any of the other examples above.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

T & P said:


> But anyone peddling the argument that one can’t really choose which motoring laws to obey or disregard better check their own conduct is 100% law compliant. Because at the end of day, person A judging it is sometimes okay to break the speed limit in the right circumstances is as entitled to do so as person B believing it is okay to consume illegal drugs, or any of the other examples above.


It's always the case, people like to point the finger at those doing things they don't like and don't do themselves, but they seem incapable of taking a look in the mirror. They think their little bit of coke at the weekend isn't harming anybody, when in fact it ruins more lives than speeding drivers ever did. I get the impression a lot of these people are trying to offset their own cuntishness by pointing out other people's faults.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

Grade A whatabouterism here! Well done chaps 👏


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Grade A whatabouterism here! Well done chaps 👏


Fucking _Olympic_ level stuff.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Grade A whatabouterism here! Well done chaps 👏


Exactly... "I take drugs that kill tens of thousands every year, but what about speeding motorists!"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Exactly... "I take drugs…”


Chance would be a fine thing nowadays.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Chance would be a fine thing nowadays.


You never know, the clubs might open again before you get too old


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Exactly... "I take drugs that kill tens of thousands every year, but what about speeding motorists!"



You’ve already done that one mate - let’s try another one.

“Speeding motorists kill hundreds each year but what about China’s coal power plants?” pwned


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’ve already done that one mate - let’s try another one.
> 
> “Speeding motorists kill hundreds each year but what about China’s coal power plants?” pwned


Did that strike a nerve? Are you feeling a tad naked and exposed? 
That's the great thing about cyclists, they pretty much all take drugs, so their hypocrisy is easily pointed out, and it's fun doing so


----------



## T & P (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’ve already done that one mate - let’s try another one.
> 
> “Speeding motorists kill hundreds each year but what about China’s coal power plants?” pwned


Speeding motorists who do 60 mph on a 30 or 20 area are psychopaths who are clearly unfit to hold a licence, and very likely to kill themselves and others before long.

Competent drivers who- oh the horror- sometimes go a few mph over the stated limit when the conditions are right, are as likely to kill or maim anyone as a cyclist who chooses to jump a red light or even ride on a pavement in the right conditions.

Please tell me you are able to differentiate between the two scenarios?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

T & P said:


> Please tell me you are able to differentiate between the two scenarios?


I reckon he's too busy hoovering a couple of lines of Colombia's finest, not caring about the lives he's destroying.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You never know, the clubs might open again before you get too old


That ship had sailed a long time before covid arrived


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That ship had sailed a long time before covid arrived


Please accept my sincere condolences. But there's no need take out your frustration on motorists


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2021)

I (and my companion) came moderately close to being killed by a speeding motorist today. Went out for a relatively short bike ride, nearly all on small lanes so as not to slow down motorists on A roads attending urgent appointments.

On one of these narrow lanes some kind of boy racer type car suddenly appeared in the opposite direction at great speed. Luckily we weren't just at a corner and there was a bit of a layby we could swerve into. He didn't make any effort to slow down, in fact he put his hand continuously on the horn as he approached and sped past. About 50m further along he had to stick the brakes on pretty hard as there was a white van coming the other way. Wasn't far off hitting it. Things momentarily got interesting when some blue lights started flashing on the van and its driver started having a word with boy racer. That was it though, he was allowed to continue on his way. We went to speak to white van man who apparently was a policeman, in an unmarked vehicle.

We told him what had just happened but it seemed there was nothing that could be done. Wished I'd got down there before he let the guy go, even if it had given me the opportunity to give him some of my opinions about his driving in the company of a police officer, possibly reducing the chances of me being violently assaulted as a result.

Starting to think it's time to get a helmet cam.

Us being on bikes is not really relevant here by the way. It was uphill and we weren't going at speed. We'd have been equally in danger if we were walking - no footpaths alongside these lanes. How about a family with kids, walking along in the road and then this guy suddenly flies round a corner?

I've come across the aftermath of such an incident before on a country lane by the way. Luckily we didn't see it directly. The way that some people told us to turn back and not go further was enough to make sure I'll not forget it though.

I wonder if boy racer is uploading his dashcam footage to youtube to share with his mates.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> .
> On one of these narrow lanes some kind of boy racer type car suddenly appeared in the opposite direction at great speed


A likely story. 'suddenly appeared' is the most used and dismissed excuse on insurance claim forms. 



teuchter said:


> .
> Starting to think it's time to get a helmet cam.


If the cap fits...


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 30, 2021)

Here's a driver getting 9 points without knocking anybody off. Let's have more of this:









						Driver fined £400 after almost crashing into group of cyclists
					

The motorist was also given nine points on his licence for the appalling driving




					road.cc


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 30, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Here's a driver getting 9 points without knocking anybody off. Let's have more of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He went up on the traffic island, the cunt.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 30, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Here's a driver getting 9 points without knocking anybody off. Let's have more of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Should be a straight ban tbh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Should be a straight ban tbh.


Definitely. Cunts like that shouldn't be on the road, they're a danger to everyone, including other drivers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 30, 2021)

Again, this is driving without due care and attention when the CPS would have hands down got a dangerous driving conviction for that shit. Why are they so reluctant to go for it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Again, this is driving without due care and attention when the CPS would have hands down got a dangerous driving conviction for that shit. Why are they so reluctant to go for it?


It would have been easy for the driver to say they thought the road was clear to overtake, but didn't see the island, then had to swerve to avoid it, and it would have been impossible to prove otherwise.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It would have been easy for the driver to say they thought the road was clear to overtake, but didn't see the island, then had to swerve to avoid it, and it would have been impossible to prove otherwise.



“but didn't see the island“ !!!!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 30, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It would have been easy for the driver to say they thought the road was clear to overtake, but didn't see the island, then had to swerve to avoid it, and it would have been impossible to prove otherwise.



Him parping them before the overtake would have helped destroy that defence.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 30, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Him parping them before the overtake would have helped destroy that defence.


I didn't hear that. I was watching it without audio.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2021)

Great tweet from the Scottish Tories. I'd definitely vote for the coalition of chaos.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Great tweet from the Scottish Tories. I'd definitely vote for the coalition of chaos.



No surprise that you're a follower.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2021)

Not so handy for those car trips around the Scottish Highlands teuchter is so fond of doing, though...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Not so handy for those car trips around the Scottish Highlands teuchter is so fond of doing, though...


Are you suggesting teuchter might actually be on a massive troll? Or just a hypocrite?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 1, 2021)

A couple of big tory fans here then!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A couple of big tory fans here then!



He's always been like that has our teuchter. He makes Margaret Thatcher look like Chomsky.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A couple of big tory fans here then!




Here's one of them on his way to the Tory party conference...









						Where are you on the transport network?
					

A Geoff Marshall video about Crystal Palace High Level has just appeared -




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Here's one of them on his way to the Tory party conference...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're too late, T&P has already done this a few posts up. How come it's taken you folks 3 months to properly take this bait though?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A couple of big tory fans here then!


I thought it was obvious from his posts that teuchter's a big Daily Mail fan.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How come it's taken you folks 3 months to properly take this bait though?




Because your trolling skills are shite.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2021)

'Do as I say not as I do' is a quintessential quality of every single anti-car fundie, on these boards and elsewhere.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 1, 2021)

Strong “I know you are but what am I?” vibes in this thread!


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> 'Do as I say not as I do'


AKA 'your granny got an ambulance once so it's fine for me to let my lower limbs atrophy completely while spewing poison into your children's faces and ruining every public space in your town'.


----------



## T & P (Sep 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> AKA 'your granny got an ambulance once so it's fine for me to let my lower limbs atrophy completely while spewing poison into your children's faces and ruining every public space in your town'.


Ambulances are quite different from private car use, which is exactly what teuchter did recently, and I suspect by no means an isolated incident.

If one advocates a total ban on private cars, one should really refrain from using teh evil Death Machine, however occasionally. It'd be different if the person in question was advocating a just a curb in the overall use of vehicles, rather than a ban.Or to put more blantly, if one constantly campaigns for a total ban on sex for others, they shouldn't go visiting brothels whenever they get the itch.


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> Ambulances are quite different from private car use, which is exactly what teuchter did recently, and I suspect by no means an isolated incident.
> 
> If one advocates a total ban on private cars, one should really refrain from using teh evil Death Machine, however occasionally. It'd be different if the person in question was advocating a just a curb in the overall use of vehicles, rather than a ban.Or to put more blantly, if one constantly campaigns for a total ban on sex for others, they shouldn't go visiting brothels whenever they get the itch.


Yes because prostitution and sex are the same thing.

Occasional use isn't the problem. I took two taxis myself this year. It's lazy twats like you who've never walked to the end of the road they live in and are intent on using private motor vehicles even when public transport is quicker.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 1, 2021)

T & P said:


> If one advocates a total ban on private cars, one should really refrain from using teh evil Death Machine


This is an obvious non seqitur, but do go ahead and explain the nonsense logic that leads you to say this. Just for entertainment value.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 1, 2021)

Hahahaha


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is an obvious non seqitur, but do go ahead and explain the nonsense logic that leads you to say this. Just for entertainment value.



Rectums


----------



## edcraw (Sep 2, 2021)

Emily Matlis quite rightly calls bullshit on the war on motorists:


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

The first thing I ask myself when considering transport issues is always “what would Emily Maitlis think about this?”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The first thing I ask myself when considering transport issues is always “what would Emily Maitlis think about this?”


She’s right though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> She’s right though.



Not for me she isn’t, motoring is far more expensive these days than when I was pootling around in a 12 year old 950cc Fiesta…


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not for me she isn’t, motoring is far more expensive these days than when I was pootling around in a 12 year old 950cc Fiesta…


Tough shit really


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

If I was in charge of a war on motorists it wouldn't be a metaphorical one.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 2, 2021)




----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

A war between motorists and cyclist/peds would be quite amusing, though I fear rather short-lived and one-sided...


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 286326


Fat-shaming. Nice. At least I don't need a fucking motor to go up a hill twat.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> A war between motorists and cyclist/peds would be quite amusing, though I fear rather short-lived and one-sided...


Yes, the side with poor manoeuvrability sitting on tanks of highly-flammable fuel would obviously lose.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Fat-shaming. Nice. At least I don't need a fucking motor to go up a hill twat.




Fat shaming 


Touchy twat


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fat shaming
> 
> 
> Touchy twat


The only thing I'm offended by is the poor quality of your abuse. Ha ha ha fat fella. Maybe you could get a job writing for Jim Davidson


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> If I was in charge of a war on motorists it wouldn't be a metaphorical one.



I thought your war was against private motorists?  As a non-car owner I would not like to be caught in the crossfire.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I thought your war was against private motorists?  As a non-car owner I would not like to be caught in the crossfire.


Crikey, endless jokes about killing and mutilating cyclists raise barely a whimper of complaint from the morality police of Urban75 but a bored moment's careless hyperbole directed at the luckless drivers of the world and they're all crawling out of the woodwork.


----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I thought your war was against private motorists?  As a non-car owner I would not like to be caught in the crossfire.


There has been great confusion in this forum about whether the car abolitionists want to ban all cars, or only those that are privately owned. Why, only the other day there was a mini wankfest over the fact that an episode of Corrie had highlighted the issue of cars in our cities by a poor child coughing due to pollution, and having to dodge a van, or something terrible to that effect, and yet again used as an argument against private car ownership.

If only those vehicles had not been privately owned, the child would not had endured such ordeal, because everyone knows car club vehicles and hire vans don't cause pollution, congestion, or injuries, as they are manufactured with fairy magic technology not available to private vehicles.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Crikey, endless jokes about killing and mutilating cyclists raise barely a whimper of complaint from the morality police of Urban75 but a bored moment's careless hyperbole directed at the luckless drivers of the world and they're all crawling out of the woodwork.


Testicles


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Crikey, endless jokes about killing and mutilating cyclists raise barely a whimper of complaint from the morality police of Urban75 but a bored moment's careless hyperbole directed at the luckless drivers of the world and they're all crawling out of the woodwork.



Sorry, I thought I was playing along with the joke.  I didn't realise you were being serious.


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Testicles


Is this the prelude to another of your fantasies about cyclists private parts? You should get your own Wordpress for that stuff.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 2, 2021)

I don’t think anyone wants to see any vehicles banned just very heavily restricted particularly in cities when most are managing perfectly fine without them.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Is this the prelude to another of your fantasies about cyclists private parts? You should get your own Wordpress for that stuff.



Foreskin


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Foreskin


You're rubbish  at that game. Haven't you seen the essays and manifestos I've been getting out of T & P  from mere sentences?


----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> *I don’t think anyone wants to see any vehicles banned* just very heavily restricted particularly in cities when most are managing perfectly fine without them.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t think anyone wants to see any vehicles banned just very heavily restricted particularly in cities when most are managing perfectly fine without them.



Interesting. Do you think Emily Maitlis would agree?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're rubbish  at that game. Haven't you seen the essays and manifestos I've been getting out of T & P  from mere sentences?


?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seeing as T & P wants to ban pedestrians from jaywalking I hope he's hacked both of his own legs off. Bet he hasn't though, the hypocrite.


Bet he still hasn't.


----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're rubbish  at that game. Haven't you seen the essays and manifestos I've been getting out of T & P  from mere sentences?


Better than getting abuse, as you were dishing it out to me (again) last night.


----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Bet he still hasn't.


I haven't, no, because making jaywalking illegal would still legally allow pedestrians cross any given street on the overwhelming proportion of its length. You on the other hand want to ban people from using cars, period. Unless you need to use a death machine on your Scottish travels, in which case an exception (or fifty) can be made, of course.

Do you actually understand what jaywalking laws entail?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> You on the other hand want ban people from using cars, period.


You know your post a bit further up this page, where you say that some people are very confused? You're not wrong there.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 2, 2021)

This looks fun.


----------



## T & P (Sep 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You know your post a bit further up this page, where you say that some people are very confused? You're not wrong there.


When you have made a career of giving mixed signals regarding to which extent cars should be banned, not to mention which types of cars should be banned, is no wonder everyone is confused about your wishes, which are as changeable as the British summer weather.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> When you have made a career of giving mixed signals regarding how to which extent cars should be banned, not to mention which types of cars should be banned, is no wonder everyone is confused about your wishes, which are as changeable as the British summer weather.


Have you not worked out what he wants yet?
Attention


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 2, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you not worked out what he wants yet?
> Attention


Every fecker on threads like this do


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Every fecker on threads like this do


maomao is the worst for this.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> She’s right though.





War on public transport users if anything


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> War on public transport users if anything



You say that like it's a bad thing. 
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that people should be discouraged from using public transport.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 3, 2021)

Drink driver was more than FIVE times the limit - and gets huge ban
					

John Robert Moore has been before the courts for drink driving four times and is now banned from the roads for five years.



					www.gazettelive.co.uk
				




5 year ban. Cunt should be in prison by now.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drink driver was more than FIVE times the limit - and gets huge ban
> 
> 
> John Robert Moore has been before the courts for drink driving four times and is now banned from the roads for five years.
> ...


How do we manage to have a situation where you can be allowed back on the road _at all_ when you've been done for drink driving 4 times?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drink driver was more than FIVE times the limit - and gets huge ban
> 
> 
> John Robert Moore has been before the courts for drink driving four times and is now banned from the roads for five years.
> ...



Truly bizarre that there never seems to be a lifetime ban. It’s almost that driving is seen as a right in which case shouldn’t everyone be given cars?

Are any political parties looking at these ridiculously soft sentences/bans?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Truly bizarre that there never seems to be a lifetime ban. It’s almost that driving is seen as a right in which case shouldn’t everyone be given cars?
> 
> Are any political parties looking at these ridiculously soft sentences/bans?



What about 7 years for pet theft ?


----------



## maomao (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are any political parties looking at these ridiculously soft sentences/bans?



No, because it's not an issue. 'The war on motorists' is an issue but driving is some sort of god-given right. If you do suggest lifetime bans you get twat responses like 'it'll just lead to them driving uninsured'.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 3, 2021)

What's fucking outrageous is that if you prove you're such a cunt and so shit that you get banned from driving for years, you're still allowed to jump on a bike and make a cunt of yourself on the roads. Maybe that's why so many cyclists are cunts. Maybe they're mostly banned drivers.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 3, 2021)

some cunt near us doing the primary school run in a BMW M3 with that stupid popping effect in the engine. sounds like a thunder crack. what's wrong in your head to think that's a good thing.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

Probably cost him a grand to add that feature. Many points arise:

Modified exhausts are illegal.
His insurance is conditional on keeping the vehicle road legal, so he's breaching his agreement with his insurer.
He knows that, so he didn't inform the insurer that the exhaust is non-standard. That's another breach of the agreement.
The insurer can reduce their payout to him if he claims for anything. (Third party claims are not affected.)
He knows that, so if he makes a claim he'll lie about the exhaust, which is fraud.
Modified exhausts, when fitted in order to make more noise, which is the most common reason to fit one, don't have a catalytic converter. So his car is emitting huge amounts of particulates and other shit.
Every time he makes a racket he's guilty of driving a vehicle in an anti-social manner. This law was intended as an anti-noise pollution measure, but all the cunts break it and nothing is done.
Film him and send the video to the police. They'll do nothing, so complain to the local officer who's concerned with safety on the road in front of the school.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 3, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Probably cost him a grand to add that feature. Many points arise:
> 
> Modified exhausts are illegal.
> His insurance is conditional on keeping the vehicle road legal, so he's breaching his agreement with his insurer.
> ...


Utter bollocks, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Probably cost him a grand to add that feature. Many points arise:
> 
> Modified exhausts are illegal.
> His insurance is conditional on keeping the vehicle road legal, so he's breaching his agreement with his insurer.
> ...



Total shite, the car comes from the manufacturer like that. It has a switch that can make it quieter or louder. Both are legal.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 3, 2021)

Sounds like I need a third opinion 🙂
But I'm just venting, doesn't sound worth the hassle of sticking my beak in


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Total shite, the car comes from the manufacturer like that. It has a switch that can make it quieter or louder. Both are legal.


Even if it's the original exhaust he's still guilty of anti-social vehicle use. Hopefully the noise cameras will make vehicles like these impossible to own. Same goes for the Lambos etc which infest Knightsbridge.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2021)

Even the noisiest Lamborghini is quieter than many of the motorbikes around here, they also seem to take pleasure in going for early morning rides at weekends, shattering the peace for country walkers. Personally I find it quite hard to raise a fuck for those who live in Knightsbridge though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Personally I find it quite hard to raise a fuck for those who live in Knightsbridge though.


Cunts live in Knightsbridge.... Who would have thunk!


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

Get rid of the Lambos and the motorbikes. The latter are usually the ones with modified exhausts, but there are plenty of scrotes with cars who do it too. There's an Audi TT which I hear in Brixton twice a day. Noise pollution is seriously bad for the health. Noise pollution is a major problem, both for human health and the environment.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 3, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Get rid of the Lambos and the motorbikes. The latter are usually the ones with modified exhausts, but there are plenty of scrotes with cars who do it too. There's an Audi TT which I hear in Brixton twice a day. Noise pollution is seriously bad for the health. Noise pollution is a major problem, both for human health and the environment.



The racket some of the bikes round here make must be damaging the hearing of the riders unless they're using some heavy duty hearing protection. Not that I give a shit because they're fucking arseholes who are happy to inflict considerable harm and distress on their neighbours and the world at large.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

With any luck they'll stack it and become uninsureable. Crap motorcycling is severely self-limiting.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Even the noisiest Lamborghini is quieter than many of the motorbikes around here, they also seem to take pleasure in going for early morning rides at weekends, shattering the peace for country walkers. Personally I find it quite hard to raise a fuck for those who live in Knightsbridge though.



It'd be ok if these fuckers stuck to Knightsbridge but they don't. Every summer (though not so much this and last) these fucking things get air-freighted in by rich kids from the Gulf States and Monaco. It's a thing for them and they call it "the season". They keep them on foreign plates so they don't get done for anything, use the streets as race tracks, and now that London councils don't clamp cars for parking violations they park them wherever they want.  

They're cunts and I want them to die in flames.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It'd be ok if these fuckers stuck to Knightsbridge but they don't. Every summer (though not so much this and last) these fucking things get air-freighted in by rich kids from the Gulf States and Monaco. It's a thing for them and they call it "the season". They keep them on foreign plates so they don't get done for anything, use the streets as race tracks, and now that London councils don't clamp cars for parking violations they park them wherever they want.
> 
> They're cunts and I want them to die in flames.



Am amazed the hard cases OU and tooch haven’t been down with their keys to sort this shit out.


----------



## T & P (Sep 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It'd be ok if these fuckers stuck to Knightsbridge but they don't. Every summer (though not so much this and last) these fucking things get air-freighted in by rich kids from the Gulf States and Monaco. It's a thing for them and they call it "the season". They keep them on foreign plates so they don't get done for anything, use the streets as race tracks, and now that London councils don't clamp cars for parking violations they park them wherever they want.
> 
> They're cunts and I want them to die in flames.


I go past the back streets of Harrods regularly and virtually every single time there’ll be a ‘supercar’, whether a Lambo  or similarly show-off brand, parked illegally.

Very occasionally in the past the council had summoned the balls to clamp or tow away them, but I suspect some foreign Royal cunt has had a word with a domestic Royal cunt about the inconvenience, and nowadays they get away with a yellow ticket on their windscreen. Which of course must hurt them about as much as you and I being fined 2 pence.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2021)

T & P said:


> I go past the back streets of Harrods regularly and virtually every single time there’ll be a ‘supercar’, Lambos and similarly show-off brands, parked illegally.
> 
> Very occasionally in the past the council had summoned the balls to clamp or tow away them, but I suspect some foreign Royal cunt has had a word with a domestic Royal cunt about the inconvenience, and nowadays they get away with a yellow ticket on their windscreen. Which of course must hurt them about as much as you and I being fined 2 pence.



They can't be clamped or towed now unless they're causing an obstruction. There's no way of enforcing the parking tickets so they just sling them in the gutter.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 3, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Get rid of the Lambos and the motorbikes. The latter are usually the ones with modified exhausts.


Do you mean the ones you tested with a dB meter before you decided they were illegal?  🤣


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> They can't be clamped or towed now unless they're causing an obstruction. There's no way of enforcing the parking tickets so they just sling them in the gutter.


Arabs own half of Knightsbridge, including Harrods. They probably have a lot of clout with RBK&C and the local MP.


----------



## Aladdin (Sep 3, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Even if it's the original exhaust he's still guilty of anti-social vehicle use



Just popped into my head.

Is there such a thing as anti social walking ? 

And then...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Am amazed the hard cases OU and tooch haven’t been down with their keys to sort this shit out.


I've my eye on the ones who park along the cycle lane southbound just as it comes off Chelsea bridge. This means if you're on a bike you have to swerve out into the narrow traffic lane - it would be unfortunate if one evening this leads to a situation where I scrape one of the cars, trying to keep myself out of danger.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It'd be ok if these fuckers stuck to Knightsbridge but they don't. Every summer (though not so much this and last) these fucking things get air-freighted in by rich kids from the Gulf States and Monaco. It's a thing for them and they call it "the season". They keep them on foreign plates so they don't get done for anything, use the streets as race tracks, and now that London councils don't clamp cars for parking violations they park them wherever they want.
> 
> They're cunts and I want them to die in flames.


I'm glad the anti car propaganda is working on you and also that you are on board for some direct action.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 3, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Just popped into my head.
> 
> Is there such a thing as anti social walking ?


Yes, cunts with umbrellas. Umbrellas should be illegal in public places.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 3, 2021)

The noise limit in the type approval test for new cars was 82 decibels in 1978.  It's been progressively reduced. Last year it came down to 72. By 2026 it will be 68. Ha! Fuck you!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The noise limit in the type approval test for new cars was 82 decibels in 1978.  It's been progressively reduced. Last year it came down to 72. By 2026 it will be 68. Ha! Fuck you!


Given that pretty much all new cars will be electric by then, it's not really much of a gotcha, and given that it only applies to new cars, I hope the exhaust companies make a killing selling really fucking annoying exhausts to people who live near you 🤣


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yes, cunts with umbrellas. Umbrellas should be illegal in public places.


I had an epiphany last year that I only see people with umbrellas in towns, whereas in the country, people wear coats with hoods… and that is exactly the wrong way round. It’s in cities that there is no room for an umbrella and people should be in proper rain-proofs instead, whereas in the countryside there is plenty of room for a brolly, plus less shelter against serious rain.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 4, 2021)

and people with umbrellas should carry insurance against causing eye injuries


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 4, 2021)

The only acceptable reason for carrying a brolly in town is to jam it in the spokes of a red-light jumping hooligan.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The only acceptable reason for carrying a brolly in town is to jam it in the spokes of a red-light jumping hooligan.


A chap simply isn't dressed properly without one you ruffian.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I had an epiphany last year that I only see people with umbrellas in towns, whereas in the country, people wear coats with hoods… and that is exactly the wrong way round. It’s in cities that there is no room for an umbrella and people should be in proper rain-proofs instead, whereas in the countryside there is plenty of room for a brolly, plus less shelter against serious rain.



Ah, but the space they take up isn’t the only disadvantage of umbrellas. They demand the use of one of your hands, get blown all over the place, and conduct lightning. Hence, country folk rely on decent clothing rather than brollies in wet weather.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The noise limit in the type approval test for new cars was 82 decibels in 1978.  It's been progressively reduced. Last year it came down to 72. By 2026 it will be 68. Ha! Fuck you!


And just in case you weren't aware, which is most likely the case, that's only for type approval. Which means you can bin the exhaust as soon as you buy the car, and replace it with whatever you want within legal constraints, which are nowhere near as strict as those of type approval. The legal constraints are pretty much the MOT, and unless the MOT test has changed in recent years, there's no test for exhaust noise. 
Ha!  🤣


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The only acceptable reason for carrying a brolly in town is to jam it in the spokes of a red-light jumping hooligan.


Not so. Adapted versions have proved useful for offing Bulgarian dissidents at London bus stops.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I had an epiphany last year that I only see people with umbrellas in towns, whereas in the country, people wear coats with hoods… and that is exactly the wrong way round. It’s in cities that there is no room for an umbrella and people should be in proper rain-proofs instead, whereas in the countryside there is plenty of room for a brolly, plus less shelter against serious rain.


I'm 6'6" so can not only carry a brolly through the city without bumping into anyone but provide temporary shelter to passing short people as I do.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm 6'6" so can not only carry a brolly through the city without bumping into anyone but provide temporary shelter to passing short people as I do.


And take out eyes of anyone of similar height.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not so. Adapted versions have proved useful for offing Bulgarian dissidents at London bus stops.


Also handy for dishing out a spot of discipline to local hoodlums whilst enjoying a pint in a public house.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> And take out eyes of anyone of similar height.


Umbrellas are carried _above_ the head. You'd need to be at least seven foot to get a spoke in the eye from me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Umbrellas are carried _above_ the head. You'd need to be at least seven foot to get a spoke in the eye from me.


If that's how you carry an umbrella then you're probably the only person in the world who does.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If that's how you carry an umbrella then you're probably the only person in the world who does.


No, the shoulder rest and tip is a bit effeminate for me. Gentlemen hold their umbrellas properly.


----------



## klang (Sep 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A chap simply isn't dressed properly without one you ruffian.
> 
> View attachment 286683


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 4, 2021)

One of the many advantages of no longer being with my ex is I always had to carry the umbrella if it rained (“as it’s what a gentlemen should do”) even though there was a massive height difference between us, and I found it very inconvenient to walk while holding an umbrella.

Apparently if she carried the umbrella herself other people would judge her for being too mean and horrid to share her umbrella with me.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, but the space they take up isn’t the only disadvantage of umbrellas. They demand the use of one of your hands, get all over the place, and conduct lightning. Hence, country folk rely on decent clothing rather than brollies in wet weather.


I’ve taken to carrying one when walking the dog across fields in the rain. It’s much better for avoiding being soaked through than even my best waterproof. Not so good when walking through the woods though — gets caught on branches every other minute.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, the shoulder rest and tip is a bit effeminate for me. Gentlemen hold their umbrellas properly.


I see 4 men carrying umbrellas in this photo. The eye removal tools are below head height on all four.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’ve taken to carrying one when walking the dog across fields in the rain. It’s much better for avoiding being soaked through than even my best waterproof.


This just shows that you don't live in proper countryside with real weather.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I see 4 men carrying umbrellas in this photo. The eye removal tools are below head height on all four.


Americans. 

The proper British way to carry an umbrella.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Americans.
> 
> The proper British way to carry an umbrella.
> 
> View attachment 286710


The British way...



The London way...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This just shows that you don't live in proper countryside with real weather.


You mean Scotchland?


----------



## klang (Sep 4, 2021)




----------



## David Clapson (Sep 4, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> One of the many advantages of no longer being with my ex is I always had to carry the umbrella if it rained (“as it’s what a gentlemen should do”) even though there was a massive height difference between us, and I found it very inconvenient to walk while holding an umbrella.
> 
> Apparently if she carried the umbrella herself other people would judge her for being too mean and horrid to share her umbrella with me.


Wow. Quite a piece of work. What did you ever see in her??


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I had an epiphany last year that I only see people with umbrellas in towns, whereas in the country, people wear coats with hoods… and that is exactly the wrong way round. It’s in cities that there is no room for an umbrella and people should be in proper rain-proofs instead, whereas in the countryside there is plenty of room for a brolly, plus less shelter against serious rain.



In the countryside people's brains have not been turned to mush by traffic fumes so they're able to discern that a device which protects against rain but which becomes useless and dangerous if there is also wind is a byword for uselessness on a par with the waterproof teabag.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 4, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Wow. Quite a piece of work. What did you ever see in her??



Nothing, on account of his eyes having been put out with umbrella spikes


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> In the countryside people's brains have not been turned to mush by traffic fumes so they're able to discern that a device which protects against rain but which becomes useless and dangerous if there is also wind is a byword for uselessness on a par with the waterproof teabag.


Windproof umbrellas are available and genuinely work. They have covered vents to let air but not water through. Raincoats are horrid and sweaty and the kind that are big enough to wear with a suit don't have hoods.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You mean Scotchland?


For example.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

People who use umbrellas in crowded places...


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> People who use umbrellas in crowded places...
> 
> View attachment 286726
> 
> ...


Is the last one a crowd of angry LBC listeners who've gathered to shout at cyclists in the rain?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Is the last one a crowd of angry LBC listeners who've gathered to shout at cyclists in the rain?


There are only two things worse than people using umbrellas in a crowded place. Cyclists and people using umbrellas in a crowded place with cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> There are only two things worse than people using umbrellas in a crowded place. Cyclists and people using umbrellas in a crowded place with cyclists.


I keep wondering what you're alternative is and then remember it's sitting in a car. It sounds like you just don't like cities and crowded places.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> I keep wondering what you're alternative is and then remember it's sitting in a car. It sounds like you just don't like cities and crowded places.


I hate cities and crowded places and traffic jams... Etc. Its why I moved to Ireland. Its much better for your health and stress levels.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I hate cities and crowded places and traffic jams... Etc. Its why I moved to Ireland. Its much better for your health and stress levels.


Well given that we can't all move to rural Ireland how about you stop telling people in cities how they should be living.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well given that we can't all move to rural Ireland how about you stop telling people in cities how they should be living.


Thanks for the offer but I'll pass


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Thanks for the offer but I'll pass


Living in the countryside is very like your caricature of veganism. You think you're better than everyone else and you have a sociopathic need to mention it in every conversation you have. Ironic really.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Living in the countryside is very like your caricature of veganism. You think you're better than everyone else and you have a sociopathic need to mention it in every conversation you have. Ironic really.


I stated a fact, that living in the countryside is better for your health, and you think that's me saying I'm better than everyone? Your logic seems a tad fucked.


----------



## maomao (Sep 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I stated a fact, that living in the countryside is better for your health, and you think that's me saying I'm better than everyone? Your logic seems a tad fucked.


No. I'm talking about your positions in multiple threads over several years. I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples; I'll point it out next time you do it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. I'm talking about your positions in multiple threads over several years. I'm not going to waste my time looking for examples; I'll point it out next time you do it.


You've made an accusation, so the right thing to do would be to back it up with evidence. But I'm guessing that won't happen because there isn't any. It seems to me you're just projecting. I'm pretty sure the only time I ever mention cities is when I speak of London, and how it's full of wankers... et voila!  🤣


----------



## T & P (Sep 4, 2021)

Perhaps it is time to close this not-so enlightened thread, just as the ‘What Do People Have Against Cyclists’ thread was closed for similarly unedifying and ultimately pointless banter.

Reports of individual driving misbehaviour can (and should) go into the Driving Standards thread, so no actually useful debate about motoring would be lost anyway.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> Perhaps it is time to close this not-so enlightened thread, just as the ‘What Do People Have Against Cyclists’ thread was closed for similarly unedifying and ultimately pointless banter.
> 
> Reports of individual driving misbehaviour can (and should) go into the Driving Standards thread, so no actually useful debate about motoring would be lost anyway.


Nah, it's funny watching cyclists frothing and trying to impose arbitrary rules on "people who do thing that I don't do'" from their armchairs.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 5, 2021)

T & P said:


> Perhaps it is time to close this not-so enlightened thread, just as the ‘What Do People Have Against Cyclists’ thread was closed for similarly unedifying and ultimately pointless banter.
> 
> Reports of individual driving misbehaviour can (and should) go into the Driving Standards thread, so no actually useful debate about motoring would be lost anyway.


No, don’t close it!

maomao


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 5, 2021)

I think this man is taking direct action against the huge polluting buses disgorging hordes of tourists on the headland:


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I think this man is taking direct action against the huge polluting buses disgorging hordes of tourists on the headland:



I went on that bus on my honeymoon.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 5, 2021)

Went here for breakfast this morning:



I drove.


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Went here for breakfast this morning:
> 
> View attachment 286932
> 
> I drove.


Unless you live on a tram line, Edinburgh is rubbish for public transport because of the paucity of bus lanes and the locals' weird bus stop queueing practices.


----------



## T & P (Sep 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Unless you live on a tram line, Edinburgh is rubbish for public transport because of the paucity of bus lanes and the locals' weird bus stop queueing practices.


How do the locals queue up there?


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2021)

T & P said:


> How do the locals queue up there?


Well if three buses arrive at once they pick up from the stop one at a time and the people filter out of the queues in order. So if your bus is the third bus it takes ages for the bus to even pull up. It's slightly better now they all have contactless for getting on buses, in the days of cash fares it took fucking ages.

Bus drivers there are lovely though. Two of them refused to charge my daughter saying she didn't look old enough despite me saying she was six when I got on.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Unless you live on a tram line, Edinburgh is rubbish for public transport because of the paucity of bus lanes and the locals' weird bus stop queueing practices.


They’re putting a new tramline all the way down Leith Walk which makes it quite challenging. I walked all the way down it last night and made the schoolboy error of stopping at too many bars and getting too pissed to be arsed to walk back. Got a cab and the driver spent the journey slating the planners. Apparently the tram works have been going on for 3 years and will take another 2.


----------



## maomao (Sep 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> They’re putting a new tramline all the way down Leith Walk which makes it quite challenging. I walked all the way down it last night and made the schoolboy error of stopping at too many bars and getting too pissed to be arsed to walk back. Got a cab and the driver spent the journey slating the planners. Apparently the tram works have been going on for 3 years and will take another 2.


The first line took six years and was a big controversy. They are nice though. If you live on the route.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> The first line took six years and was a big controversy. They are nice though. If you live on the route.



The cab driver was spitting. He pointed out that “the English” built 20 miles of railway under the sea to France in 5 years; “it’ll take us longer than that to put 3 miles of track down the road to Newhaven”.

I didn’t feel the need to mention that “the English” had some help from the French.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I didn’t feel the need to mention that “the English” had some help from the French.



Ie people who actually know how to build railways


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2021)

Yesterday, whilst waiting for a train, I met the maker of this video.



Perfect illustration of how the interests of motorists are so often looked after with zero regard for pedestrians, cyclists or wheelchair users.

He was telling us how he continually takes photos of blocked pavements and cycle paths and hassles local councils about them. Good on him.

I've already made my predictions for the sort of responses to that video that we'll see here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've already made my predictions for the sort of responses to that video that we'll see here.


Did you give him a reacharound?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've already made my predictions for the sort of responses to that video that we'll see here.


I think it’s funny that you think anyone’s going to watch it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think it’s funny that you think anyone’s going to watch it!


I was wondering who'd want to watch a video of branches


----------



## Cid (Sep 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I hate cities and crowded places and traffic jams... Etc. Its why I moved to Ireland. Its much better for your health and stress levels.



And yet you are the lead poster on this thread...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 7, 2021)

Cid said:


> And yet you are the lead poster on this thread...


I don't get your point... Is this thread only for people who love cities and traffic jams? 
I thought it was a thread specifically for taking the piss out of teuchter, in which case I'll always be at the front of the queue.


----------



## Cid (Sep 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't get your point... Is this thread only for people who love cities and traffic jams?
> I thought it was a thread specifically for taking the piss out of teuchter, in which case I'll always be at the front of the queue.



It's the thread of middle-aged men shouting into the void.


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2021)

Driver tries to get train but is too fucking stupid to figure out how it works:









						Man jailed for driving a car half a mile on railway track in Birmingham
					

Aaron O’Halloran’s ‘idiotic actions’ resulted in a 15-month sentence and delays on the line of up to eight hours




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cyclist steals car and tries to disguise himself as a train in an attempt to evade capture:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


CFU


----------



## edcraw (Sep 8, 2021)

This guy gets it - bring on the war on cars!









						Forget Low Traffic Neighborhoods, Planet Needs No Traffic Neighborhoods
					

Think low traffic neighborhoods are radical? You ain’t seen nothing yet.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 8, 2021)

Cid said:


> It's the thread of middle-aged men shouting into the void.



Middle-aged men shouting into the void is a good thing, because I can easily imagine an alternative of middle-aged male car-abolitionists who would shout at the fire brigade for not arriving on bicycles to rescue a family from a house fire.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2021)

Abolition of slavery
Abolition of the death penalty 
Abolition of the privately owned motor car

Good word, abolitionism.


----------



## Athos (Sep 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Abolition of slavery
> Abolition of the death penalty
> Abolition of the privately owned motor car
> 
> Good word, abolitionism.


Don't you think it's a bit crass to imply a similarity between car ownership and slavery?

I think we'd all like to see fewer (and smaller and cleaner) cars on the road (when public transport is sufficient to do without them), but some of the more extreme anti-car stuff just turns people off


----------



## teuchter (Sep 8, 2021)

Athos said:


> Don't you think it's a bit crass to imply a similarity between car ownership and slavery?


Ask platinumsage who has introduced the word to this discussion.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 8, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think we'd all like to see fewer (and smaller and cleaner) cars on the road (when public transport is sufficient to do without them), but some of the more extreme anti-car stuff just turns people off


I wouldn't, I'd like to see more, especially in London.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 9, 2021)

Yet another good reason to ban cars









						Transport noise linked to increased risk of dementia, study finds
					

Large survey involving two million adults found links between road and rail traffic and Alzheimer’s in particular




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 9, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Yet another good reason to ban cars
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And rail as well let's go back to horse and cart eh?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wouldn't, I'd like to see more, especially in London.



Yes, more cars means more people going from A to B directly living their best lives.

Also, look at all these violent offences that happen every month on London buses. Replacing buses with cars would eliminate all of these:





__





						Bus crime statistics
					

Bus-related crime statistics by borough




					tfl.gov.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 9, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Yet another good reason to ban cars
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and trains, according to that study:

“In this large nationwide cohort study, we found transportation noise from road traffic and railways to be associated with an increased risk of all-cause dementia and dementia subtypes, especially Alzheimer’s disease”

Roads will get quieter with electric vehicles, but railways won't, so best to ban them first.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 9, 2021)

I don't really understand how they would be unable to unpick noise from air pollution.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> And rail as well let's go back to horse and cart eh?


Horse and barge. There's plenty of freight that doesn't need to go at 70mph. Revitalise the canal network, loads of new jobs, very low carbon. The only barrier is stupidity.


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Roads will get quieter with electric vehicles, but railways won't, so best to ban them first.


Railway pollution has a much smaller spread. I live on the opposite side of the road to a busy (2 lines, 4 tracks) railway route and barely notice the noise. My opposite neighbours probably suffer a lot more but only a tiny proportion of people live close enough to hear it. Unlike cars which are allowed everywhere.


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Horse and barge. There's plenty of freight that doesn't need to go at 70mph. Revitalise the canal network, loads of new jobs, very low carbon. The only barrier is stupidity.


Lock gates are a further barrier on the canal network


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> Lock gates are a further barrier on the canal network


Lock gates (and other fantastic contraptions like boat wheels) are a way of getting past natural barriers, they are not barriers in themselves.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 9, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I don't really understand how they would be unable to unpick noise from air pollution.


que?


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> que?


It's a reasonable question. How can they tell that noise rather than air pollution has contributed to dementia? A deaf control group?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's a reasonable question. How can they tell that noise rather than air pollution has contributed to dementia? A deaf control group?



They didn’t measure noise or air pollution, they modelled both using maps and  polygons etc. 

TBH I think they just haven’t accounted for all the confounding variables properly, and that transport noise doesn’t give you alzheimers.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2021)

Let’s just ban _everything_. Noise pollution  solved


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> Let’s just ban _everything_. Noise pollution  solved


Or how about we just let everyone do exactly what they want all the time regardless of the impact on other people? That sounds fun.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or how about we just let everyone do exactly what they want all the time regardless of the impact on other people? That sounds fun.


That is definitely more fun, yes


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> That is definitely more fun, yes


Cool, I'll be over in a minute to rob you, then torture and kill you and everyone you live with. It's going to be a great evening.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or how about we just let everyone do exactly what they want all the time regardless of the impact on other people? That sounds fun.


Finally the penny drops.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cool, I'll be over in a minute to rob you, then torture and kill you and everyone you live with. It's going to be a great evening.


For someone who often mocks or criticises other people's analogies or metaphors, you don't half do it yourself...


----------



## maomao (Sep 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> For someone who often mocks or criticises other people's analogies or metaphors, you don't half do it yourself...


It's not an analogy of any kind.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 12, 2021)

A beautiful sight


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2021)

BMW so should make an M3 estate, looks da bomb!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 12, 2021)

I _really_ hope they made the owner watch


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> BMW so should make an M3 estate, looks da bomb!


I read something from Chris Harris that suggests one may be coming with the new model.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

This is the real consequences of all those “fun” little jokes about cyclists. I know the ones on here won’t care and prop think this is funny as well which just says a ton about who you are.









						Cyclist punched repeatedly in the head by aggressive driver furious that group were riding two abreast
					

The motorist, who also crashed into another cyclist during the assault leaving her with cuts and bruises, escaped with a caution...




					road.cc


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is the real consequences of all those “fun” little jokes about cyclists. I know the ones on here won’t care and prop think this is funny as well which just says a ton about who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fact you can do this and walk away with a warning is more disturbing than the attack itself.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is the real consequences of all those “fun” little jokes about cyclists. I know the ones on here won’t care and prop think this is funny as well which just says a ton about who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This doesn't happen in other countries. What's so different about the UK? I've been perplexed by this ever since I first went on a road trip abroad. I've never seen anyone even attempt to explain it. What's the root cause? It's not because of our cyclists or our drivers, it's deeper than that, something in our national character. The only comparable thing I've seen is in Germany, where a late middle aged male will try to push you off the road if you overtake illegally on a motorbike. It's related to the furious frowning and tutting you get as a pedestrian if you cross the road before the green man flashes.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I _really_ hope they made the owner watch


They should have crushed it with him in it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> This doesn't happen in other countries. What's so different about the UK? I've been perplexed by this ever since I first went on a road trip abroad. I've never seen anyone even attempt to explain it. What's the root cause? It's not because of our cyclists or our drivers, it's deeper than that, something in our national character. The only comparable thing I've seen is in Germany, where a late middle aged male will try to push you off the road if you overtake illegally on a motorbike. It's related to the furious frowning and tutting you get as a pedestrian if you cross the road before the green man flashes.



It does happen in every country.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> This doesn't happen in other countries. What's so different about the UK? I've been perplexed by this ever since I first went on a road trip abroad. I've never seen anyone even attempt to explain it. What's the root cause? It's not because of our cyclists or our drivers, it's deeper than that, something in our national character. The only comparable thing I've seen is in Germany, where a late middle aged male will try to push you off the road if you overtake illegally on a motorbike. It's related to the furious frowning and tutting you get as a pedestrian if you cross the road before the green man flashes.


Cyclists in the UK are simply more incompetent than cyclists anywhere else in the world. Everyone knows that.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 12, 2021)

Don't be obtuse. It hardly ever happens elsewhere, here it's an everyday occurrence.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclists in the UK are simply more incompetent than cyclists anywhere else in the world. Everyone knows that.



Lol! Called it didn’t I. All a big joke isn’t it.

What exactly did the cyclists in the video do wrong?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lol! Called it didn’t I. All a big joke isn’t it.
> 
> What exactly did the cyclists in the video do wrong?



They failed to follow Highway Code rule 169 for a start. Then one of them grabbed hold of the car, for no discernible reason other than to antagonise the driver.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lol! Called it didn’t I.


Wow!

You’re amazing!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What exactly did the cyclists in the video do wrong?



Fuck knows. I don’t watch vids posted by cat-touchers.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> It's related to the furious frowning and tutting you get as a pedestrian if you cross the road before the green man flashes.


This doesn't happen in the UK anymore. I remember a friend of mine as a teenager bring an Egyptian friend to London and him running across the road on the red man while everyone looked aghast. These days whenever I'm at a pedestrian crossing with small children every fucker just crosses on the red man and I have to tell my kids they're naughty.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> This doesn't happen in the UK anymore. I remember a friend of mine as a teenager bring an Egyptian friend to London and him running across the road on the red man while everyone looked aghast. These days whenever I'm at a pedestrian crossing with small children every fucker just crosses on the red man and I have to tell my kids they're naughty.


I’ve had a few in Europe. I once crossed a road in Stockholm, on red that you could see was clear for 100 meters in both directions. A couple of folk on the other side looked at me like I’d just shot their dogs.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 12, 2021)

I meant in Germany, not the UK.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I’ve had a few in Europe. I once crossed a road in Stockholm, on red that you could see was clear for 100 meters in both directions. A couple of folk on the other side looked at me like I’d just shot their dogs.


Maybe they'd read some of the drivel you post on these boards and it had nothing to do with the lights.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They failed to follow Highway Code rule 169 for a start. Then one of them grabbed hold of the car, for no discernible reason other than to antagonise the driver.



Oh dear - a driver (I presume) who doesn’t understand the Highway Code. This is my we need regular retesting.









						This is when tractors and caravans SHOULD let traffic past
					

These are the rules regarding the road rage-provoking issue




					www.walesonline.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh dear - a driver (I presume) who doesn’t understand the Highway Code. This is my we need regular retesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you get your information from rags like that one, cloned from the Daily Mirror, then I'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about. The article is barely coherent and factually incorrect in numerous ways.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you get your information from rags like that one, cloned from the Daily Mirror, then I'm not surprised you don't know what you're talking about. The article is barely coherent and factually incorrect in numerous ways.



Man you’re really doubling down on this (and presumably thinking the cyclist got what he deserved).

How do you interrupt rule 169? Cyclists should pull over for all cars? Really worrying that there are so many ignorant drivers, that’s how we end up with these incidents.











						Cyclists - Do They Have the Same Rights as Vehicle Drivers?
					

At the end of the day cyclists have the same rights as car drivers, we all need to use the limited space we have safely, being both respectful and courteous to




					www.regit.cars


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How do you interrupt rule 169?



Only read half of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maybe they'd read some of the drivel you post on these boards and it had nothing to do with the lights.


Possibly. Now, you’re not to post on this thread again today. Same goes for you edcraw


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Possibly. Now, you’re not to post on this thread again today.


Okay


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How do you interrupt rule 169? Cyclists should pull over for all cars?



I interpret it quite easily as its written, that road users should not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if they are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. That they should check their mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.

That article you linked to doesn't contradict that interpretation, rather it says this rule is "mostly directed at large and slow moving vehicles which are hard to pass" which is true but doesn't refute the fact that it applies to all vehicle users including cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I interpret it quite easily as its written, that road users should not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if they are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. That they should check their mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.


I can't see where in the original story it says that the cyclists had broken this law. There was one vehicle and it was behind them for ninety seconds. How do you know it was safe and appropriate for them to allow him past at this point?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> I can't see where in the original story it says that the cyclists had broken this law. There was one vehicle and it was behind them for ninety seconds. How do you know it was safe and appropriate for them to allow him past at this point?



This is a Highway Code rule we're talking about, and not the law, the original question being what the cyclist had done wrong, not what law they had broken.

There are ample places to pull over in the video prior to the incident. Places that a tractor would have pulled over but these cyclists refused to use, presumably because like many cyclists they cared more about their perceived entitlements than working with other road users.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This is a Highway Code rule we're talking about, and not the law, the original question being what the cyclist had done wrong, not what law they had broken.
> 
> There are ample places to pull over in the video prior to the incident. Places that a tractor would have pulled over but these cyclists refused to use, presumably because like many cyclists they cared more about their perceived entitlements than working with other road users.


Sorry, you want the cyclists to come to pull over, come to a stop and let them past? Lol.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> I can't see where in the original story it says that the cyclists had broken this law. There was one vehicle and it was behind them for ninety seconds. How do you know it was safe and appropriate for them to allow him past at this point?


What a stupid question.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Sorry, you want the cyclists to come to pull over, come to a stop and let them past? Lol.



That's what rule 169 of the Highway Code requires of ALL slowing moving vehicles that cause a queue of traffic behind them, not just large ones.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

Cyclist gobs of to motorist, chases him down the road, aggressively bangs on the windscreen and shouts at the driver. Passenger jumps out of car and dumps the cyclist on his arse.

Question is this. Was the passenger right in jabbing the cyclist or should he have gone with a right hook?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

I see people are ignoring the second thing cyclist did wrong and which provoked the driver, and that is grabbing hold of his car.

If a car driver reached over and grabbed hold of a bicycle while driving I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's what rule 169 of the Highway Code requires of ALL slowing moving vehicles that cause a queue of traffic behind them, not just large ones.


'Long' queues.

What it quite clearly doesn't say is that any vehicle moving at less than the speed limit has to take the earliest opportunity to let faster vehicles past which is how you seem to be reading it.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> 'Long' queues.
> 
> What it quite clearly doesn't say is that any vehicle moving at less than the speed limit has to take the earliest opportunity to let faster vehicles past which is how you seem to be reading it.



Interpret it how you want. The fact is that if these cyclists had interpreted it correctly in the way I have outlined and complied with it, this incident wouldn't have occurred. Therefore it's one of many wrong decisions they made that day.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Interpret it how you want. The fact is that if these cyclists had interpreted it correctly in the way I have outlined and complied with it, this incident wouldn't have occurred. Therefore it's one of many wrong decisions they made that day.


Lol. Your interpretation of the rule makes cycling anywhere on single lane roads effectively impossible as you'd have to pull over constantly to let every car behind you pass legally. That may be the law you want but it's not this and it's not going to happen.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Lol. Your interpretation of the rule makes cycling anywhere on single lane roads effectively impossible as you'd have to pull over constantly to let every car behind you pass legally. That may be the law you want but it's not this and it's not going to happen.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

Always very worrying when drivers show their ignorance and excuse violence. The driver managed to hit another cyclist with their car whilst punching the other one ffs.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Lol. Your interpretation of the rule makes cycling anywhere on single lane roads effectively impossible as you'd have to pull over constantly to let every car behind you pass legally. That may be the law you want but it's not this and it's not going to happen.



No, only when necessary to not hold up a long queue of traffic. That's literally what the rule says, like it or not. It certainly doesn't make cycling impossible.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Always very worrying when drivers show their ignorance and excuse violence. The driver managed to hit another cyclist with their car whilst punching the other one ffs.



Think we might run out of these today


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Always very worrying when drivers show their ignorance and excuse violence. The driver managed to hit another cyclist with their car whilst punching the other one ffs.



Should have bought a bigger better SUV with auto braking, the mk1 Juke is shite.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, only when necessary to not hold up a long queue of traffic. That's literally what the rule says, like it or not. It certainly doesn't make cycling impossible.


There was no long queue. There were two cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> There was no long queue. There were two cars.



There was a lengthy queue, it's just that the third vehicle was keeping an appropriate distance from the second, so you can't see it in the video.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

So why was the cyclist grabbing on to the wing mirror of the moving car? Is that taught by roads.cc as best practice?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

Oh, don’t touch my vroom vroom!


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So why was the cyclist grabbing on to the wing mirror of the moving car? Is that taught by roads.cc as best practice?


To steady himself while he spoke to the driver. I'm glad you've pointed out that an appropriate and legal response to someone touching your property is a punch in the face. I'm going to chin the postie tomorrow.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> To steady himself while he spoke to the driver. I'm glad you've pointed out that an appropriate and legal response to someone touching your property is a punch in the face. I'm going to chin the postie tomorrow.



We don't know why the driver decided to punch him at that point. Perhaps the driver apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the cyclist and acted in self-defence.

Perhaps that's why he "only" got a caution.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I see people are ignoring the second thing cyclist did wrong and which provoked the driver, and that is grabbing hold of his car.
> 
> If a car driver reached over and grabbed hold of a bicycle while driving I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it.


You fucking thick cunt.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You fucking thick cunt.



You sound like you would get road rage easily, perhaps stick to the bus.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

Here's some selfish driver behaviour I spotted earlier today. The apologists will have to deal with this one by saying it's pedestrians/wheelchair users/partially sighted people who provoked this act and who have only got themselves to blame.

Parked diagonally across the pavement and part of the dropped kerb crossing. I think it belonged to the guys sitting outside the cafe. I could have said something to them but didn't feel like getting assaulted early in my day.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here's some selfish driver behaviour I spotted earlier today. The apologists will have to deal with this one by saying it's pedestrians/wheelchair users/partially sighted people who provoked this act and who have only got themselves to blame.
> 
> Parked diagonally across the pavement and part of the dropped kerb crossing. I think it belonged to the guys sitting outside the cafe. I could have said something you them but didn't feel like getting assaulted early in my day.
> 
> View attachment 288021



It’s an Audi so the driver is probably a twat. You don’t have to be a car abolitionist to realise that.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It’s an Audi so the driver is probably a twat. You don’t have to be a car abolitionist to realise that.


Yeah. Audis and Volvos.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yeah. Audis and Volvos.



Volvo drivers cause fewer KSI accidents than cyclists, look it up.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Volvo drivers cause fewer KSI accidents than cyclists, look it up.


The wanker who sits outside my kid's primary school every morning pumping exhaust into a crowd of 4-10 year olds is in some Volvo SUV/tank. I hope he dies of syphilis.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> The wanker who sits outside my kid's primary school every morning pumping exhaust into a crowd of 4-10 year olds is in some Volvo SUV/tank. I hope he dies of syphilis.


Why don’t you just have a word with him? Even if he’s the most selfish cunt in the world, he’s killing his own kid too.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How do you interrupt rule 169?


You say "let me stop you there for a minute".


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Why don’t you just have a word with him? Even if he’s the most selfish cunt in the world, he’s killing his own kid too.


Sounds like the sort of thing a volvo driver would be fine with.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Why don’t you just have a word with him? Even if he’s the most selfish cunt in the world, he’s killing his own kid too.


His kid's sat in the car. 

And because I've never ever had a good reaction from any driver when criticising their behaviour and have promised not to start fights at the school. I'm not the charming, persuasive type.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

Probably more localised particulates produced by the school canteen or the school’s gas boiler than a single idling car. Perhaps you should do an interior air quality survey of the premises to inform your syphillis-wishing.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Probably more localised particulates produced by the school canteen or the school’s gas boiler than a single idling car. Perhaps you should do an interior air quality survey of the premises to inform your syphillis-wishing.



And if the school had 300 gas boilers, that’d be a priority.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Probably more localised particulates produced by the school canteen or the school’s gas boiler than a single idling car. Perhaps you should do an interior air quality survey of the premises to inform your syphillis-wishing.


Brand new school, no gas. Outside caterer, vast majority of food heated in microwaves on site. 

People need to eat. They don't need to park oversized twatmobiles illegally outside a school, forcing small children to walk in the road while pumping benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into their faces. They do it because they're ignorant selfish cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Probably more localised particulates produced by the school canteen or the school’s gas boiler than a single idling car. Perhaps you should do an interior air quality survey of the premises to inform your syphillis-wishing.



The boiler and the extractors in the canteen don't vent at ground level, I'm guessing.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Brand new school, no gas. Outside caterer, vast majority of food heated in microwaves on site.
> 
> People need to eat. They don't need to park oversized twatmobiles illegally outside a school, forcing small children to walk in the road while pumping benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into their faces. They do it because they're ignorant selfish cunts.



Perhaps the driver is thinking that there are likely far high PAH levels in the toast the child had for breakfast than in a momentary waft of exhaust. Not everyone shares the same concerns, and since IC engines aren’t currently banned, it might seem reasonable to some people to use them.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps the driver is thinking that there are likely far high PAH levels in the toast the child had for breakfast than in a momentary waft of exhaust. Not everyone shares the same concerns, and since IC engines aren’t currently banned, it might seem reasonable to some people to use them.


Oh just fuck off you boring obnoxious twat.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

steeplejack said:


> I agree we're probably in the last 10-20 years of private car ownership being affordable for most of us. I can see in 20 years time that ICE car tax & petrol will be prohibitively expensive and mileage limited, mainly for "heritage" vehicles. Maybe it's time to invest in that Jowett Javelin or Humber Sceptre after all.
> 
> Short term car leasing and hiring is the way to go- you use the car strictly when you have to and it's owned by a co-op, like co-wheels. I've just recently bought what will definitely be my last ICE car. The electric infrastructure just isn't quite there yet if you don't own your own home (and therefore charging point), live outside a big city, and you regularly have to drive long distances. But I hope use of the ICE will decline steeply in the second half of this decade.
> 
> ...



I hope steeplejack doesn't mind me quoting this good post from the electric car thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I hope steeplejack doesn't mind me quoting this good post from the electric car thread.



steeplejack is right about ICE car ownership, I’ve read the crossover point in terms of cost of ownership with EVs will be around 2025.

However they provide no rationale for the end of private EV ownership in 10-20 years.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> steeplejack is right about ICE car ownership, I’ve read the crossover point in terms of cost of ownership with EVs will be around 2025.
> 
> However they provide no rationale for the end of private EV ownership in 10-20 years.


Part of it will be that all the dinosaurs like you and Spymaster and T & P and the others, who are stuck in an outmoded, disgraced and dysfunctional transport paradigm/mindset will be too old to drive by then anyway. Younger people have better ideas about how the future is going to work.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Part of it will be that all the dinosaurs like you and Spymaster and T & P and the others, who are stuck in an outmoded, disgraced and dysfunctional transport paradigm/mindset will be too old to drive by then anyway. Younger people have better ideas about how the future is going to work.



I'd love to hear young people's better ideas about personal transport, but I fear I'm in the wrong place for that.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> And because I've never ever had a good reaction from any driver when criticising their behaviour and have promised not to start fights at the school.



Weak.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'd love to hear young people's better ideas about personal transport, but I fear I'm in the wrong place for that.


Of course you're in the wrong place - you're clearly here because you just want to mouth off in the company of other aging conservatives who like talking about estate cars and how cyclists shouldn't be holding up traffic. And many people here fall into that category.

If you genuinely had any interest in educating yourself on transport matters you would engage elsewhere.


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> However they provide no rationale for the end of private EV ownership in 10-20 years.


Absolute minimum 1.5c temperature rise by 2040. Probably more. The world's powers will be engaged in ruthless and deadly resource wars and the age of private motoring will probably be near its end.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Part of it will be that all the dinosaurs like you and Spymaster and T & P and the others, who are stuck in an outmoded, disgraced and dysfunctional transport paradigm/mindset will be too old to drive by then anyway. Younger people have better ideas about how the future is going to work.


It goes to show how blinkered your therapy-grade hatred of people owning cars has made you, that even on your own pride and joy thread you continue to fail to read other people's posts. If you did, you would have noticed the multipe times I've said I don't own a car (by choice), don't plan to own one in the future, regularly use (and love) car clubs, and have driven and also love electric cars.

Perhaps you should spend less time taking pictures of badly parked cars to post them in this thread (the Driving Standards thread is the one for it, if you must engage in such a bizarre pastime on your free time), and pay more attention to the posts of the people you choose to engage with.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> It goes to show how blinkered your therapy-grade hatred of people owning cars has made you, that even on your own pride and joy thread you continue to fail to read other people's posts. If you did, you would have noticed the multipe times I've said I don't own a car (by choice), don't plan to own one in the future, regularly use (and love) car clubs, and have driven and also love electric cars.


I'm aware of all this. But we established that you drive a 3-wheeled internal combustion engine contraption, which is not exactly a car but sort of a car. We've also established over multiple threads that you are stuck in the dinosaur transport paradigm.

In 10-20 years your current purchase habits and opinions will be irrelevant - that's the point.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> you did, you would have noticed the multipe times I've said I don't own a car (by choice), don't plan to own one in the future, regularly use (and love) car clubs, and have driven and also love electric cars.


And said that you would always use a car rather than public transport even when public transport was quicker.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm aware of all this. But we established that you drive a 3-wheeled internal combustion engine contraption, which is not exactly a car but sort of a car. We've also established over multiple threads that you are stuck in the dinosaur transport paradigm.
> 
> In 10-20 years your current purchase habits and opinions will be irrelevant - that's the point.


In 10-20 years time I'll be driving an electric bike, and hiring an electric car whenever I deem convenient. So your dinosaur claims remain well unfounded.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> And said that you would always use a car rather than public transport even when public transport was quicker.


On the very few occasions when bike isn't available to me, why the fuck shouldn't I, in the era of Covid and all?

As it has been said a trillion times, there is NOTHING wrong with car use* in moderation*. Fucking nothing AT ALL. Or at least, nothing worse than countless other activities, including plenty favoured by anti-car brigade, if they are also done in moderation.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> car use in moderation.


Define moderation. Because when I walk out my door I'm not seeing or breathing moderation.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> In 10-20 years time I'll be driving an electric bike, and hiring an electric car whenever I deem convenient. So your dinosaur claims remain well unfounded.


But your assumption is that your main vehicle (whatever you call it) will still be privately owned by you. This means your journey choices would still be heavily influenced by sunk/marginal cost factors. You are not yet ready for the idea of no mass private vehicle ownership.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But your assumption is that your main vehicle (whatever you call it) will still be privately owned by you. This means your journey choices would still be heavily influenced by sunk/marginal cost factors. You are not yet ready for the idea of no mass private vehicle ownership.


And why would I, when banning private ownership will not translate in car-free cities, less pollution, or fewer journeys?

On the contrary: my single car jouney to work when the bike was being serviced would not have been an option if I'd owned my own car, as paying £25+ for parking for the day is an extravagance. But thanks to the wonder of car clubs, I was able to pick up a car parked on my street, drive myself to work, and leave it there, all for not much more than the public transport equivalent cost. So other than the sheer pleasure of seeing people banned from owning cars for the sake of it, I really don't see what benefits you actually expect it would bring. Chances are, there'll be more car journeys on cities such as London, not fewer.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> But thanks to the wonder of car clubs, I was able to pick up a car parked on my street, drive myself to work, and leave it there, all for not much more than the public transport equivalent cost.


Nonsense. I use car clubs too and I know what it costs. Most journeys will cost significantly more than the public transport equivalent. Hence, I only use it when public transport is not a viable option.

Why do you want to continue to own your bike? Because you have already decided that that's how you want to make the majority of your journeys. You've no interest in moving to public transport for every journey where it's feasible, because you don't _actually_ want to do stuff to significantly reduce the number of motorised vehicles on the road (despite all the waffling on about how you're fully behind reductions but it just doesn't have to mean banning everything etc etc etc). You consider your own convenience to be of higher priority.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> .…You've no interest in moving to public transport for every journey where it's feasible, because you don't _actually_ want to do stuff to significantly reduce the number of motorised vehicles on the road (despite all the waffling on about how you're fully behind reductions but it just doesn't have to mean banning everything etc etc etc). You consider your own convenience to be of higher priority.



Most people don’t. Just like most people don’t want to do stuff to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of their housing by e.g. living in a tiny bedsit, as they consider their own convenience to be a higher priority.

A change to EV ownership will be considered by most people as a big and sufficient step in reducing the climate impact of their personal transportation. People aren’t then going to ditch their EVs to save the planet unless they’re taxed out of ownership, which I can’t see as being politically feasible while anyone alive today is still living i.e. until at least 2100 when the climate problem has been dealt with by other means.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Most people don’t. Just like most people don’t want to do stuff to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of their housing by e.g. living in a tiny bedsit, as they consider their own convenience to be a higher priority.
> 
> A change to EV ownership will be considered by most people as a big and sufficient step in reducing the climate impact of their personal transportation. People aren’t then going to ditch their EVs to save the planet unless they’re taxed out of ownership, which I can’t see as being politically feasible while anyone alive today is still living i.e. until at least 2100 when the climate problem has been dealt with by other means.


Very characteristic of the transport dinosaur view is the assumption that all this is just about climate change emissions. The transport dinosaur is unable to see that cities where excessive private car use has been designed out, are more pleasant and convenient for their occupants. They are too old to change their thinking on this but I am hopeful that younger generations aren't.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Very characteristic of the transport dinosaur view is the assumption that all this is just about climate change emissions. The transport dinosaur is unable to see that cities where excessive private car use has been designed out, are more pleasant and convenient for their occupants. They are too old to change their thinking on this but I am hopeful that younger generations aren't.



Interesting that you saw it necessary to add the word "excessive" in there, to make your statement so vague that no one could reasonably disagree with it.

In Tokyo car ownership is 32% of households, so such cities are basically already here.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> until at least 2100 when the climate problem has been dealt with by other means


Bit late to be counting on this. Unless by 'dealt with by other means' you mean allowing billions to starve and burn while a few developed countries fight over the remains.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> And why would I, when banning private ownership will not translate in car-free cities, less pollution, or fewer journeys?
> 
> On the contrary: my single car jouney to work when the bike was being serviced would not have been an option if I'd owned my own car, as paying £25+ for parking for the day is an extravagance. But thanks to the wonder of car clubs, I was able to pick up a car parked on my street, drive myself to work, and leave it there, all for not much more than the public transport equivalent cost. So other than the sheer pleasure of seeing people banned from owning cars for the sake of it, I really don't see what benefits you actually expect it would bring. Chances are, there'll be more car journeys on cities such as London, not fewer.


Car clubs look like a great idea to me but they are very definitely a city dweller thing. Searching for my nearest car club reveals that the nearest one is 4.5 miles away with just one vehicle and no direct bus route. I would have to drive my car there and leave it on the car park in order to use the car club car.

Edit: and having looked on Google Maps I can see it there on the car park whenever the photo was taken. It's a Fiesta nice little car but not really suitable for when I need one.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Bit late to be counting on this. Unless by 'dealt with by other means' you mean allowing billions to starve and burn while a few developed countries fight over the remains.


It seems to have escaped some people but its a fact that we live on a planet with finite resources, so anything we do to alleviate climate change is merely an attempt to prolong the inevitable, but we're not prolonging anything, because we're going to run out of water before anything else kills us. We should come to terms with the fact that we're doomed, and live each day accordingly.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It seems to have escaped some people but its a fact that we live on a planet with finite resources, so anything we do to alleviate climate change is merely an attempt to prolong the inevitable, but we're not prolonging anything, because we're going to run out of water before anything else kills us. We should come to terms with the fact that we're doomed, and live each day accordingly.


Not sure that sort of decision should be left to incredibly privileged westerners with seemingly little to live for.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not sure that sort of decision should be left to incredibly privileged westerners with seemingly little to live for.


But I'm not making the decisions. I'm merely acting on the decisions of others. 
I reckon the end of this century will pretty much see the end of fresh water, at least to the extent that it'll become so scarce that the inevitable wars over it will turn much of the planet into an uninhabitable wasteland of radioactive fallout.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Interesting that you saw it necessary to add the word "excessive" in there, to make your statement so vague that no one could reasonably disagree with it.
> 
> In Tokyo car ownership is 32% of households, so such cities are basically already here.


Such cities are indeed already here, but the transport dinosaurs want to prevent us having them in the UK.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Such cities are indeed already here, but the transport dinosaurs want to prevent us having them in the UK.



And they're winning


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Such cities are indeed already here, but the transport dinosaurs want to prevent us having them in the UK.



I don't know whether you've been to Tokyo or not but it's definitely full of cars.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nonsense. I use car clubs too and I know what it costs. Most journeys will cost significantly more than the public transport equivalent. Hence, I only use it when public transport is not a viable option.
> 
> Why do you want to continue to own your bike? Because you have already decided that that's how you want to make the majority of your journeys. You've no interest in moving to public transport for every journey where it's feasible, because you don't _actually_ want to do stuff to significantly reduce the number of motorised vehicles on the road (despite all the waffling on about how you're fully behind reductions but it just doesn't have to mean banning everything etc etc etc). You consider your own convenience to be of higher priority.


I'm very curious to see where will you go with your argument once ICE machines are gone and we're all driving electric vehicles. Can I privately own an electric motorbike when it comes to retiring my current one, sir? Pretty please? And if not, will you also demand an end to private ownership of e-bikes as well?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 13, 2021)

In teuchter’s world we wont own anything, we will live in airbnbs and get around in Ubers, apparently this will mean no cars and no urban expansion because outsourcing something to efficient corporations instead of owning it privately means it ceases to have an impact.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> In teuchter’s world we wont own anything, we will live in airbnbs and get around in Ubers, apparently this will mean no cars and no urban expansion because outsourcing something to efficient corporations instead of owning it privately means it ceases to have an impact.


Yet I've never heard him demand an end to the private ownership of bicycles, either fully human powered, or e-bikes. One rule for them, and another for the rest of us, it seems.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 13, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I don't know whether you've been to Tokyo or not but it's definitely full of cars.


Yes I have been to Tokyo and I have spent several weeks living in one of its residential neighbourhoods. They are not full of cars - the streets are incredibly calm, quiet and safe. They are not cluttered with cars because if you own a car you have to park it within your own property. All houses are accessible by car but there is not a lot of traffic and drivers never speed. The roads are effectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles. Most people do their regular shopping on foot or by bike. They take their kids to nursery by bike. Primary age schoolkids walk to and from school (and use public transport) by themselves and safely. There is ample bicycle parking at most metro stations and the entire public transport network is very efficient.

Tokyo partly achieves its quiet residential streets by confining all through traffic to expressways, and I don't consider this an ideal solution - I would still want to reduce the amount of traffic on these roads. It is essentially kept separate from people's day to day lives though, and people are very able to live their day to day lives without any reliance on a privately owned motor vehicle.

When I stayed in Tokyo I was actually enormously impressed with how well set up their residential neighbourhoods are. In terms of noise pollution, safety and accessibility, they are even better than Europe's best examples which are mostly in countries like the Netherlands. I have since wondered why Tokyo is not used more as an example or case study. Part of the reason, I think, is their system relies on deeply ingrained cultural values and habits that can't be transplanted to Europe. Nonetheless, it absolutely demonstrates how well a city can function when pedestrians and cyclists have complete priority in residential areas and local centres.

I know this reply is of no genuine interest to you but it might be to others.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> I'm very curious to see where will you go with your argument once ICE machines are gone and we're all driving electric vehicles. Can I privately own an electric motorbike when it comes to retiring my current one, sir? Pretty please? And if not, will you also demand an end to private ownership of e-bikes as well?


Don't know why you're "curious" seeing as I've already told you all this, and the answers are pretty obvious anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes I have been to Tokyo and I have spent several weeks living in one of its residential neighbourhoods. They are not full of cars - the streets are incredibly calm, quiet and safe. They are not cluttered with cars because if you own a car you have to park it within your own property. All houses are accessible by car but there is not a lot of traffic and drivers never speed. The roads are effectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles. Most people do their regular shopping on foot or by bike. They take their kids to nursery by bike. Primary age schoolkids walk to and from school (and use public transport) by themselves and safely. There is ample bicycle parking at most metro stations and the entire public transport network is very efficient.
> 
> Tokyo partly achieves its quiet residential streets by confining all through traffic to expressways, and I don't consider this an ideal solution - I would still want to reduce the amount of traffic on these roads. It is essentially kept separate from people's day to day lives though, and people are very able to live their day to day lives without any reliance on a privately owned motor vehicle.
> 
> When I stayed in Tokyo I was actually enormously impressed with how well set up their residential neighbourhoods are. In terms of noise pollution, safety and accessibility, they are even better than Europe's best examples which are mostly in countries like the Netherlands. I have since wondered why Tokyo is not used more as an example or case study. Part of the reason, I think, is their system relies on deeply ingrained cultural values and habits that can't be transplanted to Europe. Nonetheless, it absolutely demonstrates how well a city can function when pedestrians and cyclists have complete priority in residential areas and local centres.


Nonsense.


----------



## T & P (Sep 13, 2021)

If your answer is privately owned fully electric motorbikes= bad, privately owned e-bikes= good, I can assure you that it is pretty fucking far from obvious...


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes I have been to Tokyo and I have spent several weeks living in one of its residential neighbourhoods. They are not full of cars - the streets are incredibly calm, quiet and safe. They are not cluttered with cars because if you own a car you have to park it within your own property. All houses are accessible by car but there is not a lot of traffic and drivers never speed. The roads are effectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles. Most people do their regular shopping on foot or by bike. They take their kids to nursery by bike. Primary age schoolkids walk to and from school (and use public transport) by themselves and safely. There is ample bicycle parking at most metro stations and the entire public transport network is very efficient.
> 
> Tokyo partly achieves its quiet residential streets by confining all through traffic to expressways, and I don't consider this an ideal solution - I would still want to reduce the amount of traffic on these roads. It is essentially kept separate from people's day to day lives though, and people are very able to live their day to day lives without any reliance on a privately owned motor vehicle.
> 
> ...



If you're that impressed by a city with 32% car ownership (albeit one where the residential areas don't tend to have pavements) then I'm surprised you are advocating for the abolition of private cars. If the 32% of households that own a car in Tokyo are the high-hanging fruit, then abolition would make their lives more difficult with apparently little gain.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.


What exactly are you disputing?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> What exactly are you disputing?


That it might be of interest to others?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> What exactly are you disputing?



What do you think? Have you read it?


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What do you think? Have you read it?


I'd agree with the bits that I know about. Japanese friends in China always complained about the traffic there. And it's a long time since Tokyo was the most polluted city on earth.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'd agree with the bits that I know about. Japanese friends in China always complained about the traffic there. And it's a long time since Tokyo was the most polluted city on earth.



Ok. So you _didn't_ read it properly.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. So you _didn't_ read it properly.


Whatever, timewaster.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Whatever, timewaster.



Not my time. I didn't read it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not my time. I didn't read it.


Well duh. I wasn't accusing you of wasting your own time.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 13, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well duh. I wasn't accusing you of wasting your own time.



Whose then?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2021)

Meanwhile in London three people dead in a high speed crash on a 20mph road; victims of a culture that doesn't take dangerous driving seriously.

I expect the driver decided they were a good judge of the road conditions and therefore didn't need to pay any attention to speed limits.

As a result they've killled their two passengers - luckily they didn't also hit anyone on the pavement or in the retirement home they smashed into.









						Three people killed as car smashes into Notting Hill retirement home
					

Witnesses told how a topless man bravely tried to rescue the victims before the vehicle was engulfed by flames




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Meanwhile in London three people dead in a high speed crash on a 20mph road; victims of a culture that doesn't take dangerous driving seriously.
> 
> I expect the driver decided they were a good judge of the road conditions and therefore didn't need to pay any attention to speed limits.
> 
> ...



Similar to the kind of thing that happens in Tokyo: Man who lost family in Tokyo car crash addresses driver in blog post, hopes to 'end fight' - The Mainichi


----------



## T & P (Sep 14, 2021)

I think I'm going to start a thread calling for alcohol to be banned nationwide fully and permanently, and pubs to be closed forever. I will then populate the thread with news and reports of individuals who cause criminal damage, assault, beat up, rape or kill people during a drunken rage, as proof that all people who ever drink alcohol are potentially violent thugs, rapists and murderers in the making, and banning booze is undeniably the correct thing to do for the good of society.

Stands to reason


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 14, 2021)

4.50 am....empty straight road.  They went north over the canal bridge, pretty fast. Maybe the suspension went light and they couldn't make the corner? The Mail estimates the speed at 90. The marker is the building they hit. 42 Woodfield Rd · 42 Woodfield Rd, Maida Hill, London W9 2BE








90 seems improbable...wouldn't the shell be a bit shorter? 

Looks like a Honda Civic Type R, 2007-11. Top Gear Magazine's 'Hot Hatch of 2007'. The Stig said it was 'an utter gem'. Notable for its placement of the fuel tank under the seat.  You can't get a hatchback any hotter. Honda Civic Type R - Wikipedia 

If this was just reckless driving, having 'fun' on an empty road, it's very much the Top Gear culture. If you get a chance you have to 'put the car through its paces'. You're entitled to it. You bought a car which does 0-60 in x seconds. (6.3 seconds in this case). Don't let anyone stop you...you've paid lots of money for your bhp and your torque. No point having a fast car if you never thrash it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> 4.50 am....empty straight road.  They went north over the canal bridge, pretty fast. Maybe the suspension went light and they couldn't make the corner? The Mail estimates the speed at 90. The marker is the building they hit. 42 Woodfield Rd · 42 Woodfield Rd, Maida Hill, London W9 2BE
> 
> 
> 
> ...



90 seems improbably but all that really matters is that the car was out of control, 3 people died as a result, and others would have been killed if they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Almost certainly none of this would have happened if cars had mandatory speed limiters.

Also, it would have been much less likely to happen if there was any attempt to actually enforce 20mph limits.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 14, 2021)

But if we had speed limiters, how would the car industry sell things which do 0-60 in 6.3 seconds? You really haven't thought this through.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 14, 2021)




----------



## T & P (Sep 14, 2021)

Without cars, dogging wouldn’t really be the same thing at all. Those calling for private cars to be banned should think about the potential loss of such quintessential part of British culture


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 16, 2021)

Yet another reason to drive long distances - to stay away from polluting rail vehicles:









						Pollution on some new UK trains ‘13 times one of London’s busiest roads’
					

Nitrogen dioxide levels far exceed average recorded on traffic-clogged Marylebone Road, according to a study




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yet another reason to drive long distances - to stay away from polluting rail vehicles:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nah.



> Key Findings​
> The levels of health-related pollutants and the exposure of the passengers were found to vary depending on the train type, the location of the exhaust, the track gradient and whether the train was in a tunnel. High levels of all pollutants were found during time spent in stations and tunnels.
> The key points are:
> 
> ...


 
​


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nah.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Don’t go confusing the issue with facts


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes I have been to Tokyo and I have spent several weeks living in one of its residential neighbourhoods. They are not full of cars - the streets are incredibly calm, quiet and safe. They are not cluttered with cars because if you own a car you have to park it within your own property. All houses are accessible by car but there is not a lot of traffic and drivers never speed. The roads are effectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles. Most people do their regular shopping on foot or by bike. They take their kids to nursery by bike. Primary age schoolkids walk to and from school (and use public transport) by themselves and safely. There is ample bicycle parking at most metro stations and the entire public transport network is very efficient.
> 
> Tokyo partly achieves its quiet residential streets by confining all through traffic to expressways, and I don't consider this an ideal solution - I would still want to reduce the amount of traffic on these roads. It is essentially kept separate from people's day to day lives though, and people are very able to live their day to day lives without any reliance on a privately owned motor vehicle.
> 
> ...



Pretty much spot on. Certainly in regards to the burbs. Kids are taken by bike, or if old enough, they walk or cycle themselves to the schools. Cyclists of all ages do tend to go up on the paths here, when it's really meant for the young or elderly. Public transport is magnificent, although it's handy to have a car for work purposes.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

This is one Japanese traffic practice I would like to see here. And not just from the kids...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> This is one Japanese traffic practice I would like to see here. And not just from the kids...




It should be compulsory for cyclists.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 17, 2021)

Awww you're mellowing in your old age - asking for kids to respect cyclists now


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

Especially maomao


----------



## BigMoaner (Sep 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



Lynn!


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It should be compulsory for cyclists.


So what you're saying is you like seeing cyclists bend over. Will your sexual obsession with cyclists ever end?


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It should be compulsory for cyclists.


In particular cyclists who don’t dismount when using a zebra crossing themselves, in breach rule 79 of the Highway Code. Who in London appear to comprise well upwards of 90% of all cyclists who use zebra crossings.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> In particular cyclists who don’t dismount when using a zebra crossing themselves, in breach rule 79 of the Highway Code. Who in London appear to comprise well upwards of 90% of all cyclists who use zebra crossings.


99%


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

I don’t mind cyclists who don’t dismount on zebras, because there’s no need to give way to them.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t mind cyclists who don’t dismount on zebras, because there’s no need to give way to them.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

Here's an interesting zebra crossing.

If as a cyclist you approach the cycle crossing directly parallel to it, there's no way of knowing what drivers will do. As far as I understand, they have the right of way, because the zebra crossing is irrelevant in this scenario. However, 75% of drivers seem to stop and give way, presumably influenced by the presence of the zebra crossing. So you have to stop, in case the driver doesn't give way, but then if you do stop, the driver will probably stop and then look at you wondering why you are wasting their time by sitting at the edge of the road when you could have just gone across already.





There's another badly designed ambiguous crossing a bit further on too.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here's an interesting zebra crossing.
> 
> If as a cyclist you approach the cycle crossing directly parallel to it, there's no way of knowing what drivers will do. As far as I understand, they have the right of way, because the zebra crossing is irrelevant in this scenario. However, 75% of drivers seem to stop and give way, presumably influenced by the presence of the zebra crossing. So you have to stop, in case the driver doesn't give way, but then if you do stop, the driver will probably stop and then look at you wondering why you are wasting their time by sitting at the edge of the road when you could have just gone across already.
> 
> ...



That’s one of the new(ish) dual use cycle and pedestrian zebra crossings, where cars do have to give way to cyclists. I’m surprised you don’t know this, being a driver. At the very least you should have been able to work it out from the siting of the pedestrian crossing controlled area.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That’s one of the new(ish) dual use cycle and pedestrian zebra crossings, where cars do have to give way to cyclists. I’m surprised you don’t know this, being a driver. At the very least you should have been able to work it out from the siting of the pedestrian crossing controlled area.


It demonstrates that we have an inadequate system in this country for ensuring that drivers keep up to date with changes. Drivers should be made to take and pass a test at appropriate intervals throughout their driving career.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It demonstrates that we have an inadequate system in this country for ensuring that drivers keep up to date with changes. Drivers should be made to take and pass a test at appropriate intervals throughout their driving career.



So now you sympathize with poor drivers who don't know the rules of the road, after finding yourself among them? It's not their fault, they can blame it on a lack of repeated testing. Remember that next time you moan about an illegally parked car or whatever.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So now you sympathize with poor drivers who don't know the rules of the road, after finding yourself among them? It's not their fault, they can blame it on a lack of repeated testing. Remember that next time you moan about an illegally parked car or whatever.


No, if I were to approach that crossing as a car driver, and then hit a cyclist as a result of assuming I had priority, I would not expect any sympathy. It would be my fault, and it's my responsibility to keep up with rules. As a driver I wouldn't assume I had priority anyway - I would be watching out for anyone who looked like they might move into the roadway, and going at a speed that would allow me to stop if they did - regardless of whether they had right of way.

I would however have sympathy with any cyclist who correctly (as it turns out) assumed they had priority and was then hit by a driver.

The point is that repeated testing (which, as a driver I would support) would improve safety for everyone but doesn't happen, thanks to the road culture we have.

There's lots of stuff I can do in a car which I don't think I should be allowed to.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It demonstrates that we have an inadequate system in this country for ensuring that drivers keep up to date with changes. Drivers should be made to take and pass a test at appropriate intervals throughout their driving career.




I keep up by every three or four years attending a speed awareness course, these tend to cover all the changes in the Highway Code since the last time I went


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, if I were to approach that crossing as a car driver, and then hit a cyclist as a result of assuming I had priority, I would not expect any sympathy. It would be my fault, and it's my responsibility to keep up with rules. As a driver I wouldn't assume I had priority anyway - I would be watching out for anyone who looked like they might move into the roadway, and going at a speed that would allow me to stop if they did - regardless of whether they had right of way.



I could easily imagine you stopping and giving way to a pedestrian waiting to cross, while you are obstructing the cycle part of the crossing. You really should take some time to learn how these things are supposed to work - driving cautiously isn't sufficient, and can even cause hazards to other road users.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, if I were to approach that crossing as a car driver, and then hit a cyclist as a result of assuming I had priority, I would not expect any sympathy. It would be my fault, and it's my responsibility to keep up with rules. As a driver I wouldn't assume I had priority anyway - I would be watching out for anyone who looked like they might move into the roadway, and going at a speed that would allow me to stop if they did - regardless of whether they had right of way.
> 
> I would however have sympathy with any cyclist who correctly (as it turns out) assumed they had priority and was then hit by a driver.
> 
> ...


But on the other hand, there's lots of stuff cyclists are definitely _not_ allowed to do at all, but do it multiple times on each and every single one journey they take, throughout their entire lifespan, without the authorities ever bothering to do anything about it.

I was actually keeping a mental count of traffic light-jumping cyclists today when I went from Chelsea to Camden Town and back. Out of 17 instances of a red traffic light ahead with cyclists around, 16 times the cyclist decided traffic lights are for losers. In many of those cases the lights were governing busy junctions. Naturally that didn't deter the cyclists in question. Two of them were actually doing that mega-fucking-cunt trick of not wanting to put their foot on the ground at any cost because they're so rad, so they kept twitching and moving on their bikes to keep their balance at the very edge of moving traffic at the junction, before finding a tiny 2-second gap between passing cars and darting through.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So now you sympathize with poor drivers who don't know the rules of the road, after finding yourself among them? It's not their fault, they can blame it on a lack of repeated testing. Remember that next time you moan about an illegally parked car or whatever.


Pretty sure that the rules for indicating and stopping at red lights haven't changed in my lifetime but aside from parking it's these two rules drivers seem to have most problems with.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> But on the other hand, there's lots of stuff cyclists are definitely _not_ allowed to do at all, but do it multiple times on each and every single one journey they take, throughout their entire lifespan, without the authorities ever bothering to do anything about it.
> 
> I was actually keeping a mental count of traffic light-jumping cyclists today when I went from Chelsea to Camden Town and back. Out of 17 instances of a red traffic light ahead with cyclists around, 16 times the cyclist decided traffic lights are for losers. In many of those cases the lights were governing busy junctions. Naturally that didn't deter the cyclists in question. Two of them were actually doing that mega-fucking-cunt trick of not wanting to put their foot on the ground at any cost because they're so rad, so they kept twitching and moving on their bikes to keep their balance at the very edge of moving traffic at the junction, before finding a tiny 2-second gap between passing cars and darting through.


I don't believe this story.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> Pretty sure that the rules for indicating and stopping at red lights haven't changed in my lifetime but aside from parking it's these two rules drivers seem to have most problems with.



I'm sure plenty of drivers fail to observe all the rules all the time. However I'm surprised that such a driver-loathing driver as teuchter doesn't even know when or where to stop at a zebra crossing.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I could easily imagine you stopping and giving way to a pedestrian waiting to cross, while you are obstructing the cycle part of the crossing.


Nope, because I definitely know that I should never stop on a crossing of any kind, which has been a rule since I learnt to drive. Even if refusing to move onto a crossing when it's not clear on the other side means some car behind me starts hooting at me impatiently.

It seems to be a rule that many drivers (including professional ones) choose to forget on a daily basis.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't believe this story.


Convenient.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> Two of them were actually doing that mega-fucking-cunt trick of not wanting to put their foot on the ground at any cost because they're so rad, so they kept twitching and moving on their bikes to keep their balance at the very edge of moving traffic at the junction, before finding a tiny 2-second gap between passing cars and darting through.



maomao does this.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> But on the other hand, there's lots of stuff cyclists are definitely _not_ allowed to do at all, but do it multiple times on each and every single one journey they take, throughout their entire lifespan, without the authorities ever bothering to do anything about it.
> 
> I was actually keeping a mental count of traffic light-jumping cyclists today when I went from Chelsea to Camden Town and back. Out of 17 instances of a red traffic light ahead with cyclists around, 16 times the cyclist decided traffic lights are for losers. In many of those cases the lights were governing busy junctions. Naturally that didn't deter the cyclists in question. Two of them were actually doing that mega-fucking-cunt trick of not wanting to put their foot on the ground at any cost because they're so rad, so they kept twitching and moving on their bikes to keep their balance at the very edge of moving traffic at the junction, before finding a tiny 2-second gap between passing cars and darting through.


Interesting observation - it's not often discussed that some cyclists ignore traffic lights. Thanks for bringing this talking point to the table.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nope, because I definitely know that I should never stop on a crossing of any kind, which has been a rule since I learnt to drive. Even if refusing to move onto a crossing when it's not clear on the other side means some car behind me starts hooting at me impatiently.
> 
> It seems to be a rule that many drivers (including professional ones) choose to forget on a daily basis.



Bollocks.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> Convenient.


Cyclists don't go through 'two second gaps' in traffic. The rest isn't extraordinary or unbelievable but you definitely made it all up.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cyclists don't go through 'two second gaps' in traffic. The rest isn't extraordinary or unbelievable but you definitely made it all up.


I didn't say all of those who jumped the lights did. Two of them certainly did.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> I didn't say all of those who jumped the lights did. Two of them certainly did.


A two second gap between cars crossing a junction in London is a few meters at most. In fact responsible drivers should be following the three second rule so a two second gap should be unusually close (it's not because most drivers can't drive but it should be).


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nope, because I definitely know that I should never stop on a crossing of any kind, which has been a rule since I learnt to drive. Even if refusing to move onto a crossing when it's not clear on the other side means some car behind me starts hooting at me impatiently.



It's good that you think  you know some rules I suppose, although I'm not sure what you would do if a pedestrian started crossing after you had entered the cycle section.



> It seems to be a rule that many drivers (including professional ones) choose to forget on a daily basis.



They may choose to forget it, or maybe they just don't remember it as they aren't subjected to regular testing by the state.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> A two second gap between cars crossing a junction in London is a few meters at most. In fact responsible drivers should be following the three second rule so a two second gap should be unusually close (it's not because most drivers can't drive but it should be).


Way to try to deflect attention from the undoubtedly irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the cyclist  . Points awarded for effort.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They may choose to forget it, or maybe they just don't remember it as they aren't subjected to regular testing by the state.



In fact I suspect it is a choice mainly determined by attitude to the priorities of road users, and thoughtfulness about the needs of others, because you don't need a rule to tell you that if you move into a pedestrian crossing without knowing you can clear it, you might end up blocking it.

This is pretty similar to things like pavement parking or blocking cycle paths.

They don't "forget" - they are just bad people.


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> Way to try to deflect attention from the undoubtedly irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the cyclist  . Points awarded for effort.


What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour. 

There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour.
> 
> There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.


I made nothing up. That you accuse people you don't know of lying if they report something that flies against your narrative is as fucking pathetic as is laughable.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour.
> 
> There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.


This isn’t true


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> I made nothing up. That you accuse people you don't know of lying if they report something that flies against your narrative is as fucking pathetic as is laughable.


Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up. 

You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine.  There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up.
> 
> You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine.  There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.



edcraw cpounts them too. That's how he gets to sleep.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In fact I suspect it is a choice mainly determined by attitude to the priorities of road users, and thoughtfulness about the needs of others, because you don't need a rule to tell you that if you move into a pedestrian crossing without knowing you can clear it, you might end up blocking it.
> 
> This is pretty similar to things like pavement parking or blocking cycle paths.
> 
> They don't "forget" - they are just bad people.



It's not always about that, as this cycle zebra crossing illustrates - you might have to move onto it without knowing you can clear it, especially if the pavements are quite busy with pedestrians or they are loitering near the crossing. You enter the cycle section and then a pedestrian starts crossing, do you stop and block the cycle part or perhaps sound the horn to encourage them to step back onto the pavement? Once you've crossed that initial give way line prior to the cycle section, pedestrians no longer have priority over you and the law only allows you to stop on the crossing to avoid injury or damage.

If it was a level crossing with no zebra, obviously you'd sound the horn at the errant pedestrian rather than risk stopping on the rail tracks, but since cyclists are unlikely to kill you along with scores of their passengers when hitting the side of you car, you have a bit more freedom here to break the law if you want, and obstruct cyclists to allow a pedestrian to cross.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's not always about that, as this cycle zebra crossing illustrates - you might have to move onto it without knowing you can clear it, especially if the pavements are quite busy with pedestrians or they are loitering near the crossing. You enter the cycle section and then a pedestrian starts crossing, do you stop and block the cycle part or perhaps sound the horn to encourage them to step back onto the pavement? Once you've crossed that initial give way line prior to the cycle section, pedestrians no longer have priority over you and the law only allows you to stop on the crossing to avoid injury or damage.



That's a very specific situation, at what is currently an uncommon type of crossing.

What I'm talking about is what happens all the time at regular pedestrian crossings, which is that a car moves onto and sits on the crossing whilst the pedestrian light is red. Then the traffic in front of them doesn't move, the pedestrian signal turns green, and everyone has to edge round their car. In some cases with a larger vehicle, it blocks the pedestrians' view of the green man altogether. Bus drivers do it.

It's very simple in that scenario - you don't move onto the crossing until there's space on the other side of it for you to move into.

People who can't be bothered to do that are bad people who deserve to get their paintwork accidentally scratched when I have to edge around the front or back of their car and accidentally bang it with my bags or keys or bits of sandpaper or cheese-grater or other things I commonly carry around town.

Same when they decide to stop within the cyclist advance box too of course.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Same when they decide to stop within the cyclist advance box too of course.



Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up.
> 
> You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine.  There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.


You're talking utter, fucking desperate bollocks, and everyone can see it from what it is. And you must be extraordinarily lacking in imagination, let alone situational awareness or driving/ cycling skills, if you think a cyclist taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic is not viable in a city with multitude of differently sized streets and junctions, not to mention multiple possible speeds, and the quantity of the cars travelling at the time. The three of which combining to make an almost limitness number of scenarios, a great many of which more than facilitating cyclists taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic to go across a junction having jumped a red light.

I remind you that *at no point you asked which junction it was, how heavy the traffic was, and how fast it was moving*. But no, you know for a fact what I told couldn't have happened. For cunting fuck's sake... 

You really should stop digging now mate. And all this embarrassing shit because you can't stand the very suggestion that some cyclists behave utterly recklessly. Jesus fucking wept...


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's a very specific situation, at what is currently an uncommon type of crossing.



My point here is that’s it’s exactly the type of situation where your abundance of caution approach to make up for not knowing the rules might end up causing more problems than it solves.

And these specific crossings are only going to get more common.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.


I don't care about the technicalities of the law. The box is there for a reason and me and my cheesegrater or angle grinder are going to accidentally defend it if we want.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> My point here is that’s it’s exactly the type of situation where your abundance of caution approach to make up for not knowing the rules might end up causing more problems than it solves.
> 
> And these specific crossings are only going to get more common.


To be prepared to stop for unexpected emergences onto the road is not an "abundance of caution" approach, it's simply what anyone learning to drive is taught.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

It's certainly quite disturbing to think that someone like me who drives for about five minutes per year is obviously a better and safer driver than platinumsage who presumably spends the best part of most days driving a car around with either radio 2 or classic FM on the whole time.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> A two second gap between cars crossing a junction in London is a few meters at most. In fact responsible drivers should be following the three second rule so a two second gap should be unusually close (it's not because most drivers can't drive but it should be).


First we have teuchter, who doesn't know how to use a zebra crossing, either as a pedestrian, cyclist or grown-up. Then we have maomao, who seems to have scrapped the two second rule and replaced it with a new and improved three second rule. And these two are putting themselves forward as the voice of cyclists  



teuchter said:


> It demonstrates that we have an inadequate system in this country for ensuring that drivers keep up to date with changes. Drivers should be made to take and pass a test at appropriate intervals throughout their driving career.


What this clearly demonstrates is that teuchter and maomao shouldn't be allowed on the road whilst in charge of anything more dangerous than a sponge .


----------



## maomao (Sep 17, 2021)

T & P said:


> You're talking utter, fucking desperate bollocks, and everyone can see it from what it is. And you must be extraordinarily lacking in imagination, let alone situational awareness or driving/ cycling skills, if you think a cyclist taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic is not viable in a city with multitude of differently sized streets and junctions, not to mention multiple possible speeds, and the quantity of the cars travelling at the time. The three of which combining to make an almost limitness number of scenarios, a great many of which more than facilitating cyclists taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic to go across a junction having jumped a red light.
> 
> I remind you that *at no point you asked which junction it was, how heavy the traffic was, and how fast it was moving*. But no, you know for a fact what I told couldn't have happened. For cunting fuck's sake...
> 
> You really should stop digging now mate. And all this embarrassing shit because you can't stand the very suggestion that some cyclists behave utterly recklessly. Jesus fucking wept...


I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving. One of them was doing 38mph on a 30mph road. Now I hope you're not going to devalue this important debate by accusing me of lying.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving.


They'd probably just run over cyclists and were having a celebratory wank. The other 5 needed to brush up on their driving skills.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2021)

I just popped in to see if I should poke teuchter a bit for amusement, but you lot are doing a fine job


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2021)

maomao said:


> I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving. One of them was doing 38mph on a 30mph road. Now I hope you're not going to devalue this important debate by accusing me of lying.


Not sure about the wanking, but a lot of those were probably speeding, yes. I wouldn’t contest anyone making such claims because they’re not just possible but probable. And much less so accuse others of lying about reported individual instances of misbehaviour from a group of road users, because sure as fuck every single type have plenty of irresponsible arseholes among them. I never contested that.

Even if I had got my two-second gap calculation wrong (which I didn’t- single lane street junction and perpendicular traffic in one direction only at the time, so two seconds to cross were more than achievable even if still idiotic), it seems to me a very weird thing to latch on, as if visual accounts of reckless road behaviour must be wrong or fabricated if someone doesn’t state the sequence of events to the exact second.

Ultimately it is irrelevant if someone on the internet accuses someone else of lying about a perfectly plausible and commonplace occurrence based on insignificant pedantry. But perhaps I should  just abandon reporting any real accounts of individual bad road behaviour in the future, and just claim I regularly see cyclists kidnapping small kids and punching old ladies in the face as they ride past, as at least I would get likes instead of accusations of being a liar. Anyway, far more words devoted to this than it merited.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To be prepared to stop for unexpected emergences onto the road is not an "abundance of caution" approach, it's simply what anyone learning to drive is taught.



You said this principle would be sufficient for you to deal cycle zebra, despite not having bothered to learn the relevant rules. But of course it isn't, as I've explained - what would you do if a pedestrian started crossing after you've entered the cycle section - accidentally your angle grinder around while blasting out Radio 6?


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.


This is just ridiculous fotlerism. The fact that the law recognises a possible reason for being stopped in an advanced cycle box, and that wankers will use it to argue their way out of a fine, is not the same as there being no requirement in law to avoid stopping in one.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> This is just ridiculous fotlerism. The fact that the law recognises a possible reason for being stopped in an advanced cycle box, and that wankers will use it to argue their way out of a fine, is not the same as there being no requirement in law to avoid stopping in one.



This couldn't be more wrong. It's pretty hopeless of you to compare the actual law with freedom of the land nonsense. If the lawmakers had wanted an advance cycle box to be treated like a box junction or pedestrian crossing, they would have written the law in a similar way. But they didn't - the law actually requires drivers to stop in an advance stop box when the lights change if they have entered it for any reason.

Here is the requirement not to stop on a pedestrian crossing: 

"The driver of a vehicle shall not cause the vehicle or any part of it to stop within the limits of a crossing unless he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. "

Here is the requirement to stop in an advanced cycle box:

"... the “stop line” in relation to those light signals means - (a)the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or (b)the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane."

If you want the law changed perhaps you should write to your MP, but you'll probably just carry on getting enraged any time you see a driver obeying the law in reaction cycle boxes, because that's more satisfying for you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2021)

For any reason. A reason like the light cycle missed out yellow for some reason, or the driver is a cunt. Because those are the only two reasons a driver would be 'forced' to stop in the advanced stop box.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> the law actually requires drivers to stop in an advance stop box when the lights change if they have entered it for any reason.


So it 'requires' you to stop when the lights change but according to you it doesn't require you to stop if they don't? You can barely talk English and would be an embarassment to real Fotlers.


----------



## Athos (Sep 18, 2021)

Whereas you can't enter a crossing until you can see that you can clear it, you can enter an advance stop box if the light is green, even if the traffic is very slow moving/stopped such that you can't clear it. If the lights then change, you're required to stop in the box.  All you can't do is go past the first line if the lights are red when you arrive at it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> Whereas you can't enter a crossing until you can see that you can clear it, you can enter an advance stop box if the light is green, even if the traffic is very slow moving/stopped such that you can't clear it. If the lights then change, you're required to stop in the box.  All you can't do is go past the first line if the lights are red when you arrive at it.


Yes, everyone understands that bit of the rule Lionel. What Bi0boy is claiming is that there is no legal requirement to stop at the first line when there clearly is if the light is already red on approach.


----------



## Athos (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, everyone understands that bit of the rule Lionel. What Bi0boy is claiming is that there is no legal requirement to stop at the first line when there clearly is if the light is already red on approach.


He's clearly wrong about that.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

What I said it perfectly correct and clear, and it's sad to see maomao attempting to deliberately misinterpret it in a desperate attempt to "win" some sort of argument.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> For any reason. A reason the light cycle missed out yellow for some reason, or the driver is a cunt. Because those are the only two reasons a driver would be 'forced' to stop in the advanced stop box.


Wrong again. As usual.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You said this principle would be sufficient for you to deal cycle zebra, despite not having bothered to learn the relevant rules. But of course it isn't, as I've explained - what would you do if a pedestrian started crossing after you've entered the cycle section - accidentally your angle grinder around while blasting out Radio 6?


I wouldn't enter the cycle crossing bit if it looked like pedestrians were approaching the zebra crossing and I was going to need to stop for them. I don't need a rule to tell me that's the right thing to do, because it's obvious that it would block the route of people using the cycle path.

Not being aware of the new rule wouldn't affect how I behaved in a car. It has affected how I behave as a cyclist only in that I have thanked drivers who stop for me by giving them a wave, because I hadn't realised they were actually obliged to stop. My new awareness means I can stop doing this.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

It’s almost like all the car abolitionist cyclists here are such clueless occasional drivers that they have literally no clue about what driving actually involves. When they criticise drivers for doing x, y and z they thus speak from a position of near total ignorance and hypocrisy, and are best ignored.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't enter the cycle crossing bit if it looked like pedestrians were approaching the zebra crossing and I was going to need to stop for them. I don't need a rule to tell me that's the right thing to do, because it's obvious that it would block the route of people using the cycle path.



Sure, but this doesn’t account for the circumstances where you aren’t sure whether pedestrians are going to cross or not. Something you would have encountered frequently if you drove for more than five minutes a year.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It’s almost like all the car abolitionist cyclists here are such clueless occasional drivers that they have literally no clue about what driving actually involves. When they criticise drivers for doing x, y and z they thus speak from a position of near total ignorance and hypocrisy, and are best ignored.



I drive every day. I have never been forced to stop in an advanced stop box.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I drive every day. I have never been forced to stop in an advanced stop box.



You’re the one who introduced the word ”forced” into the debate, another straw man.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, but this doesn’t account for the circumstances where you aren’t sure whether pedestrians are going to cross or not. Something you would have encountered frequently if you drove for more than five minutes a year.


It's no different to approaching any zebra crossing when you're unsure if pedestrians are going to cross or not. If it looks like they might cross, stop at the relevant line. If they then clearly aren't going to cross, carry on. You will now ask what happens if they start crossing after I have stopped and started again. What happens will be the same as would happen if I did not know about the new crossing rule - I would choose to block the cycle path for a short time instead of running some pedestrians over. Of course most drivers would see this as unsatisfactory because they would prefer to block cyclists _and_ run pedestrians over (whilst listening to talk radio or classic FM) and they would be annoyed that they would only be able to do one of these.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I drive every day. I have never been forced to stop in an advanced stop box.


Because you don’t drive in heavy traffic. The most common reason you’ll see a car stopped in an ASB is that the traffic has begun to flow across the junction but something has caused it to stop prematurely, usually the car in front. That usually happens because a ped or cyclist or something else has come across the lights on red and caused the halt. You are highly ignorant of these matters and should not post on these threads, Biggles.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You’re the one who introduced the word ”forced” into the debate, another straw man.


Crikey. Criticising other people's choice i
of words after your smug and wrong-headed mangling of the language. 

Every fotler ever started off with idiotic and wrong interpretations of traffic laws just like yours. I'm not sure that doing it just to be an obnoxious cunt actually makes it much better.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The most common reason you’ll see a car stopped in an ASB is that the traffic has begun to flow across the junction but something has caused it to stop prematurely, usually the car in front.


No. The most common reason is because the driver's a cunt. The situation you describe accounts for ten percent at most of cars stopped in asbs. Being in a car you only see cars immediately adjacent to you so don't see the situation very often.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Because you don’t drive in heavy traffic. The most common reason you’ll see a car stopped in an ASB is that the traffic has begun to flow across the junction but something has caused it to stop prematurely, usually the car in front.


Only people who have combed through the law for loopholes would end up in this position and it would be deliberate. Well they probably haven't actually combed through the law - they will have read about it on those pistonface forums, or at their local UKIP meeting.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> Crikey. Criticising other people's choice i
> of words after your smug and wrong-headed mangling of the language.
> 
> Every fotler ever started off with idiotic and wrong interpretations of traffic laws just like yours. I'm not sure that doing it just to be an obnoxious cunt actually makes it much better.



You’re the one mangling language, clearly. 

If any of my interpretations of traffic law are incorrect feel free to correct them.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. The most common reason is because the driver's a cunt. The situation you describe accounts for ten percent at most of cars stopped in asbs. Being in a car you only see cars immediately adjacent to you so don't see the situation very often.


Here you go with your dubious percentages again. The actual figure is 96%.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Only people who have combed through the law for loopholes would end up in this position and it would be deliberate. Well they probably haven't actually combed through the law - they will have read about it on those pistonface forums, or at their local UKIP meeting.





Not worth further comment.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If any of my interpretations of traffic law are incorrect feel free to correct them.


I already have. There is a requirement by law for cars to stop at advance stop lines. The reason you and your fotler mates manage to get your fines overturned is not because there isn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> I already have. There is a requirement by law for cars to stop at advance stop lines. The reason you and your fotler mates manage to get your fines overturned is not because there isn't.


It’s because there IS.

You’re confusing yourself now.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> I already have. There is a requirement by law for cars to stop at advance stop lines..



I never claimed there wasn’t?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Because you don’t drive in heavy traffic. The most common reason you’ll see a car stopped in an ASB is that the traffic has begun to flow across the junction but something has caused it to stop prematurely, usually the car in front. That usually happens because a ped or cyclist or something else has come across the lights on red and caused the halt. You are highly ignorant of these matters and should not post on these threads, Biggles.



I know you're not actually stupid enough to think that pedestrians and cyclists, rather than cars, are the major cause of traffic jams. I also know that if you ever actually drive on roads you'll have seen countless motorists ignoring the highway code and stopping in the ASB at a red light as a matter of course. The only question then is what is the fucking point of you pretending otherwise?


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It’s because there IS.
> 
> You’re confusing yourself now.


I used a double negative for a reason thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I know you're not actually stupid enough to think that pedestrians and cyclists, rather than cars, are the major cause of traffic jams. I also know that if you ever actually drive on roads you'll have seen countless motorists ignoring the highway code and stopping in the ASB at a red light as a matter of course. The only question then is what is the fucking point of you pretending otherwise?


Don’t be ridiculous, Plank. You know full well that you are totally unqualified to comment on transport related issues.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

maomao said:


> I used a double negative for a reason thanks.


I know. I even told you the reason.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

It was obviously a mistake for me to mention the simple advance cycle box as a  basic counter-example to pedestrian crossings and box junctions, because to the car-abolitionist nutters here it seems to be like a red rag to a bull.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not worth further comment.


Correct. My comment is final and closes the matter.

Embarrassing for platinumsage that it's now revealed that not only am I a better driver than them, but so is SpookyFrank .


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Correct. My comment is final and closes the matter.
> 
> Embarrassing for platinumsage that it's now revealed that not only am I a better driver than them, but so is SpookyFrank .


Plank’s a pilot, not a driver.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 18, 2021)

Who are plank, Lionel and Bi0boy?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Correct. My comment is final and closes the matter.
> 
> Embarrassing for platinumsage that it's now revealed that not only am I a better driver than them, but so is SpookyFrank .



That may be true, I’m not one of those people like you who have an exaggerated opinion of their own driving prowess.

What is obvious though is that I’m a better cyclist than anyone else on this thread.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Who are plank, Lionel and Bi0boy?


Lionel is Athos 



bi0boy is platinumsage


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Who are plank, Lionel and Bi0boy?


Good question but we try not to get too philosophical on this thread.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 18, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Sep 18, 2021)

Man forced to drop crumbs:









						Pensioner 'fined £50 for littering after dropping crumbs from pork pie'
					

Peter Vipham says he was pulled to one side by enforcement officers after a small crumb of pastry from a pork pie he was eating fell to the floor.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## T & P (Sep 18, 2021)

I support AFC Wimbledon and live in Tulse Hill. Absolutely fucking ideal travel scenario for me: direct journey taking just 12 minutes.

On every single one of the three home games I’ve attended so far, there were widespread train cancellations. On every single day.

There are only two trains per hour on a Saturday, so it’s far from a Tube service. If I’m planning to meet my mates for a couple of drinks before kick off, having a half-hourly service cancelled really fucks up your day. I can forgive the odd mishap, but cancelled services on every single occasion I needed to travel is fucking pisspoor and suggest a systematic problem.

So each time I ended up driving myself to Plough Lane in a Zipcar, and then booking an Uber for the journey home, because by then I really didn’t want to risk another cancellation. More expensive for sure, but when faced with a service so consistently unreliable you feel it’s heads or tails whether you might have to spend an extra 40 minutes on a miserable deserted platform to undertake a 12-minute journey, it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone if people give up on public transport.

Bottom line: people are never going to be deterred from embarking on car journeys, whether private car or a taxis, when even the most idealistic and shortest of public transport alternatives are laughably unreliable.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I support AFC Wimbledon and live in Tulse Hill. Absolutely fucking ideal travel scenario for me: direct journey taking just 12 minutes.
> 
> On every single one of the three home games I’ve attended so far, there were widespread train cancellations. On every single day.
> 
> ...


As all football games are essentially the same, couldn't you just check the scores online from the comfort of your home?  That'd save you needlessly polluting the environment.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As all football games are essentially the same, couldn't you just check the scores online from the comfort of your home?  That'd save you needlessly polluting the environment.



Or listen to it on the radio while you're doing the washing up


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 19, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Or listen to it on the radio while you're doing the washing up


There you go T & P, we've saved you money on travel and ticket costs, and helped with your housework.  You can thank us later.


----------



## T & P (Sep 19, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> As all football games are essentially the same, couldn't you just check the scores online from the comfort of your home?  That'd save you needlessly polluting the environment.


I guess I could do that. I’ll also stop going on holiday, since at the end of the day all places are the same when you think about it. And even if not, I can still find lovely pics of my intended destination online, so no excuse really. What kind of selfish cunt could possibly justify travelling to the Lake District for a break, whether by car or train, when you can look it up on Google?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I guess I could do that. I’ll also stop going on holiday, since at the end of the day all places are the same when you think about it. And even if not, I can still find lovely pics of my intended destination online, so no excuse really. What kind of selfish cunt could possibly justify travelling there for a break, whether by car or train?


Why go through all the hassle and expense of going on holiday when you can find images of any given place in seconds?  The pictures are also likely to present the place in a much more flattering light than reality ever will.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I guess I could do that. I’ll also stop going on holiday, since at the end of the day all places are the same when you think about it. And even if not, I can still find lovely pics of my intended destination online, so no excuse really. What kind of selfish cunt could possibly justify travelling to the Lake District for a break, whether by car or train, when you can look it up on Google?



The future is a marvelous place. You don't even have to leave your home anymore.


----------



## T & P (Sep 19, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> The future is a marvelous place. You don't even have to leave your home anymore.


Ah but you can if you get there by public transport. Even a two week European train extravaganza is allowed, because trains. A four-mile trip by car to watch the football though, you might as well nuke the Arctic Circle.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I support AFC Wimbledon and live in Tulse Hill. Absolutely fucking ideal travel scenario for me: direct journey taking just 12 minutes.
> 
> On every single one of the three home games I’ve attended so far, there were widespread train cancellations. On every single day.
> 
> ...



I hate trains pretty much for these reasons. You may not want to but it’s about 30mins on bike on pretty quiet roads, as long as you’re not drinking too much.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 19, 2021)

Not 100% clear what the moral of T & P 's story is. Is it that we should stop spending his hard earned tax money on public transport because he can afford to bypass it with uber?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 19, 2021)

I think the point is that we need to spend more on public transport to make it more reliable and more prevalent. I’m up for that. I’m going into the office tomorrow and rather than walk to my nearest station, which effectively has a train every two hours, or drive 10 minutes to Dorking, which now only has one train an hour, I’m going to drive for 30 minutes to Epsom, which has a proper service comprising lots of trains. This is clearly a stupid situation to be in — the infrastructure is basically there but too thinly applied to be practical. It doesn’t help that the train operating companies took COVID as an excuse to halve their already thin service.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> I support AFC Wimbledon and live in Tulse Hill. Absolutely fucking ideal travel scenario for me: direct journey taking just 12 minutes.
> 
> On every single one of the three home games I’ve attended so far, there were widespread train cancellations. On every single day.
> 
> ...


This is an argument for better public transport, not for cars.


----------



## klang (Sep 19, 2021)

it's also an argument against AFC Wimbledon.


----------



## T & P (Sep 19, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is an argument for better public transport, not for cars.


Erm, yes, that was actually my point. But what chance is there to convince people to abandon car travel in cities if the public transport alternative is just not good enough? Provide a reliable network first, then ask people to ditch car journeys. The other way around is just not going to cut it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 20, 2021)

The thing is that unlike in the Surrey hills public transport is already pretty good in South London and the train is not the only option to get between those two places. There's a reliable and frequent bus service, which in most cases will be a little slower than going by private car. The main thing that could be improved about bus journeys is to make them faster and this could be achieved with more dedicated lanes and less traffic on the roads. But you have people arguing against measures that could achieve those things and they'll nearly always also be saying that they shouldn't be implemented until public transport is improved.

In many places it's valid to say that you can't really expect people to start using their cars less - until the alternatives are improved. Not in relatively central London though. The alternatives will never be improved "enough" for most people who employ that argument. It will permanently be just not quite good enough yet. Even if the Thameslink service were totally reliable and ran every 10 seconds, we'd still have T & P telling us about some other journey that he can make more conveniently by private car, and telling us that we should not make those private journeys more inconvenient until the alternatives are better. Even when the only way to improve the alternatives relies on making those private journeys more inconvenient.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 25, 2021)

Well I think the whole country is proving that most car owners are a bunch of selfish twunts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## BigMoaner (Sep 25, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 290109


aren't they like that all the time? a massive Moral Superiority Complex bonus pack with every bike purchase.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 25, 2021)

BigMoaner said:


> aren't they like that all the time? a massive Moral Superiority Complex bonus pack with every bike purchase.


Free, independent, not harming the environment, exercise without having to go to a gym? Yep, pretty much 😊


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Sep 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


>




The Simpsons? Have you not got a more contemporary cultural reference such as The Monkees or I Love Lucy old man?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well I think the whole country is proving that most car owners are a bunch of selfish twunts.



If we banned cars we wouldn't see these sort of things.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 26, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> If we banned cars we wouldn't see these sort of things.



Where would seagulls shit on, though?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 26, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Where would seagulls shit on, though?


That's easy - they'd shit on the wildlife haters.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 26, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> That's easy - they'd shit on the wildlife haters.



But the gas guzzling wildlife haters would be banned, see


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 26, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> But the gas guzzling wildlife haters would be banned, see


Banning haters would be a good thing.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 27, 2021)

'danger to motorists'  

Fuck motorists.  (((deer)))









						White deer killed by police after running through Merseyside streets
					

Animal welfare experts urged officers to let buck find its way home but police say they were left ‘no option’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

Now now, those antlers could have fucked someone's expensive paint job good and proper.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Now now, those antlers could have fucked someone's expensive paint job good and proper.


Good.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Good.



Or not, as it turned out!


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

If you want to blame anyone farmerbarleymow , blame the police for their ITT reaction and inappropriate action taken. Are tranquilliser darts a fictional Hollywood prop? Because I’m sure I’ve them used IRL.,.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 28, 2021)

I really enjoyed cycling past the long queue of cars waiting outside the petrol station this morning.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> If you want to blame anyone farmerbarleymow , blame the police for their ITT reaction and inappropriate action taken. Are tranquilliser darts a fictional Hollywood prop? Because I’m sure I’ve them used IRL.,.



Nothing inappropriate about shooting a deer that's loose in a town. As the article quite clearly explains.


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Nothing inappropriate about shooting a deer that's loose in a town. As the article quite clearly explains.


I confess I had only read the summary of the story that was embedded to farmerbarleymow 's post, rather than the full article.

Interestingly enough, the article quoted the police as saying it was a danger "to motorists* and pedestrians*". Very interesting editing there, farmerbarleymow 

Pedestrians: as always, the root of all evil and bad things.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> I confess I had only read the summary of the story that was embedded to farmerbarleymow 's post, rather than the full article.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the article quoted the police as saying it was a danger "to motorists* and pedestrians*". Very interesting editing there, farmerbarleymow
> 
> Pedestrians: as always, the root of all evil and bad things.



Yes. FBM's editing and presentation there was thoroughly worthy of the the rag he cleaned the piece from though!


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

But cyclists…









						Man pulls knife on queue jumper at London petrol station
					

A car passenger pulled out a knife on a driver who had allegedly tried to jump the queue at a Londonpetrol station in the ongoing fuel crisis, a witness claims.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

Undoubtedly both cyclists in disguise doing a false flag stunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Undoubtedly both cyclists in disguise doing a false flag stunt.



The article even makes clear that knife-man was a passenger rather than the driver. 

"Passenger" means cyclist. This bloke obviously "fled on foot" to his bike parked somewhere nearby, then cycled home to beat his wife and kids.


----------



## klang (Sep 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Undoubtedly both cyclists in disguise doing a false flag stunt.


crisis actors. join the dots.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But cyclists…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But motorists.   









						Woman raped near main road in Poole by cyclist
					

Police say the victim was attacked on Sunday morning as she walked from Bournemouth to Branksome.



					www.bbc.com
				



Idiot


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

er, okay....


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 290484
> 
> View attachment 290485
> 
> er, okay....



Truly desperate stuff ! 

I like it though. Exactly the reaction I'm after from you. Keep it up


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Truly desperate stuff !
> 
> I like it though. Exactly the reaction I'm after from you. Keep it up


He's like the little kid in the school playground who wants to join the big boys' gang, and every so often he runs up to someone and says 'Your feet stink' before running away again, thinking he's garnered some respect from the big boys, while they're actually laughing at him. 
I get the impression he's not very bright.


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 290484
> 
> View attachment 290485
> 
> er, okay....


That is fucking priceless. Well done


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Yeah, laughing at rape because you think you got one over someone on the internet is completely fucking normal.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> He's like the little kid in the school playground who wants to join the big boys' gang, and every so often he runs up to someone and says 'Your feet stink' before running away again, thinking he's garnered some respect from the big boys, while they're actually laughing at him.
> I get the impression he's not very bright.



He's a proper little crank. Definitely a returner but I can't quite pick him yet. We'll get there


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yeah, laughing at rape because you think you got one over someone on the internet is completely fucking normal.



Yeah, that's exactly what we were laughing at. You bell! 

I'm in the mood to give you another spanking today. What else you got?


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's a proper little crank. Definitely a returner but I can't quite pick him yet. We'll get there


Doubt it. Looks like someone who joined to discuss a local issue and mistook this thread for one that hadn't been overrun by trolls.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Doubt it. Looks like someone who joined to discuss a local issue and mistook this thread for one that hadn't been overrun by trolls.



He's bang out of luck then.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, that's exactly what we were laughing at. You bell!
> 
> I'm in the mood to give you another spanking today. What else you got?


You were literally laughing at rape. Because you think you've scored internet points. Lovely.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> You were literally laughing at rape.



Even you're not this stupid. We were laughing at the fact that your halfwit mate made a ham-fisted attempt at equating motorists to knife-wielders because of a news article, to which Saul responded by satirically equating cyclists to rapists because of another article.

Wouldn't expect someone like you to get it though, in fairness.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> He's like the little kid in the school playground who wants to join the big boys' gang, and every so often he runs up to someone and says 'Your feet stink' before running away again, thinking he's garnered some respect from the big boys, while they're actually laughing at him.
> I get the impression he's not very bright.


Love the fact that you think you're "big boys".... or that I want your respect....


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Even you're not this stupid. We were laughing at the fact that your halfwit mate made a ham-fisted attempt at equating motorists to knife-wielders because of a news article, to which Saul responded by satirically equating cyclists to rapists because of another article.
> 
> Wouldn't expect someone like you to get it though, in fairness.


And I wouldn't expect someone like you to show a modicum of decorum when discussing rape.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love the fact that you think you're "big boys".... or that I want your respect....



 This is the level of comprehension that we've come to expect from you.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> And I wouldn't expect someone like you to show a modicum of decorum when discussing rape.



Good. Because nobody is discussing rape on this thread no matter how hard you desperately try to lever it in.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

I mean there are almost certainly actual rape victims who read these boards though hopefully they've long ago given up on this thread. How do you think that would feel reading a load of 'but cyclists rape people haw haw haw'?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> I mean there are almost certainly actual rape victims who read these boards though hopefully they've long ago given up on this thread. How do you think that would feel reading a load of 'but cyclists rape people haw haw haw'?



I'd hope they'd consider the context of what's being said and react appropriately. Tell you what, if any do make me aware that they're hurt or offended I shall explain or retract accordingly. This edcraw is a sock of yours isn't he? There can't be 2 people this fucking stupid on the same boards.

This is going to be another one of your 'cyclist genital mutilation' gigs isn't it? Remember how well that went for you?


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'd hope they'd consider the context of what's being said and react appropriately. Tell you what, if any do make me aware that they're hurt or offended I shall explain or retract accordingly. This edcraw is a sock of yours isn't he? There can't be 2 people this fucking stupid on the same boards.
> 
> This is going to be another one of your cyclist mutilation gigs isn't it?


So someone actually has to tell you they're a rape victim to get the most basic politeness and respect from you? Does that sound fair? It's like saying it's fine to be racist until a black person says they're offended.


----------



## T & P (Sep 28, 2021)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> So someone actually has to tell you they're a rape victim to get the most basic politeness and respect from you? Does that sound fair? It's like saying it's fine to be racist until a black person says they're offended.



No. I don't believe that what has happened would be considered by anyone, except morons, to be what you're trying to make it. Big difference. 

Are you sure you're a teacher?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Good. Because nobody is discussing rape on this thread no matter how hard you desperately try to lever it in.


He knows exactly what was meant, he's just playing to his audience. It's like tag team Cannon and Ball.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> He knows exactly what was meant, he's just playing to his audience. It's like tag team Cannon and Ball.



I know, but he's hooked again. He'll disappear up his rectum trying to bend this into something weird.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well I think the whole country is proving that most car owners are a bunch of selfish twunts.


I'm mostly disappointed that my commuting route doesn't take me past any petrol stations. But the local Facebook Oh God Please Tell Me Where I Can Fill Up posts are helping.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Such a classy couple of guys


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No. I don't believe that what has happened would be considered by anyone, except morons, to be what you're trying to make it. Big difference.
> 
> Are you sure you're a teacher?


I know you pride yourself on being a cunt but this isn't comedy cuntery. Anyway, commute over, so feel free to wallow in your moral vacuity.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm mostly disappointed that my commuting route doesn't take me past any petrol stations. But the local Facebook Oh God Please Tell Me Where I Can Fill Up posts are helping.



I deliberately changed mine yesterday to get a few in. It was joyous!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> So someone actually has to tell you they're a rape victim to get the most basic politeness and respect from you? Does that sound fair? It's like saying it's fine to be racist until a black person says they're offended.


Oh stop it.  Faux outrage is fucking annoying.  And no-one mentioned rape except that Edcraw person.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Doubt it. Looks like someone who joined to discuss a local issue and mistook this thread for one that hadn't been overrun by trolls.


A troll thread containing trolling. The mind boggles!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm mostly disappointed that my commuting route doesn't take me past any petrol stations. But the local Facebook Oh God Please Tell Me Where I Can Fill Up posts are helping.



Thanks, am now checking out nextdoor and giggling


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh stop it.  Faux outrage is fucking annoying.  And no-one mentioned rape except that Edcraw person.


Its not 'faux'. I genuinely think that's crossed a line. But some people are so keen to avoid being labelled a hypocrite that they'll live their whole lives as a piece of shit just for consistency.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 28, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Thanks, am now checking out nextdoor and giggling


The fascinating thing about Nextdoor is that people are rude under their real name and _part of their address_. It doesn't do much for the argument against anonymity.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Anyway, commute over, so feel free to wallow in your moral vacuity.



Ah, come on. It normally takes a bit more than this before you realised you've fucked it, and flounce!


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, come on. It normally takes a bit more than this before you realised you've fucked it, and flounce!


No. I'm genuinely pissed off this time. Do one cunt.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Its not 'faux'.


It really is, and it's not very nice, trying to score points that way.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Do one cunt.



Well you know that's not going to work, don't you?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It really is, and it's not very nice, trying to score points that way.



Spot on. 

He's doing _precisely _what he's accusing others of.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It really is, and it's not very nice, trying to score points that way.


Fuck off you worthless shitstain. The thread's a laugh but I've always argued my actual position give or take a bit of hyperbole. I would never use rape jokes to score points because I'm not a worthless fucking oxygen thief like you.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Fuck off you worthless shitstain. The thread's a laugh but I've always argued my actual position give or take a bit of hyperbole. I would never use rape jokes to score points because I'm not a worthless fucking oxygen thief like you.


“Rape jokes”. You need to get a fucking grip. You’re taking this too far to be able to exit with any degree of honour.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Fuck off you worthless shitstain. The thread's a laugh but I've always argued my actual position give or take a bit of hyperbole. I would never use rape jokes to score points because I'm not a worthless fucking oxygen thief like you.


I've also noticed you get shouty and start abusing people when you realise you're wrong and don't want to admit it. And the thread usually is a laugh, until you do this.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The fascinating thing about Nextdoor is that people are rude under their real name and _part of their address_. It doesn't do much for the argument against anonymity.
> 
> View attachment 290493



Peirs and his ilk make a decent living off being high profile arseholes so yeah cries for no anonymity online have more to do with controlling the plebs and capitalism than it does trying to make people be polite


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I've also noticed you get shouty and start abusing people when you realise you're wrong and don't want to admit it. And the thread usually is a laugh, until you do this.


And I've noticed you just say fucking horrible things until people get sick of talking to you and then claim you've won something. Go and get on with drinking yourself to death.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

Christ almighty. Someone needs to step away from the keyboard.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Go and get on with drinking yourself to death.


You shouldn't take part in threads like this if this is how it's going to react to criticism.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Oh stop it.  Faux outrage is fucking annoying.  And no-one mentioned rape except that Edcraw person.


No, it was Saul Goodman who posted the story about a rape, as part of the jokey banter.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it was Saul Goodman who posted the story about a rape, as part of the jokey banter.


No, the story was posted in an attempt to show someone how stupid their point was. But you already knew this, you're just being your usual disingenuous self.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You shouldn't take part in threads like this if this is how it's going to react to criticism.


Since when did reacting emotionally to deliberately offensive and nasty behaviour indicate some kind of weakness? I'd much rather put my faith in someone who loses it with edgelords like you than some cunt who gets off on upsetting people.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 28, 2021)

Anyway, went for a blat into the countryside today in my SUV to buy some leeks from a farm shop. I don’t think the fuel shortages have improved anyone’s driving - got overtaken on a country lane by a Vectra doing 90 in a 60 and had to beep a daft twat in an Octavia trying to join the dual carraigeway at 30mph. Didn’t see any dangerous driving by SUVs though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Since when did reacting emotionally to deliberately offensive and nasty behaviour indicate some kind of weakness? I'd much rather put my faith in someone who loses it with edgelords like you than some cunt who gets off on upsetting people.


You don't think telling somebody to drink themself to death could possibly be upsetting?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Didn’t see any dangerous driving by SUVs though.




Yeah my numbers didn't come up on Saturday, so the Mansory Urus will have to wait for tonight's big win.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> ... had to beep a daft twat in an Octavia trying to join the dual carraigeway at 30mph.









I saw him leave at the next exit.


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You don't think telling somebody to drink themself to death could possibly be upsetting?


Probably. But if your hobby's winding people up you'll have to deal with that once in a while.  And if you did actually get upset you might seem vaguely human for five minutes.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Probably. But if your hobby's winding people up you'll have to deal with that once in a while.  And if you did actually get upset you might seem vaguely human for five minutes.



He's been remarkably restrained with you today, given your nonsense. Best not push it, eh?


----------



## maomao (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's been remarkably restrained with you today, given your nonsense. Best not push it, eh?


Suck my dick.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

maomao said:


> Suck my dick.



That's the best post you've made today.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> He's been remarkably restrained with you today, given your nonsense. Best not push it, eh?


You two really do think you’re some sort of alpha male, tough guys don’t you 🤣


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You two really do think you’re some sort of alpha male, tough guys don’t you



Lol. Would've thought you'd be keeping your head down after the melt-down you got Maomao into today, puppet boy. 

Keep it up though.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Lol. Would've thought you'd be keeping your head down after the melt-down you got Maomao into today, puppet boy.
> 
> Keep it up though.



Rather proving my point there


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Rather proving my point there



You're _amazing!_


----------



## edcraw (Sep 29, 2021)

Wonder what the “alpha males” think of this:


----------



## edcraw (Sep 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You're _amazing!_




The late night edit to make it italics! 😍


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wonder what the “alpha males” think of this:




OK, I'll bite.

I'm with the _sotto voice_ comment at 0:18 - I'm not sure that the woman holding the sign saying "this is a pavement" spends much time on a pavement. The entrance to the petrol station is not a pavement as can be seen form the kerb stones. When the demonstrating wheelchair appears, the drivers make room. Most people seem to be doing their best in a difficult situation, no doubt with their spirits buoyed up by the entertaining sign woman.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2021)

For fuck sake, it really is pathetic and crass. That was a real person who got raped. It destroys people’s lives. It’s not something that you just use as a gotcha. 

It’s pathetic also to try to tar drivers with the brush of knife-wielding maniacs just because one driver does it. But nobody actually got hurt, nobody’s trauma is being used for fun. It makes the poster look like a prat for thinking it says anything other than the poster themself doesn’t understand societies. But that’s it. 

If you don’t get why using somebody’s trauma as your fun escalation in a stupid thread makes you a prick then you also are a prick.


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The entrance to the petrol station is not a pavement as can be seen form the kerb stones.


It's not a road either, it's an entrance to private land and drivers using it shouldn't be blocking pedestrians with engines idling no doubt.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wonder what the “alpha males” think of this:



Most of the drivers look to be in the wrong. They’re probably cyclists in stolen vehicles. It’d be easy enough to queue and not block the peds. However, this thread is not the place for serious traffic discussion, it’s for wind-ups and point scoring and you and maomao have some serious catching-up to do today!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The late night edit to make it italics! 😍
> 
> View attachment 290539


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


>


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But motorists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That post is fucked up. You and Spymaster are coming across as a right pair of berks over the last few pages. It's just not funny; the digs are playground and you can wriggle as much as you like Saul but that post above is utter shit.


----------



## David Clapson (Sep 29, 2021)

Why does anyone read anything by the fools mentioned above? Don't you think it's a waste of your life?  Then you multiply the stupidity by replying....FFS, why do that to yourself? Just put them on ignore and enjoy the good bits of the forum. And when you've done that, if you still need to kill time, just have a wank or eat your own earwax or something. Your quality of life will improve.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 29, 2021)

kabbes said:


> For fuck sake, it really is pathetic and crass. That was a real person who got raped. It destroys people’s lives. It’s not something that you just use as a gotcha.
> 
> It’s pathetic also to try to tar drivers with the brush of knife-wielding maniacs just because one driver does it. But nobody actually got hurt, nobody’s trauma is being used for fun. It makes the poster look like a prat for thinking it says anything other than the poster themself doesn’t understand societies. But that’s it.
> 
> If you don’t get why using somebody’s trauma as your fun escalation in a stupid thread makes you a prick then you also are a prick.



FFS... Can you not see that that's exactly what I was pointing out?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2021)

Cars lead to road rage because they isolate people from one another in protective containers and dissociate them from their environment. The knife waving and other petrol station fights are manifestations of this. The dissociation and atomisation that habitual car use leads to are one of the reasons to object to it on the basis of societal harm.

On the other hand there is no plausible association or casual link between using a bicycle and a likelihood of committing sexual assault.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 29, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> FFS... Can you not see that that's exactly what I was pointing out?


Find another way of pointing it out then. The woman was raped not far from me and just round the corner from several other urbs. She's a real person; not a point to be made in an argument. I get the point you think you're making; not sure if you've understood the objection. I'm done with this now but it was crass as fuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2021)

kabbes said:


> For fuck sake, it really is pathetic and crass. That was a real person who got raped. It destroys people’s lives. It’s not something that you just use as a gotcha.
> 
> It’s pathetic also to try to tar drivers with the brush of knife-wielding maniacs just because one driver does it. But nobody actually got hurt, nobody’s trauma is being used for fun. It makes the poster look like a prat for thinking it says anything other than the poster themself doesn’t understand societies. But that’s it.
> 
> If you don’t get why using somebody’s trauma as your fun escalation in a stupid thread makes you a prick then you also are a prick.



Pfffffffffffft

A man of your calibre shouldn't be within light-years of this thread

( and you're spouting bollocks)


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2021)

Thread needs binning at this point.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2021)

Car dependancy and the need to reduce private car use was discussed on radio 4 Today programme this morning. Once again, good to see these discussions gradually appearing in the mainstream more.

They had someone from









						Greener Transport Solutions
					






					greenertransportsolutions.com
				




Apparently they will produce a new report today but here are some excerpts from a previous one



> The Committee on Climate Change says that 62% of future reduction in emissions will rely
> on individual choices and behaviours12.  However, government has not yet properly engaged
> with the public on the substantial behaviour changes that achieving net zero will require13.
> The 2030 ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars and vans (ICEs) is welcome but it is
> ...





> Professor Greg Marsden says we must focus not only on when to stop selling ICEs but how
> we should electrify as part of a carbon pathway that delivers deep cuts right now.  The work
> of the DecarboN8 network is focused on rebalancing road space between cars, buses,
> cycling and walking; not locking-in car dependency by assuming we just replace ICEs with
> ...





> There is a disconnect between public support for tackling climate change and
> people’s understanding of the changes they need to make in their own lives21.  A
> major campaign will be needed to communicate the wider benefits of modal shift,
> such as improved health and road safety, reducing congestion and air pollution.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 30, 2021)

Cid said:


> Thread needs binning at this point.



I dunno, Cid. This thread’s like the bench outside the offie. It’s the least decorous place on the estate but at least everyone knows it’s where undesirables like maomao and edcraw hang out so all the decent folk can avoid it.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Car dependancy and the need to reduce private car use was discussed on radio 4 Today programme this morning. Once again, good to see these discussions gradually appearing in the mainstream more.
> 
> They had someone from
> 
> ...



Tldr


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The RAC Foundation reveals that the average car is parked 96.5% of the time, and only used 3.5% of the time



People just need to drive their cars more. With self-driving cars, people will be able to go for a drive just to get a change of scenery while working on their computers. 

Increasing the utilisation rate of vehicles should also reduce the need for parking space, although it may mean more road building is needed.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 1, 2021)

But cyclists


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But cyclists




Oh, cyclists get far more irate than that when their "entitlements" are denied.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> cyclists get far more irate than that when their "entitlements" are denied.


I was, to be fair, mildly ticked off when my bike battery charger was unplugged yesterday. I even tutted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Oh, cyclists get far more irate than that when their "entitlements" are denied.


Just look at maomao. He enters thermal runaway at the slightest slight.


----------



## maomao (Oct 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Just look at maomao. He enters thermal runaway at the slightest slight.


Yes, I have poor temper control and am receiving professional help for that and a couple of other issues at the moment. But I have a fulfilling job, an amazing family and am mostly happy in my own skin these days. Unlike some posters who seem to extract all their self worth from their ability to wind people up. Or worse, pride themselves on their ability to stay unwound up. 

It would be nice if you stopped tagging me. I do enjoy the actual subject of this thread but it just stinks now.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, I have poor temper control and am receiving professional help for that and a couple of other issues at the moment. But I have a fulfilling job, an amazing family and am mostly happy in my own skin these days. Unlike some posters who seem to extract all their self worth from their ability to wind people up. Or worse, pride themselves on their ability to stay unwound up.
> 
> It would be nice if you stopped tagging me. I do enjoy the actual subject of this thread but it just stinks now.



Probably needs a new thread in climate change. I suppose I shall set one up.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2021)

Climate change however is not the only reason to massively reduce car use. Probably not even the main one.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Climate change however is not the only reason to massively reduce car use. Probably not even the main one.



Fine, I'll leave you to your fun, and you can continue to argue with the handful of people who bother with this thread.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2021)

Does rather reveal what you actually think about the importance of discussing this on here mind you.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 1, 2021)

Regarding climate change, I imagine that in a table of "Things We Could Do" sorted by the column titled "CO2 saving divided by Deleterious Impact on People's Lives Score", I imagine "Elimate private car ownership including electric cars" would be somewhere down at the bottom of the table.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I do enjoy the actual subject of this thread but it just stinks now.



It's stunk since May 8, 2020, tbf.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Regarding climate change, I imagine that in a table of "Things We Could Do" sorted by the column titled "CO2 saving divided by Deleterious Impact on People's Lives Score", I imagine "Elimate private car ownership including electric cars" would be somewhere down at the bottom of the table.



Christ but you’re boring. Well, that’s it from me for today, enjoy yourselves.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's stunk since May 8, 2020, tbf.



It's a troll thread, just look at the title. In the first post the OP even admits it's not for serious discussion. Should've been moved to General or locked.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2021)

Cid said:


> Does rather reveal what you actually think about the importance of discussing this on here mind you.


Not sure what you mean by this.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

We have a problem with drivers.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2021)

Misuse of a car horn is an offence, just another one of the many driving offences nobody is ever comvicted for.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 2, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Misuse of a car horn is an offence, just another one of the many driving offences nobody is ever comvicted for.



There are plenty of convictions: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/me...ber-2019/rule-112-of-the-highway-code-states/

In any case the Tweeter is complaining about horn usage in a garage where the traffic laws restricting usage don't apply.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 2, 2021)

They're all queuing quietly then blasting their horns in celebration when they enter the petrol station?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> There are plenty of convictions: https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/me...ber-2019/rule-112-of-the-highway-code-states/
> 
> In any case the Tweeter is complaining about horn usage in a garage where the traffic laws restricting usage don't apply.


Weird thing to try and defend.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 2, 2021)

Dismayed fuel-seekers tail tanker full of mortar - BBC News
					

Driver Johnny Anderson says about 20 vehicles followed him to a building site in Northamptonshire.




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




More proof drivers are quite often thick as mince.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dismayed fuel-seekers tail tanker full of mortar - BBC News
> 
> 
> Driver Johnny Anderson says about 20 vehicles followed him to a building site in Northamptonshire.
> ...



"The man at the front wound down his window and asked me which petrol station I was going to," he said.
"When I said I wasn't, he asked me 'Why not?' and when I said I wasn't carrying petrol, he actually said 'You could have stopped and told us you weren't a petrol tanker.'

😂


----------



## T & P (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We have a problem with drivers.



If only they knew of this forum, all that man and his wife would need to do was to read your posts in this thread and they’d fall sleep within a minute.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> If only they knew of this forum, all that man and his wife would need to do was to read your posts in this thread and they’d fall sleep within a minute.


“That man”? God you’re uncultured…


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dismayed fuel-seekers tail tanker full of mortar - BBC News
> 
> 
> Driver Johnny Anderson says about 20 vehicles followed him to a building site in Northamptonshire.
> ...




GUZALINEEEE


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dismayed fuel-seekers tail tanker full of mortar - BBC News
> 
> 
> Driver Johnny Anderson says about 20 vehicles followed him to a building site in Northamptonshire.
> ...


I think this is more a Nottinghamshire thing rather than a driver thing. SpookyFrank is from there.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Dismayed fuel-seekers tail tanker full of mortar - BBC News
> 
> 
> Driver Johnny Anderson says about 20 vehicles followed him to a building site in Northamptonshire.
> ...



The best part is they'll have been wasting fuel the whole time.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 2, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The best part is they'll have been wasting fuel the whole time.


Yep


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The best part is they'll have been wasting fuel the whole time





> Yep



Yep. Burning it straight into the atmosphere.


----------



## T & P (Oct 2, 2021)

Because they’ve been happily driving for years but this one waste of fuel incident will likely be seen as such a devastating blow they’ll likely ditch their cars now, eh?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> Because they’ve been happily driving for years but this one waste of fuel incident will likely be seen as such a devastating blow they’ll likely ditch their cars now, eh?



Yes, that's exactly what nobody said.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

Oh dear the “big boys” are a bit slow this morning. They’re trying to find petrol to fill up but wasting what little they have whilst trying to find it.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> Because they’ve been happily driving for years but this one waste of fuel incident will likely be seen as such a devastating blow they’ll likely ditch their cars now, eh?


If I had a car I'd be wondering if this whole thing was a one-off for sure. Or maybe even an ongoing problem if the army is being drafted in to drive tankers.

I'm sure its just a wee blip and it'll be fine.


----------



## T & P (Oct 2, 2021)

I think it’s you who’s working at bicycle speeds this morning edcraw .

The act of following a tanker only for it to turn out to be carrying cement instead of fuel is of course funny as fuck. Rejoicing at those drivers wasting fuel in the process is however the last thing any car prohibitionist should be doing. Yet, it sadly sums up perfectly the prohibitionists’ mindset.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh dear the “big boys” are a bit slow this morning. They’re trying to find petrol to fill up but wasting what little they have whilst trying to find it.


Jokes only just been done, Einstein. 

You’re that Kirk bloke of Coronation Street, aren’t you?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> I think it’s you who’s working at bicycle speeds this morning edcraw .
> 
> The act of following a tanker only for it to turn out to be carrying cement instead of fuel is of course funny as fuck. Rejoicing at those drivers wasting fuel in the process is however the last thing any car prohibitionist should be doing. Yet, it sadly sums up perfectly the prohibitionists’ mindset.


Frank’s not a Prohibitionist. He’s a very naughty boy.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> I think it’s you who’s working at bicycle speeds this morning edcraw .
> 
> The act of following a tanker only for it to turn out to be carrying cement instead of fuel is of course funny as fuck. Rejoicing at those drivers wasting fuel in the process is however the last thing any car prohibitionist should be doing. Yet, it sadly sums up perfectly the prohibitionists’ mindset.


I think you're slightly over analysing things here. We're simply  laughing at thick twats who a) are tragic enough to blindly follow a tanker around and b) are stupid enough to not notice it's actually carrying cement. 

Their wasting fuel and thus making their situation even more desperate is merely the icing on an already tasty cake.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Their wasting fuel ...



_They're_


----------



## maomao (Oct 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> _They're_


Wrong.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> _They're_


Nope


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 2, 2021)

See, drivers can't even get basic language correct, what hope do they have when controlling a large mechanical object?


----------



## maomao (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> See, drivers can't even get basic language correct, what hope do they have when controlling a large mechanical object?


Apparently Spymaster drives a BMW because it's the only brand of car he can spell.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 2, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> We're simply laughing at thick twats



Cyclists are a source of much finer laughter material:


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Apparently Spymaster drives a BMW because it's the only brand of car he can spell.



That was pretty good for you.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 2, 2021)

I tried to find a similar funny car video but all I can find are depressing news stories.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 2, 2021)

That mortar truck is an updated version of the divinely inspired goose that people followed to go on a Crusade in 1096. Humans clearly haven't changed all that much in near a thousand years.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I tried to find a similar funny car video but all I can find are depressing news stories.



Banning private car ownership would deprive the world of epics like this:


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Banning private car ownership would deprive the world of epics like this:




That one's a classic. You want them both to die horribly.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Jokes only just been done, Einstein.
> 
> You’re that Kirk bloke of Coronation Street, aren’t you?



God, you watch Eastenders and Coronation Street!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God, you watch Eastenders and Coronation Street!



 Hook, line, and sinker!

 Working class hatred alive and well, I see. It can't be intellectual snobbery because, well, it's you.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Hook, line, and sinker!
> 
> Working class hatred alive and well, I see. It can't be intellectual snobbery because, well, it's you.



Is trolling message boards also a strictly working class pursuit?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 2, 2021)




----------



## liquidindian (Oct 2, 2021)

Eastenders, now we're talking _proper _anti-car propaganda. Looks like there have been about 25 deaths involving a vehicle according to a wiki I found. I guess if you're looking for a realistic way to kill people off in London it's the simplest choice, much easier than being pushed down a hill in the countryside somewhere.


----------



## T & P (Oct 2, 2021)

I saw on the road just now and thought of this thread


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Banning private car ownership would deprive the world of epics like this:



Typical West Reading behaviour


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



That's my friend's twitter account


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> View attachment 290997I saw on the road just now and thought of this thread



He's well late to the party. The emissions sharing program I set up here years ago is still going strong and I'm able to run 2 huge guzzlers, thanks to the sacrifices made by other on here. Suckers!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Cyclists are a source of much finer laughter material:



If that guy had been driving a car instead of a bike, the dog would probably have been killed. That's what car advocates want - innocent dogs to be killed and their owners left heartbroken.


----------



## T & P (Oct 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If that guy had been driving a car instead of a bike, the dog would probably have been killed. That's what car advocates want - innocent dogs to be killed and their owners left heartbroken.


Well, it’s rather annoying when they start barking in the middle of the night. So you can thank car owners for your restful night sleep


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



I think I might start following and submitting photos to this account:





__





						Loading…
					





					twitter.com
				




Will still post some photos on this thread as well, for educational purposes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think I might start following and submitting photos to this account:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your life is so full of adventure. Your anecdotes must have all the ladies swooning at parties.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 3, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Your life is so full of adventure. Your anecdotes must have all the ladies swooning at parties.



Such a “big boy”!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 3, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2021)

Here are some motorists carrying out ideologically motivated physical assault on some peaceful protesters.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 4, 2021)

Another PR win for drivers. Lollipop people to wear bodycams in Clacton and Basildon due to abuse fears


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here are some motorists carrying out ideologically motivated physical assault on some peaceful protesters.




Good stuff. Hope they keep it up.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here are some motorists carrying out ideologically motivated physical assault on some peaceful protesters.




What a lovely bunch of folk…


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here are some motorists carrying out ideologically motivated physical assault on some peaceful protesters.



thanks for that teuchter funniest thing I've seen for ages


----------



## T & P (Oct 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What a lovely bunch of folk…


I know. Entitled middle class twats blocking traffic so they can get free loft insulation for their detached houses. Despicable scum.


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Another PR win for drivers. Lollipop people to wear bodycams in Clacton and Basildon due to abuse fears


I used to talk to a lollipop woman when I was working out in Essex who said this was very common.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> thanks for that teuchter funniest thing I've seen for ages



If you think assaulting people is funny you're an even bigger waste of organs than I thought.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you think assaulting people is funny you're an even bigger waste of organs than I thought.



Assaulting fascists is funny, therefore whether or not assaulting people is funny depends on the circumstances.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you think assaulting people is funny you're an even bigger waste of organs than I thought.




Iain Dunked In Shit was whacked around the head with a road cone today.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you think assaulting people is funny you're an even bigger waste of organs than I thought.


Ah Frank subtle and polite as usual, a pleasure as always.
Looking at that video what I see are ordinary citizens banding together to deal with troublemakers and malcontents who are trying to enforce their unwanted and unpopular opinions on everyone else.
The very essence of what anarchists claim they want. If anyone needs to be labelled as fascists it's the clowns lying in the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Ah Frank subtle and polite as usual, a pleasure as always.
> Looking at that video what I see are ordinary citizens banding together to deal with troublemakers and malcontents who are trying to enforce their unwanted and unpopular opinions on everyone else.
> The very essence of what anarchists claim they want. If anyone needs to be labelled as fascists it's the clowns lying in the road.



Yep. Proper community action


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Looking at that video what I see are ordinary citizens banding together to deal with troublemakers and malcontents who are trying to enforce their unwanted and unpopular opinions on everyone else.


Me too, they've banded together in the middle of the road. They're mostly not anarchists and have no particular links to anarchism by the way. 

Luckily the coffin-dodgers and pensioners on this thread baying for the blood of protestors for having the temerity to get in their way for a couple of hours are on the way out. Things are going to change, not because of protestors, but because capitalists and states will shit themselves in a few years and start banning things left, right and centre. The dinosaurs will be dribbling into their soup by then and won't be looked on kindly by the inheritors of their world.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Ah Frank subtle and polite as usual, a pleasure as always.
> Looking at that video what I see are ordinary citizens banding together to deal with troublemakers and malcontents who are trying to enforce their unwanted and unpopular opinions on everyone else.
> The very essence of what anarchists claim they want. If anyone needs to be labelled as fascists it's the clowns lying in the road.



To think this board used to be an activist think tank. Now it's just another mouthpiece for I'm-alright-jack, just-common-sense, what-have-future-generations-ever-done-for-me bootlickers.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

Oops touched a couple of raw nerves there eh?


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Oops touched a couple of raw nerves there eh?


Well done. You were successfully obnoxious on the internet. You're grandchildren must be so proud.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 4, 2021)

__





						Birmingham to become a super-sized low-traffic neighbourhood | Birmingham | The Guardian
					

Council plans to divert car traffic from city via a ring road while providing more buses and cycle lines




					amp.theguardian.com
				




Can’t wait to taste the salty tears from my cities resident dinosaurs over this


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well done. You were successfully obnoxious on the internet. You're grandchildren must be so proud.


Oh come on maomao this is the sort of response I expect from Frank, I know you can do better than that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Oops touched a couple of raw nerves there eh?



Yeah mate you've defeated the internet's final boss and you'll now be rewarded with the thing you've always craved. A personality.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah mate you've defeated the internet's final boss and you'll now be rewarded with the thing you've always craved. A personality.


It seems I was wrong after all ^^THIS^^ is the funniest thing I have seen posted recently, Thank You as always for making me laugh Frank


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Oh come on maomao this is the sort of response I expect from Frank, I know you can do better than that.


I'm serious. One day your grandchildren, living in the poisoned cloud of some Boris era on-the-cheap nuclear reactor, barely able to afford their daily commutes in their charged-by-mile EVs let alone a day out to Cambridge beaches, will be glad that their grandfather played a tiny, nay miniscule, part in mocking and abusing anyone who wanted to discuss meaningful change on the internet.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 4, 2021)

I will say this though, there's never been a better week to celebrate ordinary folk 'acting like the police' without coming across as a colossally tone-deaf arsehole.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm serious. One day your grandchildren, living in the poisoned cloud of some Boris era on-the-cheap nuclear reactor, barely able to afford their daily commutes in their charged-by-mile EVs let alone a day out to Cambridge beaches, will be glad that their grandfather played a tiny, nay miniscule, part in mocking and abusing anyone who wanted to discuss meaningful change on the internet.


OK if that was a serious remark I apologise for being flippant but I still think you're wrong. There are problems sure but my visions of the future is considerably more optimistic than yours.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Me too, they've banded together in the middle of the road. They're mostly not anarchists and have no particular links to anarchism by the way.
> 
> Luckily the coffin-dodgers and pensioners on this thread baying for the blood of protestors for having the temerity to get in their way for a couple of hours are on the way out. Things are going to change, not because of protestors, but because capitalists and states will shit themselves in a few years and start banning things left, right and centre. The dinosaurs will be dribbling into their soup by then and won't be looked on kindly by the inheritors of their world.



 You daft plonker


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I will say this though, there's never been a better week to celebrate ordinary folk 'acting like the police' without coming across as a colossally tone-deaf arsehole.



Haha! This one's got the wallies' danders right up hasn't it?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You daft plonker



Yeah - he’s just like that character in Hollyoaks ain’t he guvnor.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - he’s just like that character in Hollyoaks ain’t he guvnor.



I don't know, but don't keep talking about him. You'll get him all worked up again.


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> my visions of the future is considerably more optimistic than yours.


Evidently. Based on fuck all though. You won't cut co2 to zero without cutting consumption and travel, and capitalism as it is won't accept deliberate degrowth so there will be confrontation and change or disaster and misery. And some day, the people who are left are going to think that the people who, at this point in history, just refused to accept that any change was needed, were a bunch of selfish cunts. But at your age at least you've got half a chance that dementia or death will come before the worst of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Evidently. Based on fuck all though. You won't cut co2 to zero without cutting consumption and travel, and capitalism as it is won't accept deliberate degrowth so there will be confrontation and change or disaster and misery. And some day, the people who are left are going to think that the people who, at this point in history, just refused to accept that any change was needed, were a bunch of selfish cunts. But at your age at least you've got half a chance that dementia or death will come before the worst of it.



What's with this new age-insulting thing you've got going on then? 

Fucks sake fella, the way you keep getting yourself into tizzies, even Sas is going to outlive you!


----------



## maomao (Oct 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What's with this new age-insulting thing you've got going on then?
> 
> Fucks sake fella, the way you keep getting yourself into tizzies, even Sas is going to outlive you!


Notwithstanding a genuine tizzy the other day, you are not a reliable identifier of tizzies. I'm genuinely fucked off with the state of the world and my kids' future but it's a slow burn.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here are some motorists carrying out ideologically motivated physical assault on some peaceful protesters.





So the full picture of this incident has now become clear; the people dragging the protesters off the road as an ambulance was trapped trying to get through. Cuntish behaviour to trap an ambulance on an emergency call.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So the full picture of this incident has now become clear; the people dragging the protesters off the road as an ambulance was trapped trying to get through. Cuntish behaviour to trap an ambulance on an emergency call.


When you say "the full picture" what you mean is "what I heard on talk radio".


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> When you say "the full picture" what you mean is "what I heard on talk radio".


I think "what I heard on the video" would suffice.
Selfish wankers, don't care who dies, so long as they get their lofts insulated for free.
No surprise that you're supporting their hatred of people.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 5, 2021)

It’s okay - that champion of the working class Priti Patel’s going to sort it.









						Priti Patel to enable police to stop disruptive protesters going to demos
					

Criminal disruption prevention orders to restrict individuals’ movement are response to Insulate Britain blocking motorways




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s okay - that champion of the working class Priti Patel’s going to sort it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Selfish cunts fucking things up for decent protesters. I hope you're happy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> When you say "the full picture" what you mean is "what I heard on talk radio".




What I saw on BBC news at 10 when the shot panned out to show the ambulance, with the paramedic pleading with protesters and those dragging them away shouting at them that the ambulance was on a call. That is what I mean. As I say, cuntish and cuntish to try and defend that teuchter and edcraw

Edit, and SpookyFrank has chosen to applaud this disgraceful action too, well done.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think "what I heard on the video" would suffice.
> Selfish wankers, don't care who dies, so long as they get their lofts insulated for free.
> No surprise that you're supporting their hatred of people.


What evidence do you have that the Insulate Britain protestors are council tenants?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Saw a cracking little altercation last night. Moron cyclist v dickhead bus driver. 

The bus was stopped at a light controlled crossroads indicating left. The moron filtered down the inside of the bus and stopped right by the door. When the lights changed the dickhead couldn't move because he'd have to immediately turn across the moron, and the moron didn't want to move because the penny had dropped and she realised she could get killed by the bus. The dickhead opened the bus door and the two of them started shouting at each other. 

It was like a football match between United and City. I wanted them both to lose!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

One of their leaders was on the telly box the other day and was forced into revealing that he hadn't bothered to insulate his own home despite being able to afford it. They want free insulation for the middle classes under the guise of helping those in fuel poverty.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Selfish cunts fucking things up for decent protesters. I hope you're happy.



You say that tongue in cheek but it's exactly what's happened. These cunts were always going to draw a response like this sooner or later and gave Patel a reason to do this on a plate.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I will say this though, there's never been a better week to celebrate ordinary folk 'acting like the police' without coming across as a colossally tone-deaf arsehole.



Ironic that the biggest actual effective direct-action protest against climate change in this country was led by an undercover Metropolitan police officer.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 5, 2021)

I think events of recent weeks have shown that fucking with the fuel supply has a much bigger impact than fucking with traffic, I hope the protesters take some lessons from this.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You say that tongue in cheek but it's exactly what's happened. These cunts were always going to draw a response like this sooner or later and gave Patel a reason to do this on a plate.



 “the measures would cover people with a "history of disruption", or where intelligence suggested they might commit crime.”

That’s a win for Hallam and his merry band of vicars.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

God. At least Clarkson gets paid for spewing his vapid hate-filled lies. Someone should tell the papers Bi0boy and Cunty Si will do it for free.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> I think events of recent weeks have shown that fucking with the fuel supply has a much bigger impact than fucking with traffic, I hope the protesters take some lessons from this.



Let's hope so. They're going to start getting criminal records for this now. So far they've said it's a price worth paying but let's see how many still think that when EU states start bringing in US style visa requirements for Brits, and their records prevent them from sipping lattes in Tuscany and Chamonix at half term.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

I have every sympathy with their aims, but it seems to me that the protestors have made a tactical error. They're not helping their cause; everyone is aware of the issue, and nobody will be persuaded to change anything as a result of this; they're just pissing people off, and putting them off the green agenda, by coming across as selfish, entitled, middle-class cranks.  And providing Patel an excuse to get tough with protestors that's popular with the public.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> God. At least Clarkson gets paid for spewing his vapid hate-filled lies. Someone should tell the papers Bi0boy and Cunty Si will do it for free.



Hooked before 7.30am. This is getting easier!


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> let's see how many still think that when EU states start bringing in US style visa requirements for Brits, and their records prevent them from sipping lattes in Tuscany and Chamonix at half term.



I skipped a lot of pages of this thread, clearly there is a lot to unpack.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> I skipped a lot of pages of this thread ...



That's the best way to read it, tbf.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Or just search for edcraw's posts.

They're _amazing._


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> And providing Patel an excuse to get tough with protestors that's popular with the public.


This is a complete red herring. Protests that cause any sort of disruption at all are generally unpopular with the public. 

Also big LOL at monopoly man calling them middle class. Are you claiming to be _upper_ class now?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I have every sympathy with their aims, but it seems to me that the protestors have made a tactical error. They're not helping their cause; everyone is aware of the issue, and nobody will be persuaded to change anything as a result of this; they're just pissing people off, and putting them off the green agenda, by coming across as selfish, entitled, middle-class cranks.  And providing Patel an excuse to get tough with protestors that's popular with the public.



Indeed. My mum is a militant veggie and animal lover and yet told me they should be run over.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Indeed. My mum is a militant veggie and animal lover and yet told me they should be run over.


Hitler etc.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> This is a complete red herring. Protests that cause any sort of disruption at all are generally unpopular with the public.
> 
> Also big LOL at monopoly man calling them middle class. Are you claiming to be _upper_ class now?



What do you think they're achieving, then?

I have to sell my labour power to survive; the very definition of working class.  That's not changed by the fact that you're obsessed and upset by the that I get a decent wage for doing so.  If you're unsatisfied with your own pay and conditions then you should be lashing out at capital rather than fellow workers; I'd offer my solidarity for that.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> What do you think they're achieving, then?
> 
> I have to sell my labour power to survive; the very definition of working class.  That's not changed by the fact that you're obsessed and upset by the that I get a decent wage for doing so.  If you're unsatisfied with your own pay and conditions then you should be lashing out at capital rather than fellow workers; I'd offer my solidarity for that.


I'm middle class. And so are you. Unless you'd like to declare what you do for a living now then you're most recent known job is lawyer. Do I have to explain what middle class means?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm middle class. And so are you. Unless you'd like to declare what you do for a living now then you're most recent known job is lawyer. Do I have to explain what middle class means?



I haven't been a lawyer for over 15 years.  But, no, I don't want to say what I do now, as I don't want to give away my real life identity.  But please do explain what you understand 'middle class' to mean.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hitler etc.



Yeah the Head Honcho of the protestors is a borderline holocaust denier.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I haven't been a lawyer for over 15 years.  But, no, I don't want to say what I do now, as I don't want to give away my real life identity.



Quite right too, Prime Minister.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Quite right too, Prime Minister.



Kier Starmer, obvs.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Quite right too, Prime Minister.





platinumsage said:


> Kier Starmer, obvs.


Fuck off!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Kier Starmer, obvs.



Would have worked better given he's a lawyer, but Leader of the Opposition was a bit of a gobful.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Fuck off!




The Lib Dem one, whoever that is?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Lib Dem one, whoever that is?



Layla Noran I think


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The Lib Dem one, whoever that is?


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I haven't been a lawyer for over 15 years.  But, no, I don't want to say what I do now, as I don't want to give away my real life identity.  But please do explain what you understand 'middle class' to mean.


Briefly derailing the thread from discussing the actions of the climate fascists (pat pending), this is by far the most interesting recent post in this this thread. You've got me and probably a few others wondering.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I haven't been a lawyer for over 15 years.  But, no, I don't want to say what I do now, as I don't want to give away my real life identity.  But please do explain what you understand 'middle class' to mean.



Those who either administer the relationship between capital and labour (teachers, lawyers, managers) or who benefit from it without actually owning the means of production (businessmen, farmers, shopkeepers etc.). 

If you moved from being a lawyer to your current job and it is so unique that merely mentioning it would betray your identity I find it highly unlikely that you're working class but feel free to disclose.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Those who either administer the relationship between capital and labour (teachers, lawyers, managers) or who benefit from it without actually owning the means of production (businessmen, farmers, shopkeepers etc.).
> 
> If you moved from being a lawyer to your current job and it is so unique that merely mentioning it would betray your identity I find it highly unlikely that you're working class but feel free to disclose.


I've explained that I value my privacy, so won't divulge my current job.  But I can assure you that, even on your definition - which isn't without problems, by the way - I'm not middle class.  Whereas you are. Which probably explains your much greater affinity with the insulation wallies.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

That sort of class analysis is a nonsense anyway, as surgeons would be working class but for some magic reason due to their training and salary they aren't.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've explained that I value my privacy, so won't divulge my current job.  But I can assure you that, even on your definition - which isn't without problems, by the way - I'm not middle class.  Whereas you are. Which probably explains your much greater affinity with the insulation wallies.



I don't value your privacy but will consider to judge you by the persona you project on these boards, that of a wealthy lawyer.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That sort of class analysis is a nonsense anyway, as surgeons would be working class but for some magic reason due to their training and salary they aren't.


Doctors are the same as skilled artisans, basically petits bourgeoisie unless they actually work for the state in which case they're the same as lawyers.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't value your privacy but will consider to judge you by the persona you project on these boards, that of a wealthy lawyer.



That fine, I'm used to self-professed middle class people  turning on me as a working class person whom you perceive to have gotten above his station.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

‘I may make a lot of money, and chose to stop being a lawyer 15 years ago, but I’m working class’


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> ‘I may make a lot of money, and chose to stop being a lawyer 15 years ago, but I’m working class’


He's not rich because his wife's 40k plug in EV is a Volvo not a Merc or a BMW.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> He's not rich because his wife's 40k plug in EV is a Volvo not a Merc or a BMW.



Oh fuck, and he’s actually boasted about this 

The absolute fucking balls


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> He's not rich because his wife's 40k plug in EV is a Volvo not a Merc or a BMW.


Toyota, not Volvo.  

And I've never denied being well paid.  Some working class people are. I'm sorry if that offends your middle class ideas about the natural order of things.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't value your privacy but will consider to judge you by the persona you project on these boards, that of a wealthy lawyer.


Two things you always do when you start feeling the pressure of having your arse kicked. One is to call people names; and the other is to start banging on about their wealth or class. It’s become your MO.

Nothing wrong with that. Just saying.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Toyota, not Volvo.
> 
> And I've never denied being well paid.  Some working class people are. I'm sorry if that offends your middle class ideas about the natural order of things.



Presumably you make no money off property or investments?


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Two things you always do when you start feeling the pressure of having your arse kicked. One is to call people names; and the other is to start banging on about their wealth or class. It’s become your MO.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. Just saying.


I haven't called anyone names this morning apart from repeating your wife's nickname for you. And I've had two arguments about class in response to ostensibly middle class posters referring to protestors as middle class. Hardly an MO.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> Presumably you make no money off property or investments?


No, none whatsoever.  I have to sell my labour power to live.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I haven't called anyone names this morning apart from repeating your wife's nickname for you. And I've had two arguments about class in response to ostensibly middle class posters referring to protestors as middle class. Hardly an MO.


Not just today, silly.

You do have an obsession with Athos’s wealth and class, and you do get vituperative when on the back foot. Agreed?


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, none whatsoever.  I have to sell my labour power to live.



Sure, sure.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> Sure, sure.


🤷‍♂️


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, none whatsoever.  I have to sell my labour power to live.


That's not a workable definition of 'working class'.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not just today, silly.
> 
> You do have an obsession with Athos’s wealth and class, and you do get vituperative when on the back foot. Agreed?


It's not uncommon for middle class people to get spiky with working class people whom they perceive to be getting more than their due.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's not a workable definition of 'working class'.



Lol.  I don't even fulfil the criteria for middle class that you proposed (unlike you).


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> 🤷‍♂️



What, you just stick it all in a current account or spend it on cars?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> What, you just stick it all in a current account or spend it on cars?


As I've explained previously, I don't own a car.

Despite Maomao's obsessive speculation, I don't earn a fortune, so I end up spending it.  Anything left after essentials typically goes on holidays (and the odd motorbike).


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol.  I don't even fulfil the criteria for middle class that you proposed (unlike you).



I have neither denied being middle class nor used it as a criticism of protestors. You on the other hand have been squirming like a (middle class) worm on this one. Either say what you do for a living or accept that people will judge you in what they do know.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's not a workable definition of 'working class'.


genuine question (not being flippant) how would you describe me then? I sell my labour but I own the company I sell it to that then sells my labour to other much larger companies.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Either say what you do for a living or accept that people will judge you in what they do know.


Wtf is wrong with you? He's told you that he won't say what he does for a living. That's quite reasonable. Many folk won't disclose personal information on here. And it's only you that's judging him. Bit of a broad definition of "people".


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I have neither denied being middle class nor used it as a criticism of protestors. You on the other hand have been squirming like a (middle class) worm on this one. Either say what you do for a living or accept that people will judge you in what they do know.


Oh, I completely accept that you will judge me without knowing all the facts, and couldn't care less. Us working class people are used to being looked down on by the middle class.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos denying his own privilege, so novel. Anyway, I’m no longer sat upon the morning throne and should do some work, always fun to pop in.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Wtf is wrong with you? He's told you that he won't say what he does for a living. That's quite reasonable. Many folk won't disclose personal information on here. And it's only you that's judging him. Bit of a broad definition of "people".


Because middle class pretend radicals who use 'middle class' as a criticism of protestors against the capitalist state are worth poking with sticks


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because middle class pretend radicals who use 'middle class' as a criticism of protestors against the capitalist state are worth poking with sticks



Yes but when you poke people with sticks you hold the sharp end in your hand. Thought you'd have learnt by now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> Athos denying his own privilege, so novel. Anyway, I’m no longer sat upon the morning throne and should do some work, always fun to pop in.


I'm not denying any privilege.  I'm sure I've benefited (and continue to do so) from being e.g. a straight, white male.

But I've never had any class privilege.  My mother grew up in a council house, the daughter of an Irish imigrant.  My father was the illegitimate son of a housekeeper.  Both left school at 14 for unskilled/manual work.  I was the first in my family to do A levels, and still the only one to go to university.

The closest I've come to being middle class is insofar as having the benefit of a university education - which I could only afford because I received a grant because mum and dad couldn't pay - enabled me to access well-paid jobs.

But, notwithstanding that I make a decent wage, I've always had to sell my labour power to live.  I don't work in a role that administers the relationship between labour and capital. And I've never made money from property, investments, or employing others, and never inherited/been given money.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm middle class.


Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. Your hatred of the middle-class has resulted in an inevitable self-loathing, and you don't know whether to boast about your new class status or beat yourself with one of your discarded working-class shoes, so you're attempting to justify your new-found class status by pointing the finger at others who you perceive to be middle-class... Look over there!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> What evidence do you have that the Insulate Britain protestors are council tenants?


I can guarantee that not a single one of them is. They wouldn't be welcomed into the fold. You, on the other hand...


----------



## edcraw (Oct 5, 2021)

Good to see how people’s fascist tendencies come out as soon as their right to drive everywhere is slightly impinged.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

This thread...


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Now we're getting to the crux of the problem. Your hatred of the middle-class has resulted in an inevitable self-loathing, and you don't know whether to boast about your new class status or beat yourself with one of your discarded working-class shoes, so you're attempting to justify your new-found class status by pointing the finger at others who you perceive to be middle-class... Look over there!


I haven't criticised anyone for being middle class.   Most posters here are middle class. I've criticised two ostensibly middle class posters for using it as a criticism of climate change protestors.



Saul Goodman said:


> I can guarantee that not a single one of them is. They wouldn't be welcomed into the fold. You, on the other hand...


Make your mind up then. You said they wanted their own houses insulated for free when they're clearly asking for the government to insulate social housing.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

This is what they demand:

 "That the UK government immediately promises to produce within four months a legally binding national plan to fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit , with no externalised costs, of all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy."

No consideration at all as to whether this is even desirable from a climate perspective. Insulation has huge carbon and environmental cost, splurging it on every home in an unrealistic timescale is unlikely to be the best way forward.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 5, 2021)

I read somewhere that the definition of working class is never buying Pringles unless they're on special offer and I've stuck with this since.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This is what they demand:
> 
> "That the UK government immediately promises to produce within four months a legally binding national plan to fully fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-carbon whole-house retrofit , with no externalised costs, of all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy."
> 
> No consideration at all as to whether this is even desirable from a climate perspective. Insulation has huge carbon and environmental cost, splurging it on every home in an unrealistic timescale is unlikely to be the best way forward.


That's demand 2. You've ignored demand 1.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good to see how people’s fascist tendencies come out as soon as their right to drive everywhere is slightly impinged.


It's great to see these white, middle-class heroes shouting 'fascism' from their white, middle-class perch on the social hierarchy.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's great to see these white, middle-class heroes shouting 'fascism' from their white, middle-class perch on the social hierarchy.


Are you not white now too? Pretty sure I've seen photos.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's demand 2. You've ignored demand 1.


Demand 1 is a red herring... Look over there!


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Demand 1 is a red herring... Look over there!


You're just flailing around making stuff up now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

White?
Middle-class?
Bored?
Want your London townhouse insulated at the taxpayers' expense?
Come and join Stefania the yoga teacher, and other like-minded white people.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> White?
> Middle-class?
> Bored?
> Want your London townhouse insulated at the taxpayers' expense?
> ...


So did you crop out the black person on the left or was it like that already?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 5, 2021)

"This protest happening during working hours on a weekday is made up of middle class white people!"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So did you crop out the black person on the left or was it like that already?


Maybe do some research? 



> "It does have a race issue," art student and Extinction Rebellion protester Annabelle van Dort told CNN. But Van Dort argues that Extinction Rebellion has at least brought the climate crisis onto the political agenda.
> Privately educated in a wealthy area on the outskirts of London, Van Dort said she has long been accustomed to being the only person of color in a room. She said the Extinction Rebellion meetings she goes to are largely attended by white, middle-class people, which doesn't bother her personally.
> "I don't feel like I can't go because I've always had that my entire life," she said, "but talking to some of my friends who aren't white and aren't middle class, they say it's not for them."


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Maybe do some research?
> 
> 
> View attachment 291322


No, I know that. I mean there's a black protestor's arm in your photo which contradicts your assertion that people who aren't white and middle class wouldn't be welcome. It is probably a middle-class black person though because, not surprisingly, people with more spare time are likely to be over represented in any protest, particularly a weekday one, hence all the old people. 

It is amusing, though getting a bit boring now, to see a university-educated white man throwing 'white middle class' around as a term of abuse


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I read somewhere that the definition of working class is never buying Pringles unless they're on special offer and I've stuck with this since.




If it's the minging green ones you are middle class by default, even if you shoplifted them. Probably eat them with a 'dip' too.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 5, 2021)

With people like Saul Goodman in this world we really are absolutely fucked.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So did you crop out the black person on the left or was it like that already?



There aren't any black people cropped out.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> It is amusing, though getting a bit boring now, to see a university-educated white man throwing 'white middle class' around as a term of abuse


From this day forth, you shall be known as Mr. Assumption.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

White, middle-aged, middle-class, man tries to "own the libs" by pointing out how white and middle-class they are...hmm.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> From this day forth, you shall be known as Mr. Assumption.
> 
> View attachment 291327


So they weren't really your photos or you weren't really an engineer?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> White, middle-aged, middle-class, man tries to "own the libs" by pointing out how white and middle-class they are...hmm.



Perfectly valid in this context. The supreme arrogance of these white middle-class protestors claiming to be protesting on behalf of poor people needs highlighting. If their only excuse for being middle class and white is that their protests happen on weekdays that just highlights their presumptions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> With people like Saul Goodman in this world we really are absolutely fucked.


And you shall be Mr. Sock Puppet.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I read somewhere that the definition of working class is never buying Pringles unless they're on special offer and I've stuck with this since.


Fuck me, so I AM working class after all…


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So did you crop out the black person on the left or was it like that already?


Hang on, so black people cant be middle class now?


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> Hang on, so black people cant be middle class now?


I already covered this, please keep up.  And remember I'm not the one screeching 'white middle class' at anyone who dares sit in his precious road.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

I'd like to know what edcraw thinks about all this.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I already covered this, please keep up.  And remember I'm not the one screeching 'white middle class' at anyone who dares sit in his precious road.


Hang on, so now you are saying all black people don’t like Pringles? That’s a weird view to hold.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perfectly valid in this context. The supreme arrogance of these white middle-class protestors claiming to be protesting on behalf of poor people needs highlighting. If their only excuse for being middle class and white is that their protests happen on weekdays that just highlights their presumptions.




Perfectly valid in this context. The supreme arrogance of these white middle-class posters claiming to be condemning protests on behalf of poor people needs highlighting. If their only excuse for being middle class and white is that their protests happen to disrupt car traffic that just highlights their presumptions.

Easy this.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Anyway.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Perfectly valid in this context. The supreme arrogance of these white middle-class posters claiming to be condemning protests on behalf of poor people needs highlighting. If their only excuse for being middle class and white is that their protests happen to disrupt car traffic that just highlights their presumptions.
> 
> Easy this.



I'm no car zealot, and I've expressed sympathy with their aims, but surely you accept that the fact they're largely achingly middle class is part of the reason they're so disliked by most of the public.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If it's the minging green ones you are middle class by default, even if you shoplifted them. Probably eat them with a 'dip' too.


You'd think the cunts that make them would have realised by now that there's a reason they have to keep selling off those minging green ones at half price in Lidl.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm no car zealot, and I've expressed sympathy with their aims, but surely you accept that the fact they're largely achingly middle class is part of the reason they're so disliked by most of the public.


Perhaps.

Though I suspect their presumed "middle-classness" provides a convenient excuse for the Clarksophiles to avoid the actual issue.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If it's the minging green ones you are middle class by default, even if you shoplifted them. Probably eat them with a 'dip' too.



That can’t fucking be left to stand. Green Sour Cream and chive are the best Pringles. As I’ve had to point out before, any other flavour/colour ( with the possible exception of salt n vinigat) is like that Christmas when you were a kid and you had a massive present but it turned out to be a coat.

And the entire point of Pringles is to dip in dips.

Anyone one who says otherwise has no class.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm no car zealot, and I've expressed sympathy with their aims, but surely you accept that the fact they're largely achingly middle class is part of the reason they're so disliked by most of the public.


They're not even maomao's level of middle-class. They're proper-middle-class.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You'd think the cunts that make them would have realised by now that there's a reason they have to keep selling off those minging green ones at half price in Lidl.



Does your culinary wrongness know no bounds?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Though I suspect their presumed "middle-classness" provides a convenient excuse for the Clarksophiles to avoid the actual issue.



I hate Clarkson but attempted to address the actual issue a page or two ago, but of course that part of my post was ignored.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> That can’t fucking be left to stand. Green Sour Cream and chive are the best Pringles. As I’ve had to point out before, any other flavour/colour ( with the possible exception of salt n vinigat) is like that Christmas when you were a kid and you had a massive present but it turned out to be a coat.
> 
> And the entire point of Pringles is to dip in dips.
> 
> Anyone one who says otherwise has no class.


Middle-class cnut.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> That can’t fucking be left to stand. Green Sour Cream and chive are the best Pringles. As I’ve had to point out before, any other flavour/colour ( with the possible exception of salt n vinigat) is like that Christmas when you were a kid and you had a massive present but it turned out to be a coat.
> 
> And the entire point of Pringles is to dip in dips.
> 
> Anyone one who says otherwise has no class.



What are the ones in the red tubes?


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What are the ones in the red tubes?


A fucking abomination that’s what.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Though I suspect their presumed "middle-classness" provides a convenient excuse for the Clarksophiles to avoid the actual issue.


I'm sure some are just using that to bait maomao/edcraw, but I wasn't (it's like shooting fish in a barrel).  It's a serious tactical blunder on the part of these protestors.  To start a campaign of disruption that alienates potential allies whilst achieving nothing is an own goal.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Middle-class cnut.


At least I stand against the tide of yellow Pringles.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They're not even maomao's level of middle-class. They're proper-middle-class.


I bet I make more than the average yoga teacher. What's wrong with yoga anyway? It did wonders for my back and neck, it might help with your injury.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm sure some are just using that to bait maomao/edcraw



Naaah


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I bet I make more than the average yoga teacher.


You middle class people always boasting about what you earn.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I bet I make more than the average yoga teacher.



Oooh, listen to him


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

<snap>


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I bet I make more than the average yoga teacher. What's wrong with yoga anyway? It did wonders for my back and neck, it might help with your injury.


Most yoga teachers don't need money, they were born into money... Middle-class hippy cunts! 
Namaste!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> That can’t fucking be left to stand. Green Sour Cream and chive are the best Pringles. As I’ve had to point out before, any other flavour/colour ( with the possible exception of salt n vinigat) is like that Christmas when you were a kid and you had a massive present but it turned out to be a coat.
> 
> And the entire point of Pringles is to dip in dips.
> 
> Anyone one who says otherwise has no class.




Is your monocle's diameter bigger or smaller than a Pringles tube lid?


----------



## Cloo (Oct 5, 2021)

Glad to see the important issues being discussed here. And that urban can bring class into the topic of Pringles.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm no car zealot, and I've expressed sympathy with their aims, but surely you accept that the fact they're largely achingly middle class is part of the reason they're so disliked by most of the public.


They are disliked by most of the public for pretty much the same reasons that most of the public doesn't like the RMT when they do a tube strike.

You hear much the same in either case ... "I support their general aims but the way they are doing this is alienating ordinary people who just want to get to work / see granny in hospital / etc"

We all know that the urban75 posters loudly saying this stuff about these protesters think the same about tube strikes, but are too cowardly to say so, because they can't hide behind the "white middle class" stuff.

(I bet that on average, tube drivers earn a lot more than these protesters)

On urban75, objecting to people fighting on class issues remains (mostly) taboo, even on a "banter" basis. Race too, of course. But climate change stuff, not so, it seems. I wonder where we'll be in 10 years time.


----------



## klang (Oct 5, 2021)

somewhere to the right of Top Gear is my guess


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is your monocle's diameter bigger or smaller than a Pringles tube lid?


Didn’t you hear, it’s official, apparently I am working class now.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Cloo said:


> Glad to see the important issues being discussed here. And that urban can bring class into the topic of Pringles.


One class! The snacking class!


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They are disliked by most of the public for pretty much the same reasons that most of the public doesn't like the RMT when they do a tube strike.
> 
> You hear much the same in either case ... "I support their general aims but the way they are doing this is alienating ordinary people who just want to get to work / see granny in hospital / etc"
> 
> ...


I'm not sure this is true.  Outside of the right wing press, my experience is that people are supportive of RMT action.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure this is true.  Outside of the right wing press, my experience is that people are supportive of RMT action.


It's teuchter projecting again. He thinks everying hates them because he does. I fully support them.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> You middle class people always boasting about what you earn.


Traditionally the  middle class would consider talk of money to be rather vulgar.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Traditionally the  middle class would consider talk of money to be vulgar.


Yeah, but Maomao is arriviste.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Of course the Clarksophiles are happy to say they support rail strikes. They don't use public transport.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure this is true.  Outside of the right wing press, my experience is that people are supportive of RMT action.


Outside of Urban and political friends I've never heard anyone in London in favour of tube strikes at all. It pisses off a lot of working people who are still expected to go to work for the day. I support them fully but pretending that tube strikes are popular with normal Londoners is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Outside of Urban and political friends I've never heard anyone in London in favour of tube strikes at all. It pissed off a lot of working  people who are still expected to go to work for the day. I support them fully but pretending that tube strikes are popular with normal Londoners is fucking ridiculous.


I think we move in different circles.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, but Maomao is arriviste.


Au contraire, I was brought up by middle class communists and while most of my working life was in a very culturally working class environment I was management and in charge of telling people what to do.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think we move in different circles.


I try not to move in circles though it does describe your posting style quite well.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, but Maomao is arriviste.


The nouveau riche do like to make others aware of their new-found status.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure this is true.


Educate yourself then, there have been plenty of opinion polls.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Of course the Clarksophiles are happy to say they support rail strikes. They don't use public transport.


I'm happy to say I support them because I do support them. I realise that the middle-class on this thread don't support them but that comes as no surprise.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Au contraire, I was brought up by middle class communists and while most of my working life was in a very culturally working class environment I was management and in charge of telling people what to do.


What did you do, again?   (Before turning your efforts towards indoctrination and breaking the will of the next generation of workers, on capital's behalf, I mean.)


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> What did you do, again?   (Before turning your efforts towards indoctrination and breaking the will of the next generation of workers, on capital's behalf, I mean.)


I'm afraid I can't share that kind of personal info Secret fucking Squirrel.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Of course the Clarksophiles are happy to say they support rail strikes. They don't use public transport.


And they don't care about all the people who are dependant on public transport who miss hospital appointments and so on, when there's a strike.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao cracked the whip to serve wealthy clients with motorcar travel through central London, something that is apparently against all his principles.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> What did you do, again?   (Before turning your efforts towards indoctrination and breaking the will of the next generation of workers, on capital's behalf, I mean.)


He told you, he was in charge of telling people what to do. He told taxi drivers which house to go to.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> maomao cracked the whip to serve wealthy clients with motorcar travel through central London, something that is apparently against all his principles.


Lol, seriously? No wonder he's too ashamed to say.  Hypocrite.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's teuchter projecting again. He thinks everying hates them because he does. I fully support them.



It’s because he has a bone deep burning jealousy of the people who drive this, and his twisted soul has extrapolated that to all train drivers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> And they don't care about all the people who are dependant on public transport who miss hospital appointments and so on, when there's a strike.


Showing your colours here.
I bet you were cheering whilst the cops were giving the miners a good kicking.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm happy to say I support them because I do support them. I realise that the middle-class on this thread don't support them but that comes as no surprise.


How do you get to work Saul?


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol, seriously? No wonder he's too ashamed to say.  Hypocrite.


For what? I've mentioned it in this thread before, I just don't feel obliged to answer your questions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> How do you get to work Saul?


I walk.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I walk.


Ie. You work from home.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> For what? I've mentioned it in this thread before, I just don't feel obliged to answer your questions.


Really?  You can't see any issue with being so anti-car at the same time as making your living from cars?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Ie. You work from home.


Correct, but I walk to the computer. I'd take a train if I could but none of their timetables suit my hours, nor do any of them pass by my computer.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Really?  You can't see any issue with being so anti-car at the same time as making your living from cars?


You can't sense the privilege in assuming people can just choose their job? I worked for a supposedly environmentally friendly firm for years, I realised hybrids and EVs weren't all that but had rent to pay. Then I got made redundant while my wife was pregnant and I had to work for a horrible firm that nearly drove me mad to keep everyone clothed and fed. My wife got made redundant a couple of years after this and it wasn't until Covid made me redundant again that I had the financial leeway for a career change. 

Can't believe I've just explained myself to some twat who won't even say what he does for a living.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Really?  You can't see any issue with being so anti-car at the same time as making your living from cars?



I was a vegetarian anarchist when I worked at McDonalds.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 5, 2021)

There is a massive difference between the RMT and the Climate Fascists. Despite the rantings of the Daily Fail the RMT calls a strike within the boundaries of the system and thus are part of it, they are not acting in a revolutionary manner.
Whether anyone else supports them does not undermine the justification for their actions.
The Climate Fascists are acting outside the system and view themselves as revolutionaries though they are a fairly feeble bunch who whinge like hell when the system comes down hard on them and their fellow citizenry don't support or agree with them.
If you want be a revolutionary then you should accept that not all revolutions succeed or enjoy popular support and that getting your head bust open goes with the territory. Real revolutionaries are prepared to die for their cause, somehow I don't think this lot are. It is possible of course (but not I think likely) that 30 years from now Insulate Britain/Extinction Rebellion will be remembered as the beginning of a great social movement but my bet is that they will fade away in a few years and be forgotten.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You can't sense the privilege in assuming people can just choose their job? I worked for a supposedly environmentally friendly firm for years, I realised hybrids and EVs weren't all that but had rent to pay. Then I got made redundant while my wife was pregnant and I had to work for a horrible firm that nearly drove me mad to keep everyone clothed and fed. My wife got made redundant a couple of years after this and it wasn't until Covid made me redundant again that I had the financial leeway for a career change.
> 
> Can't believe I've just explained myself to some twat who won't even say what he does for a living.


Yeah, 'cos the ONLY job you could get involved actively contributing to environmental disaster.  Reeks of exceptionalism and hypocrisy.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> I was a vegetarian anarchist when I worked at McDonalds.



Funny how it’s suggested that people can’t criticise Insulate Britain while actually caring about climate change, but on the other hand apparently people can actively work against the environment while pretending to care about it.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Funny how it’s suggested that people can’t criticise Insulate Britain while actually caring about climate change, but on the other hand apparently people can actively work against the environment while pretending to care about it.


Itd be funny if that had been suggested, yes.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, 'cos the ONLY job you could get involved actively contributing to environmental disaster.


Jesus fucking Christ. You've actually claimed to be a communist on these boards and here you are blaming a worker for the activities of their employer. 

And yes, it was the only job that paid the mortgage, but I supposed I could have moved my family into a fucking bedsit.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. You've actually claimed to be a communist on these boards and here you are blaming a worker for the activities of their employer.
> 
> And yes, it was the only job that paid the mortgage, but I supposed I could have moved my family into a fucking bedsit.



Those who lose income as a result of the Insulate Britain blockades just have to take one for the greater good I suppose.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Jesus fucking Christ. You've actually claimed to be a communist on these boards and here you are blaming a worker for the activities of their employer.
> 
> And yes, it was the only job that paid the mortgage, but I supposed I could have moved my family into a fucking bedsit.


It was rent a minute ago. At least keep the bullshit consistent.

As for the Nuremburg defence, that might go down a bit better if you weren't so quick to criticise others for what you perceive as their choices.

You're a typical preachy middle class hypocrite whose own inadequacies make him lash out at others (albeit impotently).  Funny enough, exactly the sort that made up most of the teachers at my school.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> It was rent a minute ago. At least keep the bullshit consistent.


No. You can't read. I wasn't born with a mortgage.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. You can't read. I wasn't born with a mortgage.


Just a silver spoon.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Just a silver spoon.


Had a horrible upbringing actually and would rather not discuss it. It's funny how you always claim to be a lefty (and not just a lefty, an actual _literal_ communist!) but end up shoulder to shoulder with Urban's right wing in every single thread you post on. Maybe you should rethink the way you label yourself.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> As for the Nuremburg defence, that might go down a bit better if you weren't so quick to criticise others for what you perceive as their choices.


The difference is - as I seeing it - is that maomao isn't defending whatever the shitty practices of his previous job and dismissing those criticising it as white middle-class yoga teachers (or whatever), whereas instead of ging something along the lines of "Yeah cars are pretty shitty things, I'm not defending them, I have to use them though, but good luck to the protesters" type spiel it's all Clarksophile 'bantz' and Daily Mail tropes being reeled out against XR and Insulate Britain.

So' i think your comparison is limited at best.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> And yes, it was the only job that paid the mortgage



Ahhh, a property owner too


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Had a horrible upbringing actually and would rather not discuss it. It's funny how you always claim to be a lefty (and not just a lefty, an actual _literal_ communist!) but end up shoulder to shoulder with Urban's right wing in every single thread you post on. Maybe you should rethink the way you label yourself.


I'm sorry you had a horrible childhood.

I'm not shoulder-to-shoulder with anyone on this thread.  I've not agreed with e.g. Spy or Saul, even though I can see they're just trying (successfully, it would seem) to wind you up.

The fact that you lump together anyone who disagrees with you, and, worse, that you label them all right wing, is illustrative of nothing more than the paucity and inflexibility of your thinking.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maybe you should rethink the way you label yourself.



Or perhaps you should rethink the way you label others?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> The difference is - as I seeing it - is that maomao isn't defending whatever the shitty practices of his previous job and dismissing those criticising it as white middle-class yoga teachers (or whatever), whereas instead of ging something along the lines of "Yeah cars are pretty shitty things, I'm not defending them, I have to use them though, but good luck to the protesters" type spiel it's all Clarksophile 'bantz' and Daily Mail tropes being reeled out against XR and Insulate Britain.
> 
> So' i think your comparison is limited at best.


Not by me they're not.  I've said on this thread that I'd like to see a reduction in the number of cars, and that I have sympathy for the protestors aims, albeit I think their tactics are self-defeating.  It's just that Maomao lacks the wit to discern between my sensible points and others' wind-ups.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You can't sense the privilege in assuming people can just choose their job? I worked for a supposedly environmentally friendly firm for years, I realised hybrids and EVs weren't all that but had rent to pay. Then I got made redundant while my wife was pregnant and I had to work for a horrible firm that nearly drove me mad to keep everyone clothed and fed. My wife got made redundant a couple of years after this and it wasn't until Covid made me redundant again that I had the financial leeway for a career change.
> 
> Can't believe I've just explained myself to some twat who won't even say what he does for a living.


So at the first possible opportunity you opted to go from breaking the planet to breaking children's free will? 
I can see why you get so confused on this thread.


----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's just that Maomao lacks the wit to discern between my sensible points and others' wind-ups.


Hard to when you appear to be standing shoulder to shoulder with them tbf.

...but noted, thanks.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> Hard to when you appear to be standing shoulder to shoulder with them tbf.
> 
> ...but noted, thanks.


I'm not giving 'likes' to their posts, or quoting them in agreement. They're endorsing mine, simply for the fact that they show Maomao up.  Not because we think the same about cars or the climate (if they even do believe what they say, which I doubt).


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not by me they're not.  I've said on this thread that I'd like to see a reduction in the number of cars, and that I have sympathy for the protestors aims, albeit I think their tactics are self-defeating.



Totally agree with that, and the longer this goes on, the more the general public are likely to take their own action, especially with their attitude, highlighted so well by this cunt.









						Extinction Rebellion boss admits he would block ambulance carrying dying patient
					

Roger Hallam said he would have "stayed there" when asked about footage of a woman begging campaigners to move from the road so she can follow her 81-year-old mum being rushed to hospital




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

chilango said:


> The difference is - as I seeing it - is that maomao isn't defending whatever the shitty practices of his previous job and dismissing those criticising it as white middle-class yoga teachers (or whatever), whereas instead of ging something along the lines of "Yeah cars are pretty shitty things, I'm not defending them, I have to use them though, but good luck to the protesters" type spiel it's all Clarksophile 'bantz' and Daily Mail tropes being reeled out against XR and Insulate Britain.
> 
> So' i think your comparison is limited at best.



Why would anyone who cared about climate change wish good luck to the protestors? Their insulation demands are imbecilic and their protesting methods are ineffectual and damaging.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Totally agree with that, and the longer this goes on, the more the general public are likely to take their own action, especially with their attitude, highlighted so well by this cunt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who would have guessed... 


> Julian Roger Hallam is a Welsh environmental activist, a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.
> Education: King's College London


Privileged cunt doesn't care about others... Shocker!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who would have guessed...
> 
> Privileged cunt doesn't care about others... Shocker!



Perhaps he was "misunderstood".

It won't be the first time:









						Extinction Rebellion: Co-founder apologises for Holocaust remarks
					

Comments from Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam downplaying the Holocaust sparked outrage.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## klang (Oct 5, 2021)

climate fascists!

If that's what fascism looks like these days they really have to up their game. They'd certainly do a lot worse than the left, which is quite an achievement


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps he was "misunderstood".
> 
> It won't be the first time:
> 
> ...


I'm not a Halam fan but he's got a point about the Belgian Congo which had a bigger bodycount than the Holocaust but for some strange reason is rarely discussed. It's hardly Holocaust denial anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not a Halam fan but he's got a point about the Belgian Congo which had a bigger bodycount than the Holocaust but for some strange reason is rarely discussed. It's hardly Holocaust denial anyway.



He didn't really have a point, as you can't reasonably compare, based only on the number of dead, the planned extermination of a specific group of people with a 30-year series of events involving war, famine, epidemic disease and declining birth rates.

Let's hope he hasn't used similar abject powers of reasoning when concocting the demand to mandatorily insulate all homes for free by 2030.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



Ha. Carla is a good friend of mine. She will be pleased this video is traveling so far.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, a property owner too


In a couple of years time he'll be telling us how circumstances beyond his control forced him to become an involuntary landlord. It was never his intention but its OK because the single mother renting the downstairs part of his newly converted house(s) is only paying for the mortgage on that house, and half the mortgage on his new house, so he's not profiting from her in any way.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> As for the Nuremburg defence, that might go down a bit better if you weren't so quick to criticise others for what you perceive as their choices.


Where have I done this? One example please.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Where have I done this? One example please.


Throughout this thread when you've commented on others' modes of transport.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Throughout this thread when you've commented on others' modes of transport.


I've said I thought private cars should be banned. Is this blaming individuals?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I've said I thought private cars should be banned. Is this blaming individuals?


You've gone further than that, as you well know.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> You've gone further than that, as you well know.


I don't. I've criticised posters on here for dangerous driving and I've attacked car culture and car dependency. 

But then I'm talking to a 'literal communist' who believes private transport is worth defending, thinks workers are responsible for the crimes of their bosses and gets his rocks off winding up trans people so I'm not sure you actually know what the words you're using mean.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't. I've criticised posters on here for dangerous driving and I've attacked car culture and car dependency.
> 
> But then I'm talking to a 'literal communist' who believes private transport is worth defending, thinks workers are responsible for the crimes of their bosses and gets his rocks off winding up trans people so I'm not sure you actually know what the words you're using mean.



Lol. 

I'm not defending private transport _per se._  I'd love to be in a position where its no longer the necessity it currently is for so many.  Something you lack the sense or empathy to grasp.

Some workers are responsible for some of the crimes of some employers.  Many police, for instance.

Although I'll admit I find your frothing very amusing,  winding you up is nothing to do with gender; I didn't even realise you're trans.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol.
> 
> I'm not defending private transport _per se._  I'd love to be in a position where its no longer the necessity it currently is for so many.  Something you lack the sense or empathy to grasp.
> 
> ...




You've come to that conclusion because you don't understand how anyone could have empathy for anyone who isn't exactly like them.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

And it's also a pretty nasty joke to your nasty little audience who will oblige with laughing faces. Why not just call me a faggot?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've come to that conclusion because you don't understand how anyone could have empathy for anyone who isn't exactly like them.


No, I've come to that conclusion based on your clear lack of empathy.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> And it's also a pretty nasty joke to your nasty little audience who will oblige with laughing faces. Why not just call me a faggot?


Listen, I genuinely had no idea.  I'm pretty sure you won't find any post from me in which I've acknowledged you saying that you're trans.  It just wasn't a factor whatsoever in me ribbing you.   I really don't care if you think I'm a prick or whatever - it's mutual - but I seriously don't want you to think being trans is anything to do with it.  I didn't know.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I've come to that conclusion based on your clear lack of empathy.


If you're just going to be a nasty little snide cunt about absolutely everything how about popping down to Romford for a first fight?  I'd come see you in Hertfordshire but I don't drive.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Listen, I genuinely had no idea.  I'm pretty sure you won't find any post from me in which I've acknowledged you saying that you're trans.  It just wasn't a factor whatsoever in me ribbing you.   I really don't care if you think I'm a price or whatever - it's mutual - but I seriously don't want you to think being trans is anything to do with it.  I didn't know.


In fact you know that I'm not so this is just one long snide 'heehee, I called.him a faggot' from you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> If you're just going to be a nasty little snide cunt about absolutely everything how about popping down to Romford for a first fight?  I'd come see you in Hertfordshire but I don't drive.


Lol.  I really don't care enough about you to travel to the end of my road.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> In fact you know that I'm not so this is just one long snide 'heehee, I called.him a faggot' from you.


Well, I didn't think you were. Then you posted something that suggested otherwise.  But, fair's fair, if I've got the wrong end of the stick either way, I apologise. I wouldn't have a pop at you because of/about anything like that.  Quite apart from it being wrong,  I wouldn't need to, with the rich seam of other material you provide.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol.  I really don't care enough about you to travel to the end of my road.


You care enough to respond in minutes when quoted. Every time.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You care enough to respond in minutes when quoted. Every time.


Seconds


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 5, 2021)

Please don’t let this valuable thread end up being derailed by another dose of Urban’s transphobia.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Seconds


I was angry about the rape stuff from your mates the other day but talking to you is just making me physically sick.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I was angry about the rape stuff from your mates the other day but talking to you is just making me physically sick.


I've literally no idea what you're talking about. Which, I suspect, makes two of us.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2021)

Oooh, there's gonna be fisticuffs down Romford  


Or firsticuffs?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oooh, there's gonna be fisticuffs down Romford


There won't. Quite apart from anything else, he'd be even more of a fool than we already understand him to be by getting barred from teaching before he's even qualified, for fighting!

On top of getting a kicking.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oooh, there's gonna be fisticuffs down Romford
> 
> 
> Or firsticuffs?


It was intended to illustrate what a sneering waste of space he is but I'll admit it didn't come off.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> If you're just going to be a nasty little snide cunt about absolutely everything how about popping down to Romford for a first fight?



My word. Steady on, old chap.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)




----------



## chilango (Oct 5, 2021)

True story. I once saw a car pull over onto the hard shoulder of a motorway. I think it was the M20 in Kent. The driver and the passenger both leapt out and started leathering each other, wild roundhouses, chasing each other around their vehicle, attempted head kicks, the works. Naturally they weren't always able to keep their engagement within the confines of the hard shoulder. Daft fuckers. I hope it didn't end as badly as it had the potential to.


----------



## T & P (Oct 5, 2021)

Bin this fucking thread already ffs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

T & P said:


> Bin this fucking thread already ffs.


That would be "convenient" for the motorist lobby, wouldn't it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That would be "convenient" for the motorist lobby, wouldn't it.


Why? The thread's not about motoring and never was.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

It’s the Athos and Maomao show!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Why? The thread's not about motoring and never was.



I designed it to make it seem to people like you (and people even more gullible, too) that it was about certain things, or even not about certain things. However, what matters is what it's actually about, and its wider societal impact. Having recently carried out an assessment, I'm pleased to say that it is functioning extremely well, just like propaganda should. It's not really in my nature to congratulate myself in this way but I'm afraid that in this case it simply can't be avoided.

There's a reason motoring lobbyists and monomaniacal idealogues like T & P want the thread shut down - they are rightly worried. Can't help notice that the climate denialists have started buzzing around too, today.


----------



## A380 (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I designed it to make it seem to people like you (and people even more gullible, too) that it was about certain things, or even not about certain things. However, what matters is what it's actually about, and its wider societal impact. Having recently carried out an assessment, I'm pleased to say that it is functioning extremely well, just like propaganda should. It's not really in my nature to congratulate myself in this way but I'm afraid that in this case it simply can't be avoided.
> 
> There's a reason motoring lobbyists and monomaniacal idealogues like T & P want the thread shut down - they are rightly worried. Can't help notice that the climate denialists have started buzzing around too, today.



It’s about  Moomins obviously, you obsessed deviant.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

A380 said:


> It’s the Athos and Maomao show!




Things are coming to something when people start offering fisticuffs on the boards.

This is Urban75 not Zaire74.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Things are coming to something when people start offering fisticuffs on the boards.
> 
> This is Urban75 not Zaire74.



If people post with the sole intention of winding people up then sometimes they will lose their temper. It's not a fucking talent.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> If people post with the sole intention of winding people up then sometimes they will lose their temper. It's not a fucking talent.


Own your anger issues; I wasn't posting to wind you up, just disagreeing with the nonsense you spout.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> If people post with the sole intention of winding people up then sometimes they will lose their temper.



Yes, but post the way you do, you're going to attract responses. That's fine but you have to take the rough with the smooth. Either stop posting like that or stop whining like this.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Own your own anger issues; I wasn't posting to wind you up, just disagreeing with the nonsense you spout.


Nah, you said you were loving it. You're just a snidey little shitcunt who likes winding people up. I hope you get syphilis and your knob falls off


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but post the way you do, you're going to attract responses. That's fine but you have to take the rough with the smooth. Either stop posting like that or stop whining like this.


Also bollocks. I had four of you having a go at the same time.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nah, you said you were loving it. You're just a snidey little shitcunt who likes winding people up.


I do find your tantrums amusing, but that's not why I was posting.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> If people post with the sole intention of winding people up then sometimes they will lose their temper. It's not a fucking talent.


It fucking is, and I'm very fucking good at it


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I do find your tantrums amusing, but that's not why I was posting.


You've always been a snide cunt and you're the main reason half the boards fucked off over the trans fights. None of it was necessary and you were clearly getting off on it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Also bollocks. I had four of you having a go at the same time.



Well you brought Athos into the ruck all by yourself this morning at post #4251. Now you're whining because he's handed you your arse. This is a bollocks thread. You've positioned yourself in it in a certain way along with your buddies and others have opposed you. You're not very good at it and again you start whingeing.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It fucking is, and I'm very fucking good at it


You're not that good at it if you're reduced to picking on someone who's clearly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well you brought Athos into the ruck all by yourself this morning at post #4251. Now you're whining because he's handed you your arse. This is a bollocks thread. You've positioned yourself in it in a certain way along with your buddies and others have opposed you. You're not very good at it and again you start whingeing.


He hasn't handed me my arse at all. Most people on these boards think he's a cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're not that good at it if you're reduced to picking on someone who's clearly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.



If this is the case, stick this thread on ignore dude.

You can't start fights then cry foul when people respond because of that.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You can't start fights then cry foul when people respond because of that.


I'm not crying foul and I believe I indicated my willingness to settle the fucking matter.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've always been a snide cunt and you're the main reason half the boards fucked off over the trans fights. None of it was necessary and you were clearly getting off on it.


I don't belive that even an imbecile like you thinks that's true.  A pathetic attempt to distract from your own fragility.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't belive that even an imbecile like you thinks that's true.  A pathetic attempt to distract from your own fragility.


You were in the top three posters on every one of those threads. You personally drove posters away from here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most people on these boards think he's a cunt.


Classic cry bully.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You were in the top three posters on every one of those threads. You personally drove posters away from here.


Bullshit.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm not crying foul and I believe I indicated my willingness to settle the fucking matter.



By meeting for a fight!

Grow the fuck up 

Listen; you've called people names, insulted them, misrepresented them .... all sorts! I backed off you yesterday because I thought you were getting a bit too much but then you kicked it off again by calling me a liar this morning so the gloves came off again. This stuff doesn't happen for no reason.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Bullshit.


You were at it again on the last one that twat co-op started. You only stopped because half the boards told you to shut the fuck up. It's true I haven't taken a poll but I believe it to be true.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You were at it again on the last one that twat co-op started. You only stopped because half the boards told you to shut the fuck up. It's true I haven't taken a poll but I believe it to be true.


That you belive it to be true is not a proxy for truth, given your shaky grip on reality.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> so the gloves came off again.


And yet I didn't end up offering _you_ out.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 5, 2021)

I prefer the seagulls are cunts thread.


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> ... someone who's clearly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.


Just noticed this. So let's just leave it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're not that good at it if you're reduced to picking on someone who's clearly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.


If that's the case, why attach yourself to a thread that's clearly going to wind you up. The thread's sole purpose is to wind people u and you're well aware of this, so why not just ignore the thread?
And picking on you....? FFS


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If that's the case, why attach yourself to a thread that's clearly going to wind you up. The thread's sole purpose is to wind people u and you're well aware of this, so why not just ignore the thread?
> And picking on you....? FFS


Tbf you havent picked on me, I'm just saying that you haven't managed to wind many other people up.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> Tbf you havent picked on me, I'm just saying that you haven't managed to wind many other people up.


I wind teuchter up all the time but he rarely bites, he just ignores me when he knows he can't win.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wind teuchter up all the time but he rarely bites, he just ignores me when he knows he can't win.


I find all the anti cycling, hahaha we've all got cars stuff offensive. It will always get a reaction because I wouldn't enjoy being here if endless shite like that went unchallenged. 

And you haven't 'won' anything. You haven't changed anyone's mind, you've just been obnoxious and boring enough that they gave up. I'm particularly tenacious (or even tedious) and particularly triggered by this. I'm not going to be bullied out of saying what I think.


----------



## T & P (Oct 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I designed it to make it seem to people like you (and people even more gullible, too) that it was about certain things, or even not about certain things. However, what matters is what it's actually about, and its wider societal impact. Having recently carried out an assessment, I'm pleased to say that it is functioning extremely well, just like propaganda should. It's not really in my nature to congratulate myself in this way but I'm afraid that in this case it simply can't be avoided.
> 
> There's a reason motoring lobbyists and monomaniacal idealogues like T & P want the thread shut down - they are rightly worried. Can't help notice that the climate denialists have started buzzing around too, today.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> I find all the anti cycling, hahaha we've all got cars stuff offensive. It will always get a reaction because I wouldn't enjoy being here if endless shite like that went unchallenged.
> 
> And you haven't 'won' anything. You haven't changed anyone's mind, you've just been obnoxious and boring enough that they gave up. I'm particularly tenacious (or even tedious) and particularly triggered by this. I'm not going to be bullied out of saying what I think.


But I'm not trying to change anybody's mind or convince them of anything, I'm merely responding in kind to nonsense posts on a nonsense thread. I may not even believe some of the things I say but if it annoys teuchter it's worth wasting a bit of time on.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But I'm not trying to change anybody's mind or convince them of anything


So are what are you claiming to have won? A shitting contest?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So are what are you claiming to have won? A shitting contest?


Won?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Ah, I see what you're asking now, but you're confused. I didn't say I'd won, I said teuchter realised he couldn't win. Vast difference. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm only here to make sure teuchter doesn't think he has


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2021)

Some people don't seem to understand the difference between a good windup, and a windup that can be done by anyone who is simply willing to be offensive or insult people. The latter requires little talent. 

One of the marks of the latter type is that it's quite labour intensive - just a load of posts prodding repeatedly at the people where results are likely. A kind of brute force attack. The skilled windup just requires a few words here and there, and then sitting back and letting chaos unfold. Urban75's had a few posters good at that kind of thing over the years. Sadly not many at the moment. They do tend to get banned eventually.


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, I see what you're asking now, but you're confused. I didn't say I'd won, I said teuchter realised he couldn't win. Vast difference. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm only here to make sure teuchter doesn't think he has


So you're stopping him from winning by responding abundantly to his threads. If that worked I would be today's winner.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm only here to make sure teuchter doesn't think he has



I'm just here to experiment on people. I play a number of little games on this thread every now and then.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm just here to experiment on people. I play a number of little games on this thread every now and then.


I know, and you won the last one with flying colours


----------



## maomao (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I know, and you won the last one with flying colours


So while accusing other people of sock puppetry and 'tag-teaming', you two are actually conspiring together by PM to wind people up. It wasn't either of you that got the steam coming out of my ears today anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

maomao said:


> So while accusing other people of sock puppetry and 'tag-teaming', you two are actually conspiring together by PM to wind people up.



Not quite. It's more bingo than conspiracy.


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, I see what you're asking now, but you're confused. I didn't say I'd won, I said teuchter realised he couldn't win. Vast difference. I'm not trying to win anything. I'm only here to make sure teuchter doesn't think he has



Every post you make on here is a victory for teuchter .


----------



## Cid (Oct 5, 2021)

Jesus what the fuck am I doing wading into the cesspit at bedtime, best fuck off again.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 5, 2021)

Cid said:


> Every post you make on here is a victory for teuchter .



Only if they're in response to him.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 5, 2021)

Just ignore all four of them. Works for me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 5, 2021)

Did somebody fart?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2021)

Posting the video of drivers assaulting peaceful protestors got us about 250 posts in a day or two.

How about this? Now the police are asking people if they won't have some sympathy for drivers who get out of their vehicles to punch people.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

A driver punched a road-sitting protester with a left hook and was offered a driver awareness course?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2021)

No, they punched her after she shouted at them when they did a close pass on her, while she was cycling.

I look forward to some discussions about how it's just as bad to shout at someone after they nearly kill you, as it is to punch someone after they shout at you, and how she herself should be going on a driver awareness course, etc etc.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How about this? Now the police are asking people if they won't have some sympathy for drivers who get out of their vehicles to punch people.



I think you’ve gotten this wrong teuchter - ”left hook” here is some sort of cyclist slang for “the driver turned left while I was cycling up their near side”.

Seems appropriate given the circumstances for the complainant not to take it to court, which I note from their subsequent tweet is the course of action they decided upon.


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

Surely 'left-hooked' means turned left across and knocked off their bike.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

A man doesn't get a driver awareness course for punching a woman in the face.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Surely 'left-hooked' means turned left across and knocked off their bike.



This.

"Left-hooked" is cyclist speak for turning left in front of the treader and knocking them off.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now the police are asking people if they won't have some sympathy for drivers who get out of their vehicles to punch people.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

Proper Rodney moment there, teuchter.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2021)

Got you all with that one! So easy. Another successful experiment.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Got you all with that one! So easy. Another successful experiment.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Got you all with that one! So easy. Another successful experiment.



Channeling your inner Captain Mainwaring?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2021)

Anyway, let's discuss the serious issue, which is whether or not the police should be coming back to victims and suggesting they drop charges against dangerous drivers. And what this tells about the state of car dependency we have reached in this country.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, let's discuss the serious issue, which is whether or not the police should be coming back to victims and suggesting they drop charges against dangerous drivers. And what this tells about the state of car dependency we have reached in this country.



Has she claimed the police suggested she drop the charge?


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

I was once persuaded to drop charges against a bunch of drunk students who had kicked the shit out of my bike which I had locked outside the tube station as they had promised to pay for new wheels. They refused when they saw the bill and the police told me I couldn't undrop the charges. I was leaving the country in two weeks and didn't have time to sort it out. So I won't be dropping charges against anyone ever again. Fuck 'em.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, let's discuss the serious issue, which is whether or not the police should be coming back to victims and suggesting they drop charges against dangerous drivers. And what this tells about the state of car dependency we have reached in this country.



I suspect there is more to this than we are aware of. The court would normally decide an appropriate sentence that took into account any circumstances of the defendant, such as ability to pay and caring responsibilities. Perhaps the police advised that there was a realistic possibility that the defendent would be granted an unconditional discharge or similar.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> I was once persuaded to drop charges against a bunch of drunk students who had kicked the shit out of my bike which I had locked outside the tube station as they had promised to pay for new wheels. They refused when they saw the bill and the police told me I couldn't undrop the charges. I was leaving the country in two weeks and didn't have time to sort it out. So I won't be dropping charges against anyone ever again. Fuck 'em.



You dropped the charges before getting your money?   

Another Rodney.


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> You dropped the charges before getting your money?
> 
> Another Rodney.


It was over half a lifetime ago. I was about Rodney's age.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 6, 2021)

Christ, teuchter is basically saying 'bantz' now when he realises it's gone wonky for him.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I suspect there is more to this than we are aware of. The court would normally decide an appropriate sentence that took into account any circumstances of the defendant, such as ability to pay and caring responsibilities. Perhaps the police advised that there was a realistic possibility that the defendent would be granted an unconditional discharge or similar.



Don't humour him.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Christ, teuchter is basically saying 'bantz' now when he realises it's gone wonky for him.



His pants and trousers just fell down in the middle of a crowded street and he says "I meant to do that!"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

A teuchter ism


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 6, 2021)

How teuchter hopes he's seen...





How teuchter is seen...


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 6, 2021)

What teuchter’s lack of understanding of cyclist lingo reveals about him is that he  rarely if ever cycles, much preferring the comfort and convenience of his motor car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Got you all with that one! So easy. Another successful experiment.


Like a boss?  🤣


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## A380 (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, let's discuss the serious issue, which is whether or not the police should be coming back to victims and suggesting they drop charges against dangerous drivers. And what this tells about the state of car dependency we have reached in this country.


Old Bill putting the victim at the heart of the decision making. Victim centred justice as it were. What a disgrace,


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

There's some mileage in this one


----------



## A380 (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Got you all with that one! So easy. Another successful experiment.


Every time you tell a fib it makes a Moomin very sad.







Badly done teuchter . Badly done.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

teuchter right now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2021)

Isn't this thread supposed to be about 'anti car propaganda'?


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about 'anti car propaganda'?


No, it's about teuchter running rings around a bunch of idiots and me offering to fight people. You can change the title if you want.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, it's about teuchter running rings around a bunch of idiots ...



Nice try!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, it's about teuchter running rings around himself.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about 'anti car propaganda'?



You clearly haven't been following it.


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

Seriously, he's got a page or more of excited 'gotchas' out of a an obviously fake denial that references Spymaster's schoolboy bollocks from yesterday. You might think you're all very clever but he got all the internet points.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, it's about teuchter running rings around a bunch of idiots



It's like some people are posting from a parallel universe.


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's like some people are posting from a parallel universe.


Tell me about it. It's like watching Mrs Brown's Boys. There's a bunch of idiots laughing but fuck knows what's funny.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Seriously, he's got a page or more of excited 'gotchas' out of a an obviously fake denial that references Spymaster's schoolboy bollocks from yesterday.



Don't be silly. You're grasping at straws here after you made a total knob of yourself yesterday. 

Like a final defiant puff of smoke before the titanic disappeared.


----------



## maomao (Oct 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be silly. You're grasping at straws here after you made a total knob of yourself yesterday.
> 
> Like a final defiant puff of smoke before the titanic disappeared.


Whatever Trevor. It's sausage night tonight and I'm not wasting my time on you lot.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Whatever Trevor. It's sausage night tonight and I'm not wasting my time on you lot.


What sausages have you got?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)

maomao said:


> Whatever Trevor. It's sausage night tonight and I'm not wasting my time on you lot.


teuchter definitely got toed in the hole tonight.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> teuchter definitely got toed in the hole tonight.



No no no. He was deftly running rings around everyone by totally misunderstanding what he was posting. Genius!


----------



## chilango (Oct 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about 'anti car propaganda'?


Accidentally, it is more than ever.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 6, 2021)

It's about Pringles.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 6, 2021)




----------



## Cid (Oct 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Isn't this thread supposed to be about 'anti car propaganda'?



It's been essentially handful of middle-aged men trolling each other for ages (and was intended to be that). The subject probably needs a new thread in climate change, after all there is interesting discussion to be had (e.g in the petrol panic buying thread), it's just not going to happen here. But it serves some utility by keeping all the shit stirring off other threads. It got extra shitty over the last week or so though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Hope everyone's got over yesterday's excitement and had their cold showers and so on.

Here's another motorist assaulting a cyclist for commenting on their parking.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

As far as I can determine the driver committed no offence by parking there. The cyclist admitted they fell off due to being one of those idiotic people who bolt their feet to the pedals.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> As far as I can determine the driver committed no offence by parking there.


erm...

Rule 140​*Cycle lanes.* These are shown by road markings and signs. You *MUST NOT* drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You *MUST NOT* park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> erm...
> 
> Rule 140​*Cycle lanes.* These are shown by road markings and signs. You *MUST NOT* drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You *MUST NOT* park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.


yes but victim blaming is a lot more fun.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> erm...
> 
> Rule 140​*Cycle lanes.* These are shown by road markings and signs. You *MUST NOT* drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You *MUST NOT* park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.



That's irrelevant without an appropriate Traffic Regulation Order in place.

This is a new cycle lane rushed through, possibly unlawfully, under the COVID-19 Spaces for People scheme. I suggest you carefully read the relevant Temporary Traffic Regulation Order before commenting further.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's irrelevant without an appropriate Traffic Regulation Order in place.
> 
> This is a new cycle lane rushed through, possibly unlawfully, under the COVID-19 Spaces for People scheme. I suggest you carefully read the relevant Temporary Traffic Regulation Order before commenting further.


man - some people just really like to defend terrible drivers. I guess the driver had already carefully read the relevant order before deciding to park there.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> man - some people just really like to defend terrible drivers. I guess the driver had already carefully read the relevant order before deciding to park there.



Undoubtedly. She is a local resident and will certainly have kept abreast of the considerable public controversy associated with this scheme. LibDem Councillors were involved, there was a petition, etc etc.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> LibDem Councillors were involved


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

The driver seems to make a regular habit of being an awful person.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

btw I suggest you aquaint yourself with the legal status of this lane (and the lawful exemptions for motor vehicles entering it) before labeling her as a terrible driver - she may decide to sue for libel.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

she might tell the LibDems


----------



## Athos (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's irrelevant without an appropriate Traffic Regulation Order in place.
> 
> This is a new cycle lane rushed through, possibly unlawfully, under the COVID-19 Spaces for People scheme. I suggest you carefully read the relevant Temporary Traffic Regulation Order before commenting further.


Surely still an offence to park on double yellows?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely still an offence to park on double yellows?



Not if you're loading, or picking up or setting down passengers, or have some other lawful excuse permitted in the Traffic Regulation Order.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely still an offence to park on double yellows?


doesn't matter as long as the LibDems are involved.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not if you're loading, or picking up or setting down passengers, or have some other lawful excuse permitted in the Traffic Regulation Order.


like going home to get your mobile


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

klang said:


> like going home to get your mobile



She doesn't have to truthfully account for her lawful actions to the succession of irate cyclists who accost her.

Notice how all the images of her vehicle are from behind, so you can't see any disabled badge that might be present.


----------



## klang (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> She doesn't have to truthfully account for her lawful actions to the succession of irate cyclists who accost her.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> btw I suggest you aquaint yourself with the legal status of this lane (and the lawful exemptions for motor vehicles entering it) before labeling her as a terrible driver - she may decide to sue for libel.



think I’m on safe ground calling her an awful person though


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

As predicted, the focus is on legal loopholes which may or may not have meant that it would not be possible to prosecute the driver, rather than the fact that the driver physically assaulted someone.


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

Shouldn’t all this shit be posted in the Driving Standards thread? Every single one of these type of incidents posted ITT are as much of an argument for banning cars as a drunken twat headbutting someone in a pub being justification for banning 50 million adults in the UK from drinking alcohol. But I guess it gives the car prohibitionists something to wank over at night…


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As predicted, the focus is on legal loopholes which may or may not have meant that it would not be possible to prosecute the driver, rather than the fact that the driver physically assaulted someone.



It's clear from the tweets that the driver grabbed the cyclist to try and stop her falling over when she stopped but was unable to take her feet off the pedals. The kind driver even offered the inept cyclist a cup of tea, so there’s no need for you to act as if some sort of violent assault took place, unless of course you’re trying to engineer an argument.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> Shouldn’t all this shit be posted in the Driving Standards thread? Every single one of these type of incidents posted ITT are as much of an argument for banning cars as a drunken twat headbutting someone in a pub being justification for banning 50 million adults in the UK from drinking alcohol. But I guess it gives the car prohibitionists something to wank over at night…


Feel free to put it in the driving standards thread too. Arguably the entire driving standards thread (which I've never read but presumably contains lots of examples why people shouldn't be put in charge of vehicles any more than necessary) should be contained within this thread.

Dunno why you keep going on about cars being banned. If you want only to talk about "banning cars" why not start a "banning cars" thread. This is the unashamed anti-car propaganda thread.


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Feel free to put it in the driving standards thread too. Arguably the entire driving standards thread (which I've never read but presumably contains lots of examples why people shouldn't be put in charge of vehicles any more than necessary) should be contained within this thread.
> 
> Dunno why you keep going on about cars being banned. If you want only to talk about "banning cars" why not start a "banning cars" thread. This is the unashamed anti-car propaganda thread.


I see you’ve conceded defeat on this argument. Then again, as someone who (I believe) drinks alcohol, I can see how embarrassing it must be to tirelessly campaign against motor vehicles based on the laughably feeble case of individual instances of misbehaviour, when your particular lifestyle choice results in far more cases of antisocial, criminal and reckless behaviour than all car users could ever muster.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

There should be some kind of special award for "poster who consistently comes up with the most stupid analogies".


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There should be some kind of special award for "poster who consistently comes up with the most stupid analogies".


There is, to be presented right before the ‘Urban hypocrite of the year award’, which I believe you have won for ten years running and are the bookies favourite for this year’s gong too. Though credit where it’s due, you have beaten strong challenges this year from fellow anti car enthusiasts around here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As predicted, the focus is on legal loopholes which may or may not have meant that it would not be possible to prosecute the driver, rather than the fact that the driver physically assaulted someone.


Do you have any evidence the cyclist was assaulted, or is this just another teuchterism?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> Surely still an offence to park on double yellows?



Not if she was loading/unloading or has a blue badge - there has to be yellow markings on the kerb to rule out all stopping.

Not that I am defending her, she sounds like an entitled twat TBH.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Actually blue badge holders aren't supposed to park in a cycle lane.

Of course, in this case it was probably all fine because of some obscure loophole relating to a local implementation that means there's no obligation to abide by the spirit of the highway code or the law. And if someone challenges you on that, you'd be within your rights to assault them.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 7, 2021)

I suppose I should be glad that this thread exists to keep a lot of you busy and away from places where you might actually cause harm. 

One day, Saul and teuchter will wake up having forgotten which side they’re each supposed to be on and we’ll have ten very confusing pages of them each arguing the opposite points.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Actually blue badge holders aren't supposed to park in a cycle lane.
> 
> Of course, in this case it was probably all fine because of some obscure loophole relating to a local implementation that means there's no obligation to abide by the spirit of the highway code or the law. And if someone challenges you on that, you'd be within your rights to assault them.



Hardly "obscure loopholes" - almost every mandatory cycle lane in the country will have in its TRO a long series of exemptions for certain vehicles such as Royal Mail vehicles, vehicles involved in the maintenance of utility networks, council vehicles, taxis, vehicles accessing off-road property etc... Sometimes there will be an exemption for disabled badge holders. These aren't technicalities they are the letter and spirit of the law.

This is why the Highway Code should never be invoked by the righteous, and should serve only as an easy way for the uninformed to discover the relevant legislation, which is often conveniently linked to, although not in this case.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There should be some kind of special award for "poster who consistently comes up with the most stupid analogies".





teuchter said:


> Actually blue badge holders aren't supposed to park in a cycle lane.
> 
> Of course, in this case it was probably all fine because of some obscure loophole relating to a local implementation that means there's no obligation to abide by the spirit of the highway code or the law. And if someone challenges you on that, you'd be within your rights to assault them.


There should be some kind of special award for "poster who consistently posts shite about things they know little or nothing about" 
Oh, and an "I meant to do that" award.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The driver seems to make a regular habit of being an awful person.





The driver is a well-know local militant vegan named Ronetta Pickering, she had Laura over to try and stop her buying fish. Joolz is the woman who was done for dumping that cat in a bin.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

It’s all great and funny being anti-car in well-connected Brixton but try living without one in the sticks. Like everything, the problem is systemic.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s all great and funny being anti-car in well-connected Brixton but try living without one in the sticks. Like everything, the problem is systemic.



Don't worry - in his scheme for eliminating the private car, teuchter has stated he wants to cleanse the countryside of people and make everyone live in London next to a bus stop, so no one will be living in the sticks or have anything to complain about.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Don't worry - in his scheme for eliminating the private car, teuchter has stated he wants to cleanse the countryside of people and make everyone live in London next to a bus stop, so no one will be living in the sticks or have anything to complain about.



Presumably his tofu sandwich will be cultivated and be prepared by robots and delivered by carrier pigeons.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s all great and funny being anti-car in well-connected Brixton but try living without one in the sticks. Like everything, the problem is systemic.


Great point! I think someone said the same in post number 8 of this thread.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Great point! I think someone said the same in post number 8 of this thread.



So at least one person agrees with me then. How many in your army?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

For the record I’ve never owned a car. One would be useful though for some things. But they tend to be money drains. I feel for those who have no choice in the matter.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> For the record I’ve never owned a car. One would be useful though for some things. But they tend to be money drains. I feel for those who have no choice in the matter.



The same of course can be said by some of houses, which have a far greater carbon footprint than cars and are responsible for far more deaths. Perhaps we should all live in large communal campsites.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> responsible for far more deaths.


Go on.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Go on.



Thousands die each year from accidents in their homes, for example through falls, fire, electrocution and drowning. The  elderly, children and vulnerable people are especially at risk.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Thousands die each year from accidents in their homes, for example through falls, fire, electrocution and drowning. The  elderly, children and vulnerable people are especially at risk.


Oh, okay. Obvious nonsense. Never mind then.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Thousands die each year from accidents in their homes, for example through falls, fire, electrocution and drowning. The  elderly, children and vulnerable people are especially at risk.



Let’s get rid of houses also!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Oh, okay. Obvious nonsense. Never mind then.



Well, I didn't mention the particulate pollution from wood burners and gas boilers, not to mention construction, being responsible for thousands more deaths every year.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Let’s get rid of houses also!



Exactly, it's totally logical.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, it's totally logical.


Only if the average person spends less than 54% of their time (the percentage of accidents that happen in the home) in their houses. Otherwise they have a net protective effect. Not many people are out of their houses more than twelve hours a day. 

And insulating more houses to make them suitable for other types of heating would help with two of your other points.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Thousands die each year from accidents in their homes, for example through falls, fire, electrocution and drowning. The  elderly, children and vulnerable people are especially at risk.


Electrocution is nasty. We should probably ban electricity, or at least limit it to 12v 1A, so idiots can't hurt themselves with it. It's not the idiot's fault if they use a hairdryer in the bath and drop it into the water. It's the electricity's fault for failing to account for the behaviour of imbeciles. 
Falls are also a major cause of death. We should probably ban all heights above 3 inches.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

We should all live in motorhomes. Great big RVs for everyone!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We should all live in motorhomes. Great big RVs for everyone!


Or we could all be fucking massive hypocrites like that claptrap idiot, and go out and buy a 3.5L 'gas guzzling' van, whilst whining about the emissions from other people's cars.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So at least one person agrees with me then. How many in your army?


Not many people on this thread. The idea that car dependency is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed is quite a big deal for some people to come to terms with. We are slowly getting there, with government and wider society gradually coming around to this realisation. I think there are a few of the old-fashioned posters on here who have realised time's up whether they like it or not but don't want to acknowledge it, and that's why they are getting increasingly frenetic and desperate in their protestations.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Not many people on this thread. The idea that car dependency is a systemic problem that needs to be fixed is quite a big deal for some people to come to terms with. We are slowly getting there, with government and wider society gradually coming around to this realisation. I think there are a few of the old-fashioned posters on here who have realised time's up whether they like it or not but don't want to acknowledge it, and that's why they are getting increasingly frenetic and desperate in their protestations.



I agree with you. But it’s easy for me to say as I can get by on public transport. Where I’m from in the NE public transport isn’t like it is in London so political decisions were taken to make it be that way. Pretty hard to slam the individual over ‘choices’ when they don’t actually have one.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> think there are a few of the old-fashioned posters on here who have realised time's up whether they like it or not but don't want to acknowledge it, and that's why they are getting increasingly frenetic and desperate in their protestations.


Is this another teuchterism, where you go outside and realise cars haven't actually disappeared, and you come back and tell us the joke was on us, because bantz?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Falls are also a major cause of death. We should probably ban all heights above 3 inches.


Just ban the ground, replace it with a park & ride bus, they solve everything.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Pretty hard to slam the individual over ‘choices’ when they don’t actually have one.


I don't really think anyone here has done that though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I agree with you. But it’s easy for me to say as I can get by on public transport. Where I’m from in the NE public transport isn’t like it is in London so political decisions were taken to make it be that way. Pretty hard to slam the individual over ‘choices’ when they don’t actually have one.



Yes, I'm aware of all this and wrote some long and sensible posts towards the beginning of this thread about what happens for example in rural areas, eg:



teuchter said:


> I was not giving this thread my full attention yesterday, so coming back to this.
> 
> Rural areas are more difficult than urban of course. So I think effort should be focused on urban areas first, as they are also where most people live. Change will gradually filter outwards to increasingly lower density areas.
> 
> ...



There's not many people who actually want to engage with this properly though, so now the thread is what it is - showing up the anti- transport reform people as the brainless drones they are.


----------



## A380 (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We should all live in motorhomes. Great big RVs for everyone!


I'd vote for you!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Oh yeah, about houses.

Well, actually we have banned falling in houses. Because we have building regulations that say you're not allowed to build anything where anyone can fall more than 40cm.

But putting something in cars to stop people driving over the speed limit - well that would just be too much interference in everyone's freedom and human rights.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The driver seems to make a regular habit of being an awful person.




Oops


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Oops
> 
> 
> View attachment 291626




That's vegans for you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't really think anyone here has done that though.



I’m sticking my oar in late so won’t dispute that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Oh yeah, about houses.
> 
> Well, actually we have banned falling in houses. Because we have building regulations that say you're not allowed to build anything where anyone can fall more than 40cm.
> 
> But putting something in cars to stop people driving over the speed limit - well that would just be too much interference in everyone's freedom and human rights.



We have systems to stop people dying when they fall from roofs. Doesn’t mean people stick to them.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> We have systems to stop people dying when they fall from roofs. Doesn’t mean people stick to them.


You have to distinguish between rules that attempt to stop people from injuring or killing others, and rules that attempt to prevent people from doing things that put themselves at risk.

This is why most of these analogies are stupid - vehicles are things you take out and move at speed in public areas with lots of vulnerable people in them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The driver seems to make a regular habit of being an awful person.




Joolz "reconstructed" with the driver.

She sounds almost as bright as you, Ed!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> brainless drones


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You have to distinguish between rules that attempt to stop people from injuring or killing others, and rules that attempt to prevent people from doing things that put themselves at risk.
> 
> This is why most of these analogies are stupid - vehicles are things you take out and move at speed in public areas with lots of vulnerable people in them.



Isn’t that what driving licenses are for?


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Oh, okay. Obvious nonsense. Never mind then.


I tell you what certainly is directly linked to not only more deaths, but also far more far-reaching highly damaging consequences for both individuals and society alike.

Alcohol is responsible for an astonishingly high number of deaths, injuries and social harm to the country, including but not exclusive to anti-social behaviour, vandalism, theft, domestic violence, serious assaults, and intentional killings. Undoubtedly many, many times more detrimental to our wellbeing than privately owned cars- or cars, period- will ever fucking be.

Do I ever hear any car prohibitionists here call for booze to be banned on a similar platform to the ‘cars are detrimental to society?’

Do I cunting fuck.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Oops
> 
> 
> View attachment 291626



Come on - who’s gonna make excuses for this?


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> I tell you what certainly is directly linked to not only more deaths, but also far more far-reaching highly damaging consequences for both individuals and society alike.
> 
> Alcohol is responsible for an astonishingly high number of deaths, injuries and social harm to the country, including but not exclusive to anti-social behaviour, vandalism, theft, violence, serious assaults, and intentional killings. Undoubtedly many, many times more detrimental to our wellbeing than privately owned cars- or cars, period- will ever fucking be.
> 
> ...


I'm currently teetotal and would support greater curbs on alcohol availability.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm currently teetotal and would support greater curbs on alcohol availability.



Not sure why this somehow pinged as a response to me but I hate foreign travel. I wouldn’t say others shouldn’t do it on the basis of my preferences though.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm currently teetotal and would support greater curbs on alcohol availability.


How were your sausages?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Come on - who’s gonna make excuses for this?



Excuses for what?


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not sure why this somehow pinged as a response to me but I hate foreign travel. I wouldn’t say others shouldn’t do it on the basis of my preferences though.


It was because there was a quote of yours there that I hadn't replied to but hadn't deleted either then did when it popped up unexpectedly. I apologise for alarming you. 

I suppose me currently not drinking is irrelevant. I'd support measures to stop people convicted of violence when drinking having access to alcohol (I know that's not realistic btw). But I don't beat people up when I do drink so would still be allowed. The problems with driving are the amount of harm it does to others and the missalocation and unfair distribution of resources it results in which don't really apply to alcohol.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> It was because there was a quote of yours there that I hadn't replied to but hadn't deleted either then did when it popped up unexpectedly. I apologise for alarming you.
> 
> I suppose me currently not drinking is irrelevant. I'd support measures to stop people convicted of violence when drinking having access to alcohol (I know that's not realistic btw). But I don't beat people up when I do drink so would still be allowed. The problems with driving are the amount of harm it does to others and the missalocation and unfair distribution of resources it results in.



I guess I got to miss out on what you were going to say somewhere but had a change of heart then.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I guess I got to miss out on what you were going to say somewhere but had a change of heart then.


It was pretty boring.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> It was pretty boring.



I don’t mind a synopsis.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Oops
> 
> 
> View attachment 291626



"adrian chapman" is wrong there. The car depicted in those photos has a valid MOT obtained in March 2021 - don't believe everything you read on Twitter, especially when it's so easy to verify something yourself.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I don’t mind a synopsis.


I would.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> I would.



Is that the synopsis? Thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> I tell you what certainly is directly linked to not only more deaths, but also far more far-reaching highly damaging consequences for both individuals and society alike.
> 
> Alcohol is responsible for an astonishingly high number of deaths, injuries and social harm to the country, including but not exclusive to anti-social behaviour, vandalism, theft, domestic violence, serious assaults, and intentional killings. Undoubtedly many, many times more detrimental to our wellbeing than privately owned cars- or cars, period- will ever fucking be.
> 
> ...



Explain to us the ways you think it's equivalent, and then we can look at this in a little more detail.

Also give us some numbers just to back up what you're saying about scale.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that the synopsis?



He posted that under a picture of a goat.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 7, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> "adrian chapman" is wrong there. The car depicted in those photos has a valid MOT obtained in March 2021 - don't believe everything you read on Twitter, especially when it's so easy to verify something yourself.



Too bad - still, if she keeps knocking people off bikes, one day somebody's going to make sure that car's in no condition to ever pass an MOT again.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'd support measures to stop people convicted of violence when drinking having access to alcohol



Write to Raab and ask him how you can help then... Alcohol tags and 'chain gangs' to clean up rivers will prevent re-offending Dominic Raab to say


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Write to Raab and ask him how you can help then... Alcohol tags and 'chain gangs' to clean up rivers will prevent re-offending Dominic Raab to say


Not really a fan of the forced labour (and they should be investing in new freight canals not just pulling shopping trolleys out of the old ones) but I do like the bits about stopping violent offenders from drinking and monitoring domestic abusers.


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Explain to us the ways you think it's equivalent, and then we can look at this in a little more detail.
> 
> Also give us some numbers just to back up what you're saying about scale.


Knock yourself out



			https://www.ias.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-costs-of-alcohol-to-society.pdf
		



ETA: And before you start, there is far more to it than a purely economic cost. The personal cost, such as domestic abuse and countless other forms of alcohol-induced violence, are massively greater than anything related to car use will ever produce. But know this as well as anyone else in here, of course.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not really a fan of the forced labour (and they should be investing in new freight canals not just pulling shopping trolleys out of the old ones) but I do like the bits about stopping violent offenders from drinking and monitoring domestic abusers.




You're a shoo-in for Tory Central Office. Don't worry too much, many people get more right wing as they age. Teuchter will surely be goose-stepping about the place any day now.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You're a shoo-in for Tory Central Office. Don't worry too much, many people get more right wing as they age. Teuchter will surely be goose-stepping about the place any day now.


What do you suggest for domestic abusers then? Just let them kill women?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Too bad - still, if she keeps knocking people off bikes, one day somebody's going to make sure that car's in no condition to ever pass an MOT again.



We’ve already established that the helpful driver grabbed the cyclist to stop her falling over when she failed to unclip her pedals after stopping to shout. No need to allude to physical violence against the driver or her property.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> What do you suggest for domestic abusers then? Just let them kill women?



Meaningful counselling / programmes whilst serving their sentences.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Meaningful counselling / programmes whilst serving their sentences.


Sure. Always worth risking women's lives for men's freedom.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> Sure. Always worth risking women's lives for men's freedom.



What's your answer then? Man hits woman = life without parole?


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What's your answer then? Man hits woman = life without parole?


No. Tagging, alcohol bans where alcohol is an aggravating factor and longer term programmes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Come on - who’s gonna make excuses for this?





platinumsage said:


> The car depicted in those photos has a valid MOT obtained in March 2021 - don't believe everything you read on Twitter, especially when it's so easy to verify something yourself.


It's not often you're right, edcraw, but by jove you're wrong again. 
You must feel terrible when things like this keep happening. Or are you going to invoke a teuchterism and pretend you meant to make a fool of yourself?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. Tagging, alcohol bans where alcohol is an aggravating factor and longer term programmes.




Length? You fragile males are obsessed with it. Meaningful is better than length. Ask your wife, she’ll confirm it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> Knock yourself out
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, some C&P links aren't good enough - you have to put some effort into explaining in what ways you think restricting freedom to drink is equivalent to restricting freedom to drive on the public road, so I know if it's worth attempting a serious answer. Of course there are some things that are comparable and there are some that aren't, and we already place a whole bunch of restrictions on both activities. So you need to set out exactly what your argument is.

You see, I think that gun ownership is more usefully comparable, for various reasons. So do you want to let everyone run around with machine guns? No? You hypocrite!


----------



## T & P (Oct 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, some C&P links aren't good enough - you have to put some effort into explaining in what ways you think restricting freedom to drink is equivalent to restricting freedom to drive on the public road, so I know if it's worth attempting a serious answer. Of course there are some things that are comparable and there are some that aren't, and we already place a whole bunch of restrictions on both activities. So you need to set out exactly what your argument is.
> 
> You see, I think that gun ownership is more usefully comparable, for various reasons. So do you want to let everyone run around with machine guns? No? You hypocrite!


‘Some C&P links aren’t good enough’. LOL. Nice try 👍

Seriously though, I hope you don’t embarrass yourself any further by still pretending the gigantic detrimental cost of alcohol consumption to this country isn’t actually so? At any rate, it has every last fucking bit as much of a detrimental effect on society as private car ownership could ever do. And almost without doubt, a lot fucking worse, in fact.

You know this. Be honest for once.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2021)

Think I might switch sides.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's not often you're right, edcraw, but by jove you're wrong again.
> You must feel terrible when things like this keep happening. Or are you going to invoke a teuchterism and pretend you meant to make a fool of yourself?



Are you sure you’ve tagged me in the right thread this time! 

Not sure one of the “big boys” should be this obsessed with with someone like me. Is there something else going on here?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2021)

Ha ha - Saul Goodman screwed up and tagged the wrong person! Let me go and make several GIFs to celebrate!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2021)

Anyway the petrol crisis must be over and everyone’s out to celebrate by getting stuck in terrible traffic across most of London it seems this evening - and so many shocking drivers.

Bizarre that people on this forum seem happy to defend such shit behaviour just because people are driving - no wonder we have had this Tory government for over 10 years.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Ha ha - Saul Goodman screwed up and tagged the wrong person! Let me go and make several GIFs to celebrate!


I'll quote you, because, unbelievably, you're not as thick as edcraw... How did I tag the wrong person? He(?) was suggesting someone should reply to something. Someone replied and made him look like a bigger dick than he obviously is. How is that tagging the wrong dick?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anyway the petrol crisis must be over and everyone’s out to celebrate by getting stuck in terrible traffic across most of London it seems this evening - and so many shocking drivers.
> 
> Bizarre that people on this forum seem happy to defend such shit behaviour just because people are driving - no wonder we have had this Tory government for over 10 years.


Where did anybody defend fucking dickheads fighting over petrol? Its no surprise that you think this happened, because you're not very bright, but trust me, it hasn't happened.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

Ba[QUOTE="T & P said:


> ‘Some C&P links aren’t good enough’. LOL. Nice try 👍
> 
> Seriously though, I hope you don’t embarrass yourself any further by still pretending the gigantic detrimental cost of alcohol consumption to this country isn’t actually so? At any rate, it has every last fucking bit as much of a detrimental effect on society as private car ownership could ever do. And almost without doubt, a lot fucking worse, in fact.
> 
> You know this. Be honest for once.


Don't know if it's worse but it's certainly often underestimated. However, comparing what anti-car campaigners want to an outright ban 
on alcohol is a poor analogy when in fact what's being asked for would be more equivalent to coming down hard on the most damaging alcohol users while subsidising weed and mdma for all.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are you sure you’ve tagged me in the right thread this time!
> 
> Not sure one of the “big boys” should be this obsessed with with someone like me. Is there something else going on here?





teuchter said:


> Ha ha - Saul Goodman screwed up and tagged the wrong person! Let me go and make several GIFs to celebrate!




It was Spymaster that edcraw was referring to, but was too stupid to even get that right. No surprise they have never got it together enough to learn to drive or raise the wherewithal to buy and run a motor like a real grownup...

But feel free to carry on with your HaHa's teuchter, if it makes you feel like you have some purpose in life.



p.s. edcraw, a question mark is customary at the end of a question, not an exclamation mark.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is that the synopsis? Thanks.


It was the observation that the only people who'd been criticised for 'choices that aren't really choices' were cyclists, a fair proportion of who cycle for economic reasons.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It was Spymaster that edcraw was referring to, but was too stupid to even get that right.



I seriously can’t tell the difference (or care) tbh.


----------



## klang (Oct 8, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Where did anybody defend fucking dickheads fighting over petrol?


I don't mind them knocking each other out tbh


----------



## T & P (Oct 8, 2021)

Yet more hypocrisy . At least he has owned up to it, unlike plenty of others.









						M25 protester admits being a hypocrite after taking two trips worth 12,000 miles
					

The environmentalist spent four months in Canada and then drove a diesel-powered van around Europe.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Yet more hypocrisy . At least he has owned up to it, unlike plenty of others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hypocrisy is overstated as a fault. The only way to avoid it completely is by being a prick your whole life. At least he's trying to do the right thing now.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> Yet more hypocrisy . At least he has owned up to it, unlike plenty of others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He's named after a popular make of car too


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hypocrisy is overstated as a fault. The only way to avoid it completely is by being a prick your whole life. At least he's trying to do the right thing now.


No, he isn't. He's still being a prick. 


> Although Ford said he made his travelling mistakes before finding out about the environmental crisis, he reportedly posted in support of Extinction Rebellion before, during and after both his trips.


He's doing exactly what teuchter does. Pretending to give a fuck whilst actively not giving a fuck. But it's no surprise, is it. The world is full of virtue signalling, hypocritical cunts like them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hypocrisy is overstated as a fault. The only way to avoid it completely is by being a prick your whole life. At least he's trying to do the right thing now.



Indeed - it’s great how some on here will happily lap up the right wing media and the agenda they’re pushing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed - it’s great how some on here will happily lap up the right wing media and the agenda they’re pushing.


It's great how some on here support hypocrites. Most likely because they're also hypocrites. We know teuchter is, and David Claptrap has been boasting about the 3.5L gas guzzling van he just bought himself. I'd be surprised if there was one single car hater posting here in good faith.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hypocrisy is overstated as a fault. The only way to avoid it completely is by being a prick your whole life.



edcraw must be the least hypocritical poster on the boards then


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> edcraw must be the least hypocritical poster on the boards then


He couldn't hold a candle to you or Saul.

 My point was that criticisms of hypocrisy never come from good people. It's the sort of thing you read in right wing tabloids 'protestors seen buying coffee at starbucks' as if anyone who wants to change the world has to be some sort of saint or it's all for nought. It's just bullshit.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 8, 2021)

I’m guessing this cycling lane hasn’t been implemented correctly either - nor the requirement to have licence plates….


----------



## T & P (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> He couldn't hold a candle to you or Saul.
> 
> My point was that criticisms of hypocrisy never come from good people. It's the sort of thing you read in right wing tabloids 'protestors seen buying coffee at starbucks' as if anyone who wants to change the world has to be some sort of saint or it's all for nought. It's just bullshit.


There is a lot of that, but it is absurd to suggest all accusations of hypocrisy come from such people. There have been numerous instances of Tories or rich business bosses being accused of hypocrisy over the years by people on the left. Are those invalid in your view as well?

In the case of this twat, it seems to me it’s a clear case of ‘do as I say not as I do. I’ve had my dirty fun but none of you fuckers should be allowed to’.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> There is a lot of that, but it is absurd to suggest all accusations of hypocrisy come from such people. There have been numerous instances of Tories or rich business bosses being accused of hypocrisy over the years by people on the left. Are those invalid in your view as well?


Dunno, what accusations are you talking about? The problem with Tories tends to be being evil cunts rather than hypocrisy per se.

He probably is a bit of a wally but the point of you posting it here is to discredit protestors generally rather than to highlight his walliness. It's exactly the same thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m guessing this cycling lane hasn’t been implemented correctly either - nor the requirement to have licence plates….




The vehicle was being driven by a cyclist who was too doped-up that morning to remember what mode of transport he had stolen.


----------



## T & P (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> Dunno, what accusations are you talking about? The problem with Tories tends to be being evil cunts rather than hypocrisy per se.
> 
> He probably is a bit of a wally but the point of you posting it here is to discredit protestors generally rather than to highlight his walliness. It's exactly the same thing.


I wasn’t here yet but I believe one or two Tory ministers in the late 80s or early 90s  had to fall on their sword- or at least received fierce criticism and accusations of hypocrisy- when they were caught having extra marital affairs whilst serving in John Major’s Back to Basics morality-based government?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> I wasn’t here yet but I believe one or two Tory ministers in the late 80s or early 90s  had to fall on their sword- or at least received fierce criticism and accusations of hypocrisy- when they were caught having extra marital affairs whilst serving in John Major’s Back to Basics morality-based government?



David Mellor and Neil Hamilton?


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 8, 2021)

Tim Yeo, Cecil Parkinson too


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 8, 2021)

They don’t appear to be playing the morality card any more anyway. Nothing sticks to Johnson and Hancock fell on his sword over Covid stuff IIRC rather than banging his mistress.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> I wasn’t here yet but I believe one or two Tory ministers in the late 80s or early 90s  had to fall on their sword- or at least received fierce criticism and accusations of hypocrisy- when they were caught having extra marital affairs whilst serving in John Major’s Back to Basics morality-based government?


Yes, I'm specifically saying that's a load of nonsense and less important than their actual behaviour. And very few, if any, were just for having an affair. 

Mellor was for financial stuff with shady Arabs. Hamiltons were cash for questions. Cecil Parkinson was sacked from Thatcher's government for lying to her about an affair. Of the ones mentioned so far Tom Yeo is the only one who resigned for anything like 'hipocrisy'


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 8, 2021)

Perhaps adultery is not seen by wider society in the way it was at the time of Profumo etc (obviously there was a National security angle there too)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 8, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> Perhaps adultery is not seen by wider society in the way it was at the time of Profumo etc (obviously there was a National security angle there too)



Nobody cares unless those doing it are preaching the opposite. But the Tories have long abandoned the Christian vote presumably because it’s now irrelevant.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> Perhaps adultery is not seen by wider society in the way it was at the time of Profumo etc (obviously there was a National security angle there too)


There's almost always another angle on it but the press delight in exposing the affair that goes along with it like Blunkett's lover's nanny's visa. Prescott's affair came out about the same time and he didn't have to resign.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> There's almost always another angle on it but the press delight in exposing the affair that goes along with it like Blunkett's lover's nanny's visa. Prescott's affair came out about the same time and he didn't have to resign.



The press want to sell papers and catching people with their pants down in the wrong place appeals to the curtain twitchers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2021)

Hypocrisy; Joshua Smith has been busy glueing himself to roads on behalf of Insulate Britain, turns out he’s a millionaire landlord. In his portfolio are six properties in Oldham that have energy ratings of E and F.


----------



## maomao (Oct 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hypocrisy; Joshua Smith has been busy glueing himself to roads on behalf of Insulate Britain, turns out he’s a millionaire landlord. In his portfolio are six properties in Oldham that have energy ratings of E and F.


So do you agree with Conservative MP Lee Anderson who said: ‘They are total hippy-crites, with too much money, and no understanding of the real world.’ ?

You're a shoo-in for Tory Central Office. Don't worry too much, many people get more right wing as they age. Spymaster will surely be goose-stepping about the place any day now.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The vehicle was being driven by a cyclist who was too doped-up that morning to remember what mode of transport he had stolen.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the driver of this vehicle has a much longer rap sheet than just  driving recklessly.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 8, 2021)

maomao said:


> So do you agree with Conservative MP Lee Anderson who said: ‘They are total hippy-crites, with too much money, and no understanding of the real world.’ ?



No, just daft cunts.



maomao said:


> You're a shoo-in for Tory Central Office. Don't worry too much, many people get more right wing as they age. Spymaster will surely be goose-stepping about the place any day now.



So no, I won’t be joining you and Raab at your love-in.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hypocrisy; Joshua Smith has been busy glueing himself to roads on behalf of Insulate Britain, turns out he’s a millionaire landlord. In his portfolio are six properties in Oldham that have energy ratings of E and F.


Well quelle surprise!


----------



## alex_ (Oct 9, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hypocrisy; Joshua Smith has been busy glueing himself to roads on behalf of Insulate Britain, turns out he’s a millionaire landlord. In his portfolio are six properties in Oldham that have energy ratings of E and F.



Landlords campaigning for a government bailout ?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 9, 2021)

Anyone who criticises landlord hypocrisy is a Tory now, according to the car abolitionists? Not a surprise I suppose. Most militant cyclists are supporters of the LibDems, which has a greater proportion of landlords amongst its members than any other party.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 9, 2021)

Peak urban


----------



## alex_ (Oct 9, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hypocrisy; Joshua Smith has been busy glueing himself to roads on behalf of Insulate Britain, turns out he’s a millionaire landlord. In his portfolio are six properties in Oldham that have energy ratings of E and F.



It’s not actually hypocrisy though is it - their whole campaign is that the government should pay for this. He’s being entirely consistent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2021)

alex_ said:


> It’s not actually hypocrisy though is it - their whole campaign is that the government should pay for this. He’s being entirely consistent.




Guess so. I might glue my hands to the runway at Gatwick to demand the government supplies free MDMA to everyone.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 9, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Guess so. I might glue my hands to the runway at Gatwick to demand the government supplies free MDMA to everyone.


I reckon that’s an action a lot of people could get behind.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Spymaster will surely be goose-stepping about the place any day now.



Now now. You know this ends in tears.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 9, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Guess so. I might glue my hands to the runway at Gatwick to demand the government supplies free MDMA to everyone.



“I can’t get high, you can’t fly”


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Now now. You know this ends in tears!


I'm very sorry. I didn't realise I'd made you cry.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm very sorry. I didn't realise I'd made you cry.



Says Mr Meltdown.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 9, 2021)

How's this for hypocrisy? This guy says we need more room for bikes in cities and he runs Volkswagen. Volkswagen CEO: Cars will only be accepted in cities in future if space given to bikes


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Anyone who criticises landlord hypocrisy is a Tory now, according to the car abolitionists? Not a surprise I suppose. Most militant cyclists are supporters of the LibDems, which has a greater proportion of landlords amongst its members than any other party.


No. He's a scumbag because he's a landlord regardless of whether or not he was on a protest. The 'hypocrisy' is just smearing. Jimmy Savile was a hypocrite but that doesn't mean people shouldn't help charity.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> No. He's a scumbag because he's a landlord regardless of whether or not he was on a protest. The 'hypocrisy' is just smearing. Jimmy Savile was a hypocrite but that doesn't mean people shouldn't help charity.


But people rightly despise Savile.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But people rightly despise Savile.


Yes, and landlords. But you're not discussing him because he's a landlord. You're discussing him because he's a road protestor and you want to smear the rest of them by association. I'm sure there are some lovely road protestors too but that's still got nothing to do with whether they're right or not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, and landlords. But you're not discussing him because he's a landlord. You're discussing him because he's a road protestor and you want to smear the rest of them by association. I'm sure there are some lovely road protestors too but that's still got nothing to do with whether they're right or not.


He's being discussed because he's both. Exactly as most people expect. Rich kid with lots of poorly insulated houses wants free insulation for everyone.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 9, 2021)

It's fine to be a wealthy toff/landlord etc if you're on the left e.g. Tony Benn. Never mind your actions, as long as you say the right things you're totally cool.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> wants free insulation for everyone.


And angry alcoholic on the internet wants pensioners in social housing to freeze or bankrupt themselves. I know that ad hominem just means 'insults' round here but it literally means what you've just done. You've attacked the person not their argument.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> And angry alcoholic on the internet wants pensioners in social housing to freeze or bankrupt themselves. I know that ad hominem just means 'insults' round here but it literally means what you've just done. You've attacked the person not their argument.


Are you going to get abusive again and start crying?


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you going to get abusive again and start crying?


You'll have to do a lot better than that.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> And angry alcoholic on the internet wants pensioners in social housing to freeze or bankrupt themselves. I know that ad hominem just means 'insults' round here but it literally means what you've just done. You've attacked the person not their argument.



He's not blocking roads to so that pensioners in social housing can have their homes insulated, something that most people can agree with. He's doing it so that every home is insulted at public expense, whether it, or the owner, really needs it or not.

There are millions of homes in the UK that would benefit massively from more insulation, but there are millions where the benefits would be only marginal. If you invest public money in insulating all of them, that money, and the newly trained up workforce, and insulating materials, will in millions of cases be wasted because there will be much better uses for that money and those people (trained heat pump installers, or  the purchase of solar panels or whatever).

Their demands are ill-thought out, I would say childish, but children are generally better at thinking up policies than these muppets.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> He's not blocking roads to so that pensioners in social housing can have their homes insulated, something that most people can agree with. He's doing it so that every home is insulted at public expense, whether it, or the owner, really needs it or not.
> 
> There are millions of homes in the UK that would benefit massively from more insulation, but there are millions where the benefits would be only marginal. If you invest public money in insulating all of them, that money, and the newly trained up workforce, and insulating materials, will in millions of cases be wasted because there will be much better uses for that money and those people (trained heat pump installers, or  the purchase of solar panels or whatever).
> 
> Their demands are ill-thought out, I would say childish, but children are generally better at thinking up policies that these muppets.


So you've read their in depth policy documents and you disagree with the The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) 2018 report, Scaling Up Retro fit 2050?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> You'll have to do a lot better than that.


I won't stoop to your level by bringing your drug use into the argument.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> So you've read their in depth policy documents and you disagree with the The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) 2018 report, Scaling Up Retro fit 2050?



Yes, Ive read the IET report, but it seems Insulate Britain’s haven’t, otherwise they wouldn’t have issued their two headline demands.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, Ive read the IET report, but it seems Insulate Britain’s haven’t, otherwise they wouldn’t have issued their two headline demands.


Well, I actually think some parts of your last post but one are a reasonable response to their demands. But I think it's better to have straightforward demands with costs and benefits than just 'lower emissions'. And remember the alternative isn't investing it on solar and heat pumps. At the moment the alternative is doing not much of anything.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I won't stoop to your level by bringing your drug use into the argument.


Chance would be a fine thing. I was merely demonstrating the inadequacy of your own argument. Pointing at someone's faults doesn't prove anything about their point.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Chance would be a fine thing. I was merely demonstrating the inadequacy of your own argument. Pointing at someone's faults doesn't prove anything about their point.


Of course it does if their point is that they want their six houses insulated for free, so they can rent them out for more profit.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Of course it does if their point is that they want their six houses insulated for free, so they can rent them out for more profit.


Well, despite your weird conspiracy theory that a large group of wealthy people have glued themselves to the road, got themselves roughed up and been arrested in order to do a last minute switch and get their houses insulated instead of the social housing that they've clearly made the demand for rather than just paying for it, I think it's reasonable to at least deal with the demand directly rather than dismiss it entirely because a few of them are cunts and twats.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> And angry alcoholic on the internet ...



Ffs. You really do deserve all you get on this thread.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs. You really do deserve all you get on this thread.



But repeatedly tagging me into the conversation, deliberately antagonising me and then calling me Mr Meltdown is just dandy. It'd be nice if you showed everyone exactly where your wavy lines are drawn if you're going to judge.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> But repeatedly tagging me into the conversation, deliberately antagonising me and then calling me Mr Meltdown is just dandy. It'd be nice if you showed everyone exactly where your wavy lines are drawn if you're going to judge.



You reap what you sow. I had no intention of posting here today until your goose stepping comment.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You reap what you sow. I had no intention of posting here today until your goose stepping comment.


That was just Bahnoff Strasse's post to me with a couple of words changed Princess.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> That was just Bahnoff Strasse's post to me with a couple of words changed Princess.



And? For someone who regularly gets his arse kicked and stomps off like a baby, you don't do yourself any favours.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And? For someone who regularly gets his arse kicked and stomps off like a baby, you don't do yourself any favours.


I was having a perfectly reasonable conversation until you turned up clutching your pearls Princess.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> I was having a perfectly reasonable conversation until you turned up clutching your pearls Princess.



Yeah I guess calling posters alcoholics is perfectly reasonable in maomao land. Glass houses, stones and all that ...


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah I guess calling posters alcoholics is perfectly reasonable in maomao land. Glass houses, stones and all that ...


Get you. You deliberately turned the thread into a slanging match from page one. You reap what you sow Princess.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Get you. You deliberately turned the thread into a slanging match from page one. You reap what you sow Princess.



Lol. You sure you want to do this? That bottom jaw of yours is already starting to wobble.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Lol. You sure you want to do this? That bottom jaw of yours is already starting to wobble.


You're always so sure of other people's mental state. What exactly are you threatening to do Princess?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah I guess calling posters alcoholics is perfectly reasonable in maomao land. Glass houses, stones and all that ...


He wouldn't get away with it if he was calling people drug addicts, and it seems "I'm getting professional help for being an angry cunt" is a get out of jail free card for being an angry cunt. 
At least we have another meltdown to look forward to.


----------



## T & P (Oct 9, 2021)

Come on everyone. One thing is to wind up other posters on a wind-up thread, and another to get personal whilst doing so. 

This thread has become really toxic of late


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're always so sure of other people's mental state. What exactly are you threatening to do Princess?



I really don't need to do anything. You're doing it yourself.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> At least we have another meltdown to look forward to.


Yep, I can feel the steam coming out of you and Spymaster's ears from here.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

Dear oh dear. And he's off


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

Again.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)




----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 291998


Too pissed to type again?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Too pissed to type again?


Countdown to meltdown?


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Countdown to meltdown?


Spymaster will blow before I do. I've seen him snap, it's not pretty.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Spymaster will blow before I do. I've seen him snap, it's not pretty.



Lol. I'm on the end of a pretty large bifta. I'm about as likely to blow as you are to post something interesting.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Spymaster will blow before I do. I've seen him snap, it's not pretty.


IIRC, it was your meltdown that got the anti cyclist propaganda thread shut down. Imagine the irony of another of your meltdown tantrums shutting down the anti-car propaganda thread.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Lol. I'm on the end of a pretty large bifta.


Sounds like you needed that.


----------



## maomao (Oct 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Imagine the irony of another of your meltdown tantrums shutting down the anti-car propaganda thread.


Why? Have you reported me for mentioning your drinking?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> Come on everyone. One thing is to wind up other posters on a wind-up thread, and another to get personal whilst doing so.
> 
> This thread has become really toxic of late




Should merge it with the thanks to Brexit thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 9, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why? Have you reported me for mentioning your drinking?


No... unless you haven't noticed, it's one of your side that's the grass here. Most likely you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 9, 2021)

Wonderful sausage fest


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

A driver runs into a mother and then tries to stab her!

We have a problem with drivers and surely need to ban them until we figure out what the hell is going on!









						Woman in hospital after being hit by car and stabbed in Cumbria
					

A crashed Kia Rio and a dead man found by police soon after incident in which a child was also injured




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A driver runs into a mother and then tries to stab her!
> 
> We have a problem with drivers and surely need to ban them until we figure out what the hell is going on!
> 
> ...


Woman crashes car and kills occupant, then stabs herself in the arm in an attempted cover-up


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Woman crashes car and kills occupant, then stabs herself in the arm in an attempted cover-up



You're not really blaming the woman, surely?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> You're not really blaming the woman, surely?


No, I'm simply arguing the opposite of whatever that idiot said, as it'll mean I'm most likely right, as he's always wrong.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Man - we really have some sick fucks on this thread. Jokes about domestic violence & rape! But all for LOLs eh 🤷


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Man - we really have some sick fucks on this thread. Jokes about domestic violence & rape! But all for LOLs eh 🤷


You really are a proper dog's nob, aren't you. You're the fucking tool who brought the story into the mix, when it clearly has nothing to do with driving, but because you're felch dogs against their will, you can't see how wrong it was.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You really are a proper dog's nob, aren't you. You're the fucking tool who brought the story into the mix, when it clearly has nothing to do with driving, but because you're felch dogs against their will, you can't see how wrong it was.


Crikey, calm down! You know, maybe you shouldn't post when you're drinking if you can't control yourself. Or I can recommend a good counsellor if you want.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Crikey, calm down! You know, maybe you shouldn't post when you're drinking if you can't control yourself. Or I can recommend a good counsellor if you want.


You do realise that if you carry on with this shit I'm going to start posting about your shopping sprees on the dark web?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You do realise that if you carry on with this shit I'm going to start posting about your shopping sprees on the dark web?


Lol. 'Sprees'. Go on then. If that's where your anger takes you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Lol. 'Sprees'. Go on then. If that's where your anger takes you.


Not anger, just getting bored with the shite and hypocrisy you're spouting. 
Do you think you should have those sort of drugs in the house with kids around?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not anger, just getting bored with the shite and hypocrisy you're spouting.
> Do you think you should have those sort of drugs in the house with kids around?


The only drug I ever use is cannabis and I don't have any in my house. But thanks for proving what a nasty prick you are.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> The only drug I ever use is cannabis and I don't have any in my house. But thanks for proving what a nasty prick you are.


Now we both know that's not true, don't we.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

Not nice when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?
You had your chance to wind your neck in, but you kept pushing. Now if you want to continue with your shit, feel free. But don't expect me to keep quiet while you abuse me.


----------



## Numbers (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You do realise that if you carry on with this shit I'm going to start posting about your shopping sprees on the dark web?


Not good.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Now we both know that's not true, don't we.


I'm absolutely mistified as to what you're on about. If you go to the drugs forum there's lots of stuff that I used to do in there from ages ago that you could drag up. And no, I absolutely don't keep any drugs in my house or take any drugs round my children.


----------



## klang (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> take any drugs round my children


I'm partial to LSD for kids' birthday parties.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Numbers said:


> Not good.


No it’s not, but Maomao started this particular brand of unpleasantness with accusations of alcoholism.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not anger, just getting bored with the shite and hypocrisy you're spouting.
> Do you think you should have those sort of drugs in the house with kids around?


Bringing maomao's kids into it? Classy. 

Can't you four stop this, it's nowhere near the thread topic and it just looks nasty.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No it’s not, but Maomao started this particular brand of unpleasantness with accusations of alcoholism.


But making 'meltdown' GIFs to abuse an autistic poster with is just fine and dandy. 









						Meltdowns - a guide for all audiences
					

If your family member or the person you support has meltdowns, find out how to anticipate them, identify their causes and minimise their frequency.




					www.autism.org.uk
				




Saul's drinking is hardly a secret but I did think involvement in the darknet thread implied a certain level of mutual trust. I've left it now anyway. Feel free to post up the exact details of my 'sprees' Saul.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> But making 'meltdown' GIFs to abuse an autistic poster with is just fine and dandy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No way. This thread was always a wind-up but you’re the one who changed the tone to out and out nastiness. Post the way you have and people are going to respond in kind eventually.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No way. This thread was always a wind-up but you’re the one who changed the tone to out and out nastiness. Post the way you have and people are going to respond in kind eventually. Didn’t known you’re autistic either.


Cor, you don't like it up you do you. Your constant abuse and trolling is 'banter' and a 'windup' but as soon as you get a bit back your way it's 'out and out nastiness'. So why am I pissing myself laughing at you two this morning?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Saul's drinking is hardly a secret but I did think involvement in the darknet thread implied a certain level of mutual trust. I've left it now anyway. Feel free to post up the exact details of my 'sprees' Saul.


Suggesting on multiple occasions (not just on this thread) that I'm an alcoholic that needs counselling was a step too far. But don't worry, I won't be posting the contents of private threads. I was merely pointing out that people in glass houses should be careful about who they're hurling rocks at.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Suggesting on multiple occasions (not just on this thread) that I'm an alcoholic that needs counselling was a step too far. But don't worry, I won't be posting the contents of private threads. I was merely pointing out that people in glass houses should be careful about who they're hurling rocks at.


Double standards like that must give you a headache.

And I wish you would post the actual details. The vague smear is far more offensive.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cor, you don't like it up you do you. Your constant abuse and trolling is 'banter' and a 'windup' but as soon as you get a bit back your way it's 'out and out nastiness'. So why am I pissing myself laughing at you two this morning?



Yeah, righto. It's perfectly clear to anyone who's reading this who's taken it where.  Didn’t known you’re autistic either but you’re now using that to generate sympathy whilst using another poster’s perceived alcoholism against him. This kind of personal attack is a common tactic of yours, btw.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You do realise that if you carry on with this shit I'm going to start posting about your shopping sprees on the dark web?


Well out of order.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Well out of order.



That goes both ways.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 10, 2021)

Bullshit. A snide comment vs threats that have real life consequences. Saul's out of order for bringing private conversations and family into it. Crossed a line. 

This thread is fucking poison and should be closed.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, righto. It's perfectly clear to anyone who's reading this who's taken it where.  Didn’t known you’re autistic either but you’re now using that to generate sympathy whilst using another poster’s perceived alcoholism against him. This kind of personal attack is a common tactic of yours, btw.


So trolling threads with violent anti-cyclist abuse is okay. Deliberately tagging people into threads with the intention of antagonising them is fine. Throwing around mental health terms as abuse is fine too. But dare to mention someone probably likes their drink a bit too much and I'm beyond the pale. Grow up and stop trolling threads you don't like with your vile abuse and they won't end up like this.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 10, 2021)

I guess the SUV-burners up thread will be in favour of this:


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Well out of order.


But constantly telling somebody they're an alcoholic that needs counselling isn't?
He had his chance to STFU. Many chances.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Bullshit. A snide comment vs threats that have real life consequences. Saul's out of order for bringing private conversations and family into it. Crossed a line.
> 
> This thread is fucking poison and should be closed.


It wasn't "a snide comment" . He's been at it for years. This was just the morning I decided I'd had enough of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> So trolling threads with violent anti-cyclist abuse is okay. Deliberately tagging people into threads with the intention of antagonising them is fine. Throwing around mental health terms as abuse is fine too. But dare to mention someone probably likes their drink a bit too much and I'm beyond the pale. Grow up and stop trolling threads you don't like with your vile abuse and they won't end up like this.


See, the thing is, everyone pretty much accepted what this thread was. A tongue-in-cheek knockabout that occasionally got a bit out of hand but soon calmed down again. What you've done is make it spiteful and personal which wasn't the case before. You're a thouroughly nasty person and you're lying about what's happened here. You know that. Stop it.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But constantly telling somebody they're an alcoholic that needs counselling isn't?
> He had his chance to STFU. Many chances.


Of course it is; it's shithouse. Thread's fucked up.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> See, the thing is, everyone pretty much accepted what this thread was. A tongue-in-cheek knockabout that occasionally got a bit out of hand but soon calmed down again. What you've done is make it spiteful and personal which wasn't the case before. You're a thouroughly nasty person and you're lying about what's happened here. You know that. Stop it.


Nope. It's been a spiteful and hateful thread since very early on. You just have a massive blind spot to your ridiculous double standards.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Bullshit. A snide comment vs threats that have real life consequences. Saul's out of order for bringing private conversations and family into it. Crossed a line.
> 
> This thread is fucking poison and should be closed.



Maomao frequently refers to Saul's drinking. It's his go-to attack whenever they get into it and he _always_ starts it.

Not just with Saul either. See his attacks on Athos earlier in the thread. He's a proper nasty bit of work is our maomao.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Maomao frequently refers to Saul's drinking. It's his go-to attack whenever they get into it and he _always_ starts it.


_Saul_ frequently refers to Saul's drinking.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> _Saul_ frequently refers to Saul's drinking.



Face it, you've fucked it. Stop digging. You're not kidding anyone.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Face it, you've fucked it. Stop digging.


I'll try and remember. Next time Saul's hurling foul-mouthed incoherent abuse at 2am I'm not allowed to mention his drinking. But you're allowed to hurl abuse, plot against posters, make personal comments about their mental health and ruin any thread you don't like the look of. Got it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Of course it is; it's shithouse. Thread's fucked up.


The thread is fucking toxic because maomao is fucking toxic. It used to be a bit of fun, but he always takes it too far.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> _Saul_ frequently refers to Saul's drinking.


Where do I frequently refer to my drinking?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'll try and remember. Next time Saul's hurling foul-mouthed incoherent abuse at 2am I'm not allowed to mention his drinking. But you're allowed to hurl abuse, plot against posters, make personal comments about their mental health and ruin any thread you don't like the look of. Got it.



Mentioning his drinking isn't all of it though, is it? And then there's the crying foul when he strikes back. He's been very restrained with you and your nastiness over the years. Now he's biting back you're crying foul. You couldn't make it up!


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The thread is fucking toxic because maomao is fucking toxic. It used to be a bit of fun, but he always takes it too far.


You mean it was fun when you and Spymaster were sending each other PMs about who you were going to wind up next. I bet it was. Being a bully and getting away with it is a good buzz.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Mentioning his drinking isn't all of it though, is it? It's the crying foul when he strikes back. He's been very restrained with you and your nastiness over the years. Now he's biting back you're crying foul. You couldn't make it up!


I haven't cried foul. Call me Mr Meltdown all you want; I couldn't give a shit. I'm highlighting your double standard Princess.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> I haven't cried foul. Call me Mr Meltdown all you want; I couldn't give a shit. I'm highlighting your double standard Princess.



Of course your're crying foul. It's what you do. And now with the Princess schtick again. That's when we know you're boiling up. It's your tell. Why the fuck do you do this? What are you getting out of it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Mentioning his drinking isn't all of it though, is it? And then there's the crying foul when he strikes back. He's been very restrained with you and your nastiness over the years. Now he's biting back you're crying foul. You couldn't make it up!


I think I've been quite restrained, given the abuse and accusations of alcoholism he's been throwing at me for years. He just picked the wrong morning this time, as I have my own problems that have stressed me out today, and they're nothing to do with drinking. . I won't be playing the sympathy card but the last thing I needed was to read his nasty shit, so I decided to try to put a stop to it.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Of course your're crying foul. It's what you do. And now with the Princess schtick again. That's when we know you're boiling up again. Why the fuck do you do this? What are you getting out of it?


What do you get out of abusive long term wind ups planned by PM? What do you get out of repeatedly ruining threads with vile abuse? I'm just chatting shit while snuggling in front of the tv with my kids.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> What do you get out of abusive long term wind ups planned by PM? What do you get out of repeatedly ruining threads with vile abuse? I'm just chatting shit while snuggling in front of the tv with my kids.


Lol at “vile abuse” you soft twat! 

The only genuine vile abuse on this thread had come from you. Proper heartfelt, designed to hurt people nastiness. It’s your specialty. Look at Saul’s post above. It’s clear he’s not in a great place so you stick the boot on with that smiley. Whilst you’ve spent the morning whining about people being mean to you. Fucking do one!

And if this is what you do when you’re hanging out with your kids, I feel sorry for them.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Look at Saul’s post above. It’s clear he’s not on a great place so you stick the boot on with that smiley.


So it was fine when I was not in a great place and he did it to me but now it's unnacceptable. Righto.


----------



## T & P (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A driver runs into a mother and then tries to stab her!
> 
> We have a problem with drivers and surely need to ban them until we figure out what the hell is going on!
> 
> ...


We have a problem with drinkers and drug takers too. Do you drink and or take drugs? My guess is yes…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

😆 can’t keep up with this but the “big boys” seem to have properly lost it. 🎣


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> So it was fine when I was not in a great place and he did it to me but now it's unnacceptable. Righto.


People backed off you. I do it frequently when you start to smoulder. Unlike you, others here don’t wish to cause genuine harm. 

Now go and look after your kids. Don’t spend a Sunday doing this.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 😆 can’t keep up with this but the “big boys” seem to have properly lost it. 🎣


I’d leave it for today. You really won’t be doing your buddy any favours.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

👜


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> People backed off you. I do it frequently when you start to smoulder. Unlike you, others here don’t wish to cause genuine harm.
> 
> Now go and look after your kids. Don’t spend a Sunday doing this.


Well while we all have a rest why don't you think about how you can turn a thread into a wind up without having anyone getting wound up. If you can't deal with the consequences of the thread maybe you should stay away from it.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

And Spymaster  also have a think about what your friend was threatening this morning. Given I started posting here in the drugs forum I doubt there's much that would shock urbanites so I can only presume he was threatening my livelihood. That's just banter is it?


----------



## nogojones (Oct 10, 2021)

klang said:


> I'm partial to LSD for kids' birthday parties.


NO! We had one truly horrific experience one year so try to keep the two very separate.

A friend escaping domestic violence ended up at ours for a few weeks. We didn't realise she was on some strong acid when the kids party was in full swing and by the time all the parents turned up to pick their charges up she was howling "I want a baby", whilst eyeing up the children to see which one would make her ideal adoptive child. The parents and their kiddies got out sharpish and half forgot to take their party bags with them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Selfish driver blocks M25









						Woman found guilty of drinking driving after major M25 crash
					

A woman from Waltham Forest has been found guilty of drink driving in connection with a crash on the M25 which saw multiple injuries.




					www.guardian-series.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Selfish driver blocks M25
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Probably an undercover Insulate Britain protestor.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well while we all have a rest why don't you think about how you can turn a thread into a wind up without having anyone getting wound up. If you can't deal with the consequences of the thread maybe you should stay away from it.






maomao said:


> And Spymaster  also have a think about what your friend was threatening this morning. Given I started posting here in the drugs forum I doubt there's much that would shock urbanites so I can only presume he was threatening my livelihood. That's just banter is it?


I wasn't threatening anything. I was pointing out the fact that you're a hypocrite. But nice try with the sympathy card, again. Princess.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well while we all have a rest why don't you think about how you can turn a thread into a wind up without having anyone getting wound up. If you can't deal with the consequences of the thread maybe you should stay away from it.


Lol, nice try but with your track record of explosive flouncing, forgive me for not taking your advice! 

As far as Saul’s threats are concerned, I just saw him respond to your taunts about his drinking by questioning where a self-admitted drug abuser like yourself might be hiding his stash with kids in the house. Not unreasonable, tbf.


----------



## Numbers (Oct 10, 2021)

Never thought it before but you’re a nasty piece of work Spymaster


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Can we get back on topic please.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

> Terrifying moment cyclist ‘stabs car passenger with giant knife’ through window in broad daylight attack.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Please can we stay on topic. This is an anti car propaganda thread (very clear in the title). Thanks 🙏


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Please can we stay on topic. This is an anti car propaganda thread (very clear in the title). Thanks 🙏


It is on topic. You're just not very bright and can't see why.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2021)

Seeing as we're getting led into a "he started it" routine -

Folks might like to have a look at threads like this one, where there's a clear intention to discuss stuff seriously, and in that particular case in relation to a specific local area where some people actually live, and come to their own conclusions about which posters it is that turn up purely to screw up useful conversations with repeats of the same old performance.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It is on topic. You're just not very bright and can't see why.



Don’t see how it is as it’s about a cyclist rather than a driver.

Anyway, thought you might try a be a bit less of a twat after your strop this morning 🤷


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seeing as we're getting led into a "he started it" routine -
> 
> Folks might like to have a look at threads like this one, where there's a clear intention to discuss stuff seriously, and in that particular case in relation to a specific local area where some people actually live, and come to their own conclusions about which posters it is that turn up purely to screw up useful conversations with repeats of the same old performance.



Are you referring to this? Not sure how that's relevant to the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Are you referring to this? Not sure how that's relevant to the last few pages of this thread.


No, I'm referring to stuff that is relevant, rather than stuff that is not relevant. Fancy that!


----------



## planetgeli (Oct 10, 2021)

It's like watching people picking shit out of their own sewers and fling it around for fun on a Sunday morning.

What great lives you must have.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> self-admitted drug abuser like yourself might be hiding his stash with kids in the house. Not unreasonable, tbf.


Just good hearted banter, nothing personal. I've been there for both my kids every day since they were born and go to great lengths to keep them from harm. Unlike some dads. Thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Just good hearted banter, nothing personal.



You took this way past banter some time ago.



> I've been there for both my kids every day since they were born and go to great lengths to keep them from harm. Unlike some dads. Thanks.



Yeah, course you do. Go have a line, mate.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Go have a line, mate.


No, my wife wouldn't let me near my kids if I was a cocaine user. That's quite a common opinion amongst mums apparently.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Yeah, sure.

You seem to forget what you've posted in the past. Convenient eh?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, sure.
> 
> You seem to forget what you've posted in the past.



Nope. Haven't taken cocaine since 2007 or 8 and didn't really like it then. Whatever Saul has told you, he's lying.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nope. Haven't taken cocaine since 2007 or 8 and didn't really like it then. Whatever Saul has told you, he's lying.


Now you're letting paranoia get the better of you. I've said nothing to anyone.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Now you're letting paranoia get the better of you. I've said nothing to anyone.



Paranoia refers to delusions of persecution whereas you and Princess have boasted about plotting against other posters on this thread by PM.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nope. Haven't taken cocaine since 2007 or 8 .



Ok. I believe you.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2021)

I assume that Spy and Saul are happy now that they have got exactly what they wanted?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Yep, it’s all Spy and Saul. Maomao’s played no part in this at all. Oh no.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. I believe you.


I briefly had a problem with modafinil a year or so ago if that's any help. I was occasionally far too alert around my children.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I assume that Spy and Saul are happy now that they have got exactly what they wanted?


What exactly do you think it is I wanted? Enough personal abuse from maomao to bring me to the point where I had to point out why he's a fucking hypocrite? You can only push somebody so far before something gives.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What exactly do you think it is I wanted? Enough personal abuse from maomao to bring me to the point where I had to point out why he's a fucking hypocrite? You can only push somebody so far before something gives.


You spend most of your time on these boards laughing about how much you enjoy winding people up, saying things to push their buttons and generally posting things you know will irritate and annoy.  It’s pretty obvious that the consequence of those actions will be that at some point, somebody will escalate in rage.  I just assumed that since that consequence is obvious, you must be enjoying it now that it is happening?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What exactly do you think it is I wanted? Enough personal abuse from maomao to bring me to the point where I had to point out why he's a fucking hypocrite? You can only push somebody so far before something gives.


I'm not a hypocrite. I didn't say there was anything wrong with your drinking and in fact offered to help you find help.  I just think it's worth flagging up for anyone on the receiving end of one of your foul-mouthed late night tirades.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

The trolls only get what they want because people engage with them. These people enable the trolls. These people are idiots.  

If you ignore the trolls, you save time and you undermine them,  by doing nothing at all. It's not hard, is it? But you keep on prattling away...ooh, how dare you, you naughty troll. If you can't bring yourself to ignore them, you have a problem. Grow up. Or live in the sewer with the trolls.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

It is pathetic to constantly & deliberately be an offensive twat and then suddenly decided someone else has gone too far. Seriously, just give it a rest.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The trolls only get what they want because people engage with them. These people enable the trolls. These people are idiots.
> 
> If you ignore the trolls, you save time and you undermine them,  by doing nothing at all. It's not hard, is it? But you keep on prattling away...ooh, how dare you, you naughty troll. If you can't bring yourself to ignore them, you have a problem. Grow up. Or live in the sewer with the trolls.



Possibly.  Teuchter also spends his time posting things to provoke and irritate people, though.  But you’ll notice that he never responds when people call him all kinds of names and accuse him of all kinds of things in response.  He just gets the reaction he’s looking for and lets the rage happen.  I guess he’s just much better at it than Saul is.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> The trolls only get what they want because people engage with them. These people enable the trolls. These people are idiots.
> 
> If you ignore the trolls, you save time and you undermine them,  by doing nothing at all. It's not hard, is it? But you keep on prattling away...ooh, how dare you, you naughty troll. If you can't bring yourself to ignore them, you have a problem. Grow up. Or live in the sewer with the trolls.



Well that's what we tried here. Don't engage them on proper threads, let them have their little playground so they feel important and leave people alone but in fact it just escalates. Plotting by PM who to tag in and antagonise next. Fuck 'em and fuck the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Fuck 'em and fuck the thread.



Off you pop then.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2021)

thought this was anti car propaganda


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Plotting by PM who to tag in and antagonise next.



It's actrually not quite what you think, btw. Also amusing that you think there are only 2 people on that thread!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You spend most of your time on these boards laughing about how much you enjoy winding people up, saying things to push their buttons and generally posting things you know will irritate and annoy.  It’s pretty obvious that the consequence of those actions will be that at some point, somebody will escalate in rage.  I just assumed that since that consequence is obvious, you must be enjoying it now that it is happening?


Have you even bothered to read the thread? The whole thread is a wind-up. Even the title is a wind-up, and both sides have been winding each other up since the very start of the thread. Do you think that warrants accusations of alcoholism, and being told to drink yourself to death? Where was the outrage when I was told to drink myself to death?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Possibly.  Teuchter also spends his time posting things to provoke and irritate people, though.  But you’ll notice that he never responds when people call him all kinds of names and accuse him of all kinds of things in response.  He just gets the reaction he’s looking for and lets the rage happen.  I guess he’s just much better at it than Saul is.


I'm enjoying the meta nature of the last sentence in this post.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> thought this was anti car propaganda




I think the whole thread is one big bit of anti car propaganda. A space for car obsessed knobs to show what awful people they are.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Possibly.  Teuchter also spends his time posting things to provoke and irritate people, though.  But you’ll notice that he never responds when people call him all kinds of names and accuse him of all kinds of things in response.  He just gets the reaction he’s looking for and lets the rage happen.  I guess he’s just much better at it than Saul is.


So your remedy is to attack Teuchter? FFS! How about we stop discussing posters and get back to discussing cars? We need more climate change discussion on the forum anyway. This thread would serve a useful purpose and be enjoyable with judicious use of the ignore function.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Off you pop then.


Haven't you got any more wildly inaccurate claims to make about my personal life? Cause I've still got buckets full of unflung turds here.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you think that warrants accusations of alcoholism, and being told to drink yourself to death? Where was the outrage when I was told to drink myself to death?



This. Completely. 

But it's all your fault. Nothing to do with maomao.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think the whole thread is one big bit of anti car propaganda. A space for car obsessed knobs to show what awful people they are.


So post something intelligent about cars!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2021)

Oh, come now. The “poor poor wounded me” routine doesn’t sit well with you, Saul. Try another tack.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> So your remedy is to attack Teuchter? FFS! How about we stop discussing posters and get back to discussing cars? We need more climate change discussion on the forum anyway. This thread would serve a useful purpose and be enjoyable with judicious use of the ignore function.


I’m not attacking teuchter. Quite the opposite. I’ve long been a fan of teuchter. He’s the master at this.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you even bothered to read the thread? The whole thread is a wind-up. Even the title is a wind-up, and both sides have been winding each other up since the very start of the thread. Do you think that warrants accusations of alcoholism, and being told to drink yourself to death? Where was the outrage when I was told to drink myself to death?



I didn't tell you to drink yourself to death.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Cause I've still got buckets full of unflung turds here.



Go for it!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> So post something intelligent about cars!



I like to think I have, probably not intelligent but certainly showing how dangerous they are.

They someone posts something about cyclists 🥱


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Go for it!


Come on, something to do with my parenting or drug use. Five me something to work with.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> ... Go and get on with drinking yourself to death.





maomao said:


> I didn't tell you to drink yourself to death.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Yes, that's me telling him to continue doing what he was doing anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Come on, something to do with my parenting or drug use. Five me something to work with.



I don't need to do that. You know exactly what you've posted and what you're worth.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, that's me telling him to continue doing what he was doing anyway.



So you did tell him to drink himself to death and you were lying when you said you didn't. 

Glad that's sorted.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't need to do that. You know exactly what you've posted and what you're worth.


I'm worth a lot more than a washed up old coke head who sees fit to try and moralise about other people's parenting.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular.  It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular.  It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?



If you are looking for a proper discussion on this, best to use the climate change forum, rather than this toxic thread. 









						Climate Change
					

Issues related to Climate Change




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular.  It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?


I think it's the same as burning wood for fuel - in theory you grow the tree, burn it, grow another tree in the same place, burn it, etc. So in the long term you are not releasing CO2 that otherwise would not exist, as would be the case if you left fossil fuels in the ground.

However, you could also use that wood for something else, such as a building material, in which case you are not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, at least not for the lifespan of the building. So the idea that it's carbon neutral only makes sense if you ignore the possibility that the carbon could be sequestered as an alternative.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think it's the same as burning wood for fuel - in theory you grow the tree, burn it, grow another tree in the same place, burn it, etc. So in the long term you are not releasing CO2 that otherwise would not exist, as would be the case if you left fossil fuels in the ground.
> 
> However, you could also use that wood for something else, such as a building material, in which case you are not releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, at least not for the lifespan of the building. So the idea that it's carbon neutral only makes sense if you ignore the possibility that the carbon could be sequestered as an alternative.



Under discussion here - Drax is carbon neutral


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm worth a lot more than a washed up old coke head who sees fit to try and moralise about other people's parenting.



Says the washed-up old coke head! 

You need to calm down fella.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Let's talk about bioLPG. In some countries it's very popular.  It's often described as carbon neutral. I think it would be more accurate to call it 90% carbon neutral because there's a bit of an overhead. But this carbon neutrality confuses me. (I don't have chemistry or biology O levels.) Is it carbon neutral because the plants which it's made of absorbed carbon a couple of years back? If you burn it you release that carbon back into the atmosphere. How can that be good? Perhaps it's classified as 'good' because it's not as bad as burning oil?



I guess it’s better because as you say it’s releasing carbon back that was in the atmosphere a few years ago rather than fossil fuels that are releasing carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago.

Pollution isn’t the only issues with cars - they’re generally a very energy wasteful way of transporting people. A large proportion of car journeys are under 2 miles and with 1-2 people in them.

There’s also the fact that cars have made us deign areas in very wasteful ways so that people need to use cars.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

Do we take into account that coal is made of trees, and oil is made of plankton and algae?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You need to calm down fella


Stop being a prick, have a look at your double standards and stop acting like the thread bully then. I'll keep a couple of buckets of particularly smelly turds for when you start up again.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Do we take into account that coal is made of trees, and oil is made of plankton and algae?



As it was taken out millions of years ago it’s basically new though.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2021)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> As it was taken out millions of years ago it’s basically new though.





edcraw said:


> Please can we stay on topic. This is an anti car propaganda thread (very clear in the title). Thanks 🙏


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2021)

*makes mental note

for next time someone slags off the thank you to brexiter thread 


this is toxic as fuck


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There’s also the fact that cars have made us deign areas in very wasteful ways so that people need to use cars.



Which is really more the kind of thing this thread is aimed at, because the idea that internal combustion engines are involved in climate change is now fairly uncontroversial.

It's the other problems associated with car dependancy that I would say it's worth getting people thinking about, even if their initial reaction is to deny it all.

Once you start looking for certain things, you see them everywhere. For example, the simple question of cars parked on pavements. I don't care if people want to try and mock me for taking photographs of it when I see it. Because whether they like it or not, bringing it to people's attention means they'll start seeing it as well. And maybe eventually they'll join the dots and imagine someone in a wheelchair trying to get past, each time they see it. And then they'll understand why it's a problem.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

I bought a used car recently, with a rather heavy heart. Haven't owned one since 2006. My 'new' car is going to be a campervan, which I need for health/life/money reasons. I'll try to minimise the emissions. I wish I could calculate the environmental burden, and compare it with an EV van, which I didn't even consider because of the cost. Anyone know of a site with a calculator? All I've found are very generalised articles, which say 'on the other hand, lithium' and so on.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

maomao said:


> Stop being a prick, have a look at your double standards and stop acting like the thread bully then.



No mate. I'm going to call you out for as long as you persist with this ridiculous charade. YOU started this whole episode with your 'alcoholic' slurs. You've had a dose  back and you're getting shirty again. No surprsies there, it's totally your MO.


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No mate. I'm going to call you out for as long as you persist with this ridiculous charade. YOU started this whole episode with your 'alcoholic' slurs. You've had a dose  back and you're getting shirty again. No surprsies there, it's totally your MO.


Lol. Yes, this all started yesterday. Must be all that coke addling your brain.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2021)

Christ almighty! Seriously?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 10, 2021)




----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 10, 2021)

Bin this ugly thread.

Bunfights were occasionally amusing in our younger days.

This... is just... shit.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

If you ignore the trolls it's a perfectly serviceable thread. By moaning about the thread you are actually trolling.


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2021)

couple of thread bans might be in order


weird place for a nasty personal bun fight

this is not the community forums , do not even need to log in to read it


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2021)

I think editor is on holiday and FridgeMagnet is taking a sabbatical. 
so this is going to go on on unless people themselves take a step back and get some perspective


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> If you ignore the trolls it's a perfectly serviceable thread. By moaning about the thread you are actually trolling.



Puts David Clapson  on ignore


----------



## Cid (Oct 10, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Bin this ugly thread.
> 
> Bunfights were occasionally amusing in our younger days.
> 
> This... is just... shit.



Entirely this. Kind of shit that makes me want to just sack this place off.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)

Binning the thread would be a win for the trolls. And they'd just go and troll another thread. How about putting them on ignore and posting something on-topic?


----------



## maomao (Oct 10, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Binning the thread would be a win for the trolls. And they'd just go and troll another thread. How about putting them on ignore and posting something on-topic?



Well, I don't really feel like apologising for my behaviour because I'd had enough of the last week or so's personal abuse and needed to kick back a bit. But here's a good, if decade old, paper that actually addresses several areas of car harm and tries to compare it to tobacco use (so slightly analogous to T & P 's arguments about drug use which I don't reject completely in that it's definitely a wide ranging public health issue not just a climate change issue).









						Are cars the new tobacco?
					

AbstractBackground. Public health must continually respond to new threats reflecting wider societal changes. Ecological public health recognizes the links betwe




					academic.oup.com
				




It concludes:



> The nature of public health threats evolves to reflect wider societal changes, and the public health community continually needs to recognize, understand and respond to new threats. The public health community rightly continues to fight against the harm caused by tobacco. We should now recognize that private cars are harming individuals, communities and global sustainability. Cars are the new tobacco.



Which understates the problem to my mind. Car use has far greater external harm, especially as public indoor smoking is thankfully banned these days.


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 10, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 11, 2021)

Too right - just ban pavement parking now.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Too right - just ban pavement parking now.



It’s been banned in London for ages.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 11, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It’s been banned in London for ages.



Yep - where London leads the rest of the country follows eventually 😉


----------



## two sheds (Oct 11, 2021)

I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.


----------



## klang (Oct 11, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 11, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.



I once almost got arrested for dancing on the roof of a van, pissed-up on New Year's Eve, although bemused, they were happy enough once I had proved it was my van.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> I once almost got arrested for dancing on the roof of a van, pissed-up on New Year's Eve, although bemused, they were happy enough once I had proved it was my van.


Dancing gleefully atop your death machine. Just what we'd expect from the archetypal british motoring fanaticist.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 11, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I read a few years ago that some people were walking across the top of cars that were parked on pavements.


When I lived in London, my daughter's pram had rubber covered bits of metal sticking out on both sides to hang bags etc off. After about a month of carefully manhandling the pram around cars parked on pavements, the rubber bits inexplicably fell off and I became much less careful about getting the pram round cars.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 11, 2021)

Boudicca returns


----------



## David Clapson (Oct 11, 2021)

The City's proposed 15mph limit is up for discussion again. It could happen next year. The background is in this 8 page pdf which is quite an interesting read:  https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s159157/CR20 Deep Dive Report 2021 final.pdf     The City Corporation's objective is "to eliminate death and serious injuries on the City’s streets by 2040".


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

Leaving the scene of an accident evidently has its benefits then.









						Accountant cleared of drink driving after claiming she guzzled vodka AFTER crash
					

Kelsey Ridings had her four children in the back of her Mercedes when she crashed it into another vehicle




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

God - the pro car lobby really are a joyless bunch.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God - the pro car lobby really are a joyless bunch.




Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.


----------



## klang (Oct 12, 2021)

they are not road signs, authorised or not.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.



Cheers for proving my point!


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not surprising that you support criminal law-breaking by the provision of unauthorised road signs.


If drivers don't notice the signs with big round numbers on them I'm not sure they'll be too distracted by these.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.



			https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1392&context=jpt
		




> An undesired side effect of fare-free transit, however, may be an increase in the demand by former transit users and the attraction of users of nonmotorized transportation.
> 
> This could be confirmed in the City of Templin. A study aimed at quantifying the benefits of fare-free transit found that ridership increased by 1,200 percent. The vast majority of this additional demand consisted of former transit users and attracted pedestrians and bicycle riders. The shift from automobile to transit was only minimal. Depending on the values chosen for intangibles, a positive net ben- efit may result. This is due mainly to a reduction in fatalities and casualties. Since pedestrians and bicycle riders belong to the most endangered road users, every decrease in these modes will necessarily lead to a reduction of automobile caused costs. The undesired side effect thus becomes the main effect.



This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

Good point here - bizarre that lots don’t want to admit that we’ve got a real problem here. Especially in London where the roads just weren’t designed for these levels of traffic.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there’s too much sunk cost in private car usage for anything much to make a difference apart for restrictions and road pricing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here's something for those who say that all we need to do to reduce car usage is to make public transport better or cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Templin's smaller than Godalming, need to try it on a larger town.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Templin's smaller than Godalming, need to try it on a larger town.


 It has been, in Tallinn, and the results were similar. It got more people using public transport but it didn't cut car use.









						The prospects of fare-free public transport: evidence from Tallinn - Transportation
					

The subsidy level of public transport systems varies considerably among systems worldwide. While limited-scale free-fare public transport (FFPT) services such as limited campaigns and fare evasion for special groups or specific services are prevalent, there is only limited evidence on the...




					link.springer.com
				







> The increase in public transport modal usage indicates that the initial ridership increase of 3 % in the 3 months following the introduction of FFPT that was reported by Cats et al. (2014) based on the empirical analysis of automated passenger counts, continued in a similar pace in the months leading to the survey. These findings concurrence the results of the meta-analysis by Holmgren (2007) that long-term fare elasticity is higher than the short-term elasticity. Our finding confirms the early indications in Cats et al. (2014) concerning a considerable shift from walking to public transport in 2013, with a 40 % decrease in the share of walking trips while the distance of the average walking trip remains unchanged. It is noteworthy that while the share of car users decreased by 5 %, the average distance travelled by car increased resulting with a 31 % increase in total vehicle-km. This is explained by the increase in daily travel distance, i.e., from 7.98 to 9.07 km per person, a 13 % increase, driven by changes in shopping and leisure destination choices. In summary, the modal shift from car to public transport was accompanied by an undesired shift from walking to public transport and an increase in car traffic.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2021)

You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.



erm.. I think you’re a little out of your depth here.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is not an argument against improving public transport. Rather, it's a case study which shows it's not enough to get people out of their cars. This is why we also need to actively make car travel less convenient where alternatives exist.


I certainly don’t disagree with that. Once public transport is sufficiently robust an option, there’s no need to avoid highly restrictive clamp-downs on car use (privately owned or otherwise).  There will always be plenty of cases where avoiding use of cars is unrealistic, but their use would ideally be restricted to these cases, rather than the existence of extreme cases being used as an excuse for a general free-for-all


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It has been, in Tallinn, and the results were similar. It got more people using public transport but it didn't cut car use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's the same reason why motorway widening leads to more traffic, bringing congestion back to where it was - people like to travel, it enables them to experience the world in a better way.

If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts. Then tackle freight and business use by, for example, taxing home and business equipment based on the amount of on-site maintenance it requires. Triple NI for mobile sales staff. Hike up business rates, and tax hotel rooms. Measures such as these will help tackle the demand problem at the source, keeping the people in their villages and city apartments where they belong, and reducing the number of visits and visitors per person.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts.


That would be silly. Most journeys are work related and it's work not leisure that needs to change. And instead of banning schools, change the rules so that children have to go their geographically nearest school and where possible travel on foot.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 12, 2021)

They should have forgotten about HS2 and lain the rail tracks up the M1


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> That would be silly. Most journeys are work related and it's work not leisure that needs to change. And instead of banning schools, change the rules so that children have to go their geographically nearest school and where possible travel on foot.



Yes, restricting children's educational options is a great idea if you want to cut transport use. Basically the more important the reason for travel to a family or business, the greater the need to stamp out that reason.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You've convinced me, they should treble the cost of public transport and you mugs would still pay up.


You are Brian Souter and I claim my five pounds.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, restricting children's educational options is a great idea if you want to cut transport use. Basically the more important the reason for travel to a family or business, the greater the need to stamp out that reason.


Yes, parental choice (it's rarely the kid's choice) in education is not a great thing. It ends up with motivated parents pushing their kids into outstanding schools and less attractive schools suffering as a result. Two birds with one stone.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes, parental choice (it's rarely the kid's choice) in education is not a great thing. It ends up with motivated parents pushing their kids into outstanding schools and less attractive schools suffering as a result. Two birds with one stone.



You realise motivated parents will just buy their way into locations where they can control the nearest school along with other motivated parents, while parents who can't afford or can't be arsed to do that will end up next to less attractive schools? Probably best to assign everyone to a suitable residence and then ban them from traveling elsewhere.

Teuchter makes an important point that encouraging public transport use isn't a solution. He argues for restricting car use, but again this would be neither as equitable nor effective as eliminating the desire or need to travel in the first place.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 12, 2021)

It's nice to see someone genuinely pleased with themselves, thinking that what they've done is good.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2021)

I’m all for as much planning as possible based around encouraging people not to move aloud. It is particularly mad when people have schools in walking distance and instead send their kids to somewhere miles away. Mind you, I’m aware of the hypocrisy here of living somewhere a long way from my work. On the plus side, I’ve only been there three times in 20 months.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's the same reason why motorway widening leads to more traffic, bringing congestion back to where it was - people like to travel, it enables them to experience the world in a better way.
> 
> If you really want to cut transport use, you should probably start by taxing or outlawing away-from-home activities such as swimming pools, schools and concerts. Then tackle freight and business use by, for example, taxing home and business equipment based on the amount of on-site maintenance it requires. Triple NI for mobile sales staff. Hike up business rates, and tax hotel rooms. Measures such as these will help tackle the demand problem at the source, keeping the people in their villages and city apartments where they belong, and reducing the number of visits and visitors per person.


Although you think you have nailed this with a reductio ad absurdum, you just highlight the basic issue which is that yes you can't just allow an infinite amount of transport use because it's not possible.

That's why we should get as much travel onto efficient public transport modes rather than inefficient private transport modes. That way, for the same amount of land use/pollution/carbon emissions, more people can move around and do stuff that enhances their quality of life.

Allowing unrestricted private car use means that most of our transport capacity gets used up by a relatively small number of people, and in most cases relatively privileged people who can afford to sort out their own private means rather than relying on what's communally provided.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2021)

This current point of discussion reminds me that it’s not just about provision of transport, either. Once upon a time, villages had schools, post offices, bobbies, shops and so on. Now we just have a series of houses called, “The Old School House”, “The Old Post Office”, “The Old Police House” and something that isn’t called “The Old Shop” but nevertheless is the old shop.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You realise motivated parents will just buy their way into locations where they can control the nearest school along with other motivated parents, while parents who can't afford or can't be arsed to do that will end up next to less attractive schools? Probably best to assign everyone to a suitable residence and then ban them from traveling elsewhere.


Well, when the gulf stream shuts down and much of our housing stock becomes uninhabitable in this country we'll probably need to build something like dormitories.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

kabbes said:


> This current point of discussion reminds me that it’s not just about provision of transport, either. Once upon a time, villages had schools, post offices, bobbies, shops and so on. Now we just have a series of houses called, “The Old School House”, “The Old Post Office”, “The Old Police House” and something that isn’t called “The Old Shop” but nevertheless is the old shop.


It's not just villages. My mum lives in a part of Edinburgh where the nearest shop is over a mile away.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

kabbes said:


> This current point of discussion reminds me that it’s not just about provision of transport, either. Once upon a time, villages had schools, post offices, bobbies, shops and so on. Now we just have a series of houses called, “The Old School House”, “The Old Post Office”, “The Old Police House” and something that isn’t called “The Old Shop” but nevertheless is the old shop.



yes, I was going on about this early in the thread:



teuchter said:


> Let's talk about elderly people. They'll often have reduced mobility. You can provide them with a car and a shop 5 miles away. Then they become unable to drive, and there's no supermarket deliveries in their area. They become totally dependent on others (with cars) to bring them their basic needs. Or you try and build a system where there is a shop 5 minutes walk away. When they can no longer drive, it might well be that it's still possible for them to do at least some of their shopping on foot maybe with a trolley. Maybe that's not possible for them and they still need help. But they don't need an able bodied person to do a ten mile round trip - they just need someone who can walk 5 or 10 minutes, maybe even someone can do it with a cargo bike. It all helps to keep traffic off the roads and it helps people stay independent as long as possible. The reason local shops have disappeared in many places is that 90% of their former customers own cars and drive miles to a big supermarket. The other 10% make do with rubbish public transport or rely on help from others. And that's a direct result of us giving up and letting private car ownership drive what's offered not just to those who do own one, but a massive degradation in what's offered to those who don't.





teuchter said:


> There's lots of planning policy stuff to do as well. For example STOP BUILDING OUT OF TOWN SUPERMARKETS. These are entirely designed around convenience for car owners. They actively encourage car use in rural areas. There's no good using a token bus service to claim that they serve others. Have planning policy which encourages more local shops, just like good planning in urban areas encourages. Have shops co-located with public transport hubs and networks.
> 
> Also on planning policy - I would like to see a bit more emphasis on transport availability when deciding on planning permission for new housing. So discouraging scattered development, and encouraging new houses to be built close to transport routes or ideally within walking distance to a local centre.
> 
> ...



It's car use and dependency that leads to the local shops disappearing.

It's also car use and dependency that often makes facilities that actually are within walking or cycling distance, inaccessible without a car. Especially in rural areas.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2021)

So it isn’t obvious to me how that is fixed this side of a capitalist breakdown. People _are_ dependent on their car and that doesn’t go away just by telling them they are bad people for being so. Meanwhile, to get them off that dependency, they need local services. But local services are massively “inefficient” (because if you centralise, you externalise a lot of those costs, passing  them to general society. But that still leaves the centralised service as “cheaper” to operate). So no local services will be provided and parole will remain dependent on their car.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

It's fixed using a combination of planning policy and transport policy. Very easily in urban areas, I'd say. Less easily in rural areas.

If you don't allow the construction of supermarkets with large car parks, for example, then the supermarkets can't "externalise" part of their transport costs (effectively getting customers to pay for transport from distribution hub to front door).


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's car use and dependency that leads to the local shops disappearing.


No it isn't. Its income and supermarkets and Amazon that lead to local shops disappearing. 
My mother used to walk 2 miles to the supermarket when I was a kid, and she'd walk home loaded with 2 or 3 shopping bags in each hand. She didn't have a car to do the shopping, as was the case for most people, but local shops were still closing down because Tesco had opened within walking or bussing distance. 
An inability to compete with supermarket and online prices is what leads to small local shops disappearing.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

Supermarkets exist because of the car, you numpty. Try again.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Supermarkets exist because of the car, you numpty. Try again.


🤣


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Supermarkets exist because of the car, you numpty. Try again.


Woolworth's was founded in 1909. The Co-op has been around since 1844, when every family had 3 cars... You numpty


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> 🤣


Too right - when I were a lad I used to get up 2hrs before I went to bed to walk the 15miles to the nearest Tesco Extra.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 12, 2021)

Hintons supermarkets, founded in 1871. They must have done a back to the future and discovered that Benz was about to invent the car in 15 years.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Woolworth's was founded in 1909. The Co-op has been around since 1844, when every family had 3 cars... You numpty


Try again.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Although you think you have nailed this with a reductio ad absurdum, you just highlight the basic issue which is that yes you can't just allow an infinite amount of transport use because it's not possible.
> 
> That's why we should get as much travel onto efficient public transport modes rather than inefficient private transport modes. That way, for the same amount of land use/pollution/carbon emissions, more people can move around and do stuff that enhances their quality of life.
> 
> Allowing unrestricted private car use means that most of our transport capacity gets used up by a relatively small number of people, and in most cases relatively privileged people who can afford to sort out their own private means rather than relying on what's communally provided.



It's in response to your OP, but perhaps you were using reductio ad absurdum yourself when you said "eliminating the private car from the planet forever"? 

Because eliminating the private car won't be achieved by reopening the village shop or using general taxation to discount bus tickets. It will require the sort of measures I've outlined, even though they may seem absurd.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Hintons supermarkets, founded in 1871. They must have done a back to the future and discovered that Benz was about to invent the car in 15 years.


Pretty impressive inventing supermarkets 62 years before the first recorded use of the word.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

Maybe everyone drove to Hinton's supermarkets in their Peugeot automobiles, Peugeot having been around since 1810.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2021)

Really poor showing from the “big boys” lately. Come up your game fellas!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really poor showing from the “big boys” lately. Come up your game fellas!


Let’s not


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's in response to your OP, but perhaps you were using reductio ad absurdum yourself when you said "eliminating the private car from the planet forever"?
> 
> Because eliminating the private car won't be achieved by reopening the village shop or using general taxation to discount bus tickets. It will require the sort of measures I've outlined, even though they may seem absurd.


It wasn't in response to my OP - you're trying to claim that now, but it wasn't. You specifically said it was what was needed to "cut transport use". Anyone can go back and check what you said. You've made a mess of this.

And eliminating the private car wouldn't require the kid of measures you describe. This was explained ages ago. Keep up.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It wasn't in response to my OP - you're trying to claim that now, but it wasn't. You specifically said it was what was needed to "cut transport use". Anyone can go back and check what you said. You've made a mess of this.
> 
> And eliminating the private car wouldn't require the kid of measures you describe. This was explained ages ago. Keep up.



Everything I post on this thread is in response to your OP where you said you want to eliminate the private car from the planet forever.  I suggested a few of the sorts of measures that would be needed to "cut transport use" with the aim of eventually achieving your aim. Inevitably they are draconian and would require an unprecedented wielding of state power on a global level.

I know you've backed away from your OP and tried to focus on things that everyone can agree are nice, such as more buses for frail elderly people living in poverty in isolated hamlets, or suggesting that people might like to live within walking distance of their place of employment, but that doesn't mean your original and as yet unretracted aim shouldn't continue to be shown up for the imperious fantasy that it is.

Personally-directed enclosed powered transport devices provide enormous net benefit to human beings and are here to stay.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Personally-directed enclosed powered transport devices provide enormous net benefit to human beings and are here to stay.



And this is not incompatible with the aim of eliminating privately owned cars. So I wonder why you are investing so much time and emotion in this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 12, 2021)

maomao said:


> Pretty impressive inventing supermarkets 62 years before the first recorded use of the word.


So by your logic, bicycles weren't invented until 1868?
Try harder.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> So by your logic, bicycles weren't invented until 1868?
> Try harder.


'grocer' is the word you're looking for


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> And this is not incompatible with the aim of eliminating privately owned cars.



Yes it is, but I'm sure you have some cunning plan up your sleeve



teuchter said:


> So I wonder why you are investing so much time and emotion in this thread.



Because the only country that has virtually eliminated private car use is North Korea.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 13, 2021)

Good to see citizens once again using reasonable force to clear the roads.


----------



## klang (Oct 13, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Good to see citizens once again using reasonable force to highlight the problem of traffic pollution.



ffy


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2021)

Some cogs turning in some car-people brains.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Some cogs turning in some car-people brains.
> 
> View attachment 292570



Perhaps they should lobby the local uni to adopt a similar rule to Cambridge:

"Members of the University _in statu pupillari_ who are in residence in term or in the Long Vacation period of residence are required to have a University Motor Licence if they wish to keep motor vehicles (other than mopeds) within 10 miles of Great St Mary's Church. Students who have MA status or who are members of the Senate do not currently require a licence. The former office of Special Pro-Proctor for Motor Vehicles no longer exists and licences are now issued under the authority of the Senior Proctor, who has the power to impose a fine of up to £175 for breaching the regulations on the keeping and using of motor vehicles and to suspend or revoke licences. The issue of a licence is conditional upon meeting certain requirements relating to insurance and the availability of authorised parking for the vehicle. A motor licence is not a parking permit and does not entitle the holder to park on University premises without separate authority.  Licences will only be issued upon recommendation from a College Tutor and they are only available to undergraduates who have not already kept 9 terms if they meet particular conditions."


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps they should lobby the local uni to adopt a similar rule to Cambridge:
> 
> "Members of the University _in statu pupillari_ who are in residence in term or in the Long Vacation period of residence are required to have a University Motor Licence if they wish to keep motor vehicles (other than mopeds) within 10 miles of Great St Mary's Church. Students who have MA status or who are members of the Senate do not currently require a licence. The former office of Special Pro-Proctor for Motor Vehicles no longer exists and licences are now issued under the authority of the Senior Proctor, who has the power to impose a fine of up to £175 for breaching the regulations on the keeping and using of motor vehicles and to suspend or revoke licences. The issue of a licence is conditional upon meeting certain requirements relating to insurance and the availability of authorised parking for the vehicle. A motor licence is not a parking permit and does not entitle the holder to park on University premises without separate authority.  Licences will only be issued upon recommendation from a College Tutor and they are only available to undergraduates who have not already kept 9 terms if they meet particular conditions."


What have these boring parking rules got to do with preventing the UK turning into North Korea? Why are you posting stuff about student parking in Cambridge?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What have these boring parking rules got to do with preventing the UK turning into North Korea? Why are you posting stuff about student parking in Cambridge?



Even Kim Il-sung wannabes such as you have to start somewhere. Extending some simple and restrictions on those pesky students might be a good such place.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Even Kim Il-sung wannabes such as you have to start somewhere. Extending some simple and restrictions on those pesky students might be a good such place.


To be clear though, your position is that we must not place any restrictions whatsoever on private motor use, because doing so is the thin end of the wedge that leads to totalitarianism.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To be clear though, your position is that we must not place any restrictions whatsoever on private motor use, because doing so is the thin end of the wedge that leads to totalitarianism.



No not at all. My position is simply that your "agenda of eliminating the private car" is only possible through totalitarianism.

I'm in favour or restrictions on private motor use, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.

Your position however has varied on this thread from abolition of all private cars through to fawning over how awesome the current state of Tokyo when it comes to cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 13, 2021)

teuchter is about as consistent as a turd that starts as a hard plug and finishes in bowl splattering liquid lumps.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 14, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 14, 2021)

Driver + police officer = amusement


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 15, 2021)

If cyclists weren't slowing down traffic innocent drivers wouldn't need to plough through shops for a shortcut.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 17, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’m all for as much planning as possible based around encouraging people not to move aloud. It is particularly mad when people have schools in walking distance and instead send their kids to somewhere miles away.


I think we’ve managed to get it licked, school is a 5-6 minute walk away, pre-school about the same, I work at the school too and it’s a two or three minute bike ride when I go in first thing. Post office 150 metres, Tesco metro 200 metres although I prefer the coop a couple of minutes further. The mrs works from home other than two contiguous days a fortnight in London which is done on public transport.  

The only reason we need a car is a) for the weekly Aldi shop and b) Because we have a garage and not using would mean missing out on the joy of being smug assholes in an area where people get into fisticuffs about parking.


----------



## Hollis (Oct 17, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> The only reason we need a car is a) for the weekly Aldi shop and b) Because we have a garage and not using would mean missing out on the joy of being smug assholes in an area where people get into fisticuffs about parking.


Book a weekly delivery - job done.  With the money you save from not having a car you can upgrade to Waitrose.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 17, 2021)

Dogsauce said:


> The only reason we need a car is a) for the weekly Aldi shop and b) Because we have a garage and not using would mean missing out on the joy of being smug assholes in an area where people get into fisticuffs about parking.


I live on a corner near a pub, and when the pub gets busy at weekends, people like to park their cars outside my house, so rather than putting the cars behind the house or in the garage, I park them outside the house to stop others parking there. Unfortunately, two cars isn't enough, as there's room for another two at the front of the house, so I'm going to have to buy another two cars to stop people from parking there. It's going to be an expensive job. Maybe I should just put some planters there.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 17, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I live on a corner near a pub, and when the pub gets busy at weekends, people like to park their cars outside my house, so rather than putting the cars behind the house or in the garage, I park them outside the house to stop others parking there. Unfortunately, two cars isn't enough, as there's room for another two at the front of the house, so I'm going to have to buy another two cars to stop people from parking there. It's going to be an expensive job. Maybe I should just put some planters there.



Block them with boulders.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

It seems even the Sun is getting pissed off with driver entitlement!









						Family whose five cars won't fit on their drive complain at cost of parking
					

A FAMILY whose five cars won’t fit on their drive have complained about having to pay parking fees. Angela Hammond and her family say their council won’t allow them to buy a parkin…




					www.thesun.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It seems even the Sun is getting pissed off with driver entitlement!
> 
> [link removed]



You're not allowed to link to The Sun here, I suggest you edit your post.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 19, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You're not allowed to link to The Sun here


Says who?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 19, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Says who?



Some grumpy poster called butchersapron, to me, when I posted a link to a Twitter post made by a journalist employed by The Sun.

Their post got lots of likes, so you'd better not try and justify the above, or else.


----------



## klang (Oct 19, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Says who?





platinumsage said:


> Some grumpy poster called butchersapron, to me, when I posted a link to a Twitter post made by a journalist employed by The Sun.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It seems even the Sun is getting pissed off with driver entitlement!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know things are bad when someone has to resort to quoting the scum.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

I see the big boys are missing the point again.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It seems even the Sun is getting pissed off with driver entitlement!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't be surprised if some Sun journalists read this thread, have become sympathetic to the cause and therefore are starting to write articles like this.

Another massive success for this thread, continually bumped to the top of "new posts" by those that don't understand how it works.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I see the big boys are missing the point again.


At some point it might dawn on them that their worldview is now even more backward than that of Sun journalists.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I see the big boys are missing the point again.


That you read something in your daily rag and felt the need to report it here? Or are you boasting that you can actually read?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 19, 2021)

Anyway, I've decided against the planters outside my house to stop people parking. I'm going with cars instead. I can pick up big gas guzzlers cheaply, as tax here is based on engine size, so I reckon I'll start with either a big Lexus or a Jag, as they're dirt cheap. I'll use it the odd weekend to keep the battery charged and to do my bit for the environment.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

If a wind-up post fails to get a reaction, that's because it's a rubbish one. Trying it again isn't going to change that. Top tip from me, for free. You're welcome.


----------



## T & P (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some Sun journalists read this thread, have become sympathetic to the cause and therefore are starting to write articles like this.
> 
> Another massive success for this thread, continually bumped to the top of "new posts" by those that don't understand how it works.


If anyone from the outside world stumbled across this thread and read it, my betting is that their immediate reaction would in fact be to purchase the biggest 4x4 they could afford and start mowing down cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> If anyone from the outside world stumbled across this thread and read it, my betting is that their immediate reaction would in fact be to purchase the biggest 4x4 they could afford and start mowing down cyclists.



Or do a load of doughnuts through a field of wheatgrass.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If a wind-up post fails to get a reaction, that's because it's a rubbish one. Trying it again isn't going to change that. Top tip from me, for free. You're welcome.


It's not a wind-up. I'm merely keeping you updated on my plans. 



T & P said:


> If anyone from the outside world stumbled across this thread and read it, my betting is that their immediate reaction would in fact be to purchase the biggest 4x4 they could afford and start mowing down cyclists.


My dad has a Dodge RAM that he's only used a handful of times since he bought it 10 years ago. It's fucking huge, and it guzzles diesel like a freight train, which is probably why he doesn't use it, but agricultural diesel is fairly cheap here, so I reckon I might see about borrowing it for a while and adjusting the injector pump to do some of that rolling coal thing.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some Sun journalists read this thread, have become sympathetic to the cause and therefore are starting to write articles like this.
> 
> Another massive success for this thread, continually bumped to the top of "new posts" by those that don't understand how it works.



I think threads such as this would lead to headlines such as this:

Climate Activists Want Rural Grandmother to WALK Twenty-seven MILES to her nearest Asda.

….if any journalists actually read them, which they won’t. I suggest setting up a Society for the Abolition of the Car, and then emailing journos frequently so you get used as a go-to rent-a-quote on any story about driving restrictions or the absence thereof. The absurdity of your position is just the sort of thing that tabloids thrive on to create engagement through discord.


----------



## T & P (Oct 19, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I think threads such as this would lead to headlines such as this:
> 
> Climate Activists Want Rural Grandmother to WALK Twenty-seven MILES to her nearest Asda.
> 
> ….if any journalists actually read them, which they won’t. I suggest setting up a Society for the Abolition of the Car, and then emailing journos frequently so you get used as a go-to rent-a-quote on any story about driving restrictions or the absence thereof. The absurdity of your position is just the sort of thing that tabloids thrive on to create engagement through discord.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 19, 2021)




----------



## David Clapson (Oct 20, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Untaxed, using mobile phone, stupidly big car, wrong side of the road & driving into people. Noting to see here fellas.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I live on a corner near a pub, and when the pub gets busy at weekends, people like to park their cars outside my house, so rather than putting the cars behind the house or in the garage, I park them outside the house to stop others parking there. Unfortunately, two cars isn't enough, as there's room for another two at the front of the house, so I'm going to have to buy another two cars to stop people from parking there. It's going to be an expensive job. Maybe I should just put some planters there.


Yes but you don't need an actual running car with an engine for that, Can't you get a couple of horseboxes or trailers instead?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

No issues here - everything’s fine.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Yes but you don't need an actual running car with an engine for that, Can't you get a couple of horseboxes or trailers instead?


That would look a bit unsightly, and tbh, I wouldn't mind having a few cars around the house now that I have the space for them. My go-to car will still be something quite economical, but this thread has convinced me that I definitely need something that does less than 20mpg, just for the odd day out to balance my carbon quota.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No issues here - everything’s fine.




That's fuck all to do with being driver and everything to do with being an utter cunt who should've been drowned at birth. Also grist to the mill for my campaign to ban middle eastern number-plated cars from UK roads.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

It’s got a lot to do with an incredibly lenient judicial system to drivers and shows how we are constantly pandering to them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That would look a bit unsightly, and tbh, I wouldn't mind having a few cars around the house now that I have the space for them. My go-to car will still be something quite economical, but this thread has convinced me that I definitely need something that does less than 20mpg, just for the odd day out to balance my carbon quota.











						8 Signs A Guy Suffers From SPS (Small Penis Syndrome)
					

Being overly grossed out by periods, denouncing chick flicks, claiming that females cannot be funny, and refusing to do “womanly” activities are a few side effects of this symptom.




					thoughtcatalog.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s got a lot to do with an incredibly lenient judicial system to drivers and shows how we are constantly pandering to them.


Or you could be speeding on an illegal electric bicycle, and get off absolutely Scott free when you mow somebody down and kill them before fleeing the scene of the crime. 








						E-bike rider cleared of killing pedestrian in east London
					

The court heard he was going around 30mph in a 20mph zone when he hit the pedestrian.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s got a lot to do with an incredibly lenient judicial system to drivers and shows how we are constantly pandering to them.



I'm torn on the issue in fairness. On the one hand I don't wish to condone _too much _illegal behaviour by drivers. On the other hand I'm fully aware of how much the perceived unfairness irritates people like you, and I want more of that!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 8 Signs A Guy Suffers From SPS (Small Penis Syndrome)
> 
> 
> Being overly grossed out by periods, denouncing chick flicks, claiming that females cannot be funny, and refusing to do “womanly” activities are a few side effects of this symptom.
> ...


The irony of maomao liking your post when number 3 on the list is unwarranted rage  🤣


----------



## maomao (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The irony of maomao liking your post when number 3 on the list is unwarranted rage  🤣


Dunno. Think your rage at me mentioning your alcoholism after years of following me around the boards accusing me of racism, wife beating, hard drug abuse was pretty fucking unwarranted and I doubt your idiot mate has calmed down properly even now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> wife eating


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> Dunno. Think your rage at me mentioning your alcoholism after years of following me around the boards accusing me of racism, wife eating, hard drug abuse was pretty fucking unwarranted and I doubt your idiot mate has calmed down properly even now.


That wasn't rage, it was an entirely justified response. 

In other news, cyclists are impotent. 








						Impotence and nerve entrapment in long distance amateur cyclists - PubMed
					

The frequency of impotence, numbness of the penis, hand weakness and sensory symptoms from the fingers in bicycle sport may be higher than hitherto recognized. It afflicts both experienced cyclists and novices. In some, the complaints may last up to eight months. Besides changing the hand and...




					pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Or you could be speeding on an illegal electric bicycle, and get off absolutely Scott free when you mow somebody down and kill them before fleeing the scene of the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep - that's terrible as well. More akin to a motorbike than a push bike.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm torn on the issue in fairness. On the one hand I don't wish to condone _too much _illegal behaviour by drivers. On the other hand I'm fully aware of how much the perceived unfairness irritates people like you, and I want more of that!


🎣

Have I done it right?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No issues here - everything’s fine.




That may seem a shockingly light sentence, but if that crime had been committed by someone who was drunk, disqualified, texting and failed to stop, they'd probably get a few months extra. So in that context it's "fair".


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🎣
> 
> Have I done it right?



Lol! Good try 😉


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


>


With fava beans and a nice Chianti.


----------



## T & P (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - that's terrible as well. More akin to a motorbike than a push bike.


Really? I'd say quite the opposite. Do you want to compare the road behaviour between bikers and cyclists around pedestrians, whether on the pavement, the road, or pedestrian crossings? Or the compliance with red lights of bikers vs cyclists? Because it doesn't look pretty for the latter group.


----------



## maomao (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That wasn't rage, it was an entirely justified response.


 Entirely justified for me to mention your drinking too, lest anyone mistake you for an honest interlocutor and not the  drivel spewing abusive drunk that you are. 


> In other news, cyclists are impotent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1997. They reinvented bike seats mid-90s because of that, men's ones all have the little cut out bit. It's motorcyclists that are impotent these days:





__





						Do motorcyclists have erectile dysfunction? A preliminary study - International Journal of Impotence Research
					

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between motorcycling and erectile dysfunction (ED). We investigated the relationship between motorcycling and erectile function using the 5-items version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF5) in 234 motorcyclists...




					www.nature.com


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> Entirely justified for me to mention your drinking too, lest anyone mistake you for an honest interlocutor and not the  drivel spewing abusive drunk that you are.
> 
> 1997. They reinvented bike seats mid-90s because of that, men's ones all have the little cut out bit. It's motorcyclists that are impotent these days:
> 
> ...


Boom! 💥


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> Entirely justified for me to mention your drinking too, lest anyone mistake you for an honest interlocutor and not the  drivel spewing abusive drunk that you are.


Have you considered asking for a refund for those anger management classes, because they don't seem to be working?


----------



## maomao (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you considered asking for a refund for those anger management classes, because they don't seem to be working?


My counselling for ptss was funded through my uni and has concluded so nothing to refund. More than anything else though I think seeing you two lose your shit so embarrassingly on Friday night has helped me put my own problems in perspective. Thank you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Boom! 💥


It seems he can't help himself. I know doctors like to apply labels to certain traits but surely there comes a time when you have to just throw your hands in the air and resign yourself to the fact that some people are just cunts and there's no cure for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

Got the outlaws staying over. You lads are on your own tonight.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Got the outlaws staying over. You lads are on your own tonight.


I'm going to be busy scouring the ads, looking for something with a turbo that I can pump up to 400bhp or more. I have my eye on a few but im looking for something with an LSD for a bit of fun.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

Just seen that JuanTwoThree looks to be rather seriously unwell too. Doesn't feel right to be laying into each other here at the moment.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That would look a bit unsightly, and tbh, I wouldn't mind having a few cars around the house now that I have the space for them. My go-to car will still be something quite economical, but this thread has convinced me that I definitely need something that does less than 20mpg, just for the odd day out to balance my carbon quota.


I reckon there could be a market here for fake Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, Rollers etc that are just dummies that people buy to park in their drive.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Just seen that JuanTwoThree looks to be rather seriously unwell too. Doesn't feel right to be laying into each other here at the moment.


Stop being so vile then. it’s really depressing reading. You don’t seem to be aware of how toxic you’ve made this place .


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Stop being so vile then. it’s really depressing reading. You don’t seem to be aware of how toxic you’ve made this place .


Fuck off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

There you go. Time to find somewhere else to be a bully boy who enjoys upsetting people


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

Not interested


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

I dearly wish that was true


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

You’re doing your vest to start a fight aren’t you? 

Maybe tomorrow


----------



## gosub (Oct 20, 2021)




----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

No, I really don’t want to fight, I just dearly wish that you get a smidgen of self-awareness at how you come across on here, and how much of a malign influence you have by deliberately needling people for your own amusement


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

I sincerely hope it eventually dawns on you and the other persistent disruptors, like Mitchell’s character does in this sketch:


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Got the outlaws staying over. You lads are on your own tonight.



Enjoy Corrie


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Stop being so vile then. it’s really depressing reading. You don’t seem to be aware of how toxic you’ve made this place .



So, spy tries to calm things down, and you reply with this shit stirring post.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> I sincerely hope it eventually dawns on you and the other persistent disruptors, like Mitchell’s character does in this sketch:




I think it’s more this tbh


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Enjoy Corrie



Clarkson’s Farm tonight


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, spy tries to calm things down, and you reply with this shit stirring post.


No, he inexcusably uses another poster’s illness to distract attention from his continued refusal to apologise for his disgraceful behaviour. That sort of shoddy behaviour needs calling out every time.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 20, 2021)

Stop stirring the shit, you hypocrite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 20, 2021)

Oh the ironing. I’ll leave it there. But this place stinks at the moment


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, spy tries to calm things down, and you reply with this shit stirring post.


And then talks about a lack of self-awareness.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Ealing a roaring success now it’s removed it’s LTNs!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ealing a roaring success now it’s removed it’s LTNs!



If only there was another way for them to get about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there was another way for them to get about.


I laugh at them. It's why I moved to Ireland, because I could no longer put up with that shite. 
Anybody who lives in a city deserves that shite.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 20, 2021)

“We have three kids so need a car to get them and all their stuff about”

“Hold my beer”


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Anybody who drives in a city deserves that shite.



Fixed it for you


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “We have three kids so need a car to get them and all their stuff about”
> 
> “Hold my beer”



I'm glad you wish to move back to the dark ages, like a little bicycle riding child. It leaves the roads free for the adults.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Always weird when it’s so obvious what the direction of travel on a subject is but people actively choose to fight to be on the wrong side of it. Either that or it’s just a case of being a shit troll with nothing better to do 🤷


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

ULEZ extension starts on Monday and looks like road pricing won’t be far behind.









						Sadiq Khan urged to introduce ‘pay-per-mile’ road charge in London
					

Motorists in London should be charged based on how many miles they drive to tackle poor air quality and plug the gap in TfL’s finances, according to a leading thinktank.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Always weird when it’s so obvious what the direction of travel on a subject is but people actively choose to fight to be on the wrong side of it. Either that or it’s just a case of being a shit troll with nothing better to do 🤷



Both and probably drives more than two hours a day too:









						Driving for more than two hours a day makes you less intelligent, study finds
					

Similar results found for those watching TV more than three hours a day




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 21, 2021)

maomao said:


> Both and probably drives more than two hours a day too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some genius "research" there. Office workers perform better in computer-based puzzle tasks than people who drive for a living. They also discovered that people who watch TV all day are not quite as good with computer puzzles as people who spend all day doing computer puzzles. Groundbreaking stuff.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

maomao said:


> Both and probably drives more than two hours a day too:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And with watching Corrie, Eastenders and Clarkson’s Farm he must be really struggling.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Some genius "research" there. Office workers perform better in computer-based puzzle tasks than people who drive for a living. They also discovered that people who watch TV all day are not quite as good with computer puzzles as people who spend all day doing computer puzzles. Groundbreaking stuff.


Most people could drive for 8 hours a day _whilst_ watching tv and still be brighter than Ed and maomao


----------



## maomao (Oct 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Most people could drive for 8 hours a day _whilst_ watching tv and still be brighter than Ed and maomao


Hope you've calmed down from your drunken abuse-fest. Could understand you not wanting family to see you in that state yesterday.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 21, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> I reckon there could be a market here for fake Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, Rollers etc that are just dummies that people buy to park in their drive.



Few of these .... 😁




Inflatables 🤣


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

maomao said:


> Hope you've calmed down from your drunken abuse-fest.



I noticed you haven’t!


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> And with watching Corrie, Eastenders and Clarkson’s Farm he must be really struggling.
> 
> View attachment 293524




Cop on would you?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Cop on would you?



Apologies for bringing the tone of this thread down….


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Apologies for bringing the tone of this thread down….


Good lad.

Now behave yourself.


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

Well done to the people of Ealing for voting to get rid of some of the NIMBY Zones.

When are we going to have a referendum in Lambeth? I suspect we won't, because if even 25% of residents voted to keep them I'd my hat, and the council knows it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well done to the people of Ealing for voting to get rid of some of the NIMBY Zones.
> 
> When are we going to have a referendum in Lambeth? I suspect we won't, because if even 25% of residents voted to keep them I'd my hat, and the council knows it.



You’re putting a lot of faith in the 60% of households without cars voting to scrap LTNs there.


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re putting a lot of faith in the 60% of households without cars voting to scrap LTNs there.


Those 60% of households without cars are still enduring much longer bus journey times on a number of bus routes in the aera, and undoubtedly far worse pollution along Christchurch Road, to a smaller degree on Tulse Hill (road). The only winners are the very well-to-do residents of the leafy conservation area that already had small volumes of traffic before the NIMBY zone was imposed, who now have a bit less.

Make no mistake, because I live there and go through it every day: The South Circular has become, much, much, much fucking worse for many, many more hours of the day because of the extremely ill-thought LTNs that have been created in the area. Some LTNs might work and be fully justified. But not all are. It's a fucking shitshow in the Tulse Hill area, and the sooner they are removed, the better.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Those 60% of households without cars are still enduring much longer bus journey times on a number of bus routes in the aera, and undoubtedly far worse pollution along Christchurch Road, to a smaller degree on Tulse Hill (road). The only winners are the very well-to-do residents of the leafy conservation area that already had small volumes of traffic before the NIMBY zone was imposed, who now have a bit less.
> 
> Make no mistake, because I live there and go through it every day: The South Circular has become, much, much, much fucking worse for many, many more hours of the day because of the extremely ill-thought LTNs that have been created in the area. Some LTNs might work and be fully justified. But not all are. It's a fucking shitshow in the Tulse Hill area, and the sooner they are removed, the better.



I also live next to the Sth Circular there and call bullshit.

As for buses, TfL’s done good work on 24hr bus lanes and widening them + restricting turns that have speeded buses up a lot. These have also been opposed by drivers at every turn 🥱


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I also live next to the Sth Circular there and call bullshit.
> 
> As for buses, TfL’s done good work on 24hr bus lanes and widening them + restricting turns that have speeded buses up a lot. These have also been opposed by drivers at every turn 🥱


You call bullshit all you want, but clearly you don't go through the Christchurch Road section of it very often. If you did, as I do twice a day, you would know that the traffic is invariably a lot worse since the LTNs were introduced.

And there are no bus lanes on that stretch of the road of course, so buses are as caught up in the perma-jam as everyone else. Let's not even mention the people who live alongside the road and are exposed to additional levels of noise and pollution they had never experienced that frequently before the LTNs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Those 60% of households without cars are still enduring much longer bus journey times on a number of bus routes in the aera, and undoubtedly far worse pollution along Christchurch Road, to a smaller degree on Tulse Hill (road). The only winners are the very well-to-do residents of the leafy conservation area that already had small volumes of traffic before the NIMBY zone was imposed, who now have a bit less.
> 
> Make no mistake, because I live there and go through it every day: The South Circular has become, much, much, much fucking worse for many, many more hours of the day because of the extremely ill-thought LTNs that have been created in the area. Some LTNs might work and be fully justified. But not all are. It's a fucking shitshow in the Tulse Hill area, and the sooner they are removed, the better.


Boo boo
It’s almost as if they’re encouraging people not to use cars and to switch to public transport and bicycles


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> You call bullshit all you want, but clearly you don't go through the Christchurch Road section of it very often. If you did, as I do twice a day, you would know that the traffic is invariably a lot worse since the LTNs were introduced.
> 
> And there are no bus lanes on that stretch of the road of course, so buses are as caught up in the perma-jam as everyone else. Let's not even mention the people who live alongside the road and are exposed to additional levels of noise and pollution they had never experienced that frequently before the LTNs.



It’s the Sth Circular crossing the A23 - there’s always been traffic caused by… too much traffic.

Luckily the bus only uses a short section of it and now doesn’t get stuck on Upper Tulse Hill by cars trying to pass each other with parked cars either side. I know as I use the bus rather than adding to the traffic on the Sth Circular.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I also live next to the Sth Circular there and call bullshit.
> 
> As for buses, TfL’s done good work on 24hr bus lanes and widening them + restricting turns that have speeded buses up a lot.


They've been binning them up here. The latest one was the moronic 24hr bus/cycle lane on the Finchley Rd., which frequently had a queue of traffic in a single lane from the O2 back to Swiss Cottage, alongside an empty lane. Lasted for about 3 months. I think they're being taken out quicker than they're going in. Which is obviously a good thing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> They've been binning them up here. The latest one was the moronic 24hr bus/cycle lane on the Finchley Rd., which frequently had a queue of traffic in a single lane from the O2 back to Swiss Cottage, alongside an empty lane. Lasted for about 3 months. I think they're being taken out quicker than they're going in. Which is obviously a good thing.


At least they weren't a complete waste of taxpayer money.  
What happens is this... people who are good for nothing else end up in government jobs, so you get the likes of edcraw spending a few years brainstorming and coming up with silly ideas that even teuchter would realise were face-palm worthy. So they either double down or quietly remove the fuck up. Obviously the former if the latter will negatively effect them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Anyway, we’re getting off topic here the thread for this is here:









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood  Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood aims to realise the great potential Brixton has for walking and cycling while improving air quality, reducing congestion, supporting local businesses and providing for the growth in jobs and homes planned for the area.  We...




					www.urban75.net
				




Where you can see the “treasurer” of One Lambeth defend comparisons of the Holocaust to LTNs and claim vandalism of LTN signs is a false flag operation by supporters!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well done to the people of Ealing for voting to get rid of some of the NIMBY Zones.


Seems to be going well so far









I feel sorry for people that live in Ealing but binning the LTNs there might actually be rather helpful to the long term cause, because people will see that removing them doesn't magically make the traffic go away.

A bit like this thread, the car-people that don't think things through unwittingly make the other side of the argument look more legitimate.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seems to be going well so far
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I’m pretty sure all of that traffic chaos is a false flag operation, by pro ltn types


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

For anyone that actually wants to do any kind of critical thinking about LTNs this graph shows how sat navs have had the affect of increasing road capacity in London by routing traffic down minor roads whilst having hardly any affect on A & B roads and so increased miles driven and so pollution. But yeah LTNs cause pollution ➡️


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> They've been binning them up here. The latest one was the moronic 24hr bus/cycle lane on the Finchley Rd., which frequently had a queue of traffic in a single lane from the O2 back to Swiss Cottage, alongside an empty lane. Lasted for about 3 months. I think they're being taken out quicker than they're going in. Which is obviously a good thing.



Ah yes, the Finchley Road was always idyllic before 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah yes, the Finchley Road was always idyllic before 🤦‍♂️


Don't be silly.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be silly.



You’re right- it’s always been a shot show and it’s almost like we need fewer people driving!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re right- it’s always been a shot show and it’s almost like we need fewer people driving!


Wibble!


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

Before bothering to discuss LTNs any further, can I ask those in favour of them if they are actually prepared to consider the possibility that even if the great majority work well, there could also be some individual ones that are proving to make things worse, and in such cases removing them would be the better course of action? Or are your minds closed to that possibility just on general principle?  Because if it’s the latter there’d be little point to continue any further debate on this.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Before bothering to discuss LTNs any further, can I ask those in favour of them if they are actually prepared to consider the possibility that even if the great majority work well, there could also be some individual ones that are proving to make things worse, and in such cases removing them would be the better course of action? Or are your minds closed to that possibility just on general principle?  Because if it’s the latter there’d be little point to continue any further debate on this.



Yeah - I’m sure there are instances where there are badly designed.

Can you agree with the principle that traffic should use A & B roads for the majority of their journeys and use minor roads for only the first and last parts?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> Before bothering to discuss LTNs any further, can I ask those in favour of them if they are actually prepared to consider the possibility that even if the great majority work well, there could also be some individual ones that are proving to make things worse, and in such cases removing them would be the better course of action? Or are your minds closed to that possibility just on general principle?  Because if it’s the latter there’d be little point to continue any further debate on this.


If I say "no" would this guarantee that I never have to read your thoughts about them again, what with you seeing no point in continuing debate?


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - I’m sure there are instances where there are badly designed.
> 
> Can you agree with the principle that traffic should use A & B roads for the majority of their journeys and use minor roads for only the first and last parts?


On principle yes but depending on the local traffic geography and allowing for exceptions if it’s deemed local restrictions might create an undesirable amount of congestion on the main roads. Which is why I don’t oppose all LTNs, but some.


----------



## T & P (Oct 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If I say "no" would this guarantee that I never have to read your thoughts about them again, what with you seeing no point in continuing debate?


Where would the fun be in that?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

T & P said:


> On principle yes but depending on the local traffic geography and allowing for exceptions if it’s deemed local restrictions might create an undesirable amount of congestion on the main roads. Which is why I don’t oppose all LTNs, but some.


The problem is is that it’s very difficult to see any actual genuine concerns about LTNs as so much of the opposition is against the slightest inconvenience to drivers and all changes (24/7 bus lanes, cycle lanes etc.) are opposed by the seemingly the same people & there’s so much hyperbole about 10min journeys now taking and hour and a half.

And also, One Lambeth raising £50k to supposedly support people with disabilities when really they just see this as a way of scrapping them 🙄

I don’t see how the Tulse Hill one isn’t working. Upper Tulse Hill used to be a stream of commercial traffic trying to simply avoid the Sth Circular. It causes congestion by the vehicles then having to join main roads (Sth Circular & Brixton Hill) when they should have already been on them.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What happens is this... people who are good for nothing else end up in government jobs,



🤔

That's a strange thing to think. Are you lumping nurses and teachers in there? And paramedics and hospital/public drs?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

I find it hilarious that people who have chosen to live on through-routes in central London are complaining about the roads outside their house being used by vehicles to get from one place to another.

Funnily enough you don’t hear similar complaints from people who have chosen to live on a cul-de-sac in Nempnett Thrubwell, I wonder why that is?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

T & P said:


> Before bothering to discuss LTNs any further, can I ask those in favour of them if they are actually prepared to consider the possibility that even if the great majority work well, there could also be some individual ones that are proving to make things worse, and in such cases removing them would be the better course of action? Or are your minds closed to that possibility just on general principle?  Because if it’s the latter there’d be little point to continue any further debate on this.


There is one thing, and one thing only, that causes traffic and makes it worse. Until you get this there really is little point in continuing any debate.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I find it hilarious that people who have chosen to live on through-routes in central London are complaining about the roads outside their house being used by vehicles to get from one place to another.
> 
> Funnily enough you don’t hear similar complaints from people who have chosen to live on a cul-de-sac in Nempnett Thrubwell, I wonder why that is?


Ella Kissi-Debrah should have moved to Somerset.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> Ella Kissi-Debrah should have moved to Somerset.



Her mum is a vociferous opponent of LTNs.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I find it hilarious that people who have chosen to live on through-routes in central London are complaining about the roads outside their house being used by vehicles to get from one place to another.
> 
> Funnily enough you don’t hear similar complaints from people who have chosen to live on a cul-de-sac in Nempnett Thrubwell, I wonder why that is?



It’s not particularly the people living on these streets that support LTNs - in fact quite a few oppose as they’re more likely to be richer and so car owners and are inconvenienced.

Anyway, none of these streets were built for motor vehicles let alone the volumes we see. There’s a reason why most post war housing has been built explicitly to not allow through traffic. LTNs are simply retrofitting cul de sacs that would have been put in place of cars had been around when these streets were built.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s not particularly the people living on these streets that support LTNs - in fact quite a few oppose as they’re more likely to be richer and so car owners and are inconvenienced.



Who supports them then, if not the people inside or people outside?









						'Like a slap in the face': Leading campaigner on traffic from LTN
					

A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter’s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following a…




					www.newsshopper.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There is one thing, and one thing only, that causes traffic and makes it worse.


I know you’re going to blame speed limits for this, or maybe traffic lights, but both are necessary under certain circumstances.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Love how drivers pretend to care about pollution when they can blame it on LTNs or cycle lanes…


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Her mum is a vociferous opponent of LTNs.


So? LTNs aren't my favoured solution and the health problems caused by cars are unfortunately not limited to one death. And what she actually says makes a mockery of your attempt to frame exposure to pollution as individual choice.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> So? LTNs aren't my favoured solution and the health problems caused by cars are unfortunately not limited to one death. And what she actually says makes a mockery of your attempt to frame exposure to pollution as individual choice.



I didn't do anything of the sort. People were complaining about LTNs in terms of traffic congestion, not pollution, and that's what I focused on.

I know you care about pollution a lot, in which case you should oppose LTNs in the same way that the mother of the dead girl you chose to cite does.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I know you’re going to blame speed limits for this, or maybe traffic lights, but both are necessary under certain circumstances.


No, I blame cars. It doesn’t matter how many ways you look at the congestion and pollution problems in our cities, it always - always - comes back to cars. There are too many of them, making too many unnecessary trips, on poorly designed infrastructure. Get rid of large numbers of them and it gets better for _everyone_, Including those (relatively few) who actually need to drive.

We are decades behind other cities who realised this back in the 70’s. People whining about LTN’s because they haven’t magically fixed the problem overnight are missing the point. The problem we have created will take a generation or more to fix. But fix it we must - and will - in spite of the inevitable wailing from those dinosaurs who refuse to engage with needed changes to their lives.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I didn't do anything of the sort. People were complaining about LTNs in terms of traffic congestion, not pollution, and that's what I focused on.
> 
> I know you care about pollution a lot, in which case you should oppose LTNs in the same way that the mother of the dead girl you chose to cite does.


Congestion causes pollution. And no, I'm not.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I blame cars. It doesn’t matter how many ways you look at the congestion and pollution problems in our cities, it always - always - comes back to cars. There are too many of them, making too many unnecessary trips, on poorly designed infrastructure. Get rid of large numbers of them and it gets better for _everyone_, Including those (relatively few) who actually need to drive.
> 
> We are decades behind other cities who realised this back in the 70’s. People whining about LTN’s because they haven’t magically fixed the problem overnight are missing the point. The problem we have created will take a generation or more to fix. But fix it we must - and will - in spite of the inevitable wailing from those dinosaurs who refuse to engage with needed changes to their lives.



And LTNs are just part of the solution. ULEZ, road pricing, cycle lanes are all others.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Starting to think Saul & Spy are pretty xenophobic.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 293685
> 
> View attachment 293686
> 
> View attachment 293687



Oxford



Manchester


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 22, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Oxford
> 
> View attachment 293688
> 
> ...


Did you notice anything those pictures have in common? Maybe the little fact that they're from a time when there were few or no cars?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Starting to think Saul & Spy are pretty xenophobic.


That's just you trying to deflect attention from your bestiality.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>





Couldn't work here though, our roads are measured in miles.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's just you trying to deflect attention from your bestiality.


? I mean what are you even on about. You're like a middle aged 12 year old.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Couldn't work here though, our roads are measured in miles.


And full of London wankers


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> ? I mean what are you even on about. You're like a middle aged 12 year old.


I see you didn't deny it... Very telling.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

I realise I was being rather unkind on 12 year olds there...


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I blame cars. It doesn’t matter how many ways you look at the congestion and pollution problems in our cities, it always - always - comes back to cars. There are too many of them, making too many unnecessary trips, on poorly designed infrastructure. Get rid of large numbers of them and it gets better for _everyone …_



Finally something we can agree on, Bees. I fully support getting rid of the majority of cars. Just as long as mine aren’t included in the cull. How would you go about it though? For starters I suggest banning all non-German vehicles. Then legislate heavily against all the remainder with engine capacities of less than 3 litres. I reckon you could even twist my arm and have me agree to the banning of all non black or silver cars too. 👍


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Did you notice anything those pictures have in common? Maybe the little fact that they're from a time when there were few or no cars?



Yeah cos your photos were cutting-edge


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Oxford
> 
> View attachment 293688


Note the lack of cycle and bus lanes, the resultant wide roads have encouraged cycling and everyone is happy. Go check out Oxford today and notice the mess they've made of it.



Spymaster said:


> Finally something we can agree on, Bees. I fully support getting rid of the majority of cars. Just as long as mine aren’t included in the cull. How would you go about it though? For starters I suggest banning all non-German vehicles. Then legislate heavily against all the remainder with engine capacities of less than 3 litres. I reckon you could even twist my arm and have me agree to the banning of all non black or silver cars too. 👍



Exactly. People with small city cars obviously don't need them because public transport is good in cities, so they can get the bus.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Finally something we can agree on, Bees. I fully support getting rid of the majority of cars. Just as long as mine aren’t included in the cull. How would you go about it though? For starters I suggest banning all non-German vehicles. Then legislate heavily against all the remainder with engine capacities of less than 3 litres. I reckon you could even twist my arm and have me agree to the banning of all non black or silver cars too. 👍


I'd agree with a ban on cars for anybody who doesn't need one. Obviously, everyone on this thread who is advocating against them should immediately stop driving and use only public transport or bicycles. edcraw can use a tricycle, whilst those of us who can prove that we need them can continue to use them. 
Emotional support cars will obviously be allowed.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> whilst those of us who can prove that we need them can continue to use them.


Okay - prove that you need a car.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - prove that you need a car.



Prove that you’re not a dickhead. 

Easy this, isn’t it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Prove that you’re not a dickhead.
> 
> Easy this, isn’t it.


🥱


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - prove that you need a car.


Then set out your criteria for proving (to you) that someone needs to own a car and we'll offer up a response. If you want us to play this game then you need to set out some ground rules. Saying prove it is meaningless since you can then continue to say well I don't accept that, so tell us what you do accept.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Then set out your criteria for proving (to you) that someone needs to own a car and we'll offer up a response. If you want us to play this game then you need to set out some ground rules. Saying prove it is meaningless since you can then continue to say well I don't accept that, so tell us what you do accept.



It was his suggestion.

However very few people NEED a car. For most it’s a choice.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It was his suggestion.
> 
> However very few people NEED a car. For most it’s a choice.






> Saul Goodman said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Emotional support cars will obviously be allowed.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster has already offered up his definition of what someone who needs a car is, ie someone who already owns a large expensive German one (even though I personally qualify under his criteria even I think that's a bit of a narrow definition) but he isn't the person who wants to restrict ownership you are, so tell us what grounds do you consider justification for owning a car.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It was his suggestion.
> 
> However very few people NEED a car. For most it’s a choice.


Again define NEED, clearly I don't need a car in the same way I need oxygen, water or food or even clothing and shelter but the lifestyle I have, where I live and the job I do would be impossible for me to do without a car. So to me I need a car to the extent where I am willing to bear the not inconsiderable cost of running it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Spymaster has already offered up his definition of what someone who needs a car is, ie someone who already owns a large expensive German one (even though I personally qualify under his criteria even I think that's a bit of a narrow definition) but he isn't the person who wants to restrict ownership you are, so tell us what grounds do you consider justification for owning a car.



I don't want to restrict ownership. Just more restrictions on where and how they are used because I recgonise he impact on others & the damage they cause.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Again define NEED, clearly I don't need a car in the same way I need oxygen, water or food or even clothing and shelter but the lifestyle I have, where I live and the job I do would be impossible for me to do without a car. So to me I need a car to the extent where I am willing to bear the not inconsiderable cost of running it.


Yes, you need a car because of the choices you've made. Therefore it's a choice.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yes, you need a car because of the choices you've made. Therefore it's a choice.


Absolutely wouldn't argue with you, it's my choice and I have made it, I'm quite happy with it too and wouldn't deny it to anyone else.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

I’m against restricting cars to people who can prove a need for them. That’s what North Korea does, and I think it’s the only country to do so.

Car abolitionists are welcome to emigrate there and lobby the government of that country to tighten restrictions further and ban cars altogether.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - prove that you need a car.


My nearest shop is 15km away. 
There is no public transport. 
It's my emotional support vehicle.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Absolutely wouldn't argue with you, it's my choice and I have made it, I'm quite happy with it too and wouldn't deny it to anyone else.


and it impacts others. With the right restrictions & nudges you can be helped to make better choices 😃


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> My nearest shop is 15km away.
> There is no public transport.
> It's my emotional support vehicle.


You've chosen to live there. It's a choice.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You've chosen to live there. It's a choice.



Yeah and everyone in London moaning about traffic in their neighbourhood has chosen to live there, but apparently we’re not allowed to mention that


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I’m against restricting cars to people who can prove a need for them. That’s what North Korea does, and I think it’s the only country to do so.
> 
> Car abolitionists are welcome to emigrate there and lobby the government of that country to tighten restrictions further and ban cars altogether.


Again, it's not about restricting ownership just how & where they are used to decrease the damage and impact on others.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Again, it's not about restricting ownership just how & where they are used to decrease the damage and impact on others.



I suggest you read the opening post of this thread again.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah and everyone in London moaning about traffic in their neighbourhood has chosen to live there, but apparently we’re allowed to mention that


No one was given a choice with this:


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> and it impacts others. With the right restrictions & nudges you can be helped to make better choices 😃


Living in cities is detrimental to people's mental and physical health. Moving away from cities is what we should be aiming for, not into them.
Stupid people living in cities, crying about city pollution and congestion. Its almost as if they're a bit fucking thick.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Living in cities is detrimental to people's mental and physical health.


Where have you got that from? Cities are far better for the environment, for a start you don't have to drive 15km to do your shopping.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Note the lack of cycle and bus lanes, the resultant wide roads have encouraged cycling and everyone is happy. Go check out Oxford today and notice the mess they've made of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. People with small city cars obviously don't need them because public transport is good in cities, so they can get the bus.



Public transport is rubbish over here  and the pandemic showed just how flawed a system relying on public transport can become.

On another tack. There was an accident on a motorway here last week. Traffic was left either sat there or crawling for 5 hours. My dad happened to be stuck in the middle of that mess. 5 hours. Think about how that would pan out if all the cars were electric and couldnt recharge.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Some real low intelligence comment from the big boys today.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> and it impacts others. With the right restrictions & nudges you can be helped to make better choices 😃


Rather doubt it, I feel I've made the best (indeed only realistically practical) choice for me. The kind of nudges that would encourage me to give up my car would be ruinously expensive for society as a whole and would be better spent on other things that would be of greater benefit to the community (which I am all in favour of). Any restrictions that would severe enough to drive me into giving up mine would result in whatever petrol was left being used  to publicly burn  anti-car campaigners and XR protesters alive in town squares before it would be effective in its desired aims.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No one was given a choice with this:
> 
> View attachment 293706



What fool would ever think that the volume of traffic on a particular class of road remains constant for ever?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Where have you got that from?


The mental health bit? This thread, mostly.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What fool would ever think that the volume of traffic on a particular class of road remains constant for ever?


It was very consistent for the 16years shown there before sat navs. Also, it's not something we just have to accept.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It was very consistent for the 16years shown there before sat navs. Also, it's not something we just have to accept.


Surely that's more an argument for the abolition of sat navs?


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Sorely that's more an argument for the abolition of sat navs?


You will pry my satnav out of my cold dead hands. The current car has got one built in but the reason I bought one in the first place was when we took Son Q to Open Day at Leeds Uni. I spent almost as long driving around trying to find my way out of Leeds as I did coming home, definitely did some unnecessary polluting that day.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It was very consistent for the 16years shown there before sat navs. Also, it's not something we just have to accept.



Rubbish, it had plummeted. You anti-car Londonites had never had it so good in a generation.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Sorely that's more an argument for the abolition of sat navs?


Why abolish anything?

I see why the drivers on this thread find these things threatening. It's difficult to have to realise that you are causing harm & LTNs are slightly counter intuitive and can be hard for some to understand. I think supporters of these schemes need to be patient and help people by explaining them and you all we get there eventually.  🙂


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Rubbish, it had plummeted. You anti-car Londonites had never had it so good in a generation.
> 
> View attachment 293709


The congestion charge has had a really great effect on central London hasn't it! Just shows why we need an M25 wide one.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Where have you got that from?





> *Mental wellbeing*
> 
> Prevalence of psychiatric disorders is significantly higher among people living in urban areas, says a meta-analysis of 20 pieces of research conducted over the past 35 years. Specifically, people in cities suffer from mood disorders and anxiety at a disproportionately high rate.











						How city life affects your health and happiness
					

Links between urban pollution and respiratory diseases drive most calls to clean our cities’ air. But the effect on our lungs is only one reason to be concerned by city living.




					www.bbc.com
				




It's weird that you would question something so blatantly obvious, yet not even remotely surprising.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why abolish anything?
> 
> I see why the drivers on this thread find these things threatening. It's difficult to have to realise that you are causing harm & LTNs are slightly counter intuitive and can be hard for some to understand. I think supporters of these schemes need to be patient and help people by explaining them and you all we get there eventually.  🙂



Perhaps you'd like to mansplain LTNs to the mother whose daughter's death maomao so cynically exploited earlier today on this thread.

This is what she said:

"What I’m most annoyed about is councillors’ patronising responses, as if people on this side are stupid. For example ‘you need to give it time’. I need to give it time? Not only did they not consult us when they closed off roads, where did they think the traffic was going to go? "what is unforgivable is that we are in the midst of a pandemic. The numbers from the BAME community on this side are more than on the other side. The other side is more affluent. It’s environmental racism."


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The congestion charge has had a really great effect on central London hasn't it! Just shows why we need an M25 wide one.



Yeah keep the poor on the buses and allow the rich to glide about in their Range Rover Sports. 

Really showing your true colours now aren't you?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> How city life affects your health and happiness
> 
> 
> Links between urban pollution and respiratory diseases drive most calls to clean our cities’ air. But the effect on our lungs is only one reason to be concerned by city living.
> ...



I wasn't questioning it. As the research you link to shows, it's caused mainly by air pollution, so let's do something about it. I think it's finally clicking for you - good work! 🏆


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why abolish anything?
> 
> I see why the drivers on this thread find these things threatening. It's difficult to have to realise that you are causing harm & LTNs are slightly counter intuitive and can be hard for some to understand. I think supporters of these schemes need to be patient and help people by explaining them and you all we get there eventually.  🙂



Sorry but. ... modern cars emissions are really low. And some of us really need a car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah keep the poor on the buses and allow the rich to glide about in their Range Rover Sports.
> 
> Really showing your true colours now aren't you?


I think edcraw might be a bit of an environmental racist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I wasn't questioning it. As the research you link to shows, it's caused mainly by air pollution, so let's do something about it. I think it's finally clicking for you - good work! 🏆


We are doing something about it, you muppet. We're introducing electric cars!    🤣


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> We are doing something about it, you muppet. We're introducing electric cars!    🤣



Definitely (a small) part of the solution though doesn’t deal with the pollution from brakes and tyres or noise pollution. Glad you’re on board though!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Definitely (a small) part of the solution though doesn’t deal with the pollution from brakes and tyres or noise pollution. Glad you on board though!



Soon cars will be so environmentally friendly that cyclists will be worse polluters. Inner tubes, oil on the chain, low-grade tyre rubber etc. All these things create nasty unnecessary waste and pollution.

Thanks to all the teflon-laced oil spray that cyclists love to smother their machines with, a bike uses more fossil fuel per passenger km than an electric car.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Definitely (a small) part of the solution though doesn’t deal with the pollution from brakes and tyres or noise pollution. Glad you’re on board though!


I think you'll find regenerative braking does help to deal with pollution from brakes, and in case you havent noticed, electric cars do help to deal with noise pollution.  

Some stupid city dwellers are already complaining that electric cars are too quiet, when they step out in front of them and get run over. You can't win with these people. They will always try to shift the responsibility for their stupidity onto someone else.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Well done guys - think you've both had a productive afternoon actively looking for solution to the damage done by cars. 👏


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well done guys - think you've both had a productive afternoon actively looking for solution to the damage done by cars. 👏


You're really not very good at this. You should leave it to 'the big boys'.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I wasn't questioning it. As the research you link to shows, it's caused mainly by air pollution, so let's do something about it. I think it's finally clicking for you - good work! 🏆



Most cars in cities are under 10 yrs old. Theyre not the problem as regards emissions.


platinumsage said:


> Yeah keep the poor on the buses and allow the rich to glide about in their Range Rover Sports.
> 
> Really showing your true colours now aren't you?





edcraw said:


> It was his suggestion.
> 
> However very few people NEED a car. For most it’s a choice.



I definitely need a car. 
No way will I ever be on a bus or train or plane again. Not when I am on immunosuppressants and it's pretty obvious thay covid will be around for the next ten years.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> I definitely need a car.
> No way will I ever be on a bus or train or plane again. Not when I am on immunosuppressants and it's pretty obvious thay covid will be around for the next ten years.


Good example of the few cases where people do need cars.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You've chosen to live there. It's a choice.


Are you living in the real world? Many people do not have  much choice about where they live..
😶


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Thanks to all the teflon-laced oil spray that cyclists love to smother their machines with, a bike uses more fossil fuel per passenger km than an electric car.


Yeah, think we’ll need a data source for that one.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Are you living in the real world? Many people do not have  much choice about where they live..
> 😶


That's true - so we also need to design places where people don't need cars. Lots of solutions and it's going to be a long journey.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I’m against restricting cars to people who can prove a need for them. That’s what North Korea does, and I think it’s the only country to do so.
> 
> Car abolitionists *are welcome to emigrate there* and lobby the government of that country to tighten restrictions further and ban cars altogether.



This has not been my experience.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This has not been my experience.




Even North Korea doesn't want you. Take the fucking hint.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

This thread really highlights how aggressive drivers are.😢


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, think we’ll need a data source for that one.



It's a self-evident fact.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This thread really highlights how aggressive drivers are.😢


It really highlights how stupid you are. 



> "Silent cars do nothing to combat noise pollution"


🤣


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It really highlights how stupid you are.
> 
> 
> 🤣


 Yep - very aggressive there. Must be trying to compensate for something.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - very aggressive there. Must be trying to compensate for something.


Yes, I'm attempting to compensate for your stupidity, by adding an equal yet opposite measure of intelligence.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - very aggressive there. Must be trying to compensate for something.


Pretending to win an argument on the internet is the highpoint of his day. He'll probably open an extra bottle tonight just to celebrate.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> Pretending to win an argument on the internet is the highpoint of his day. He'll probably open an extra bottle tonight just to celebrate.


What's on your menu, a bag of brown?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's a self-evident fact.


Sponsored by Tobyjug


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What's on your menu, a bag of brown?


Notice you don’t deny it. Happy yo help if you want to talk to someone about your issues. I’ll send a PM.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think you'll find regenerative braking does help to deal with pollution from brakes, and in case you havent noticed, electric cars do help to deal with noise pollution.
> 
> Some stupid city dwellers are already complaining that electric cars are too quiet, when they step out in front of them and get run over. You can't win with these people. They will always try to shift the responsibility for their stupidity onto someone else.


There was a Telsa Model S pulling away when I arrived on the gym car park this am. At low speed they are totally silent, so one of the extra benefits of them is that noise pollution will plummet. 
I do know someone who is campaigning to have them make some noise so that guide dogs will still recognise them as cars but since dogs have vastly superior hearing to us apes, it's actually possible to make one that sounds noisy to a dog but is still silent from our point of view.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> There was a Telsa Model S pulling away when I arrived on the gym car park this am. At low speed they are totally silent, so one of the extra benefits of them is that noise pollution will plummet.
> I do know someone who is campaigning to have them make some noise so that guide dogs will still recognise them as cars but since dogs have vastly superior hearing to us apes, it's actually possible to make one that sounds noisy to a dog but is still silent from our point of view.


You could insert a dog whistle into a funnel on the roof.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Notice you don’t deny it. Happy yo help if you want to talk to someone about your issues. I’ll send a PM.


Please do. I can't wait to hear your cure for you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's fine to be a wealthy toff/landlord etc if you're on the left e.g. Tony Benn. Never mind your actions, as long as you say the right things you're totally cool.



They’re the worst really. Being one thing whilst preaching another.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It's a self-evident fact.


Been on any boats lately?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They’re the worst really. Being one thing whilst preaching another.


Like most of the anti-car brigade here. They're so ashamed of their own carbon footprint that they try the "Look over there!" approach.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Please do. I can't wait to hear your cure for you.



Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I meant you drinking problem.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Like most of the anti-car brigade here. They're so ashamed of their own carbon footprint that they try the "Look over there!" approach.



I’ve never owned a car but moved to London when fairly young where there’s a functioning public transport system.
Where I’m from though in the NE England you don’t actually have a choice on the matter. You either own a car or struggle.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I meant you drinking problem.



Is this in any way appropriate?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I meant you drinking problem.


Two hands one mouth?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. I meant you drinking problem.



Fuck off you horrible cunt.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 22, 2021)

Here is a conundrum





__





						Minister Ryan welcomes EPA finding that GHG emissions fell in 2020 but cautions that it “demonstrates the scale of the climate challenge that lies ahead”
					






					www.gov.ie
				




Ireland's EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 
Announced GHGases reduced by 3.6% in 2020.
During lockdown. Where many cars sat at home in garages and driveways. 

The reduction was LESS than 2019. 

The GHGs are the result of industry and households. 

So...it looks like cars are NOT the major producer. Doesn't it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is this in any way appropriate?


It's their go-to insult when they have nothing else as a comeback. I generally find it quite amusing but the main instigator doesn't seem to like it when the tables get turned.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's their go-to insult when they have nothing else as a comeback. I generally find it quite amusing but the main instigator doesn't seem to like it when the tables get turned.



Any other mental health or addiction problem would be leapt upon. But apparently this is fine. Not good.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Makes note - accusations of bestiality fine, alcoholism not.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Loving the moral outrage!


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Makes note - accusations of bestiality fine, alcoholism not.



You think it’s fine then?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Any other mental health or addiction problem would be leapt upon. But apparently this is fine. Not good.


It's been ongoing for years, so it's obviously acceptable. I've gone past caring, but it's weird watching the meltdowns when you point out the hypocrisy.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You think it’s fine then?


 No, nor doing I think accusing people of beastiality is or all the other constant shit he gives out.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's been ongoing for years, so it's obviously acceptable. I've gone past caring, but it's weird watching the meltdowns when you point out the hypocrisy.



Oh grow the fuck up


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's been ongoing for years, so it's obviously acceptable. I've gone past caring, but it's weird watching the meltdowns when you point out the hypocrisy.



It’s fine to disagree. Not fine really to say the reason why you disagree is because you drink too much Scotch or whatever.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s fine to disagree. Not fine really to say the reason why you disagree is because you drink too much Scotch or whatever.



Have you seen his posts?


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Any other mental health or addiction problem would be leapt upon. But apparently this is fine. Not good.


He followed me around for years calling me a racist and a wife beater. I'll call him what I like.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, nor doing I think accusing people of beastiality is or all the other constant shit he gives out.



So are you agreeing that you attack him for his alcoholism or denying that you engage in bestiality? There is a difference.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> He followed me around for years calling me a racist and a wife beater. I'll call him what I like.



Fair dos. I haven’t seen any of this but my engagement here has been sporadic of late.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> So are you agreeing that you attack him for his alcoholism or denying that you engage in bestiality? There is a difference.



Sorry, is that a joke? You’re moral compass seems pretty screwed.

Edit: I think you’re meaning well but really need to see what kind of person Saul is.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Where I’m from though in the NE England you don’t actually have a choice on the matter. You either own a car or struggle.


This is not an argument for cars though, more an example of what needs changing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is not an argument for cars though, more an example of what needs changing.



Oh I agree.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is not an argument for cars though, more an example of what needs changing.


This - we’ve designed everywhere around cars and made it easy to use them. The fact people need to spend so much on cars is shocking.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is not an argument for cars though, more an example of what needs changing.


Are you suggesting everyone should live in a city, or everywhere should have a working public transport system? 
I can't see either of those working.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Higher density housing has tons of advantages.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, is that a joke? You’re moral compass seems pretty screwed.
> 
> Edit: I think you’re meaning well but really need to see what kind of person Saul is.



I object to people using alcoholism against his views. Just seems a bit straw grasping if you can’t actually counter anything.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Higher density housing has tons of advantages.


Yes, Covid has shown us exactly this.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I object to people using alcoholism against his views. Just seems a bit straw grasping if you can’t actually counter anything.



Last straw grabbing. It’s not about his arguments (I’m not sure he actually makes any) it’s about what an awful troll he is.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

maomao said:


> He followed me around for years calling me a racist and a wife beater. I'll call him what I like.



ROLL-UP, ROLL-UP! It's Friday night on the Car Prop thread!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yes, Covid has shown us exactly this.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> ROLL-UP, ROLL-UP! It's Friday night on the Car Prop thread!


I'll grab my popcorn.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Last straw grabbing. It’s not about his arguments (I’m not sure he actually makes any) it’s about what an awful troll he is.



Well yeah. He may be that. So don’t bite.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Well yeah. He may be that. So don’t bite.


The whole thread is a troll, from the title to the finish. Most of us realise this and post accordingly, but some humourless fucks don't like being shown how ridiculous their arguments are. .


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you suggesting everyone should live in a city, or everywhere should have a working public transport system?
> I can't see either of those working.


Of course everywhere should have a working public transport system. It should be viewed as much of a social necessity as water and electricity to our homes, and like those should be a nationalised network rather than as something for private profit.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The whole thread is a troll, from the title to the finish. Most of us realise this and post accordingly, but some humourless fucks don't like being shown how ridiculous their arguments are. .



Yeah, you just keep ranting at those clouds.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Of course everywhere should have a working public transport system. It should be viewed as much of a social necessity as water and electricity to our homes, and like those should be a nationalised network rather than as something for private profit.


I absolutely agree.
It's never going to happen. (In my lifetime)


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, you just keep ranting at those clouds.



Terrible retort.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Terrible retort.



Thanks for the feedback 🙏


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

I like Magnus. Can we keep him? 😀


----------



## T & P (Oct 22, 2021)

This thread…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I like Magnus. Can we keep him? 😀


I'd rather we did it on an exchange basis.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

T & P said:


> This thread…



Happy to continue discussing how well the Tulse Hill LTN is working 😜


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I absolutely agree.
> It's never going to happen. (In my lifetime)


There are cities embracing changes right now. We can follow or get left behind.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I like Magnus. Can we keep him? 😀



Can we keep him? Lol 
I was here when you were still a dangleberry on your dad’s arse. 
Can we keep him? Lol


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I absolutely agree.
> It's never going to happen. (In my lifetime)



Great argument - it’s shit but, hey, what ya gonna do about 🤷


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great argument - it’s shit but, hey, what ya gonna do about 🤷


This from Mr. Silent cars do nothing to address noise pollution...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great argument - it’s shit but, hey, what ya gonna do about 🤷


But do explain how capitalists will cough up for a public transport system (for everyone) , when we already know from experience that this won't happen.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But do explain how capitalists will cough up for a public transport system (for everyone) , when we already know from experience that this won't happen.



Who said the communist revolution wasn’t part of the plan?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Who said the communist revolution wasn’t part of the plan?


Who's going to pay for this upcoming war, jobless students with good intentions?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Can we keep him? Lol
> I was here when you were still a dangleberry on your dad’s arse.
> Can we keep him? Lol



My apologies - as you seemingly hadn’t realised what an absolute dick Saul was i thought you must be fairly new. 🙂


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who's going to pay for this upcoming war, jobless students with good intentions?



? You’ve started early this evening I see.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> ? You’ve started early this evening I see.


It seems you resort to this every time you don't have an answer. It's not a great look, you know?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2021)

Let's everyone calm down and watch a nice film.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It seems you resort to this every time you don't have an answer. It's not a great look, you know?



I love where you choose to draw this moral outrage line. “oh oh, that’s too far 👜”


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

If you are actually an alcoholic I apologise but then make sure you look at what you’re constantly doing here.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> My apologies - as you seemingly hadn’t realised what an absolute dick Saul was i thought you must be fairly new. 🙂



I know what he was called previously, so perhaps not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I know what he was called previously, so perhaps not.


Does anyone know what edcraw was called previously?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Does anyone know what edcraw was called previously?



I love this obsession of yours. Not so keen on the other one obvs.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I love this obsession of yours. Not so keen on the other one obvs.


Obsession? Have I mentioned it previously? Where? 
But I see you didn't deny it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Sorry - it must have been SpyGoodman. Still can’t tell you two apart…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

And why would I deny it? Like the mystery and the fact that you’re obvs thinking about we 😍


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'll grab my popcorn.



I'm with you, Liz. I'm a spectator tonight too, and I'm almost biffed enough to be on maomao's side.

Got my SiL over, who's the best cook in the world, and her bhaturas are filled with almost as much hot air as edcraw


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I'm with you, Liz. I'm a spectator tonight too, and I'm almost biffed enough to be on maomao's side.
> 
> Got my SiL over, who's the best cook in the world, and her bhaturas are filled with almost as much hot air as edcraw


I'm watching Les Mis with a joint and a brandy. Popping back here once in a while to catch up on edcraw's posts about how I'm obsessing over him  🤣.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Loving the constant tagging me in guys! Way to show how not obsessed you are!

Les Mis though! Really!?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

God - really feeling like you two want to double team here!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Of course everywhere should have a working public transport system. It should be viewed as much of a social necessity as water and electricity to our homes, and like those should be a nationalised network rather than as something for private profit.



Nonsense. Some places are sparsely populated to such an extent that a regular network of mostly empty buses would be ridiculous - only personal transport would make sense. This applies to most of the UK in terms of land area.

If you beardy transport yurt weavers had control, we’d have a nationwide network of free maglev trains stopping at every isolated cottage, but no schools or hospitals because there’d be no money or staff left over to run them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God - really feeling like you two want to double team here!


What's your kind of music, Ed?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What's your kind of music, Ed?



Genuine question?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Genuine question?


Sure

What are you listening to now?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

I’ve got Johnny Balik on. “Honey”.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

"Young Dumb and Broke" - Khalid, now 

TOP tune


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

I’m sure these are great jokes…


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

This one's a bit marmite but I like it.

"Memories" - Maroon 5


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m sure these are great jokes…



They're songs. You miserable cunt.

Chill.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

"Angel Of The Morning" - Juice Newton

Headphones on, max volume. This is pukka!!!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Tubthumping by Chumbawamba?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> "Angel Of The Morning" - Juice Newton
> 
> Headphones on, max volume. This is pukka!!!


What headphones are you using?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What headphones are you using?


Listening open at the moment but my go-to headset has been Plantronics Pro for about 3 years. I really like the sound but it feels like you've got a tractor on your head, so looking to upgrade and there are loads better now.

Best bloke for this stuff is beesonthewhatnow. He actually has his uses. Believe it or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

"Never Forget You" - Noisettes

Even someone like you can't argue with that edcraw

Surely we can agree on this one???


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Listening open at the moment but my go-to headset has been Plantronics Pro for about 3 years. I really like the sound but it feels like you've got a tractor on your head, so looking to upgrade and there are loads better now.


I have a set of Plantronics and one of their gaming headsets somewhere. They make good gear. I have some Sennheisers too, but I always end up using a 15 year old set of AKG K240DF. They take some driving but they sound amazing.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I have a set of Plantronics and one of their gaming headsets somewhere. They make good gear. I have some Sennheisers too, but I always end up using a 15 year old set of AKG K240DF. They take some driving but they sound amazing.



Yeah - Corrie sounds great on those bad boys!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - Corrie sounds great on those bad boys!


I wouldn't know but I'll take your word for it. I prefer to use mine to listen to music. I'm listening to some of my own music at the moment.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wouldn't know but I'll take your word for it. I prefer to use mine to listen to music. I'm listening to some of my own music at the moment.



Oh please do share - what are your influences? Status Quo?

_that’s a joke on 2 levels btw_


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - Corrie sounds great on those bad boys!



"When The Party's Over" - Billie Eilish

Give it a go, Ed. You'll like it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh please do share - what are your influences? Status Quo?
> 
> _that’s a joke on 2 levels btw_


Strangely, no. My influences were mainly acid house and hardcore techno. I did have a go at a bit of gabba but that was a dark time in my life that I'd rather forget.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

Just for you Ed.





Thank me later


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Just for you Ed.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank me later



I was playing that just last week during a YouTube rabbit hole moment.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 22, 2021)

Ed's going to pretend he doesn't like it


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ed's going to pretend he doesn't like it



I don’t think I need to pretend to not like it tbh. 

I’m not sure Balearic disco has ever been a genre anyone needs.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t think I need to pretend to not like it tbh.
> 
> I’m not sure Balearic disco has ever been a genre anyone needs.


You fibber 😜


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Here you go - something contemporary you might like:



You’re welcome.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

And best guitar band at the moment imho:


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

Just got busted for smoking in the house.

Swerved it by blaming edcraw and maomao


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Nonsense. Some places are sparsely populated to such an extent that a regular network of mostly empty buses would be ridiculous - only personal transport would make sense. This applies to most of the UK in terms of land area.
> 
> If you beardy transport yurt weavers had control, we’d have a nationwide network of free maglev trains stopping at every isolated cottage, but no schools or hospitals because there’d be no money or staff left over to run them.


No, if I had my way we’d have the schools, hospitals and transport, but the army would be holding coffee morning cake sales to buy their fucking guns.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, if I had my way we’d have the schools, hospitals and transport, but the army would be holding coffee morning cake sales to buy their fucking guns.


‘Crochet for grenades’


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, if I had my way we’d have the schools, hospitals and transport, but the army would be holding coffee morning cake sales to buy their fucking guns.



I think when Putin consequnetly annexes us he'd have different ideas. Maybe we'd get trolleybuses but you'd have to say goodbye to the bike lanes.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I think when Putin consequnetly annexes us he'd have different ideas.


They have ZilL lanes in Moscow, tbf.

We should have them here for BMWs and Porsches.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

A clear majority of Tories would not be willing to switch from driving to walking/cyling/public transport, in order to save the environment and innocent children.

A clear minority of Labour voters take the same attitude.

No surprises there - maps very accurately to the political standpoints of the pro and anti car people here on urban75.

This survey also reveals that less than half of the population (just 47%) are unwilling to give up their cars. Therefore there's a majority who would not be unhappy with us just getting rid of cars. We should get on with it.






			https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/dynh8rffto/YouGov%20-%20COP26%20initial%20release.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

Let's see who it is who most strongly are opposed to giving up driving (aka the dinosaurs). These are all the groups where the dinosaurs are in the majority:


Conservative voters
Leave voters
People over 50
Posh people (ABC1)

Again, maps pretty well to what we see here on U75.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A clear majority of Tories would not be willing to switch from driving to walking/cyling/public transport, in order to save the environment and innocent children.
> 
> A clear minority of Labour voters take the same attitude.
> 
> ...



No shit, most Labour voters live in cities


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No shit, most Labour voters live in cities


So, people in cities realise cars shouldn’t be there, excellent, glad you’re on board finally.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No shit, most Labour voters live in cities


Time for us to stop having our transport policy determined by you posh tories from the countryside who want to drive in to Harrods every day.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

No, what the survey reveals is that most people who live in cities could easily give up their cars, but haven't bothered to do so already, presumably for selfish reasons. Meanwhile people who live in the countryside can't easily give up their cars, but despite this many would be prepared to anyway.

The most important thing this survey reveals though is that electric car subsidies primarily benefit wealthy LibDems, and should therefore be abolished.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Let's see who it is who most strongly are opposed to giving up driving (aka the dinosaurs). These are all the groups where the dinosaurs are in the majority:
> 
> 
> Conservative voters
> ...



Saul & Spy ticking 3 out of 4 there I reckon.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Saul & Spy ticking 3 out of 4 there I reckon.


Without a doubt.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, what the survey reveals is that most people who live in cities could easily give up their cars, but haven't bothered to do so already, presumably for selfish reasons. Meanwhile people who live in the countryside can't easily give up their cars, but despite this many would be prepared to anyway.
> 
> The most important thing this survey reveals though is that electric car subsidies primarily benefit wealthy LibDems, and should therefore be abolished.



So you’re saying you’re a Tory?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Saul & Spy ticking 3 out of 4 there I reckon.


All 4 for me, despite not even living in the UK.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

So we don’t need to ban cars just ban people living in the countryside! Sorted!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So we don’t need to ban cars just ban people living in the countryside! Sorted!


Nuking cities would solve all the problems.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So we don’t need to ban cars just ban people living in the countryside! Sorted!



teuchter addressed this on a previous page of this thread when he revealed his ethnic cleansing policy.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

Car ownership is now an ethnicity then.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Car ownership is now an ethnicity then.



If I recall correctly, you wanted to borrow from great ethnic cleanings of the past and apply the results to people who don't live within an easy public-transport commute of London.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Hardly anyone actually lives in the countryside - most are just in endless cul de sacs and golf courses.


----------



## maomao (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Hardly anyone actually lives in the countryside - most are just in endless cul de sacs and golf courses.


80% of the UK population is urban and the vast majority of the rest live in settlements of several thousand people. It's a complete red herring.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So we don’t need to ban cars just ban people living in the countryside! Sorted!





edcraw said:


> Hardly anyone actually lives in the countryside - most are just in endless cul de sacs and golf courses.


You and teuchter are very similar in this regard. You're both jealous of people who don't live in cities. It's a common phenomenon with city dwellers. They want the best of both worlds but because they can't have it, they throw tantrums and try to ban the countryside.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If I recall correctly, you wanted to borrow from great ethnic cleanings of the past and apply the results to people who don't live within an easy public-transport commute of London.


Setting aside your recollections, which no-one cares about, you are defining "people who don't live within an easy public-transport commute of London" as an ethnicity, yes? Or are you about to backpedal on that?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Saul & Spy ticking 3 out of 4 there I reckon.


Strangely only 1 for me, although if there was another EU referendum it’d be 2.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Strangely only 1 for me, although if there was another EU referendum it’d be 2.


This denial in response to my post gets me several internet points.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Strangely only 1 for me, although if there was another EU referendum it’d be 2.


 You’re not over 50?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Setting aside your recollections, which no-one cares about, you are defining "people who don't live within an easy public-transport commute of London" as an ethnicity, yes? Or are you about to backpedal on that?



Of course I'm not, but  when you apply your learnings from past ethnic cleansings in your desire to forcibly depopulate the UK countryside you can't quite make your mind up whether you want to emulate Milosevic, or, by banning private ownership of cars, Kim Il-Sung.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Of course I'm not, but  when you apply your learnings from past ethnic cleansings in your desire to forcibly depopulate the UK countryside you can't quite make your mind up whether you want to emulate Milosevic, or, by banning private ownership of cars, Kim Il-Sung.



The sole Tory councillor in Lambeth called LTNs ethnic cleansing! Bizarre what people result to when their right to drive everywhere is questioned.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The sole Tory councillor in Lambeth called LTNs ethnic cleansing! Bizarre what people result to when their right to drive everywhere is questioned.



The Labour-voting black mother of the girl who died from air pollution called LTNs "environmental racism", so I think it's interesting how something can engender such a consensus view by both sides of the political spectrum.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Surely everyone can agree that comparing anything to ethnic cleansing is fucking stupid.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely everyone can agree that comparing anything to ethnic cleansing is fucking stupid.



How is forcibly depopulating the countryside and relocating people into cities to satisfy a warped political agenda only achievable by a dictator not comparable to ethnic cleansing?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

We should design where people live better so we aren’t so dependent on cars.

oH GOd! YOu arE JuST LIke THe KHmeR RouGE!!!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We should design where people live better so we aren’t so dependent on cars.
> 
> oH GOd! YOu arE JuST LIke THe KHmeR RouGE!!!



That's not what was proposed. You can't design personal transport out of rural living because the population density doesn't support sufficiently regular public transport. 

I suggest you go back and read the thread from page 1.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's not what was proposed. You can't design personal transport out of rural living because the population density doesn't support sufficiently regular public transport.
> 
> I suggest you go back and read the thread from page 1.



Yeah, it’s just like the Holocaust right!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, it’s just like the Holocaust right!



Stop being facetious and try and get your head around what has been proposed on this thread and why no government on earth has ever attempted it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

God, they even do promotional videos for ethnic cleansing these days!! Sick!!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Of course I'm not, but  when you apply your learnings from past ethnic cleansings in your desire to forcibly depopulate the UK countryside you can't quite make your mind up whether you want to emulate Milosevic, or, by banning private ownership of cars, Kim Il-Sung.


You are recommending that I take lessons from past ethnic cleansings, in order enact my favoured policies, but you are also saying that I don't want to apply them on an ethnic basis. I don't understand what your point is. You seem to have become confused. I mean I already knew that you were confused about how the policies work but now you want to bring ethnicity into the equation.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Is throwing around comparisons to the Holocaust more or less offensive than jokes about alcoholism 🤔


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is throwing around comparisons to the Holocaust more or less offensive than jokes about alcoholism 🤔



I don't know, you're the only one who has done that, so why don't you explain your thoughts on it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The sole Tory councillor in Lambeth called LTNs ethnic cleansing! Bizarre what people result to when their right to drive everywhere is questioned.


LTNs are pure NIMBYism. Their sole purpose is to move traffic away from wealthy people's houses to anywhere else, regardless of the cost to the environment or other people's health. Of course there will also be LTNs in less wealthy areas, but that's merely a numbers game.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> LTNs are pure NIMBYism. Their sole purpose is to move traffic away from wealthy people's houses to anywhere else, regardless of the cost to the environment or other people's health. Of course there will also be LTNs in less wealthy areas, but that's merely a numbers game.



Their purpose is to reduce car journeys & they work!

As mentioned before, they are slightly counter intuitive so can see why you’re struggling to understand them.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Their purpose is to reduce car journeys & they work!
> 
> As mentioned before, they are slightly counter intuitive so can see why you’re struggling to understand them.


They increase pollution. 




__





						Council review reveals LTN scheme makes air pollution worse — The Consultation Institute
					

Levels of car exhaust pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were measured in a report Levels were higher at 11 streets when residential roads were closed, report found Pollution levels were higher…




					www.consultationinstitute.org


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They increase pollution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Haha, great “study” you’ve got there. How much didn’t Wandsworth council waste on putting LTNs in for a few weeks? Great leadership by the Tories there!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We should design where people live better so we aren’t so dependent on cars.
> 
> oH GOd! YOu arE JuST LIke THe KHmeR RouGE!!!


BuRgErZ


----------



## maomao (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> That's not what was proposed. You can't design personal transport out of rural living because the population density doesn't support sufficiently regular public transport.


Wealthy country types who want to play at Cider with Rosie should accept that they can't expect to have the convenience of the city on their doorstep. If they need a Tescos ten minutes away move to a city rather than expecting the best of both worlds.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Haha, great “study” you’ve got there. How much didn’t Wandsworth council waste on putting LTNs in for a few weeks? Great leadership by the Tories there!


The same Tories you're lauding for introducing LTNs  🤣


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> Wealthy country types who want to play at Cider with Rosie should accept that they can't expect to have the convenience of the city on their doorstep. If they need a Tescos ten minutes away move to a city rather than expecting the best of both worlds.


Or we could just drive there, as we've always done and always will because private cars aren't ever going away.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

maomao said:


> Wealthy country types who want to play at Cider with Rosie should accept that they can't expect to have the convenience of the city on their doorstep. If they need a Tescos ten minutes away move to a city rather than expecting the best of both worlds.



When did you last conversate with strangers who live beyond the M25? You should get out more lest your wild fantasies of life outside your bubble have you mistaken for a member of the out-of-touch liberal metropolitan elite.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The same Tories you're lauding for introducing LTNs  🤣



It’s the one thing central government actual gets, I think it’s down to Andrew Gilligan tbh. Local Tories are too afraid of their selfish, reactionary , car owning voters to see it through.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> When did you last conversate with strangers who live beyond the M25? You should get out more lest your wild fantasies of life outside your bubble have you mistaken for a member of the out-of-touch liberal metropolitan elite.



Conversate?!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s the one thing central government actual gets, I think it’s down to Andrew Gilligan tbh. Local *Tories are too afraid of their selfish, reactionary , car owning voters to see it through*.


If that's really is the case, doesn't that again prove that car owners are more important?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Conversate?!


To engage in conversation. 
Possibly not a word you've heard, as it isn't part of the speak and spell vocabulary?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Conversate?!



Travel broadens the mind. Go hire a Ford F-150 truck and cruise around America, you'll soon find someone who uses the word.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> To engage in conversation.
> Possibly not a word you've heard, as it isn't part of the speak and spell vocabulary?



I think the word is converse. We don’t need to turn nouns into verbs when there already are ones.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Travel broadens the mind. Go hire a Ford F-150 truck and cruise around America, you'll soon find someone who uses the word.



Do you say medal as well?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I thing the word is converse. We don’t need to turn nouns into verbs when there already are ones.


You thing?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You thing?



A mistake - yours was on purpose.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A mistake - yours was on purpose.


It wasn't mine. 
You seem rather confused again today.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think the word is converse. We don’t need to turn nouns into verbs when there already are ones.



So you're a vocabulary Stalinist as well as supporting teuchter's Milosevicism and Jucheism?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It wasn't mine.
> You seem rather confused again today.



You don’t know what mistake I was referring to.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So you're a vocabulary Stalinist as well as supporting teuchter's Milosevicism and Jucheism?



You can use whatever words you like - and I will judge you by it 😀


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You can use whatever words you like - and I will judge you by it 😀


Glass houses... You should probably take a look at your own posts before judging others. In case you haven't noticed, the more irate you become, the more incomprehensible your posts become.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

How many deep are you this afternoon Saul?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How many deep are you this afternoon Saul?


8 inches deep, into your mum.
It's good to see you using your last resort stuff again. It's quite telling


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Look after yourself Saul - we’re here to help.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

.


----------



## T & P (Oct 23, 2021)

Evening all. I’ve been out all day. How has it been going in here? Any new compelling arguments for or against cars since last night worth checking?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

T & P said:


> Evening all. I’ve been out all day. How has it been going in here? Any new compelling arguments for or against cars since last night worth checking?



Just platinumsage claiming drivers are a persecuted minority 🙄


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

I sold a motorbike project that I couldn't be arsed finishing, and I've just picked this up with the proceeds. 





It's a Volvo 850 T5R that's been messed with a bit to squeeze 380bhp out of it. 
The guy I bought it off reckoned he was getting 30+ mpg but I managed to drop that to single figures on the drive home. 
Something to fill the parking spaces outside the house, and my new weekend fun car.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The guy I bought it off reckoned he was getting 30+ mpg but I managed to drop that to single figures on the drive home.



Way to own the libs!!

Also, a Volva estate as a ‘fun car’. 🤣


----------



## weltweit (Oct 23, 2021)

Quite a long bus, good luck parking it !!


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I sold a motorbike project that I couldn't be arsed finishing, and I've just picked this up with the proceeds.
> 
> View attachment 293919
> 
> ...



Could rent that out as a hearse...😁

Kidding... it looks ace 👍
Drive safe..🙂


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Some how, even though they’ve removed their LTNs, Ealing still has awful traffic.


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Way to own the libs!!
> 
> Also, a Volva estate as a ‘fun car’. 🤣



Estate cars are great ..


I really miss mine.


Spymaster said:


> View attachment 293926



Did you get a new car too Spymaster ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Way to own the libs!!
> 
> Also, a Volva estate as a ‘fun car’. 🤣


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 293928



You bought a shit car to try and wind someone up on the internet ….


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


>




God - there really are a lot of sad car fuckers aren’t there.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God - there really are a lot of sad car fuckers aren’t there.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Did you get a new car too Spymaster ?



Had that since July. Can't sell it.

I've got a Panamera too


----------



## teuchter (Oct 23, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> View attachment 293930



🥱

Always bizarre when people get obsessed with cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

Silver one of these

Even teuchter loves it


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🥱
> 
> Always bizarre when people get obsessed with cars.


Irony, meet edcraw. edcraw, meet irony.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 293936
> 
> Silver one of these
> 
> Even teuchter loves it


Gorgeous car.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


>




?


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 23, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 293936
> 
> Silver one of these
> 
> Even teuchter loves it


That's lovely.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Gorgeous car.



I'm pretty sure there's not a better car on the planet.

I can plug it into lamposts too!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Cars nowadays really are rather bland aren’t they.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 23, 2021)

Oh, come on now, Ed. You'd wet your knickers over the Beamer.

The Porsche would blow your toenails off


----------



## T & P (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Cars nowadays really are rather bland aren’t they.


On the contrary. They are far more diverse in appearance, and technology and design evolving than any other mode of transport in existence. Even someone who is completely adverse or indifferent to them would be lying to pretend otherwise.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

T & P said:


> On the contrary. They are far more diverse in appearance, and technology and design evolving than any other mode of transport in existence. Even someone who is completely adverse or indifferent to them would be lying to pretend otherwise.



That Porsche looks like a Mazda tbh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Cars nowadays really are rather bland aren’t they.


Au contraire, mon ami sans joie.


----------



## T & P (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That Porsche looks like a Mazda tbh.


Some are ugly as fuck, undoubtedly.


----------



## T & P (Oct 23, 2021)

But even the brand everyone loves to hate the most can produce aesthetically stunning cars. And it’s electric as well. Nor that most of us could afford it though


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 23, 2021)

Even Ford are doing OK in the looks department.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That Porsche looks like a Mazda tbh.



Mazdas look great nowadays, especially their cheapo little hatchback:




Anyone who says modern cars all look the same needs to tour some car showrooms for a day.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

On the subject of car porn, I was even tempted by a Peugeot recently based on looks:


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2021)

The car with the perfect look for somebody who wants everybody else to think they are an utter wanker?


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2021)

I don't know how anyone can get excited about the looks of a car in a world that contains the Ducati 916 SPS.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Why do you all keep posting pictures of the same car?


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

Ah yes, the pleasures of precision engineering and the open road.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> On the subject of car porn, I was even tempted by a Peugeot recently based on looks:
> 
> View attachment 293961



The Macan is the best looking SUV out there at the moment.






It just looks ... correct.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)




----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Macan is the best looking SUV out there at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh come on, that is hideous. It looks like the designers haven’t got a clue what the purpose is of what they’re making, and so have been left with an ugly, boxy, bulbous SUV aesthetic but the lack of practicality of a sports coupe silhouette. Completely pointless and just makes the occupants into a laughing stock.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

When Porsche bought out their first SUV I realised there was something really wrong with the types of cars we’re building.

Car obsession is such a lame thing. Cars are a tool, if you must have one just get one that does the job you need it for. (Same goes for bikes btw, people using road bikes costing thousands of pounds for commuting 🙄)

It’s just consumerist bollocks ➡️


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Still, it’s all a laugh, eh?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Oh come on, that is hideous. It looks like the designers haven’t got a clue what the purpose is of what they’re making, and so have been left with an ugly, boxy, bulbous SUV aesthetic but the lack of practicality of a sports coupe silhouette. Completely pointless and just makes the occupants into a laughing stock.





kabbes said:


> The car with the perfect look for somebody who wants everybody else to think they are an utter wanker?



What do you drive? Most cars look pretty interesting these days so don’t be shy.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> When Porsche bought out their first SUV I realised there was something really wrong with the types of cars we’re building.
> 
> Car obsession is such a lame thing. Cars are a tool, if you must have one just get one that does the job you need it for. (Same goes for bikes btw, people using road bikes costing thousands of pounds for commuting 🙄)
> 
> It’s just consumerist bollocks ➡️



Have you decorated the inside of your house or have you not bothered because it’s just a device to shelter you from the elements?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Macan is the best looking SUV out there at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, now I _know_ you’re on a windup


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Have you decorated the inside of your house or have you not bothered because it’s just a device to shelter you from the elements?



Slight difference in cost between some paint and a fucking Porsche SUV I imagine, otherwise great point 👏


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

Even Lexus are upping their game. I rather like the look of this.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Fuck me. If you’re spending that much something’s really wrong! Sad bastards.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Oh come on, that is hideous. It looks like the designers haven’t got a clue what the purpose is of what they’re making, and so have been left with an ugly, boxy, bulbous SUV aesthetic but the lack of practicality of a sports coupe silhouette. Completely pointless and just makes the occupants into a laughing stock.


Well, obviously this is incorrect.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Even Lexus are upping their game. I rather like the look of this.
> 
> View attachment 293993


Apart from that monstrosity of a grill, yeah. It ruins the lines of the car and is totally out of place.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 293994
> 
> Fuck me. If you’re spending that much something’s really wrong! Sad bastards.



Yes, why do poor people have flat screen tellies?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Soot the difference:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well, obviously this is incorrect.


The problem with that Porsche - and it’s a problem most manufactures face - is their insistence that the front/grill/intakes area always follows the brand style. With Porsche it’s the headlight shape, BMW have the kidneys etc, and those elements have to be incorporated no matter what the rest of the car looks like. If they just stick to a badge and let the designers have more of a free reign we’d see much more variety and pleasing designs.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, why do poor people have flat screen tellies?



I think you’re missing a degree of scale. How much do you need to be earning to afford £50k on a car and what proportion of your income are you paying out.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think you’re missing a degree of scale. How much do you need to be earning to afford £50k on a car and what proportion of your income are you paying out.



Hmm let me guess...enough to afford a decent motor and a proportion you can afford?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The problem with that Porsche - and it’s a problem most manufactures face - is their insistence that the front/grill/intakes area always follows the brand style. With Porsche it’s the headlight shape, BMW have the kidneys etc, and those elements have to be incorporated no matter what the rest of the car looks like. If they just stick to a badge and let the designers have more of a free reign we’d see much more variety and pleasing designs.


That’s pretty much the case with all makes now. In the case of Porsche, I think it’s a good thing. You can see exactly why it’s that shape and the lines hark back to the 911.

Do you like the shape of ANY suv?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Hmm let me guess...enough to afford a decent motor and a proportion you can afford?



Yes, you’d have to be well off. What was your comment about flat screen TVs about then?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That’s pretty much the case with all makes now. In the case of Porsche, I think it’s a good thing. You can see exactly why it’s that shape and the lines hark back to the 911.



So when you’re doing the school run you can pretend you actually have a more interesting life?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

I get the idea of having a nice car, comfy interior etc. I just don’t understand people that pay £20 or £30k more for the “performance” variants that you’re never going to be able to use.

What’s the point of buying say an M4, over a standard base model 4 series? It does literally nothing better on a public road. And if you want to drive on a track, just go buy something small and light that only has 2 seats as a weekend toy with the money you’ve saved, and you’ll have far more fun anyway.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

Porches are great:









						Mum's plea after 130mph driver killed daughter and unborn baby
					

"Somebody was going to be killed that day. It just happened to be my daughter and my grandson"




					www.somersetlive.co.uk
				




But I prefer a Range Rover sport.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I get the idea of having a nice car, comfy interior etc. I just don’t understand people that pay £20 or £30k more for the “performance” variants that you’re never going to be able to use.
> 
> What’s the point of buying say an M4, over a standard base model 4 series? It does literally nothing better on a public road. And if you want to drive on a track, just go buy something small and light that only has 2 seats as a weekend toy with the money you’ve saved, and you’ll have far more fun anyway.



Because you're a wanker wannabe coke dealer? 

Still, plenty of wankers in the world, it's not illegal.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That’s pretty much the case with all makes now. In the case of Porsche, I think it’s a good thing. You can see exactly why it’s that shape and the lines hark back to the 911.
> 
> Do you like the shape of ANY suv?


No, I like cars that come from the Colin Chapman / Gordon Murray school of thought when it comes to design - small, light, agile etc.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Because you're a wanker wannabe coke dealer?
> 
> Still, plenty of wankers in the world, it's not illegal.



That’s why we need speed limiters on all cars.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s why we need speed limiters on all cars.


Preferably around 15mph.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s why we need speed limiters on all cars.


Yep. The tech exists. There is no argument whatsoever against it. Want to drive fast? Head for a track, have all the performance you want.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Porches are great:
> 
> But I prefer a Range Rover sport.


I prefer the Aston Martin DBS Superleggera.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s why we need speed limiters on all cars.



And bicycles.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I get the idea of having a nice car, comfy interior etc. I just don’t understand people that pay £20 or £30k more for the “performance” variants that you’re never going to be able to use.
> 
> What’s the point of buying say an M4, over a standard base model 4 series? It does literally nothing better on a public road. And if you want to drive on a track, just go buy something small and light that only has 2 seats as a weekend toy with the money you’ve saved, and you’ll have far more fun anyway.


Well you could apply the same argument to pretty much any tech from smartphones to fridge freezers, couldn't you? There's a thread on here somewhere where people are spending thousands of pounds on pushbikes! Now _that's _fucking weird.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> And bicycles.


Shall we do the physics lesson now or later?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Shall we do the physics lesson now or later?



If the number of pedestrians killed by bicycles where speed was a factor is less than one then go ahead, otherwise there’s no need.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> And bicycles.



Already on e-bikes - 15mph


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Already on e-bikes - 15mph



Time to fit it to all bicycles, preferably at a speed at which pedestrians can’t be seriously injured, 8mph perhaps - bicycles are far more dangerous than cars at the same speed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well you could apply the same argument to pretty much any tech from smartphones to fridge freezers, couldn't you?


I wonder what phone bees has. I'm guessing it isn't a 20 quid number. More likely something from Apple.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I like cars that come from the Colin Chapman / Gordon Murray school of thought when it comes to design - small, light, agile etc.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree but they do different things, don't they? And you don't get much more impractical than a McLaren.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well you could apply the same argument to pretty much any tech from smartphones to fridge freezers, couldn't you? There's a thread on here somewhere where people are spending thousands of pounds on pushbikes! Now _that's _fucking weird.


I’m not sure the tech comparison is directly comparable though. While a top end MacBook is overkill for most, there are people who genuinely have the need for all that processing power and use them to that potential. But literally nobody needs a road car that can do 180mph.

As for top end bikes - they’re still limited by the lump sat on it, so not comparable. It’s a status symbol, yes, but is no more dangerous than any other bicycle.

Why not build luxury cars with all the toys and flash interior you want, but limit them to 70mph?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

I really don't get the whole car envy thing. If you have the money, why not have a nice car.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wonder what phone bees has. I'm guessing it isn't a 20 quid number. More likely something from Apple.


A 6 year old iPhone 6s, with knackered battery and dodgy charging port. That was free in the first place.

Nice try


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Time to fit it to all bicycles, preferably at a speed at which pedestrians can’t be seriously injured, 8mph perhaps.



Surely it should be about limiting momentum as that’s what kills.

8mph for bikes would mean about 0.5mph for cars - okay then!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I really don't get the whole car envy thing. If you have the money, why not have a nice car.


Interesting you think it’s envy.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If the number of pedestrians killed by bicycles where speed was a factor is less than one then go ahead, otherwise there’s no need.


The number of pedestrians killed by pedestrians where speed was a factor is also more than one.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely it should be about limiting momentum as that’s what kills.
> 
> 8mph for bikes would mean about 0.5mph for cars - okay then!



When’s the last time someone got impaled on a car at 8mph?









						Girl of seven impaled on bike handlebars in Wirral
					

A seven-year-old girl is taken to hospital after she was impaled on bicycle handlebars.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Cars have a front end designed for pedestrian impact, bikes don’t.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely it should be about limiting momentum as that’s what kills.
> 
> 8mph for bikes would mean about 0.5mph for cars - okay then!


Impact force (which is a product of speed and mass) is the sum you are after.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A 6 year old iPhone 6s, with knackered battery and dodgy charging port. That was free in the first place.
> 
> Nice try


House? Cheapest you could afford?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> The number of pedestrians killed by pedestrians where speed was a factor is also more than one.



I‘d love to fit speed limiters to joggers, preferably set at 3mph, but I don’t think the required legislation would make it through parliament.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> When’s the last time someone got impaled on a car at 8mph?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't actually say the bike was moving at the time. Uncapped metal tubes are the problem.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Interesting you think it’s envy.


It mostly is. It definitely is in edcraw's case


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> The number of pedestrians killed by pedestrians where speed was a factor is also more than one.


Now we're finally getting there. Pedestrians are the common denominator.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It mostly is. It definitely is in edcraw's case



Really isn’t. I’m pretty smug about not spending a hefty proportion of my income on a depreciating asset.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Now we're finally getting there. Pedestrians are the common denominator.


I suppose it might look like that to a malevolent misanthrope like yourself. However, none of the permanently  disabled children I posted photos of earlier were walking at the time of their accidents.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really isn’t. I’m pretty smug about not spending a hefty proportion of my income on a depreciating asset.


I'm sure you are, but you're obviously quite envious of those who do.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm sure you are, but you're obviously quite envious of those who do.



🤣 If there’s one you and Spy have done in this thread is boost my self confidence!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🤣 If there’s one you and Spy have done in this thread is boost my self confidence!


You're welcome. If you stay long enough you might eventually pluck up the courage to take the driving test.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're welcome. If you stay long enough you might eventually pluck up the courage to take the driving test.



Why do you think I don’t have a licence?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why do you think I don’t have a licence?


Because you act like a bitter person who either repeatedly failed or never took a driving test.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why do you think I don’t have a licence?


Because he's a dimwit who despite his obsession with you can't remember your actual posts on the thread.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because you act like a bitter person who either repeatedly failed or never took a driving test.



The value you seem to put on a driving licence shows a lot about yourself tbh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because he's a dimwit who despite his obsession with you can't remember your actual posts on the thread.


I remember very few posts here, as very few posts are memorable. Take all of yours for example...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The value you seem to put on a driving licence shows a lot about yourself tbh.


It shows I was capable of passing a driving test.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I remember very few posts here, as very few posts are memorable. Take all of yours for example...











						Alcohol and Memory Loss: Connection, Research, and Treatment
					

Drinking too much alcohol can affect both short- and long-term memory. Drinking in moderation or giving up alcohol may be necessary to limit memory issues.




					www.healthline.com


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Well that should do it for today.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It shows I was capable of passing a driving test.


👏


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Alcohol and Memory Loss: Connection, Research, and Treatment
> 
> 
> Drinking too much alcohol can affect both short- and long-term memory. Drinking in moderation or giving up alcohol may be necessary to limit memory issues.
> ...


Ah, this again... OK





__





						What are the long-term effects of heroin use? | National Institute on Drug Abuse
					

Repeated heroin use changes the physical structure13 and physiology of the brain, creating long-term imbalances in neuronal and hormonal systems that are not easily reversed.14,15 Studies have shown some deterioration of the brain’s white matter due to heroin use, which may affect...




					www.drugabuse.gov


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why not build luxury cars with all the toys and flash interior you want, but limit them to 70mph?



Where's the fun in that???


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, this again... OK
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not a smack head.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

The Mazda CX30 looks quite nice.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The Mazda CX30 looks quite nice.
> 
> View attachment 294011



No, it really doesn’t.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> The Mazda CX30 looks quite nice.
> 
> View attachment 294011



I almost got one but went for my current Volvo instead, the CX30 is lovely inside but feels like a hatchback on stilts to drive. It’s basically a Mazda 3 anyway with extra ride height so no surprise there I suppose, but it really settled it for me, in that if you want a SUV you should get a proper one not a crossover.


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> When Porsche bought out their first SUV I realised there was something really wrong with the types of cars we’re building.
> 
> Car obsession is such a lame thing. Cars are a tool, if you must have one just get one that does the job you need it for. (Same goes for bikes btw, people using road bikes costing thousands of pounds for commuting 🙄)
> 
> It’s just consumerist bollocks ➡️


I was chatting to a fella this morning, explaining to me how he spent £3k putting carbon wheels on his motorcycle, to save 6kg.  We were at The Super Sausage, and he told me this whilst tucking into the jumbo breakfast.  He must've weighed 18st!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What do you drive? Most cars look pretty interesting these days so don’t be shy.


A 13 year old Fiat Panda and an 11 year-old Skoda Yeti. Neither were purchased as anything other than necessary tools suited to the job they were needed for.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

Athos said:


> I was chatting to a fella this morning, explaining to me how he spent £3k putting carbon wheels on his motorcycle, to save 6kg.  We were at The Super Sausage, and he told me this whilst tucking into the jumbo breakfast.  He must've weighed 18st!


Even funnier is people buying carbon bikes with carbon everything. They're always the ones who pretend they're cycling to keep fit and healthy, when a heavy steel bike would obviously be more suitable than a carbon one for this purpose. They're just posers, and you can guarantee each and every one of them has a macbook pro in their backpack.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Even funnier is people buying carbon bikes with carbon everything. They're ways the ones who pretend they're cycling to keep fit and healthy, when a heavy steel bike would obviously be more suitable than a carbon one for this purpose. They're just posers, and you can guarantee each and every one of them has a macbook pro in their backpack.



Thanks for repeating my point and glad you agree about car wankers.

Although aluminium is lighter and cheaper than steel so prob better for most.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Thanks for repeating my point and glad you agree about car wankers.
> 
> Although aluminium is lighter and cheaper than steel so prob better for most.


Car drivers pretend they're driving to keep fit and healthy? New one on me.


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Even funnier is people buying carbon bikes with carbon everything. They're always the ones who pretend they're cycling to keep fit and healthy, when a heavy steel bike would obviously be more suitable than a carbon one for this purpose. They're just posers, and you can guarantee each and every one of them has a macbook pro in their backpack.


Both are nuts.  The vehicular equivalent of 'audiophiles' with their £15k speaker cables.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2021)

They pretend to themselves that a Porsche or Volvo or range rover is a reflection of their discerning taste or wealth or vitality or whatever while they travel around in a four wheeled monument to the skill of marketing agencies (most likely staffed by people with MacBook pros and carbon fibre road bikes).


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

Athos said:


> Both are nuts.  The vehicular equivalent of 'audiophiles' with their £15k speaker cables.


I'd argue that pedalphiles are worse than audiophiles. Audiophiles tend to keep their nonsense confined to their own homes, but pedalphiles spend their fortunes on eye candy that they want everyone to see. It's purely an exercise in vanity and a show of wealth.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They pretend to themselves that a Porsche or Volvo or range rover is a reflection of their discerning taste or wealth or vitality or whatever while they travel around in a four wheeled monument to the skill of marketing agencies (most likely staffed by people with MacBook pros and carbon fibre road bikes).



I trust your home was acquired, fitted out and decorated in the cheapest, minimum possible fashion as required by cold hard necessity?


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'd argue that pedalphiles are worse than audiophiles. Audiophiles tend to keep their nonsense confined to their own homes, but pedalphiles spend their fortunes on eye candy that they want everyone to see. It's purely an exercise in vanity and a show of wealth.


They are exhibitionists.  Explains the  lycra.


----------



## tonysingh (Oct 24, 2021)

Athos said:


> I was chatting to a fella this morning, explaining to me how he spent £3k putting carbon wheels on his motorcycle, to save 6kg.  We were at The Super Sausage, and he told me this whilst tucking into the jumbo breakfast.  He must've weighed 18st!



18st? Skinny runt.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

I'm pretty sure that people that spend several grand on a carbon bike are exactly the same people that'll spend 50k+ on a flash car. IME road cyclists on expensive bikes are usually motorists as well and you'll see very few flash racing bikes doing daily commutes.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> A 13 year old Fiat Panda and an 11 year-old Skoda Yeti. Neither were purchased as anything other than necessary tools suited to the job they were needed for.



Ah I knew you'd be a SUV household.


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2021)

tonysingh said:


> 18st? Skinny runt.


Innit. I'm pushing twenty and I'd still outrun most of this lot.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I trust your home was acquired, fitted out and decorated in the cheapest, minimum possible fashion as required cold hard necessity?


I'd hazard a guess that it actually was. I reckon he'd make Victor Meldrew look like a splurging spendthrift.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Innit. I'm pushing twenty and I'd still outrun most of this lot.


I thought you were much younger.


----------



## nogojones (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, why do poor people have flat screen tellies?


because they're the only ones you can buy?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I trust your home was acquired, fitted out and decorated in the cheapest, minimum possible fashion as required by cold hard necessity?


Certainly not. Just pointing out that your beloved vehicles are all designed and marketed by people like me in London.

It's pretty funny when you people fall for it and but them to be honest.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Certainly not. Just pointing out that your beloved vehicles are all designed and marketed by people like me in London.


At least you know your place.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🥱
> 
> Always bizarre when people get obsessed with cars.



...the irony in this post is off the Richter scale 🥴


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...the irony in this post is off the Richter scale 🥴


Self-awareness really isn't his thing


----------



## Athos (Oct 24, 2021)

maomao said:


> Innit. I'm pushing twenty and I'd still outrun most of this lot.


To the buffet, maybe.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Anyway, this thread has shown that most of you are just listing after fancy cars and then go and buy a Volvo instead.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 24, 2021)

My brand new Volvo wasn’t leased as anything other than a necessary tool suited to the job it was needed for.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> My brand new Volvo wasn’t leased as anything other than a necessary tool suited to the job it was needed for.


Same with my 20+ year old Volvo. It serves its purposes. It stops people parking outside my house and it's ridiculously fast. All for less than 2 grand.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

This guy’s got a point and Insulate Britain have a much better cause then black cab drivers ever did.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This guy’s got a point and Insulate Britain have a much better cause then black cab drivers ever did.




Because they blocked Parliament Square, which is the one road that everyone critising Insulate Britain says they should go and block instead.


----------



## maomao (Oct 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Because they blocked Parliament Square, which is the one road that everyone critising Insulate Britain says the should go and block instead.


They've blocked other roads. I remember one round Waterloo and one round Tottenham Court Rd.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> They've blocked other roads. I remember one round Waterloo and one round Tottenham Court Rd.



Yes they blocked Tottenham Court Road once to protest against it being permanently closed to cars. In this case their protest method aligned perfectly with their aims and highlighted the disruption that closing the road would cause.


----------



## maomao (Oct 25, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes they blocked Tottenham Court Road once to protest against it being permanently closed to cars. In this case their protest method aligned perfectly with their aims and highlighted the disruption that closing the road would cause.


And no-one demanded that they be run over or locked up.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

maomao said:


> And no-one demanded that they be run over or locked up.



A lesson in how to organise a protest that attracts widespread support.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

You sure the difference isn't because they're drivers?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You sure the difference isn't because they're drivers?



Yes, it's for the reasons I've outlined. Also, to end such a protest by dragging the obstructions out of the road would be beyond the strength of most people, the TX4 weighing 1,975 kg.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

O


platinumsage said:


> Yes, it's for the reasons I've outlined. Also, to end such a protest by dragging the obstructions out of the road would be beyond the strength of most people, the TX4 weighing 1,975 kg.





platinumsage said:


> Because they blocked Parliament Square, which is the one road that everyone critising Insulate Britain says they should go and block instead.



So you didn't recognise Oxford Street & London Bridge? You're just making some reasons up to support your already formed viewpoint which was the whole point.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You're just making some reasons up to support your already formed viewpoint which was the whole point.



Why would I make some reasons up to support your viewpoint?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Not really what I said was it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Macan is the best looking SUV out there at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










740 horses under that bonnet, making the roads safer for everyone with that overtaking ability.

An RS6 with a better field of vision. Perfect for all occasions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 294145
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's quite nice. Aggressive looks to match the power... The perfect car for this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

I'll see your 740bhp RS and raise you an 820bhp Lamborghini Urus.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'll see your 740bhp RS and raise you an 820bhp Lamborghini Urus.
> 
> View attachment 294150


Oh fuck off


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 294145
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Drug dealer chic


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh fuck off


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 25, 2021)

What makes me laugh about all these body kitted cars you see is that they’re clearly designed by people with no idea of what actual performance/aero mods even look like, never mind how they actually work


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What makes me laugh about all these body kitted cars you see is that they’re clearly designed by people with no idea of what actual performance/aero mods even look like, never mind how they actually work


I was warching a video of the Urus recently. It's an extremely capable machine, on and off road. And let's be fair, with that power it could have the aerodynamics of a brick and it wouldn't really matter


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drug dealer chic



Audi also do an electric tow-bar for it and a bike rack, which I know is just the info you need to seal your purchasing decision here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Audi also do an electric tow-bar for it and a bike rack, which I know is just the info you need to seal your purchasing decision here.


I'm picturing that Urus with a yellow mountain bike with black carbon wheels strapped to the back. It's enough to turn the most vehement tree hugging green activist into a petrol head.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'll see your 740bhp RS and raise you an 820bhp Lamborghini Urus.
> 
> View attachment 294150



Tonka have really upped there game


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 25, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Tonka have really upped there game



Their


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Tonka have really upped there game


Gorgeous, isn't it.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Their



Indeed


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You sure the difference isn't because they're drivers?



If that's so, it's not a bad reason.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If that's so, it's not a bad reason.


If you asked anybody "Who are the most annoying cunts on the road?" Black cab drivers would likely be the answer. You'd have to be a special sort of cunt to be despised more than black cab drivers.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not really what I said was it?



You're going on about a tweet in which it was questioned why people didn't run over protesters sitting inside black cabs, or unblock the road by dragging the black cabs out of the way. I've offered all the reasons I can think of, starting with the least obvious, but perhaps I should have begun with the most obvious.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

God - it’s like a playgroup in here today.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God - it’s like a playgroup in here today.


OK, you've convinced me to give up cars!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 25, 2021)

I am hugely amused by the cars that some people apparently think look good. I envisage the drivers also wearing a gold chain.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2021)

What are the cabbies protesting about, anyway?


----------



## tonysingh (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What are the cabbies protesting about, anyway?




They're protesting about going south of the river at this time of night.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I am hugely amused by the cars that some people apparently think look good. I envisage the drivers also wearing a gold chain.


I'm hugely amused by the fact that some people don't have a working concept of aesthetics. 


teuchter said:


> What are the cabbies protesting about, anyway?


The fact that middle-class hippies haven't been incarcerated.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What are the cabbies protesting about, anyway?


Uber, road planning, and the right to use bus lanes, mainly.

This was a couple of years ago though. Don't think they've been at it recently.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'll see your 740bhp RS and raise you an 820bhp Lamborghini Urus.
> 
> View attachment 294150


All these examples use the Robocop/Terminator aesthetic. You can see the generation they're marketed at.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

eatmorecheese said:


> All these examples use the Robocop/Terminator aesthetic. You can see the generation they're marketed at.


They all use lines that all normal people like, so they're obviously marketing to normal people.


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God - it’s like a playgroup in here today.


Better than the toxic bear pit that this thread has recently been.

Proof that looking at pictures of cars soothes them


----------



## eatmorecheese (Oct 25, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They all use lines that all normal people like, so they're obviously marketing to normal people.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> Better than the toxic bear pit that this thread has recently been.
> 
> Proof that looking at pictures of cars soothes them


I reckon they do soothe some of the more crazed posters on here, who panic that the Communists have taken over each time they see a speed camera, or an innocent child that hasn't yet been run over.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

.


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I reckon they do soothe some of the more crazed posters on here, who panic that the Communists have taken over each time they see a speed camera, or an innocent child that hasn't yet been run over.


That’s the kind of measured and well reasoned contribution that’s guaranteed to sway any impartial reader of this thread  towards an anti-car stance


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What are the cabbies protesting about, anyway?



Anything they like the miserable fuckers


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2021)

T & P said:


> That’s the kind of measured and well reasoned contribution that’s guaranteed to sway any impartial reader of this thread  towards an anti-car stance


I'm going to try and explain how the thread works, but you probably still won't understand. I can do measured contributions now and again, which are a kind of bonus for the impartial reader, but it's not these posts that do the heavy lifting. The thread relies on the car-people writing so much  nonsense that no one reasonable would want to be associated with them. Each time a car-person posts something, not only does it bump the thread to the top of "new posts" but it adds a fresh page to the idiot file.
Sure, it takes a few carefully placed posts from me now and again to lead them into some traps or to stoke the fire a bit, but the beauty of the concept is that it all really works without much effort from me at all.
You lot remain pretty blind to this and think you are being clever or funny or whatever. Fine by me - carry on! Post some more photos of oversized SUVs that will supposedly wind me up or something.
There's no doubt that this is my most successful thread ever on urban75 because not only does it keep me entertained but it actually contributes to societal progress in a meaningful way.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 25, 2021)

.


----------



## T & P (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm going to try and explain how the thread works, but you probably still won't understand. I can do measured contributions now and again, which are a kind of bonus for the impartial reader, but it's not these posts that do the heavy lifting. The thread relies on the car-people writing so much  nonsense that no one reasonable would want to be associated with them. Each time a car-person posts something, not only does it bump the thread to the top of "new posts" but it adds a fresh page to the idiot file.
> Sure, it takes a few carefully placed posts from me now and again to lead them into some traps or to stoke the fire a bit, but the beauty of the concept is that it all really works without much effort from me at all.
> You lot remain pretty blind to this and think you are being clever or funny or whatever. Fine by me - carry on! Post some more photos of oversized SUVs that will supposedly wind me up or something.
> There's no doubt that this is my most successful thread ever on urban75 because not only does it keep me entertained but it actually contributes to societal progress in a meaningful way.


Oh dear. Bad day at the office?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There's no doubt that this is my most successful thread ever on urban75 because not only does it keep me entertained but it actually contributes to societal progress in a meaningful way.




Not sure whether to report this to Prevent or not, they are looking in to incels, yeah?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 26, 2021)

The Quattro sport S1 has to be one of the nicest sounding cars of all time.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2021)

Nearly half of journeys made by car are made by only the driver and half are also a distance that could easily be cycled by most people.



Cue the “but what about”s…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 26, 2021)

But there's something about a nice Mk2 Escort, especially when it's driven properly.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 26, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But there's something about a nice Mk2 Escort, especially when it's driven properly.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 26, 2021)

Ken Block doing his thing.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2021)

Brilliant take down of Insulate Britain. Reckon Saul could get a job on Talk Radio if this is the standard…


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Brilliant take down of Insulate Britain. Reckon Saul could get a job on Talk Radio if this is the standard…



That's brilliant. Almost as funny as an actual Brass Eye segment.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


>





This one's just as fun:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Brilliant take down of Insulate Britain. Reckon Saul could get a job on Talk Radio if this is the standard…


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2021)

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
		





> Has the U.S. enjoyed a century-long “love affair” with the automobile, as Groucho Marx memorably put it in a 1961 television show? Or has the relationship been more like an increasingly toxic forced marriage?
> 
> Peter Norton, a history professor at the University of Virginia, has spent his career arguing it’s the latter. His first book, _Fighting Traffic_, focuses on the 1920s, describing how a consortium of automotive, oil, rubber and construction industries — “motordom,” as Norton calls them — formed a strategic alliance to ensure car owners could drive quickly through U.S. cities. The resulting sprawl, autocentric  planning and  policy, and inadequate transit often left traveling by car as the only viable option.





> Though diverse, the visions of high-tech driving share a common claim: with sensor data, state-of-the-art hardware, machine learning, and digital networking, onboard computers in every car will drive for us, better than we can, and sooner than we think. Despite the extraordinary technological developments of the last twenty years, however, the practical possibility of widespread automatic driving remains elusive. High-tech “solutions,” always just over the horizon, are supposed to offer the anticipated deliverance. The lack, however, lies not in technology but in the aspiration itself. Meanwhile the supposed solutions, in promising an eventual end to all our afflictions, divert us from transport sufficiency: an unspectacular state in which everyone can meet their practical needs.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


History teacher has an opinion on something.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Brilliant take down of Insulate Britain. Reckon Saul could get a job on Talk Radio if this is the standard…



Fucking hell


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2021)

Boris Johnson just mentioned car confiscation at PMQs.

"Labour's policy is that families will be able to take one flight every five years Mr Speaker, and have their cars confiscated!"

Have Labour published this policy yet?


----------



## T & P (Oct 27, 2021)

I didn't realise teuchter was the leader of the Labour party. I always had him as a Tory.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Boris Johnson just mentioned car confiscation at PMQs.
> 
> "Labour's policy is that families will be able to take one flight every five years Mr Speaker, and have their cars confiscated!"
> 
> Have Labour published this policy yet?



It's just Johnson spewing shit from his mouth, as usual.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's just Johnson spewing shit from his mouth, as usual.


Of the same flavour we have seen spewing from certain posters on this thread.

Did Boris Johnson say anything about North Korea?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

Ash Sarkar gets it:


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

Here’s a retired doctor that was one of the protesters attacked.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2021)

What a small man Saul really is.

as opposed to this guy:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 28, 2021)

Another example of an Audi driver doing an Audi driver thing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What a small man Saul really is.
> 
> as opposed to this guy:



That was one of their own people doing the inking, so they could pretend to be martyrs. .


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2021)

Such a small, insecure man.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Such a small, insecure man.


Most of them are. It's why they have to pretend people are throwing ink on them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2021)

This clever driver has worked out a loophole to avoid the ULEZ charge… by not driving a non ULEZ compliant vehicle into the area. Bravo 👏 









						Croydon man, 25, windsurfing to work to avoid new ULEZ charge
					

George Alting feels the recent expansion pushes the cost onto the people who can't afford it




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 28, 2021)

Yeah I'm sure it's hilarious until the wind blows him into a cyclist on the approach to a zebra crossing thereby knocking a child under the wheels of a moving bus. At least he won't get a ULEZ fine.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 29, 2021)

Duke’s daughter cites ‘cashflow issues’ to get speeding fine halved to £50
					

Socialite and business owner Eliza Manners wrote to magistrates pleading hardship




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 29, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Duke’s daughter cites ‘cashflow issues’ to get speeding fine halved to £50
> 
> 
> Socialite and business owner Eliza Manners wrote to magistrates pleading hardship
> ...


I guess that's what happens when your parents piss in all the right pots.

Or maybe anyone who challenged the fine would get the same outcome.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2021)

It’s gone quite quiet on this thread. I reckon the Clarkson stans are realising the game is up (apart from obviously Saul who deludedly thinks he’s part of the establishment).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 30, 2021)

I for one am absolutely shocked by the make of car these two dickheads are driving. Shocked I tell you.


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

Dunno. They’ve given me an X1 M Sport Hybrid at the car hire during my trip to Madrid, and so far I’ve remained my responsible, courteous self.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> Dunno. They’ve given me an X1 M Sport Hybrid at the car hire during my trip to Madrid, and so far I’ve remained my responsible, courteous self.


It’s only a matter of time.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> Dunno. They’ve given me an X1 M Sport Hybrid at the car hire during my trip to Madrid, and so far I’ve remained my responsible, courteous self.


Fuck that!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 30, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck that!


Indeed. Its a hire car. The user agreement even stipulates that you must thrash it within an inch of its life.


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

I have not pressed the sports mode button yet, but I’ll be going on the open road this afternoon, and it would seem rude not to.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> I have not pressed the sports mode button yet, but I’ll be going on the open road this afternoon, and it would seem rude not to.


Find a forest track and you're good to go.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

Will Self gets it:









						A Point of View - Car Hatred - BBC Sounds
					

Will Self on motor-mania.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the opinions of that Iraq war-supporting cunt.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

and interesting that the BBC chose to broadcast it.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> and interesting that the BBC chose to broadcast it.



It's Radio 4. Will Self rubbing one out on A Point of View is no more interesting than Monsignor Treeb Lopez talking about God on Thought for the Day. It certainly doesn't mean that opinion is shifting on the issue.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 30, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

So many fragile male egos in this thread


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So many fragile male egos in this thread


I think it’s more of a case of so many of your arguments ITT comprehensively dismantled in seconds.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 30, 2021)

Making roads safer for kids getting to school, nobody could possibly be such a colossal wanker as to object to that, right?

Wrong 









						Manchester street blockaded as council tries to paint double yellow lines
					

North Street and surrounding routes has seen double yellow lines and bollards installed - to the fury of some locals




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Making roads safer for kids getting to school, nobody could possibly be such a colossal wanker as to object to that, right?
> 
> Wrong
> 
> ...



What idiots decided to locate a new school on an industrial estate?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Making roads safer for kids getting to school, nobody could possibly be such a colossal wanker as to object to that, right?





platinumsage said:


> What idiots decided to locate a new school on an industrial estate?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> I think it’s more of a case of so many of your arguments ITT comprehensively dismantled in seconds.



If you think that’s what’s happening I’m not sure you’re paying attention. Can’t see anyone arguing with any points just attacking posters and drooling over shit looking cars.


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If you think that’s what’s happening I’m not sure you’re paying attention. Can’t see anyone arguing with any points just attacking posters and drooling over shit looking cars.


Your suggestion that Will Self’s opinion being shown on the BBC somehow constitutes an endorsement by the Beeb or something noteworthy certainly got shot to pieces in no time. But you can continue to pretend otherwise if you you wish. I think it’s clear whose ego might be fragile, in this particular exchange at least


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

So where are you coming from T & P? No issue with cars and car culture at all. Everything fine. Yeah?

I notice you gave up quickly on arguing the Tulse Hill LTN was somehow not working.


----------



## T & P (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So where are you coming from T & P? No issue with cars and car culture at all. Everything fine. Yeah?
> 
> I notice you gave up quickly on arguing the Tulse Hill LTN was somehow not working.


Oh dear. In your blatant & desperate desire to stir shit and trigger people ITT you’re starting to embarrass yourself now. Please stop for your sake if nobody else’s


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> Oh dear. In your blatant & desperate desire to stir shit and trigger people ITT you’re starting to embarrass yourself now. Please stop for your sake if nobody else’s



Proving the point none of you guys are arguing about anything as it’s self evident cars are a huge issue.

What was Will Self wrong about?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Proving the point none of you guys are arguing about anything as it’s self evident cars are a huge issue.



Of course cars are a huge issue, as is housing and farming. Transport, shelter and food are basic necessities.




edcraw said:


> What was Will Self wrong about?



You actually listened to him?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Of course cars are a huge issue



Yep - that was the point & why you guys are just trolling


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - that was the point & why you guys are just trolling


Just accept that cars aren't going anywhere. They're too big a source of revenue for the government. Once you accept this you'll feel a lot better about everything.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - that was the point & why you guys are just trolling



I look forward to your anti-house building propaganda and anti-food propaganda threads.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I look forward to your anti-house building propaganda and anti-food propaganda threads.



Yeah, but whattabout….


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, but whattabout….



What about what?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What about what?



So we can only point out issues with cars as long as we point all the other fucking issues in the world? Well done, you’re a fucking genius.

So you’ve got past the denial stage & I think the anger one. You’re making good progress 👏


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So we can only point out issues with cars as long as we point all the other fucking issues in the world? Well done, you’re a fucking genius.



Did I say that? Do you just make things up all the time because you’ve got nothing substantive to say on the topic?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So you’ve got past the denial stage & I think the anger one. You’re making good progress 👏



When I say cars are a huge issue I mean they’re very important to a lot of people and get talked about a lot. Same as houses and food.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> What idiots decided to locate a new school on an industrial estate?


QED


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2021)

.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Over half of cars speed on 30mph roads - this is why we need limiters on cars. The technology exists and drivers obviously can’t be trusted to obey speed limits.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Over half of cars speed on 30mph roads - this is why we need limiters on cars. The technology exists and drivers obviously can’t be trusted to obey speed limits.
> 
> View attachment 294934



Interesting to note that on country roads, the most dangerous category of road, car drivers are much safer than professional drivers.

That's if you want to use speed limit adherence as a proxy for safety, which is absurd.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Interesting to note that on country roads, the most dangerous category of road, car drivers are much safer than professional drivers.
> 
> That's if you want to use speed limit adherence as a proxy for safety, which is absurd.


I think that's probably to do with the nature of who drives on which national speed limit single-carriageway roads.  The majority of these roads are the kind of country roads that it would be insane to drive at 60mph on, so I'm not surprised that the proportion of car drivers found exceeding these limits is only 10%.  Which single-carriageway roads do buses tend to use, though?  I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a very different balance in terms of long, straight, wide ones versus narrow, twisty-turny ones.  This means that the proportions are not comparable.

Personally, from those stats I am most horrified that >40% of HGVs seem to be exceeding 30mph limits.  These are enormous, heavy vehicles with significant momentum that shouldn't be going anything like 30mph on most 30mph roads.  It's not that the stat surprises me (after all, it's not like I've not seen it many a time).  It's clearly a massive problem, though.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think that's probably to do with the nature of who drives on which national speed limit single-carriageway roads.  The majority of these roads are the kind of country roads that it would be insane to drive at 60mph on, so I'm not surprised that the proportion of car drivers found exceeding these limits is only 10%.  Which single-carriageway roads do buses tend to use, though?  I've no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a very different balance in terms of long, straight, wide ones versus narrow, twisty-turny ones.  This means that the proportions are not comparable.



Seems they accounted for that:







__





						Loading…
					





					assets.publishing.service.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Interesting to note that on country roads, the most dangerous category of road, car drivers are much safer than professional drivers.
> 
> That's if you want to use speed limit adherence as a proxy for safety, which is absurd.



? You’re the one that mentioned safety.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> ? You’re the one that mentioned safety.



Sometimes I wonder whether you are a bot...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Over half of cars speed on 30mph roads




The only sensible thing to take from this is that the limit needs increasing.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The only sensible thing to take from this is that the limit needs increasing.


No, it would be easier to just crush half of all cars.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it would be easier to just crush half of all cars.


The ones under 2000cc?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it would be easier to just crush half of all cars.



With you and edcraw in them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> With you and edcraw in them.



Nice, normal behaviour


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Great debate today guys… Some really good points…


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it would be easier to just crush half of all cars.



Even easier to just remove all speed limits, especially as they don’t stop people speeding. If cyclists don’t need speed limits despite killing pedestrians then I don’t see why cars drivers need them - just rely on the existing offence of “wanton and furious driving”.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Another brilliant take down there platinumsage … bravo 👏


----------



## Aladdin (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great debate today guys… Some really good points…



Have you ever driven a car? 

Speed limiters are not a good idea.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Have you ever driven a car?
> 
> Speed limiters are not a good idea.



Yes, I drive occasionally.

Why are they not a good idea? Only argument I can see is the rare occasion you need to accelerate to prevent and accident. Systems deal with this by allow an override that comes with a warning alarm.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

They’re coming on all new cars from next year btw









						Mandatory speed limiters to be fitted to all new UK cars after 2022 | Evo
					

The use of mandatory speed limiters and data loggers on all new cars has been approved by the European Parliament, and manufacturers are already making moves



					www.evo.co.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

I'm all for speed limiters. I can't wait to earn good money disabling them.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Have you ever driven a car?
> 
> Speed limiters are not a good idea.


Explain why, use diagrams if required.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

Mandatory speed limiters, that you can choose not to use. 🤣


> Currently, the regulation permits you to switch the speed limiter off. Those chasing the thrill of higher top speeds, or looking for better fuel economy may look at modifying their cars by getting the speed limiter removed.











						Mandatory speed limiters on UK cars from 2022 | AutoTrader
					

All new vehicles sold in Europe – including the UK – will be fitted with a mandatory speed limiter from 2022 to keep cars within the UK speed limits and boost road safety.




					www.autotrader.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Mandatory speed limiters, that you can choose not to use. 🤣
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, because fitting them properly would presumably mean shrieking and wailing from all the idiots.

There is no argument against mandatory GPS based limiters that cannot be switched off, other than “I want to break the speed limits”.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep, because fitting them properly would presumably mean shrieking and wailing from all the idiots.
> 
> There is no argument against mandatory GPS based limiters that cannot be switched off, other than “I want to break the speed limits”.


I want to do a track day?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I want to do a track day?



Ah diddums


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah diddums


Another classic edcraw retort.


edcraw said:


> Great debate today guys… Some really good points…


Another stranger to self-awareness 🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Explain why, use diagrams if required.



They limit your speed - no diagrams needed.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

What’s the speed limit on a private track Saul?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yes, I drive occasionally.


So, you own a car?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, you own a car?



No


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There is no argument against mandatory GPS based limiters that cannot be switched off, other than “I want to break the speed limits”.



This is the sort of crap people come out with in support of compulsory ID cards .

You can’t be against an authoritarian state only when it suits you.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Speed limits are authoritarian🤪

iTz JuSt LiKe NaZi GeRmAnY!!!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No



So, you're happy to drive other people's cars, what a hypocrite.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> So, you're happy to drive other people's cars, what a hypocrite.



What? I occasionally hire a car for the few occasions a year I need one.

A real gotcha there!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What’s the speed limit on a private track Saul?


What's the speed limit on the Isle of Man TT course on mad Sunday? 

You'll have to try harder than that.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What's the speed limit on the Isle of Man TT course on mad Sunday?
> 
> You'll have to try harder than that.



There isn’t one so the speed limiter wouldn’t limit the speed presumably…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There isn’t one so the speed limiter wouldn’t limit the speed presumably…


It's a public road. Of course there are speed limits.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I want to do a track day?


I think you may have missed the “GPS” part and the implications thereof.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a public road. Of course there are speed limits.


 

You might want to go and lookup speed limits on the IoM.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a public road. Of course there are speed limits.





> It’s also the only place in Europe outside the German autobahn network where there are public roads without speed limits… Around 30 percent of the island’s highway network is unrestricted, including almost all of the mountain section of the famous TT course.







__





						How Do You Police a Land with No Speed Limits?
					

The Isle of Man attracts thrill seekers with its roads with no speed limits. So how do the police cope? Surprisingly well, it turns out. Read more at Car and Driver.




					www.caranddriver.com
				




🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Something tells me Saul might not be quite the biker he makes out. You’d think a basic knowledge of the TT course would be entry level stuff.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Speed limits are authoritarian🤪
> 
> iTz JuSt LiKe NaZi GeRmAnY!!!


See also: food quality standards, firearms restrictions, electrical safety regulations, and not letting blind people drive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You might want to go and lookup speed limits on the IoM.


You might want to. There are speed limits all over the island. All residential areas have them. As that article states, only 30% of the island is unrestricted.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think you may have missed the “GPS” part and the implications thereof.


I think you may have missed the bit where public roads with speed limits are closed and turned into racetracks.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You might want to. There are speed limits all over the island. All residential areas have them. As that article states, only 30% of the island is unrestricted.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> You might want to. There are speed limits all over the island. All residential areas have them. As that article states, only 30% of the island is unrestricted.


Yes, I know


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Something tells me Saul might not be quite the biker he makes out. You’d think a basic knowledge of the TT course would be entry level stuff.




Do you feel silly now?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes, I know


Apparently you don't.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think you may have missed the bit where public roads with speed limits are closed and turned into racetracks.


I don’t think a) racing bikes/cars need limiters and b) on mad Sunday the speed limits still apply, it’s just that the road is one way so you can properly go for it.

But you’d know that, being a proper biker and all


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 295024


You're really bad at this, aren't you


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I don’t think a) racing bikes/cars need limiters and b) on mad Sunday the speed limits still apply, it’s just that the road is one way so you can properly go for it.
> 
> But you’d know that, being a proper biker and all


Having ridden the course on many occasions, I think I have an idea how it works.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Having ridden the course on many occasions, I think I have an idea how it works.



🤔


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Having ridden the course on many occasions, I think I have an idea how it works.


As have I. Which is why your argument that GPS limiters would somehow stop… something, doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Solid gold argument you have here Saul.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Solid gold argument you have here Saul.


I'm glad you agree.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm glad you agree.



Once I work out what it is I’m sure I will.

At the moment I’ve got it as we shouldn’t have speed limiters in the UK so that people can race once a year on roads not in the UK that don’t have speed limits accept where they do and then they should be allowed to break the speed limit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

Now we've agreed that GPS based speed limiters have obvious faults, let's point out another... 
It's good to see the government are finally seeing sense and making moves to raise the speed limit to 80mph on motorways. Unfortunately, this is another inherent flaw with GPS based speed limiters. They need an onboard database, and whenever a speed limit changes, that database needs updating. Who's going to be responsible for the updates?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, it would be easier to just crush half of all cars.




Yep, would clear space on the roads to allow people with the wherewithal to own a car with proper bollocks to strut their stuff. I always knew we’d agree somewhere, and here we are.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

Then let's examine the whole "my <insert appropriate family member title> is having a heart attack at 3am, but I'm going to stick to 20mph on my way to the hospital because my GPS speed limiter and bees say I should"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Then let's examine the whole "my <insert appropriate family member title> is having a heart attack at 3am, but I'm going to stick to 20mph on my way to the hospital because my GPS speed limiter and bees say I should"


Pretty sure ambulances are a thing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep, would clear space on the roads to allow people with the wherewithal to own a car with proper bollocks to strut their stuff. I always knew we’d agree somewhere, and here we are.


I'm all for getting rid of half or more of the cars on the road, by making everybody sit an advanced driving test, and those who fail have their license revoked, forever. I reckon we could get rid of a good 80% that way, leaving the roads free for those of us who can drive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Pretty sure ambulances are a thing.


Pretty sure the golden hour is a thing, and if my family member was dying I'd be reaching for the keys before the phone.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Pretty sure the golden hour is a thing, and if my family member was dying I'd be reaching for the keys before the phone.


You should move to a nice city then, rather than the back of beyond. Less than 10 minutes to my nearest A&E


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You should move to a nice city then, rather than the back of beyond. Less than 10 minutes to my nearest A&E


Assuming the road hasn't been blocked by 'insulate my loft' cunts  
An ambulance wouldn't run them over.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> See also: food quality standards, firearms restrictions, electrical safety regulations, and not letting blind people drive.



More whataboutery


----------



## alex_ (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Mandatory speed limiters, that you can choose not to use. 🤣
> 
> 
> 
> ...



permanently disabling them will invalidate most peoples insurance, and 

“the speed limiter will send haptic, audio and visual warnings until you start driving within the speed limits.”

makes the “I didn’t know I was speeding defence” a lot harder to get away with


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You should move to a nice city then, rather than the back of beyond. Less than 10 minutes to my nearest A&E



Is that by trailer bike?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> permanently disabling them will invalidate most peoples insurance, and
> 
> “the speed limiter will send haptic, audio and visual warnings until you start driving within the speed limits.”
> 
> makes the “I didn’t know I was speeding defence” a lot harder to get away with


No it won't. 

And no it won't. (once it's been disabled) 

And "I didn't know I was speeding" was never a viable defence.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Is that by trailer bike?


It's the usual 'everybody should live in a city, like wot I does' spiel. Its the usual 'I hate everything I don't do' spiel. It's pure selfishness, and typical of people with a bit of money who can afford to live in a city.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More whataboutery



Kinda missed the point there.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's the usual 'everybody should live in a city, like wot I does' spiel. Its the usual 'I hate everything I don't do' spiel. It's pure selfishness, and typical of people with a bit of money who can afford to live in a city.



Yeah - everyone’s rich in that there London🙄


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm all for getting rid of half or more of the cars on the road, by making everybody sit an advanced driving test, and those who fail have their license revoked, forever. I reckon we could get rid of a good 80% that way, leaving the roads free for those of us who can drive.


This is something we can agree on.

The best bit about this is that the 20% of surviving drivers would be really pleased with themselves for a short while and then find that the country's transport policies would rapidly change, once a car centric set-up became directly contrary to almost everyone's interests.

Would be pretty funny to see how angry the "advanced motorists" would get as all their privileges got removed and they were put in their proper place.

Obviously also pretty funny to see people like platinumsage and Spymaster fail the new tests. I would pass of course.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Obviously also pretty funny to see people like platinumsage and Spymaster fail the new tests. I would pass of course.



Oh come on, you admitted on this thread you had no idea how a zebra crossing was supposed to operate. I doubt you could pass a basic pedestrian test designed for primary school children and should probably not be allowed to walk anywhere without a chaperone.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No it won't.



It’s a modification to your car - they all need to be declared to insurers


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> It’s a modification to your car - they all need to be declared to insurers


No they don't.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 31, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No they don't.











						Do car modifications affect my insurance? | AXA UK
					

AXA’s guide to how car modifications can affect your premium.




					www.axa.co.uk
				




Do I have to declare modifications to my insurer?

In a word: yes. If you don’t tell us about any modifications, your policy will be declared void and any claims that you may have made will not be paid out.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Oct 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Do car modifications affect my insurance? | AXA UK
> 
> 
> AXA’s guide to how car modifications can affect your premium.
> ...


Plausible deniability. I'm not a systems analyst. How would I be expected to know if somebody had tampered with the car before I bought it? 
They'd have to prove you were aware of the modifications. 99.99999% of people would have no idea what an ECU looked like, far less how to flash one.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Oh come on, you admitted on this thread you had no idea how a zebra crossing was supposed to operate. I doubt you could pass a basic pedestrian test designed for primary school children and should probably not be allowed to walk anywhere without a chaperone.


Nonetheless, easily more competent than 80% of car owners and all of the pro-car loons posting on here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Is that by trailer bike?


No, ambulance. Do try and keep up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More whataboutery


Either you don’t quite get what that term means or you’re even dafter than I suspected.


----------



## David Clapson (Nov 1, 2021)

HGVs have speed limiters.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, ambulance. Do try and keep up.



Presumably a bicycle ambulance, I didn't think you wanted nasty vehicles in our clean and precious cities.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> HGVs have speed limiters.



They take no account of speed limits though, so all they do is create chaos on motorways.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Presumably a bicycle ambulance, I didn't think you wanted nasty vehicles in our clean and precious cities.


So, I can add “doesn’t actually read the thread” to your list.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Plausible deniability. I'm not a systems analyst. How would I be expected to know if somebody had tampered with the car before I bought it?
> They'd have to prove you were aware of the modifications. 99.99999% of people would have no idea what an ECU looked like, far less how to flash one.



Weak


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> HGVs have speed limiters.



Doesn’t this prove that speed limiters work and don’t cause accidents ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Weak


But fact.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Doesn’t this prove that speed limiters work and don’t cause accidents ?


They are fake and sponsored by North Korea as part of their secret programme to dupe drivers into relinquishing their freedom so that they can be controlled by communists and made to ferry dissidents to labour camps which do not yet have public transport connections.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But fact.



You’d still have no insurance.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> You’d still have no insurance.


Nonsense. You're clueless.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 1, 2021)

Speed limiters will be standard on all new cars pretty soon.  They're already are on some in a baby steps sort of way.  The new VW EV range is all limited to 99mph despite being able to go much quicker.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Nonsense. You're clueless.



Yes, you are right - insurers love finding reasons to pay out, rather than weaselling out with any excuse


----------



## T & P (Nov 1, 2021)

For all the stick they get from anti-car people, most Mercs, BMWs and Audis have been limited to 155 mph for decades. The Germans leading the way in car safety as always


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Yes, you are right - insurers love finding reasons to pay out, rather than weaselling out with any excuse


It doesn't matter what they do or don't like doing. If you have no knowledge of the modification, you can't be expected to tell them about it.
But you must have known you were wrong when edcraw liked your post.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It doesn't matter what they do or don't like doing. If you have no knowledge of the modification, you can't be expected to tell them about it.
> But you must have known you were wrong when edcraw liked your post.



Bearing in mind - you’ve gone from “you don’t have to report it” to “I’d pretend I didn’t know about it” you aren’t exactly nailing it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> It doesn't matter what they do or don't like doing. If you have no knowledge of the modification, you can't be expected to tell them about it.
> But you must have known you were wrong when edcraw liked your post.


Pretty certain you're incorrect here and the onus is - arguably rather unfairly - on the owner to have checked everything. Will message a mate who works in the field and see if I can get an answer...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 1, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Pretty certain you're incorrect here and the onus is - arguably rather unfairly - on the owner to have checked everything. Will message a mate who works in the field and see if I can get an answer...


I'm pretty certain that you have to knowingly fail to declare something. If a previous owner had fitted a 2L engine into a 1.8L car, how could the next owner be expected to know?
Actually, when you sign the proposal, I'm pretty sure there's a 'to the best of my knowledge'  clause or check box.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Bearing in mind - you’ve gone from “you don’t have to report it” to “I’d pretend I didn’t know about it” you aren’t exactly nailing it.


My position never changed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


>



Tl;dw


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm pretty certain that you have to knowingly fail to declare something. If a previous owner had fitted a 2L engine into a 1.8L car, how could the next owner be expected to know?
> Actually, when you sign the proposal, I'm pretty sure there's a 'to the best of my knowledge'  clause or check box.


So, I asked, and apparently the answer is an extremely vague and wide ranging "it depends" with a sizeable side order of "fuck knows"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, I asked, and apparently the answer is an extremely vague and wide ranging "it depends" with a sizeable side order of "fuck knows"


If its something like a hole in the bonnet, with a massive supercharger poking through it, then it would be fairly obvious and would have to be divulged, but something like an ECU remap, the end user wouldn't be expected to know and likely wouldn't be able to notice that it had been carried out. It's impossible to divulge information you're unaware of, and I'm pretty certain an insurance company couldn't void a policy on that basis, regardless of what people are guessing at here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If its something like a hole in the bonnet, with a massive supercharger poking through it, then it would be fairly obvious and would have to be divulged, but something like an ECU remap, the end user wouldn't be expected to know and likely wouldn't be able to notice that it had been carried out. It's impossible to divulge information you're unaware of, and I'm pretty certain an insurance company couldn't void a policy on that basis, regardless of what people are guessing at here.


A lot would come down to how plausible any denial of knowledge would be. A remap that just gently smoothed out a torque curve or gave better mpg you’d likely get away with. But if your 1.0 Corsa is suddenly making a noise like a firecracker on every down shift… probably not.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A lot would come down to how plausible any denial of knowledge would be. A remap that just gently smoothed out a torque curve or gave better mpg you’d likely get away with. But if your 1.0 Corsa is suddenly making a noise like a firecracker on every down shift… probably not.


But a speed limiter, where the only way you could know it was disabled would be by breaking the law?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But a speed limiter, where the only way you could know it was disabled would be by breaking the law?


God knows. I guess the argument would be  something along the lines of “well the fact you were doing 50 in a 30 should have alerted you”.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> God knows. I guess the argument would be  something along the lines of “well the fact you were doing 50 in a 30 should have alerted you”.



I assumed it must be a 50 cos I was able to do 50...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 1, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I assumed it must be a 50 cos I was able to do 50...


When every other car was going suspiciously slowly…

As ever, the lawyers will be the winners


----------



## edcraw (Nov 2, 2021)

Uninsured, speeding driver goes through red light and kills someone. 2 year driving ban.









						Family's anger as man who admitted causing death of 80-year-old in crash avoids jail term
					

A MAN has been spared jail for causing the death of an 80-year-old pensioner in a crash involving a mobility scooter - leaving the bereaved family feeling like their lives have been ‘ripped apart’.




					www.portsmouth.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Uninsured, speeding driver goes through red light and kills someone. 2 year driving ban.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There is a thread for that kind of thing; Driving Standards

Posting it up on a troll thread is not going to record this crap in any meaningful way and is disrespectful.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 295204



Loving this new narrative that we should have a referendum on whether our not we plow on with destroying the planet. Apart from being idiotic, net zero was actually in the Tory’s manifesto…

Of course anyone that uses ‘virtue signalling’ can do one ➡️


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 295204



I've never heard of these guys before.  In itself that's a bit weird because as they claim they represent the mass of road users in the UK. 

Their website is a good read though.  Going into bat for drink drivers is brave.  I smell unhinged likely psychopath Brian Rose behind this.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I've never heard of these guys before.  In itself that's a bit weird because as they claim they represent the mass of road users in the UK.
> 
> Their website is a good read though.  Going into bat for drink drivers is brave.  I smell unhinged likely psychopath Brian Rose behind this.


Always presumed its an astroturf group funded by car interest groups to get stories in papers. It seems to work.


----------



## T & P (Nov 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I've never heard of these guys before.  In itself that's a bit weird because as they claim they represent the mass of road users in the UK.
> 
> Their website is a good read though.  Going into bat for drink drivers is brave.  I smell unhinged likely psychopath Brian Rose behind this.


And they are as representative of British drivers as the UK Taxpayers Alliance is representative of people who pay tax.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> I've never heard of these guys before.  In itself that's a bit weird because as they claim they represent the mass of road users in the UK.
> 
> Their website is a good read though.  Going into bat for drink drivers is brave.  I smell unhinged likely psychopath Brian Rose behind this.



They are linked in one way or another to





__





						HOME | Freedom for Drivers Foundation
					

The Freedom for Drivers Foundation (FFDF) is a body that aims to educate the public about the benefits of road vehicles.




					www.freedomfordrivers.org
				




and 









						FairFuelUK
					

We are a public affairs team with no shareholders to satisfy, just an award winning campaign representing the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK. Decades of fiscal exploitation by successive Governments with little...




					www.fairfueluk.com


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> And they are as representative of British drivers as the UK Taxpayers Alliance is representative of people who pay tax.


Was wondering how long it would take certain posters to deny membership of these groups.


----------



## T & P (Nov 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Was wondering how long it would take certain posters to deny membership of these groups.


Well, you're still denying you're a Tory...


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> And they are as representative of British drivers as the UK Taxpayers Alliance is representative of people who pay tax.



Yeah, that was my first thought as well.



edcraw said:


> Always presumed its an astroturf group funded by car interest groups to get stories in papers. It seems to work.



Almost certainly.  It would be interesting to know which companies are behind this though.  The fuel companies mostly I would have thought but probably some car and car parts manufacturers as well.  

This "not-for-profit" bollocks is a lovely phrase that provides an a perfectly opaque screen whilst sounding all charity-like.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2021)

T & P said:


> Well, you're still denying you're a Tory...


I don't recall denying I'm a Tory - there's no need for me to because I don't keep pushing arguments that align with Tory interests and ideology. Unlike certain posters.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 2, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, that was my first thought as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It probably costs f-all. Give a couple of guys a decentish salary and they'll pump stuff out so the media can 'two-sides' everything.

Good quote on their wikipedia page:



> In 2004, the then chief constable of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, described the Association of British Drivers as an "unduly influential … pressure group." He added, "They have less than 3,000 members, yet they are given enormous attention by the media. … It's ludicrous — this is a bunch of crackpots being given prime airtime. It's just because the media love a controversy."


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2021)

Oh, what a surprise. You start to build proper infrastructure for cycling and more people do it!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh, what a surprise. You start to build proper infrastructure for cycling and more people do it!




I can't see any proper infrastructure for cycling in that picture


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I can't see any proper infrastructure for cycling in that picture



It’s behind them over London Bridge.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s behind them over London Bridge.



🤔

They're going the wrong way then...


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2021)

He’s got a point. These hire bikes are a real nuisance.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

What an efficient use of road space! 👏


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What an efficient use of road space! 👏




Quite the opposite. You could easily close the cycle lane and replace it with e.g. trees or grass. There are hardly any cars so plenty of space for the cyclists to join them on the main part of the road.

There's a road near me where they've changed a carriageway, verges and wide pavement to a carriageway, bus lanes, and cycle lanes with a tiny narrow pavement. It's now a much wider road in total and a nightmare for pedestrians to cross, and hasn't improved safety or journey times for anyone.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Quite the opposite. You could easily close the cycle lane and replace it with e.g. trees or grass. There are hardly any cars so plenty of space for the cyclists to join them on the main part of the road.
> 
> There's a road near me where they've changed a carriageway, verges and wide pavement to a carriageway, bus lanes, and cycle lanes with a tiny narrow pavement. It's now a much wider road in total and a nightmare for pedestrians to cross, and hasn't improved safety or journey times for anyone.


Top trolling! You obv know the area well and saw the tons of cyclists using this route before the cycle lane.

You are correct that the road is v inefficient though but I think we do still need some space for vehicles.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

Those poor pedestrians waiting to cross, probably still there now. And in just that tiny clip there's one illegal motor-vehicle bombing along in the lane, a vipers nest of criminality and anti-social behaviour.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Those poor pedestrians waiting to cross



Good point. We really need to have more crossings that are a default green man. Quite of lot of drivers seem to get really angry about them though.









						Revealed: The huge change coming to pedestrian crossings in London
					

A number of pedestrian crossings across London are to be reprogrammed to have the “green man” signal showing unless a vehicle is approaching.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good point. We really need to have more crossings that are a default green man. Quite of lot of drivers seem to get really angry about them though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Would be really fucking dangerous though, peds would be emboldened to cross without looking.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would be really fucking dangerous though, peds would be emboldened to cross without looking.



Emboldened! They seem to work really well actually, you should go and have a look at one. They still have traffic lights and red/green man, just that they are on a green man and when a vehicle approaches and they change. It means that the traffic has to wait for the lights to change rather than pedestrians.

Sounded like you’d be in favour from your previous comment concerned about pedestrians having to wait. Or was that just when it was cyclists….


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good point. We really need to have more crossings that are a default green man. Quite of lot of drivers seem to get really angry about them though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But to truly be effective and provide a safe space for peds to cross, those pedestrian crossings would have to be fitted with Squid Game-sytle motion detection giant dolls (from the appropriately-named Green Light Red Light game) complete with sentry guns, given that the overwhelming majority of cyclists in London couldn't give a flying fuck about the basic concept of stopping at a red lights if the junction ahead is not busy with traffic.









I actually think that'd be a great idea, and would gladly chip in to a crowfunder


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Emboldened! They seem to work really well actually, you should go and have a look at one. They still have traffic lights and red/green man, just that they are on a green man and when a vehicle approaches and they change. It means that the traffic has to wait for the lights to change rather than pedestrians.
> 
> Sounded like you’d be in favour from your previous comment concerned about pedestrians having to wait. Or was that just when it was cyclists….




Sadly there is a subset of road users who feel that red traffic lights are optional which would make such a system dangerous.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Loving the concern for pedestrians!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw you are obsessed with this troll thread, you need to get out more.

Can I suggest taking a nice drive out to the countryside or seaside?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> edcraw you are obsessed with this troll thread, you need to get out more.
> 
> Can I suggest taking a nice drive out to the countryside or seaside?


Why drive when you can get the train & a bike! Much nicer.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Loving the concern for pedestrians!




We're pretty much all pedestrians. As one the only time in my memory when I have been hit by a vehicle it wasn't a car. The only time I have only narrowly avoided being hit by a vehicle it wasn't a car. As a pedestrian I stick to the pavements and unless dead I only cross at crossings when the green man is showing, as such it would be incredibly rare to be hit by a car, not so a bicycle.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Facts don't care about your feelings Bahnhof Strasse


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

Eh, yeah, whatever. Keep ploughing on.


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

Interesting that edcraw doesn’t  even attempt to deny the reckless and illegal behaviour around pedestrians carried out by the majority of cyclists.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Loving the concern for pedestrians!


If I take your infographic at face value, 1 out of every 100 pedestrians killed is killed by a cyclist. Given the relatively low number of miles covered by cyclists, and the relatively low speed and low weight of a bike, that figure seems massively disproportionately high. 
If you factor in miles travelled and the ability of each vehicle to actually kill someone, the only thing that can possibly be concluded is that cyclists, relatively speaking, kill far more pedestrians than motorists do.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If I take your infographic at face value, 1 out of every 100 pedestrians killed is killed by a cyclist. Given the relatively low number of miles covered by cyclists, and the relatively low speed and low weight of a bike, that figure seems massively disproportionately high.
> If you factor in miles travelled and the ability of each vehicle to actually kill someone, the only thing that can possibly be concluded is that cyclists, relatively speaking, kill far more pedestrians than motorists do.



Exactly, as I alluded to upthread, if cars were replaced by bikes and buses, pedestrian casualties would skyrocket.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Exactly, as I alluded to upthread, if cars were replaced by bikes and buses, pedestrian casualties would skyrocket.


🤣 you really do keep outdoing yourself!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🤣 you really do keep outdoing yourself!



It's a bare-faced fact, undeniable in the face of the DfT statistics you cited with that infographic.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Weird that the Netherlands has the lowest rate of pedestrian fatalities in Europe then isn’t it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Weird that the Netherlands has the lowest rate of pedestrian fatalities in Europe then isn’t it.
> 
> View attachment 295436




Not really, much of the country is swampy shite-land. 

Weird that cycle-mecca Denmark's rates are comparable with the UK's...


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

It could also be added that Dutch (and most other European) cyclists are far more respectful, responsible, lawful and competent cyclists than their UK counterparts. Every time I go to one of the central European cities, the ratio of cyclists obeying red lights vs jumping them is easily 90/10. In the UK is pretty much the reverse.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

This proves that UK drivers cause cyclists to be disrespectful and incompetent. So, ban all UK drivers, crush their cars and the problem is solved. The kind of policy that puts pedestrians first.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> It could also be added that Dutch (and most other European) cyclists are far more respectful, responsible, lawful and competent cyclists than their UK counterparts.


Nope. Try again.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

Obviosuly there are fewer pedestrian casualties in the Netherlands because there are fewer pedestrains, they're mostly on bikes instead. However I bet the rate of cyclist vs cyclist or cyclist vs object serious injury collisions is shocking.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Nope. Try again.


No, it's right. 


> Why There's No War Between Drivers and Cyclists in the Netherlands​Dutch people aren't born knowing the rules of the road. They're taught from an early age.
> Bicycling is such an integral part of life in the Netherlands, you might think that Dutch people are born knowing how to cycle.
> 
> They aren’t, of course. What’s kind of wonderful is the way that they learn.
> ...











						Why There's No War Between Drivers and Cyclists in the Netherlands
					

Dutch people aren't born knowing the rules of the road. They're taught from an early age.




					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Loving the concern for pedestrians!


That shows that cars kill roughly 65 times more pedestrians than bicycles.  Given that cars travel roughly 45 times the number of miles, and given that many of those miles will involve two or more passengers, it does suggest that 'per mile travelled per person' bikes aren't as safe for pedestrians as cars.  And that's become more so as cars are getting better and better at auto braking.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Weird that the Netherlands has the lowest rate of pedestrian fatalities in Europe then isn’t it.
> 
> View attachment 295436



That's because people take more care when stoned.

Time to legalise the weed here.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> That shows that cars kill roughly 65 times more pedestrians than bicycles.  Given that cars travel roughly 45 times the number of miles, and given that many of those miles will involve two or more passengers, it does suggest that 'per mile travelled per person' bikes aren't as safe for pedestrians as cars.  And that's become more so as cars are getting better and better at auto braking.


You lot already tried this nonsense on the electric scooter thread. And I already explained why it's nonsense. Pay more attention.



teuchter said:


> Don't be fooled by the 'per km travelled' stuff above - that's relevant if you're looking at the danger to the occupants of the vehicle travelling, but less so if you are looking at the danger to pedestrians in a pedestrian environment.
> 
> The relevant numbers would be how many of each vehicle a pedestrian encounters per km that they walk. In some places where there's very little cycling, then sure most of the vehicles they encounter will be cars not cyclists. In other places it will be the other way around. Are pedestrian deaths and injuries higher in places where there is a high level of cycling? Don't think so.


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You lot already tried this nonsense on the electric scooter thread. And I already explained why it's nonsense. Pay more attention.


That's a bonkers metric you've cherry-picked.  The fact is that a certain number of people need to travel a certain number of miles; if they did that by bike rather than car then they'd probably kill more pedestrians.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You lot already tried this nonsense on the electric scooter thread. And I already explained why it's nonsense. Pay more attention.


Do you have those figures?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's a bonkers metric you've cherry-picked.  The fact is that a certain number of people need to travel a certain number of miles; if they did that by bike rather than car then they'd probably kill more pedestrians.


If they didn't hold a driving license, they'd _definitely_ kill more pedestrians.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's a bonkers metric you've cherry-picked.  The fact is that a certain number of people need to travel a certain number of miles; if they did that by bike rather than car then they'd probably kill more pedestrians.


Yeah, the motorways would be littered with dead pedestrians if we replaced all the cars with cyclists.


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, the motorways would be littered with dead pedestrians if we replaced all the cars with cyclists.


And cyclists who've died of exhaustion.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, the motorways would be littered with dead pedestrians if we replaced all the cars with cyclists.


They'd be littered with dead cyclists.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why drive when you can get the train & a bike! Much nicer.



On your bike...then


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2021)

Posting about cyclists certainly seems to bring this thread back to life and give the Clarkson wannabes an opportunity to embarrass themselves!


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Posting about cyclists certainly seems to bring this thread back to life and give the Clarkson wannabes an opportunity to embarrass themselves!



Yawn


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

Will look forward to seeing (but not bothering to read) some predictable and/or dimwitted responses to this.









						"Swap cars for trees" says Es Devlin in her Dezeen 15 manifesto
					

In her manifesto for the Dezeen 15 digital festival, Es Devlin imagines a future where cars are replaced with trees in our cities.




					www.dezeen.com


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

I try not to look forward to things in case I’m disappointed.


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

It’s certainly an interesting proposal. I don’t know one could travel anywhere by tree; I guess they’re talking about trees imported from Middle Earth. I’m all up for that, frankly


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 4, 2021)

I think it would be an interesting idea if all the houses carpeting the UK were replaced with trees. People could live in caves in the winter or something, it would be good for their physical fitness.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

🤣









						Tesla runs out of battery blocking Westfield shoppers in car park for 3 hours
					

Fuming trapped shoppers were venting their frustration online




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🤣
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, petrol cars are much better:









						Volvo says electric car making emissions are 70% HIGHER than petrol
					

Volvo said the C40 Recharge has a far lower carbon footprint during 'use phase' and if clean energy was used things would improve.




					www.thisismoney.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah, petrol cars are much better:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep - all cars are terrible.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Tesla runs out of battery blocking Westfield shoppers in car park for 3 hours
> 
> 
> Fuming trapped shoppers were venting their frustration online
> ...


So what is it about Tesla’s (all EV’s?) that meant it couldn’t just be pushed or towed?

A great example of why EV’s don’t really solve anything though


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

.


----------



## Athos (Nov 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Will look forward to seeing (but not bothering to read) some predictable and/or dimwitted responses to this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The utopia of essential workers having to come to cities to rent micro apartments.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

Best thing you can do for the environment is stop driving.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Best thing you can do for the environment is still driving.


In that case I'll do my bit for the environment, and still drive.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> In that case I'll do my bit for the environment, and stop drinking.



Fair enough


----------



## T & P (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Best thing you can do for the environment is stop driving.
> 
> View attachment 295622


What, altogether? Or is occasional use considered within the realms of acceptable footprint?

Serious question by the way. I genuinely never know if many anti car proponents have an issue with car ownership, or all instances of motor vehicle use. Because undoubtedly there will be plenty of people out there who use a car sporadically and will have a lesser impact to, say, careless people who have shit delivered by Amazon on a regular basis.

I’m all for all of us reducing our usage of wasteful and polluting practices, but there really isn’t a need for a complete ban on anything.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Best thing you can do for the environment is still driving.





edcraw said:


> Best thing you can do for the environment is stop driving.


You don't seem to know what you want.


----------



## T & P (Nov 6, 2021)

Here’s another graph, one that many car/ air travel prohibitionists are seldom happy to discuss.

In case anyone missed it, the above graph is not to scale, as no computer screen in the world would be large enough to display the top bar in full.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

T & P said:


> View attachment 295634
> 
> Here’s another graph, one that many car/ air travel prohibitionists are seldom happy to discuss.


Fortunately, very few of those obsessed with banning cars have children. Who in their right mind would want to be with such miserable fucks?
But yeah, not having children is much better for the environment.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

What you have to laugh at is how precious some people get about their right to have children.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

T & P said:


> What, altogether? Or is occasional use considered within the realms of acceptable footprint?
> 
> Serious question by the way. I genuinely never know if many anti car proponents have an issue with car ownership, or all instances of motor vehicle use. Because undoubtedly there will be plenty of people out there who use a car sporadically and will have a lesser impact to, say, careless people who have shit delivered by Amazon on a regular basis.
> 
> I’m all for all of us reducing our usage of wasteful and polluting practices, but there really isn’t a need for a complete ban on anything.



Not a ban but stop designing places so people are car dependent and drastically discourage car journeys through restrictions and charges where there are alternatives eg. in cities. Also if your using a car infrequently then having car sharing schemes rather than everyone owning there own. You’ll free up space and save the harm done by manufacturing another car.

I got a lift from a friend yesterday for a journey I’d usually make by train through suburban London and it was frankly depressing. Traffic everywhere at non rush hour time, tons of ridiculously sized cars spewing exhaust, depressing A roads with houses right next to them & cutting straight through town centres designed for cars not people.

It’s something I don’t see that often and was throughly depressing. Of course it prob took longer by car as well. If you don’t see the countless issues caused by cars you’re not paying attention.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What you have to laugh at is how precious some people get about their right to have children.



Probably  the same sort of people with a massive SUV though. Most people concerned about the climate are well aware of the impact on having children.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What you have to laugh at is how precious some people get about their right to have children.


More that they laugh at the ridiculousness of comparing what is at heart our most basic biological function against, well, _anything_.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> More that they laugh at the ridiculousness of comparing what is at heart our most basic biological function against, well, _anything_.



It’s also only a high impact as more people currently means more car owners, more people taking flights, more people eating meat etc. if we stop/drastically reduce those we can deal with more people to a degree.

It’s just used as a get out for those that don’t want to take any action.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> More that they laugh at the ridiculousness of comparing what is at heart our most basic biological function against, well, _anything_.


I find driving much more natural than looking after children, so I choose to drive instead of having children. I'm obviously a better person than anybody with a child, unless they happen to plant trees for a living.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

You sure you chose not to have children Saul?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> ... I choose to drive instead of having children.


I did both. I choose to allow people like Bees and Ed to cut down on environmentally damaging practices on my behalf. 

Cheers chaps.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I did both. I choose to allow people like Bees and Ed to cut down on environmentally damaging practices on my behalf.
> 
> Cheers chaps.



Your kids must be so proud of you!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Your kids must be so proud of you!



Of course!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What you have to laugh at is how precious some people get about their right to have children.




I need my children to fill up the seats in my car, or else why have such a large car, huh?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I did both. I choose to allow people like Bees and Ed to cut down on environmentally damaging practices on my behalf.
> 
> Cheers chaps.


I have no problem with carbon footprint sharing. I actually set aside a few thousand miles for you earlier this year when I didn't go on holiday


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I have no problem with carbon footprint sharing. I actually set aside a few thousand miles for you earlier this year when I didn't go on holiday



Cheers. I'm flying to Norway next month and spending 5 days tooling around the Arctic on snowmobiles. Your contribution, combined with Edcraw's lack of vehicular emissions this year, will enable me to burn all that fuel without feeling guilty.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers. I'm flying to Norway next month and spending 5 days tooling around the Arctic on snowmobiles. Your contribution, combined with Edcraw's lack of vehicular emissions this year, will enable me to burn all that fuel without feeling guilty.


You're very welcome. It is comforting to see that people here are doing their bit to balance the scales.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Really good demonstration guys on why we can’t tackle to climate crisis through individuals actions and it can only be done through regulations & government action!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really good demonstration guys on why we can’t tackle to climate crisis through individuals actions and it can only be done through regulations & government action!


Correct! 

You're learning Teddy boy. I knew we'd get through sooner or later.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really good demonstration guys on why we can’t tackle to climate crisis through individuals actions and it can only be done through regulations & government action!


Indeed. And I look forward to those regulations, but in the meantime, thanks for sharing your carbon quota.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Indeed. And I look forward to those regulations, but in the meantime, thanks for sharing your carbon quota.



I don’t have enough of an ego to think anything I do affects what you do. You would’ve been doing your Top Gear love-in to Norway anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t have enough of an ego to think anything I do affects what you do. You would’ve been doing your Top Gear love-in to Norway anyway.



This is true, but I'd have felt more guilty about it were it not for your contribution.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is true, but I'd have felt more guilty about it were it not for your contribution.



I don’t believe that for a minute. Pretty sure you’re a climate change denier tbh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t have enough of an ego to think anything I do affects what you do. You would’ve been doing your Top Gear love-in to Norway anyway.


That's not me doing the Norway run. I merely allotted some of my carbon quota to the journey.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t believe that for a minute. Pretty sure you’re a climate change denier tbh.


The best thing about these carbon sharing schemes is that neither your belief nor approval is required


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's not me doing the Norway run. I merely allotted some of my carbon quota to the journey.


For which I’m grateful. 

To you too, Ed 👍


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The best thing about these carbon sharing schemes is that neither your belief nor approval is required


He's getting like Bono. Telling everyone how great he is for doing something that lots of people do without the need for recognition or a congratulatory circle jerk. Most generous benefactors are a little more humble.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's not me doing the Norway run. I merely allotted some of my carbon quota to the journey.



Did he not invite you 😥


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Saw some nice cars today (obv not Volvos though).


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Saw some nice cars today (obv not Volvos though).
> 
> View attachment 295712View attachment 295713View attachment 295714View attachment 295715View attachment 295716View attachment 295717View attachment 295718



Which one's your favourite?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Which one's your favourite?



The green one


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The green one



A Mercedes man. 

Nice choice.


----------



## T & P (Nov 6, 2021)

I always found it amusing how out of the main German premium brands, Mercedes is almost nonexistent in the ‘wanker driver’ stakes, compared to Audi and BMW drivers at least.

Perhaps there’s something after all about the average road behaviour of drivers of certain brands. I certainly struggle to recall many incidents of Mercedes drivers cutting me off and generally behaving like entitled cunts. But perhaps it’s just down to confirmation bias.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2021)

T & P said:


> I always found it amusing how out of the main German premium brands, Mercedes is almost nonexistent in the ‘wanker driver’ stakes, compared to Audi and BMW drivers at least.
> 
> Perhaps there’s something after all about the average road behaviour of drivers of certain brands. I certainly struggle to recall many incidents of Mercedes drivers cutting me off and generally behaving like entitled cunts. But perhaps it’s just down to confirmation bias.



Mercedes have never really knocked-out mass-market hooligan cars. BMW and Audi have always punted coupe versions of their family cars with big engines via the M and S series. Mercedes performance have stuck to the AMG gig which are seriously expensive. They've put big engines into small cars but never really sexed them up to appeal enough to scumbags like us at the right price.

Whilst Merc have produced some of the finest cars on the planet, BMW and Audi have always offered more bang for your buck.

Having said that, this will be my next car:


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Having said that, this will be my next car:



God modern cars really are boring aren’t they! That could be a Ford.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Mercedes have never really knocked-out mass-market hooligan cars. BMW and Audi have always punted coupe versions of their family cars with big engines via the M and S series. Mercedes performance have stuck to the AMG gig which are seriously expensive. They've put big engines into small cars but never really sexed them up to appeal enough to scumbags like us at the right price.
> 
> Whilst Merc have produced some of the finest cars on the planet, BMW and Audi have always offered more bang for your buck.
> 
> Having said that, this will be my next car:


Pretty much agree, though I also think there might also be a higher degree of Mercedes cars’ owners being the type who ride in the back seat, rather than driving them. I’m not counting A Class and the likes, but somehow it feels like if you have 50k-70 odd to spend on a premium saloon as a passenger, Merc is the go-to brand- not that there’s much wrong with an A8 I’m sure.

Merc still does some very fast and sexy driver-oriented smaller cars of course, but even their most powerful and expensive ones still seem on the whole to be involved in far fewer aggressive wanker driving incidents in my experience than say an M series Beemer or an RS Audi. Why, often it actually seems as if the more expensive the Merc, the more its driver enjoys a slow, courteous cruising drive, in built-up areas at least. A bit like old money vs new money.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> Merc still does some very fast and sexy driver-oriented smaller cars of course, but even their most powerful and expensive ones still seem on the whole to be involved in far fewer aggressive wanker driving incidents in my experience ...



I'm gonna work on that.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> Merc still does some very fast and sexy driver-oriented smaller cars of course, but even their most powerful and expensive ones still seem on the whole to be involved in far fewer aggressive wanker driving incidents in my experience than say an M series Beemer or an RS Audi. Why, often it actually seems as if the more expensive the Merc, the more its driver enjoys a slow, courteous cruising drive, in built-up areas at least. A bit like old money vs new money.



I love this! As if you’re not spending most of your time stuck in traffic on some suburban bypass 🤪


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> God modern cars really are boring aren’t they! That could be a Ford.


Fair enough if you or anyone else dislikes cars on principle, but cars in the present time are arguably the single most varied type of product in existence. 

Really not saying this as a ‘mine’s cooler than yours’, but there are far, far more types, subtypes, shapes, designs and styles of cars than any form of transport. You do not need to like them all. But car design is in fact far more varied and daring than ever before. I like civil aviation and the engine and avionics advancements over the decades have been impressive, but excluding the defunct Concorde, almost every plane developed in the last have a century has basically been a tube with wings stuck on. Most non-high speed trains have looked much the same, or bicycles, or buses, or ships.

Cars are also incredibly innovative and technology-evolving compared with most other forms of transportation. And many of those advances get transferred to plenty of  industries of course. The riding smoothness, available tech, safety features and available tech on even entry level popular brands today compared with even just a couple of decades ago is astonishing, frankly.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I love this! As if you’re not spending most of your time stuck in traffic on some suburban bypass 🤪


 Not me, I ride a bike. But of course, there are millions of drivers out there who spend very little of their overall time in such conditions. Not every car owner actually lives in major cities.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> Fair enough if you or anyone else dislikes cars on principle, but cars in the present time are arguably the single most varied type of product in existence.
> 
> Really not saying this as a ‘mine’s cooler than yours’, but there are far, far more types, subtypes, shapes, designs and styles of cars than any form of transport. You do not need to like them all. But car design is in fact far more varied and daring than ever before. I like civil aviation and the engine and avionics advancements over the decades have been impressive, but excluding the defunct Concorde, almost every plane developed in the last have a century has basically been a tube with wings stuck on. Most non-high speed trains have looked much the same, or bicycles, or buses, or ships.
> 
> Cars are also incredibly innovative and technology-evolving compared with most other forms of transportation. And many of those advances get transferred to plenty of  industries of course. The riding smoothness, available tech, safety features and available tech on even entry level popular brands today compared with even just a couple of decades ago is astonishing, frankly.



No - when a Lamborghini looks pretty much like a KIA they’re boring.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I love this! As if you’re not spending most of your time stuck in traffic on some suburban bypass 🤪



Do you really think we spend our lives stuck in traffic jams?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Do you really think


I think we all know the answer to that.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - when a Lamborghini looks pretty much like a KIA they’re boring.


It's white and has wheels, so it's the same! 
What flavour windows did you have in your last car?


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw Two out of at least hundreds of distinctive models. Regardless of whether you like cars or not, surely you don’t judge hundreds of distinct offerings on a handful of examples? At any rate, there’s undoubtedly far more design variety today than in the past, even within the same manufacturer.

In any case, funny you chose Lamborghini, which also happens to offer as futuristic and unconventional cars as they come. Regardless of whether you think this is a wanker show-off design, how Is this boring?






Not sure you can have it both ways here.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

I had an incredible blast on the A1 between Berwick and Edinburgh a couple of months ago. I was in the Porsche, moseying along without a care, and saw another car popping others in the mirror. This went on for a while until he was behind me. He was obviously up for it and the road was splitting into dual carriageway about a mile ahead. There was a trundler in front of me so I just moved right-sideways so racer-boy couldn't see past to overtake before the DC. As soon as the road split, trundler stayed left and I floored it. Full down, expecting this bloke to vanish backwards, but he stayed glued to me like I was towing him. Right on my bumper. I could see that it was a BMW from the lights and grille but no idea what the motor was and this bloke obviously knew the road better than I did (or had misplaced faith in me!)

We were using both lanes through several curves and on one straight he tried to pass but didn't have enough before a right bend and had to tuck in behind me. Then there was this biiiiiiiig fucking left and I couldn't see the other end of it so I backed off. We were doing about 130 into it and there was a straight with another right ahead but I'd backed-off too much into the left, was out of gear, and didn't want to drop it on the flaps and cart-wheel off into the heather. He completely did me, and came past at around 30mph so was likely doing 150-160 (this was when I saw it was a 20 plate M3).

He was a very experienced driver, to be fair.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

That's the problem with cars. They're a bit fucking slow  🤣


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I had an incredible blast on the A1 between Berwick and Edinburgh a couple of months ago. I was in the Porsche, moseying along without a care, and saw another car popping others in the mirror. This went on for a while until he was behind me. He was obviously up for it and the road was splitting into dual carriageway about a mile ahead. There was a trundler in front of me so I just moved right-sideways so racer-boy couldn't see past to overtake before the DC. As soon as the road split, trundler stayed left and I floored it. Full down, expecting this bloke to vanish backwards, but he stayed glued to me like I was towing him. Right on my bumper. I could see that it was a BMW from the lights and grille but no idea what the motor was and this bloke obviously knew the road better than I did (or had misplaced faith in me!)
> 
> We were using both lanes through several curves and on one straight he tried to pass but didn't have enough before a right bend and had to tuck in behind me. Then there was this biiiiiiiig fucking left and I couldn't see the other end of it so I backed off. We were doing about 130 into it and there was a straight with another right ahead but I'd backed-off too much into the left, was out of gear, and didn't want to drop it on the flaps and cart-wheel off into the heather. He completely did me, and came past at around 30mph so was likely doing 150-160 (this was when I saw it was a 20 plate M3).
> 
> He was a very experienced driver, to be fair.



And then the whole motorway stood up and applauded.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I had an incredible blast on the A1 between Berwick and Edinburgh a couple of months ago. I was in the Porsche, moseying along without a care, and saw another car popping others in the mirror. This went on for a while until he was behind me. He was obviously up for it and the road was splitting into dual carriageway about a mile ahead. There was a trundler in front of me so I just moved right-sideways so racer-boy couldn't see past to overtake before the DC. As soon as the road split, trundler stayed left and I floored it. Full down, expecting this bloke to vanish backwards, but he stayed glued to me like I was towing him. Right on my bumper. I could see that it was a BMW from the lights and grille but no idea what the motor was and this bloke obviously knew the road better than I did (or had misplaced faith in me!)
> 
> We were using both lanes through several curves and on one straight he tried to pass but didn't have enough before a right bend and had to tuck in behind me. Then there was this biiiiiiiig fucking left and I couldn't see the other end of it so I backed off. We were doing about 130 into it and there was a straight with another right ahead but I'd backed-off too much into the left, was out of gear, and didn't want to drop it on the flaps and cart-wheel off into the heather. He completely did me, and came past at around 30mph so was likely doing 150-160 (this was when I saw it was a 20 plate M3).
> 
> He was a very experienced driver, to be fair.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2021)

Just car drivers trying to emulate going by train because they are jealous. Whenever i go from london to Edinburgh I basically go the whole way at 125mph without even thinking about it, except when you can see you are overtaking all the losers on the motorway.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Looking forward to all the posters going on about cyclists and red lights condemning someone doing 130 on an A road…


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Looking forward to all the posters going on about cyclists and red lights condemning someone doing 130 on an A road…



Have you switched sides?
🤔


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Just car drivers trying to emulate going by train because they are jealous. Whenever i go from london to Edinburgh I basically go the whole way at 125mph without even thinking about it, except when you can see you are overtaking all the losers on the motorway.


Travelling by train is stupidly expensive.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Travelling by train is stupidly expensive.


Which is part of the problem.

Cars need to be made the most expensive and most awkward choice. Only then might we see some change.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Travelling by train is stupidly expensive.


Unlike an imaginary Porsche.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Just car drivers trying to emulate going by train because they are jealous. Whenever i go from london to Edinburgh I basically go the whole way at 125mph without even thinking about it, except when you can see you are overtaking all the losers on the motorway.


You should try flying.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You should try flying.


Given all the faff there is at airports nowadays it’s often quicker by train for a lot of internal routes.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Given all the faff there is at airports nowadays it’s often quicker by train for a lot of internal routes.



For some, but not London-Edinburgh. Only a dunce would take the train on that route. The main train service that beats flying is London to Paris, Eurostar, but even that only works if you live closer to Kings Cross than you do to an airport.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> For some, but not London-Edinburgh. Only a dunce would take the train on that route. The main train service that beats flying is London to Paris, Eurostar, but even that only works if you live closer to Kings Cross than you do to an airport.


Or Ebbesfleet International.  And you don’t have to live nearer, you just have to live near enough.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Or Ebbesfleet International.  And you don’t have to live nearer, you just have to live near enough.



Trouble is, the vast majority of the UK population don't. Eurostar is great for the fortunate minority. For most others, flying is cheaper and quicker.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> For some, but not London-Edinburgh. Only a dunce would take the train on that route. The main train service that beats flying is London to Paris, Eurostar, but even that only works if you live closer to Kings Cross than you do to an airport.



Or if you give a shit about the environment


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Trouble is, the vast majority of the UK population don't.


The vast majority of the UK population don’t what?  Live close enough to a relevant train station, whilst simultaneously living close to an airport?  And also their destination is close to a relevant airport but not close to the train station?

To be honest, I find it simply extraordinary that in a time where we are recognising the incredibly difficult task of sufficiently reducing our carbon emissions, we would even conceive of allowing flights on routes that have perfectly adequate train line alternatives.  You can treat it all as a big joke if that’s what you find funny.  It isn’t though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> For some, but not London-Edinburgh. Only a dunce would take the train on that route. The main train service that beats flying is London to Paris, Eurostar, but even that only works if you live closer to Kings Cross than you do to an airport.


I’d still take the (first class, naturally  ) train over the endless queues, security faff and waiting around (even in the business lounges) flying entails nowadays.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2021)

It's pretty hard to justify domestic flights. The saving in time and convenience is marginal in most cases, and comes at a great carbon cost. The trouble is that's not reflected in the relative pricing; trains are still ridiculously expensive. They need to take the railways back into public ownership and lower the prices, as well as taxing domestic flights at much higher rates.

The talk about banning cars is pie-in-the-sky as that'd be a massive negative impact on the vast majority of the population until there's a viable alternative, but it wouldn't take much to make train travel more attractive than flights, domestically.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The vast majority of the UK population don’t what?



Don't live closer to Kings X, or Ebbesfleet International, than do to Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, or any other airports that serve Paris.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't live closer to Kings X, or Ebbesfleet International, than they do to Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, or any other airports that serve Paris.




Paris is over-rated though Spymaster 


😁


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> The talk about banning cars is pie-in-the-sky as that'd be a massive negative impact on the vast majority of the population until there's a viable alternative, but it wouldn't take much to make train travel more attractive than flights, domestically.



This is generally the case domestically but not with London-Edinburgh, especially from LCY, which is pretty much turn-up and go.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Paris is over-rated though Spymaster
> 
> 
> 😁



Except in the spring.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is generally the case domestically but not with London-Edinburgh, especially from LCY, which is pretty much turn-up and go.


It could be if the the relative pricing reflected the true cost to the environment e.g. a train was £40 and a flight £400.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Except in the spring.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> It could be if the the relative pricing reflected the true cost to the environment e.g. a train was £40 and a flight £400.



It _could be_ but it doesn't.

Then there's the insurmountable advantage that flying has over the train, in that you're highly unlikely going to be travelling with teuchter .


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is generally the case domestically but not with London-Edinburgh, especially from LCY, which is pretty much turn-up and go.



Even City airport’s an arse to get to. I used to travel between London & Edinburgh a lot and never even dreamt of flying. Train’s a lot more pleasant and takes you into the centre of both. The bus from Edinburgh airport was an arse. Once you factor everything in flying only really works for the well off who can get taxis or park their cars and the airport.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Don't live closer to Kings X, or Ebbesfleet International, than they do to Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton, Gatwick, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, or any other airports that serve Paris.


Maybe people that live in Birmingham might have to have a longer journey time, and make a decision about whether that is worth the travel, then.  If it’s not worth it then so be it.  Not everybody gets to do anything they want whenever they want to.

I think maybe you aren’t grasping what “unsustainable” means.  It’s not just an abstract concept invented by hippies.  It means that we are burning through the fat and that when the resources are exhausted, there will be a catastrophic inability to do any of the things we currently take for granted.  Not an inability because of political will but an physical inability as a result of disaster.  Unsustainable means that either you solve the problem now whilst it is in your hands or eventually the problem will be solved for you because of physical constraints.

At the moment, we are a trust fund kiddie that is living a rock star life style, but our trust fund is going to run out by the time we hit 40, and we have no plan at all about what we’re going to do next.  If we had trimmed the excesses when we were still 18, we could have lived pretty well off the trust income.  Now we’re 30, though, we‘re going to have to trim a bit more but then we should just about be able to survive off the capital.  If we don’t do enough, though, we’re just going to end up penniless and destitute at 40.  It’s not a _choice_.  The only choice is do enough now or be forced into penury later.

In that context, picking off the low-hanging fruit is surely _obviously_ a good idea.  Surely we can live with some extra hours on journeys to completely different countries?  And if those extra hours aren’t worth it, don’t make the journey because it obviously wasn’t that important.

I reiterate, this isn’t all a big joke.  I find the back-and-forth trolling just pathetic, frankly.  It’s not funny that we’re going to hit a pretty fucking huge crash barrier in our immediate future.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I used to travel between London & Edinburgh a lot and never even dreamt of flying.



Of course not.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I find the back-and-forth trolling just pathetic, frankly.



Fuck off then, you sanctimonious arse.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck off then, you sanctimonius arse.


Do you actually find climate change funny, though?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2021)

The biggest argument for getting the train to and from Edinburgh is that The Doric is right next to the station. Far better than any airport lounge


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Do you actually find climate change funny, though?



Yeah, hilarious. Prat.


----------



## Athos (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It _could be_ but it doesn't.
> 
> Then there's the insurmountable advantage that flying has over the train, in that you're highly unlikely going to be travelling with teuchter .


To be fair, that's well worth a mere £360.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The biggest argument for getting the train to and from Edinburgh is that The Doric is right next to the station. Far better than any airport lounge



Best haggis + neeps in Edinburgh.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Except in the the spring.


CFY


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, hilarious. Prat.


What do you actually propose that gets changed in the real world, if you don’t find it funny?  Because all I ever see from you are impassioned arguments for keeping everything the same. So here it is: how are we going to reduce emissions to target levels if it doesn’t involve low-hanging fruit like not using aeroplanes to fly a few hundred miles that also have well-served train lines?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> What do you actually propose that gets changed in the real world …


Confiscating your keyboard would be a good start.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

kabbes said:


> What do you actually propose that gets changed in the real world, if you don’t find it funny?  Because all I ever see from you are impassioned arguments for keeping everything the same. So here it is: how are we going to reduce emissions to target levels if it doesn’t involve low-hanging fruit like not using aeroplanes to fly a few hundred miles that also have well-served train lines?



I wouldn’t bother - he’s either a climate change denier and/or not able to think that deeply.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Travelling by train is stupidly expensive.


And you have to sit near people with poor personal hygiene and shit tastes in music, both of which they like to share.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> And you have to sit near people with poor personal hygiene and shit tastes in music, both of which they like to share.


Definitely a tory


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I wouldn’t bother



Yet here you are


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Great initiative here - side road Zebras to give priority to pedestrians. Hopefully these will become standard.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great initiative here - side road Zebras to give priority to pedestrians. Hopefully these will become standard.



Not having children would result in fewer school runs. Children are the problem.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2021)

Whoa. This thread.

It's about as amusing as shit 70s comedy on ITV.

Is that it? Is it supposed to be ironic or post ironic


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Well quite- the end of the human race will solve climate change and we’re probably heading that way.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Whoa. This thread.
> 
> It's about as amusing as shit 70s comedy on ITV.
> 
> Is that it? Is it supposed to be ironic or post ironic



I think he thinks he’s being clever…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well quite- the end of the human race will solve climate change and we’re probably heading that way.


Hopefully. We need a fresh start.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think



Nonsense.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think he thinks he’s being clever…



It's just out of touch. All the vegan/meat eating/cycling threads... it's not edgy... it's tired.

Dunno, mebbe it's silly trolling or a way of coping with the shit world we're in but there's a widening gap between the future and the jokes 'n' bants. 

Guess must be going through a sense of humour failure phase...


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> It's just out of touch. All the vegan/meat eating/cycling threads... it's not edgy... it's tired.
> 
> Dunno, mebbe it's silly trolling or a way of coping with the shit world we're in but there's a widening gap between the future and the jokes 'n' bants.
> 
> Guess must be going through a sense of humour failure phase...



I think it’s a reaction to seemingly being told what to do. 

Truth is that most people don’t have a choice in using cars as we’ve designed everything around them so people react negatively when told their lifestyle “choices” are causing harm because they don’t actually have a choice.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 7, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


>



We had that one just a few posts ago, and we all agreed that the answer is fewer children.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Good explainer here. Can’t see why anyone would be against this so hopefully it happens.









						Charities call for easing of zebra crossing rules to promote walking
					

Allowing cheaper, paint-only crossings on side roads would encourage pedestrians, polling shows




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Drivers are already meant to give way to pedestrians who are already crossing but most don’t see to know this.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good explainer here. Can’t see why anyone would be against this so hopefully it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyone got any spare whiteish paint ?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Saul seems to have a lot in common with this 3rd rate shock jock.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 7, 2021)

The worm has turned, cars used to have a man with a red flag leading the way now it's pedestrians turn.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good explainer here. Can’t see why anyone would be against this so hopefully it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would imagine most drivers and motorcyclists would not only be in favour of  this, but be their most enthusiastic supporters. If only we could encourage everyone to cross at safer, designated highlighted points, rather then treating the entire length of every street as a free for all crossing point, and worse still sometimes from behind obstructions that make it virtually impossible for road users to see them in advance. Sign me up!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> I would imagine most drivers and motorcyclists would not only be in favour of  this, but be their most enthusiastic supporters. If only we could encourage everyone to cross at safer, designated highlighted points, rather then treating the entire length of every street as a free for all crossing point, and worse still sometimes from behind obstructions that make it virtually impossible for road users to see them in advance. Sign me up!



I’m not sure you’ve understood the proposal.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 7, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> The worm has turned, cars used to have a man with a red flag leading the way now it's pedestrians turn.



That's an excellent idea, and I'd be all for it, provided anybody found not wearing one was subject to suitable punishment.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> The worm has turned, cars used to have a man with a red flag leading the way now it's pedestrians turn.




It demonstrates how driverless technology is still a long way off. Was talked about loads a while back but gone quiet recently. This is obv never going to happen and sounds more like the death throws of a dying industry.


----------



## T & P (Nov 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not sure you’ve understood the proposal.


I know what the aims of the proposal are; I was just speculating on the reaction of drivers to it, seeing as you had wondered how anyone might oppose it.

I’m not sure such measures becoming reality would result in any meaningful increase in walking journeys though. It’d be great for increased pedestrian safety, but I very much doubt there are many people outside the very old who don’t currently choose to walk for a given journey, but suddenly would if these low cost zebra painting marks appeared. It’s not as if actual zebra crossings and traffic light pedestrians crossings are uncommon.

The more I think about it, the more I struggle to think how this would swerve people to walk if they don’t do so now. It certainly wouldn’t make any difference to any able bodied people who for whatever reason choose not to walk for their given journey.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2021)

T & P said:


> I know what the aims of the proposal are; I was just speculating on the reaction of drivers to it, seeing as you had wondered how anyone might oppose it.
> 
> I’m not sure such measures becoming reality would result in any meaningful increase in walking journeys though. It’d be great for increased pedestrian safety, but I very much doubt there are many people outside the very old who don’t currently choose to walk for a given journey, but suddenly would if these low cost zebra painting marks appeared. It’s not as if actual zebra crossings and traffic light pedestrians crossings are uncommon.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I struggle to think how this would swerve people to walk if they don’t do so now. It certainly wouldn’t make any difference to any able bodied people who for whatever reason choose not to walk for their given journey.



I don’t know if they would increase numbers of people walking but would obv make people feel safer. So many drivers ignore the Highway Code around this and don’t stop for people already crossing.









						Using the road (159 to 203) - The Highway Code - Guidance - GOV.UK
					

The Highway Code is essential reading for all road users, including pedestrians, mobility scooter users, cyclists, horse riders, drivers and motorcyclists.




					www.gov.uk
				




You seemed to think this would mean pedestrians could only cross at designated crossings which would be ridiculous.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It demonstrates how driverless technology is still a long way off. Was talked about loads a while back but gone quiet recently. This is obv never going to happen and sounds more like the death throws of a dying industry.



Also - dogs, cats, foxes - are they going to wear them too ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Also - dogs, cats, foxes - are they going to wear them too ?


Dogs have more sense than to walk out in front of moving vehicles.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

Scenes from the weekend.

These people are parking to go on a nice riverside walk, which starts from just behind the last van. There's a car park about 5 minutes walk from here, but apparently it's too much trouble to leave their oversized death machines in there, and much more convenient to park them right here and force pedestrians onto the roadway right by a corner.



And just down the road -


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> If only we could encourage everyone to cross at safer, designated highlighted points, rather then treating the entire length of every street as a free for all crossing point







__





						The (Classist, Racist) History of Jaywalking—And Why Policing It Should Stop • Longbeachize
					

Love history? Click here for our full archives on the matter. **** Editor’s note: this article was updated on March 11, 2018, to reflect the case  Johnnie Jermaine Rush. There’s more to the word and law behind “jaywalking” than meets the eye or common assumption. In fact, lurking behind this...




					lbpost.com


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 8, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m not sure such measures becoming reality would result in any meaningful increase in walking journeys though.











						83% of adults would feel more confident crossing the road with zebra markings
					

New data finds huge support for zebra crossings on side roads.




					www.livingstreets.org.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Worth noting that whilst jaywalking laws are fucking stupid, nothing in that article makes them inherently racist. They’re just being applied by racist scum police officers in those examples. On that basis, every law could be racist.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> On that basis, every law could be racist.


I guess there's nothing inherently racist about sus laws and stop and search either, now you mention it.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I guess there's nothing inherently racist about sus laws and stop and search either, now you mention it.


If you've got nothing to hide....


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I guess there's nothing inherently racist about sus laws and stop and search either, now you mention it.


Well  they wouldn't be if they were applied uniformly, would they?

If disproportionately more Chinese people got done for speeding than English people, would speeding law be racist?


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 8, 2021)

Yikes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Or Ebbesfleet International.  And you don’t have to live nearer, you just have to live near enough.




Eurostar doesn't stop at Ebbsfleet right now though and they haven't given a date for it to start stopping there again.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Scenes from the weekend.
> 
> These people are parking to go on a nice riverside walk, which starts from just behind the last van. There's a car park about 5 minutes walk from here, but apparently it's too much trouble to leave their oversized death machines in there, and much more convenient to park them right here and force pedestrians onto the roadway right by a corner.
> 
> View attachment 295923




Of course they are parked on the pavement, it's double yellows on the road, so parking there is not allowed.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 8, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Of course they are parked on the pavement, it's double yellows on the road, so parking there is not allowed.





> Waiting restrictions indicated by yellow lines apply to the road, pavements and verges. Therefore, it is still against the law to park on the pavement/verge by the side of yellow lines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We've had shop owners around here, that have crossed yellow lines & the pavement, to park on a piece of land they own outside the front of the shops, only to get parking tickets, the yellow lines still apply despite it being private land, because they are not designated parking spaces.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2021)

Quiet a nasty streak from the pro car types this morning. Down playing racist stop and search policies and defending pavement parking pushing pedestrians into the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Quiet a nasty streak from the pro car types this morning. Down playing racist stop and search policies …



Lol! Nobody is ever going to suggest that you’re the sharpest knife in the draw, Ed, but this is gold!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Lol! Nobody is ever going to suggest that you’re the sharpest knife in the draw, Ed, but this is gold!


You can picture him sat there with a smug grin on his face when he posted it, thinking his gotcha was a work of genius. But the reality is that he's so thick he doesn't realise that even those on his 'team' are cringing at his stupidity.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2021)

Sorry - which bit have I missed? How were you not down playing stop & search?



Spymaster said:


> Well  they wouldn't be if they were applied uniformly, would they?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry - which bit have I missed? How were you not down playing stop & search?



Oh my god! This is obvious to anyone who's not a fucking idiot.

Keep it up, Ed!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry - which bit have I missed? How were you not down playing stop & search?



You dumb fuck, spy wasn't defending racist policing, and having been on the receiving end of racism, he wouldn't.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> You dumb fuck, spy wasn't defending racist policing, and having been on the receiving end of racism, he wouldn't.


Yet edcraw has not claimed that anyone was defending racist policing. Nor has anyone said that jaywalking laws in the US are "inherently" racist.

Instead, anyone with an interest in considering the points made in the article posted would have read the article and understood the way in which it discussed the context in which the laws were originally introduced and the way they are currently policed. Others can treat it as a joke and post GIFs and so on and be judged accordingly. Either way, the aims of the thread are satisfied.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yet mysockpuppet has not claimed that anyone was defending racist policing. Nor has anyone said that jaywalking laws in the US are "inherently" racist.


.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Quiet a nasty streak from the pro car types this morning. Down playing racist stop and search policies and defending pavement parking pushing pedestrians into the road.



Definitely stand by this comment - the response certainly backs it up.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Definitely stand by this comment



 It's the kid who wets his pants in assembly.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2021)

Love it!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

Good on brooklyn_darren.

The other day I hit a pavement-parked car with an umbrella but the owner wasn't there so it was only for my own amusement.


----------



## T & P (Nov 8, 2021)

If you don't at least leave a note, the owner might not immediately notice the damage, or otherwise not realise it was an act of revenge for their bad parking. You should always leave a note.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 8, 2021)

Or make the damage and the note the same thing.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

It was retribution, not revenge. I wouldn't expect a car owner to understand the difference though.


----------



## tonysingh (Nov 8, 2021)

Or key the word 'SHITCUNT' into the bodywork


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

Here's a car I saw down at Elephant & Castle the other day. So sad.


----------



## T & P (Nov 8, 2021)

For someone who hates cars so much, you sure spend an awful lot of time photographing them...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Good on brooklyn_darren.
> 
> The other day I hit a pavement-parked car with an umbrella but the owner wasn't there so it was only for my own amusement.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2021)




----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2021)

This really belongs in the Driving Standards thread, but anyway, what a twat. Texting at the wheel or similar fuckwittery almost certainly.

 And driving what looks like a mini bus as well. I hope there were no passengers on board.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> This really belongs in the Driving Standards thread, but anyway, what a twat. Texting at the wheel or similar fuckwittery almost certainly.
> 
> And driving what looks like a mini bus as well. I hope there were no passengers on board.


It belongs here because it shows - again - that “cyclists should wear hiviz” etc is pointless. It makes fuck all difference.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It belongs here because it shows - again - that “cyclists should wear hiviz” etc is pointless. It makes fuck all difference.



Eh? One bellend drives into a hi viz truck and you conclude that hv makes fuck all difference?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 9, 2021)

Someone has anger management issues…


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It belongs here because it shows - again - that “cyclists should wear hiviz” etc is pointless. It makes fuck all difference.


If they were texting or bookfacing, they deserve a lifetime ban. 
There are cunts in all walks of life, and cunts using phones or updating their bookface status whilst driving are some of the worst cunts on the planet, and deserve appropriate punishment. But this isn't about cars, it's about cunts.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> But this isn't about cars, it's about cunts.


Precisely. 

It's the type of driving you'd expect from cyclists.


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It belongs here because it shows - again - that “cyclists should wear hiviz” etc is pointless. It makes fuck all difference.


That’s a different discussion altogether though- well worth having, but nothing to do with the supposed existential evils of the motorcar.

Individual cases of reckless or criminal driving behaviour out of a pool of tens of millions are as statistically relevant as individual cases of someone getting drunk in a pub and glassing someone suggesting that pub goers in this country are on the whole unstable dangerous thugs.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 9, 2021)

#notalldrivers


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> That’s a different discussion altogether though- well worth having, but nothing to do with the supposed existential evils of the motorcar.



It's not worth having, to be fair. It's been done loads of times on here.

The only conclusion that's ever drawn from it is that cyclists are thicker than porridge.


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2021)

From the individual freedom point of view, some might argue that if a cyclist or motorcyclist doesn’t want to wear a helmet, ultimately they’re not risking other people’s lives- there’s a separate argument about unnecessary extra cost to our health service, but let’s park that for the time being.

But being inadequately equipped to be sufficiently seen at night will definitely affect  other users if they end up crashing into a cyclist in ninja mode. Even if they get cleared of any wrongdoing, most people don’t enjoy being involved in a fatal collision, anymore than a train driver enjoys seeing a drunken person fall onto the rails right in front of them.

I don’t necessarily think hi vizs are a must in daytime. A few individual collisions every year out of hundreds of millions of combined journeys are simply inevitable. But just because no amount of safety precautions will ever reduce accidents to zero does not mean a reasonable degree of them will not prevent hundreds or thousands every year.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> Individual cases of reckless or criminal driving behaviour out of a pool of tens of millions are as statistically relevant as individual cases of someone getting drunk in a pub and glassing someone suggesting that pub goers in this country are on the whole unstable dangerous thugs.


393 million guns in the US, 15,000 gun murders per year. 32 million cars in the UK, 1,500 road deaths per year.

It means that the a car in the hands of a regular dozy UK driver is as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a crazed american murderer.

Guns and cars aren't the problem - people are. According to you lot. Let's ban car drivers instead of cars. Then put them in prison anyway just to be safe.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> 393 million guns in the US, 15,000 gun murders per year. 32 million cars in the UK, 1,500 road deaths per year.
> 
> It means that the a car in the hands of a regular dozy UK driver is as dangerous as a gun in the hands of a crazed american murderer.
> 
> Guns and cars aren't the problem - people are. According to you lot. Let's ban car drivers instead of cars. Then put them in prison anyway just to be safe.


1.2 million accidents and 70 dead each year in the UK from electrical accidents. 
DOWN WITH ELECTRICITY!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> 1.2 million accidents and 70 dead each year in the UK from electrical accidents.
> DOWN WITH ELECTRICITY!


With all car drivers in prison these numbers would be significantly reduced.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> With all car drivers in prison these numbers would be significantly reduced.


With all cyclists in prison it would be ~zero, but where's the fun in that.


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2021)

Troll thread or not, and hatred of cars or not, please don’t tell me you are for a moment proposing that as a valid argument against them. Are you?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

T & P said:


> Troll thread or not, and hatred of cars or not, please don’t tell me you are for a moment proposing that as a valid argument against them. Are you?


But guns cars are the same thing. They're both made of things.


----------



## T & P (Nov 9, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> With all cyclists in prison it would be ~zero, but where's the fun in that.


With all pubs closed and all alcohol banned forever, thousands of people a year would be saved from booze-fuelled violent assaults and other crimes. What kind of selfish twat could object to that? Nobody needs to drink, far less so than drive in fact.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 9, 2021)

Next up, kitchen knives!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well  they wouldn't be if they were applied uniformly, would they?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


>




And your point is .... ?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Good podcast episode here about the moral panic around bikes & e-scooters.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And your point is .... ?


Ah, ok. 

You don’t have one!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And your point is .... ?



That e-scooters should be made legal - they are a good thing and by criminalising them you’re giving the police another opportunity to target young black men.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That e-scooters should be made legal - they are a good thing and by criminalising them you’re giving the police another opportunity to target young black men.



So they should be made legal for that reason alone, with no regard for any of the other issues around their use?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

What issues? The podcast is very relevant if you want to find out more on the subject.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That e-scooters should be made legal - they are a good thing and by criminalising them you’re giving the police another opportunity to target young black men.


Another edcraw genius attempt at a gotcha.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What issues?



Issues of safety, registration, training, road-worthiness, regulation, etc.

Just little things like that.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Issues of safety, registration, training, road-worthiness, regulation, etc.
> 
> Just little things like that.


All of which can be dealt with through regulation & doesn't mean they should remain illegal.

Seriously, give the podcast a go. It talks about evidence for harm of e-scooters and likens the outsized response to them to the moral panics around new technologies (juke boxes, comics, video games) of the past.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> All of which can be dealt with through regulation & doesn't mean they should remain illegal.
> 
> Seriously, give the podcast a go. It talks about evidence for harm of e-scooters and likens the outsized response to them to the moral panics around new technologies (juke boxes, comics, video games) of the past.


I used to like the Beano when I was a child but I was never bowled over by it.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Seriously, give the podcast a go.



Where's the podcast link?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Where's the podcast link?







__





						72. You’re Wrong About Bikes with Michael Hobbes
					






					thewaroncars.org


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> I used to like the Beano when I was a child but I was never bowled over by it.











						1950’s: A ‘Moral Panic’ That Targeted Comic Books
					

Comic books have been a staple of American pop culture for the better part of 90 years. The origin story of comics as we know them, however, is much more complicated. In the 1950s, a moral panic sw…




					boomers-daily.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 1950’s: A ‘Moral Panic’ That Targeted Comic Books
> 
> 
> Comic books have been a staple of American pop culture for the better part of 90 years. The origin story of comics as we know them, however, is much more complicated. In the 1950s, a moral panic sw…
> ...


How fast would the Dandy have to be travelling to kill someone?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A forty-two minute podcast entitled "The War On Cars" by a New York journalist. Think I might swerve that for now! 

Can you give us a precis; specifically with reference to the legal issues surrounding the use of e-scooters in the UK?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> A forty-two minute podcast entitled "The War On Cars" by a New York journalist. Think I might swerve that for now!
> 
> Can you give us a precis; specifically with reference to the legal issues surrounding the use of e-scooters in the UK?


TLDL: e-scooters aren't very dangerous

ps. the podcast title is tongue in cheek - there is no 'war on cars'.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> TLDL: e-scooters aren't very dangerous
> 
> ps. the podcast title is tongue in check - there is no 'war on cars'.


E-scooters are dangerous. Many people have been seriously injured and killed by them. 
Taps fingers whilst waiting for whataboutery reply. 

And 'war on cars' doesn't say 'war on cars' ... Classic!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> E-scooters are dangerous. Many people have been seriously injured and killed by them.


Do you have any evidence?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Do you have any evidence?


Yes. I used Google and found lots of evidence.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> TLDL: e-scooters aren't very dangerous



This is very controversial and I don't think anyone's taking the opinion of Michael Hobbes as gospel on it. 

But wasn't your original argument something to do with black people?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yes. I used Google and found lots of evidence.


Great discussion!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great discussion!







__





						E-scooter accidents uk - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				






> The Department for Transport’s (DfT) figures show that there were 484 casualties involving e-scooters in 2020, of which one person was killed, 128 were seriously injured and 355 slightly injured.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed - the first link shows they're not very dangerous, especially to people not using them.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed - the first link shows they're not very dangerous, especially to people not using them.


No, it doesn't.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Great discussion!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great discussion!











						57 pedestrians, 383 riders and 21 cyclists injured in e-scooter crashes
					

Thirteen of the casualties suffered injuries described as “serious”, one rider died




					www.walesonline.co.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great discussion!


You're either thick or dishonest. Which is it?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Great discussion!



Well it's not like your own contributions have been Earth-shattering. 

Would you agree that there should be (at least some) legislation around the use of motorised transport?

Do you think that someone like Saul should be able to tune-up a scooter to 70mph and 10 year olds be able to ride them down motorways, for example?

And are you going to explain your weird thing about black people?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

> Almost 300 Londoners were injured in e-scooter crashes last year, it has been revealed.
> The Government figures - which are likely to be a underestimate - showed there were 483 people hurt and one killed across Britain in 2020.
> This includes 291 injuries reported to the Metropolitan police - equating to 60 per cent of the national total - and five to the City of London police.
> Separate data from Transport for London shows there have been three e-scooter deaths in the capital this year. The victims have been named as Michael Harris, Anthony Mumford and Junior Shay Alexander.











						Hundreds of Londoners injured in e-scooter crashes, figures reveal
					

Almost 300 Londoners were injured in e-scooter crashes last year, it has been revealed.




					www.standard.co.uk
				




edcraw, do these figures not suggest that e-scooters are dangerous?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Hundreds of Londoners injured in e-scooter crashes, figures reveal
> 
> 
> Almost 300 Londoners were injured in e-scooter crashes last year, it has been revealed.
> ...


They're the same figures I posted and show they aren't very dangerous.

Do these figures suggest cars are dangerous?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> E-scooters are dangerous. Many people have been seriously injured and killed by them.
> *Taps fingers whilst waiting for whataboutery reply.*





edcraw said:


> They're the same figures I posted and show they aren't very dangerous.
> 
> Do these figures suggest cars are dangerous?
> 
> View attachment 296195


🤣 🤣 🤣


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> 🤣 🤣 🤣


You're saying 1 death and 128 injured is an unacceptable danger therefore cars are also an unacceptable danger. You've set the definition.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You're saying 1 death and 128 injured is an unacceptable danger therefore cars are also an unacceptable danger. You've set the definition.


He's in favour of murdering people with guns, electricity, kitchen knives or cars. But not scooters.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You're saying 1 death and 128 injured is an unacceptable danger therefore cars are also an unacceptable danger. You've set the definition.


Can you not read? Three deaths this year in London alone, and 300 injuries and one death in London last year. 
And car drivers are already subject to laws and regulations


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Can you not read? Three deaths this year in London alone, and 300 injuries and one death in London last year.
> And car drivers are already subject to laws and regulations


Yes, so legalise them with regulation.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yes, so legalise them with regulation.


That's exactly what people are saying should happen...  🤣


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's exactly what people are saying should happen...  🤣



Perfect! Probably something like e-bikes and a limit of 15mph then.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yes, so legalise them with regulation.


Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Your refusal to answer my previous questions had me thinking you’d realised you’d fucked right up! 

So you do think that regulations (laws) are necessary in the case of e-scooters. Can we agree this?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Perfect! Probably something like e-bikes and a limit of 15mph then.


A theory test, riding test and mandatory insurance are a must, and strict enforcement of laws, especially the law regarding riding on pavements.
I'd say a 12mph limit should be the absolute maximum, as it is in France, but novice riders should be restricted to 6mph for their first six months. The speed limit should be on a trial basis, and if scooterists prove they're incapable of riding safely, the limit should be lowered to 6mph.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's exactly what people are saying should happen...  🤣


This is edcraw you're dealing with. 

Baby steps required.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> A theory test, riding test and mandatory insurance are a must, and strict enforcement of laws, especially the law regarding riding on pavements.
> I'd say a 12mph limit should be the absolute maximum, as it is in France, but novice riders should be restricted to 6mph for their first six months. The speed limit should be on a trial basis, and if scooterists prove they're incapable of riding safely, the limit should be lowered to 6mph.



I bet you want cyclists to wear number plates as well 🤪


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I bet you want cyclists to wear number plates as well 🤪


We're discussing e-scooters. Why do you continuously bodyswerve and shift to whataboutery when you don't have a rebuttal? Oh yeah, that's why.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Rebuttal to what. They aren’t much different to e-bikes so the rules should be pretty much the same.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Rebuttal to what. They aren’t much different to e-bikes so the rules should be pretty much the same.


They're nothing like e-bikes. They're more closely related to mopeds. E-bikes are pedal assist. You have to pedal or they stop moving. E-scooters are twist and go, like mopeds. They also have tiny wheels, which makes them inherently dangerous. 
They should be treated the same as mopeds, but with a lower speed limit.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They're nothing like e-bikes. They're more closely related to mopeds. E-bikes are pedal assist. You have to pedal or they stop moving. E-scooters are twist and go, like mopeds. They also have tiny wheels, which makes them inherently dangerous.
> They should be treated the same as mopeds, but with a lower speed limit.



I don’t think this is all correct - I’m pretty sure you can free wheel on an electric bike for example.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I don’t think this is all correct - I’m pretty sure you can free wheel on an electric bike for example.


Uphill? For how long?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> They should be treated the same as mopeds, but with a lower speed limit.



Why a lower speed limit?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

Ed’s got an e-scooter, hasn’t he? 

He’s been feeling all grown-up since he swapped his skateboard for it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why a lower speed limit?


Because they have tiny wheels that make them unsafe. If you hit a pothole you're fucked. 





__





						Scooter Safety – Pothole Test Results!
					

Big vs Small wheel scooters, which is safer? We put both to the test to see how they fared riding over potholes simulated to be 36, 54 and 72mm deep.




					swiftyscooters.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Ed’s got an e-scooter, hasn’t he?
> 
> He’s been feeling all grown-up since he swapped his skateboard for it.


I'm thinking maybe he has a Big Wheel, and is thinking of upgrading.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

Well it is conker season. That would be much better for collecting than a scooter.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Imagine if he was let loose in a car!


----------



## alex_ (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Uphill? For how long?



Until the battery runs out ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Until the battery runs out ?


No.








						How do e-bikes work and do you have to pedal them?
					

What are the rules about what constitutes an e-bike in the UK, EU, Australia and the USA and do you have to pedal an electric bike?




					www.cyclingweekly.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why a lower speed limit?





> While fleet managers and corporate safety officers decide whether to include e-scooters in company Mobility as a Service programmes, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS), which advises MPs and members of the House of Lords in the UK parliament on air, rail and road safety issues, has described e-scooters as having features which are ‘inherently unsafe’.
> 
> *Safety concerns*
> 
> ...


If you need any more blindingly obvious answers, let me know.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No legal requirement for this it's just how most are manufactured.









						Electric bikes: licensing, tax and insurance
					

Electric bikes meeting the EAPC regulations can be ridden on the road without being taxed, licensed or insured




					www.gov.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No legal requirement for this it's just how most are manufactured.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fuck me, do you not even read your own links! Or are you just a bit thick? 
I'll highlight the important bits, for the hard of thinking.



> You can ride an electric bike if you’re 14 or over, as long as it meets certain requirements.
> 
> *These electric bikes are known as ‘electrically assisted pedal cycles’ (EAPCs). *You do not need a licence to ride one and it does not need to be registered, taxed or insured.
> *Other kinds of electric bike*​*Any electric bike that does not meet the EAPC rules is classed as a motorcycle or moped and needs to be registered and taxed.* You’ll need a driving licence to ride one and you must wear a crash helmet.
> ...


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> If you need any more blindingly obvious answers, let me know.


PACTS do a lot of good work including recommending low traffic neighbourhoods. Glad you're supportive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> PACTS do a lot of good work including recommending low traffic neighbourhoods. Glad you're supportive.
> 
> View attachment 296241


Is this you trying to bodyswerve the previous post that highlighted your stupidity, again?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

Fuck me, you're a useless windbag, edcraw. The first time you've tried to discuss anything approaching worthwhile on this thread and you immediately disappear up your own rectum.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Such a lovely bunch of fellas. Is it the pollution from driving or the drink?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is it the pollution from driving or the drink?



Aaaaaand we're back to the playground


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Such a lovely bunch of fellas. Is it the pollution from driving or the drink?


I'm guessing you had lead water pipes in the house where you  grew up got older as a child?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 10, 2021)

An e assist bike, known as an ebike won’t go unless you pedal it. If you stop pedalling then bike stops (unless freewheeling downhill). 

The ones you see Deliveroo riders using are electric mopeds and are all being ridden illegally, as are all electric scooters you see except the hire jobbies.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> An e assist bike, known as an ebike won’t go unless you pedal it. If you stop pedalling then bike stops (unless freewheeling downhill).
> 
> *The ones you see Deliveroo riders using are electric mopeds and are all being ridden illegally, as are all electric scooters you see except the hire jobbies.*


I thought as much. And I have seen a few going at a speed that judging by my own at the time, was certainly above 20 mph. More like 25 on a couple of occasions, in fact.

At this juncture I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of the anti car crowd ITT regarding whether the users of such ‘bicycles’ should be forced to be licenced, insured, have appropriate lights, and undertake a minimum level of compulsory training (1-day CBT), like anyone riding a 30 mph limited 50 cc moped has to.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2021)

Yes they should. HTH.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Yes - as pointed out I was wrong and they aren’t bicycles.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes they should. HTH.


There you go edcraw .

Even teuchter's given up on you, and he needs all the friends he can get


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2021)

What does "ITT" mean, by the way?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Pissed already Spymaster?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Pissed already Spymaster?



Oooh, someone's smarting


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What does "ITT" mean, by the way?



I Type Tripe.

Should be Ed's tagline.


----------



## T & P (Nov 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What does "ITT" mean, by the way?


In this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yes - as pointed out I was wrong and they aren’t bicycles.


At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike teuchter, who'd double down on the bullshit. But in fairness, he'd struggle to be wrong as often as you


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

Anyway - so cap e-scooters ate 6mph but 130mph on an A road’s a bit of a laugh…


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2021)

It’s almost like you guys aren’t being entirely serious….


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anyway - so cap e-scooters ate 6mph but 130mph on an A road’s a bit of a laugh…


Cars are designed for those speeds. Children's toys aren't.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 10, 2021)

I think edcraw should only be responded to with pictures from now on.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think edcraw should only be responded to with one picture from now on.



CFY
But good idea.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2021)

Reckon there should be an automatic disqualification from driving for comments like this.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Reckon we’ll here should be


I ran that through Google translate and it came up with nothing.

Lmao at cyclist screaming, though


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Dogs have more sense than to walk out in front of moving vehicles.



They really fucking don't. Number one hazard when biking is dogs running to to play with the wheel


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> They really fucking don't. Number one hazard when biking is dogs running to to play with the wheel


That not stupidity, that's a deliberate game of ditch the cyclist


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> That not stupidity, that's a deliberate game of ditch the cyclist



My absolute favourite game is “clothesline the cyclist” that’s real popular around here


----------



## nick (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> ........
> 
> Lmao at cyclist screaming, though
> 
> ..........


I know that this is a thread seemingly reserved for OTT cyclist v car hyperbole + "wind up the sensitive" banter but....

I reckon that this was beyond the pale Saul


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

nick said:


> I know that this is a thread seemingly reserved for OTT cyclist v car hyperbole + "wind up the sensitive" banter but....
> 
> I reckon that this was beyond the pale Saul


That's OK. You're entitled to your opinion.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2021)

nick said:


> I reckon that this was beyond the pale Saul



For sure - it’s good to keep giving him the opportunity to show what a terrible individual he is though.


----------



## nick (Nov 11, 2021)

Just wondering if it might be a good idea if everyone stepped away from the keyboard for a bit.
But whatev's: I'm a grown up


----------



## teuchter (Nov 11, 2021)

nick said:


> I know that this is a thread seemingly reserved for OTT cyclist v car hyperbole



It's for human vs car hyperbole.

The car people want to make it just about cyclists, because that makes things easier for them and they don't have to end up directly advocating killing their own grannies etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's for human vs car hyperbole.
> 
> The car people want to make it just about cyclists, because that makes things easier for them and they don't have to end up directly advocating killing their own grannies etc.


Everybody dies.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2021)

I sure the vitriol around cyclists has led to deaths. How many seconds did that HGV driver save? There must be drivers like that that feel emboldened by their hatred of cyclists and genuinely think they’re being held up.

This is one instance that happened to be recorded and hundreds similar will happen everyday. But hey, let’s joke about it and talk about the dangers of scooters… Saul & Spy may be trolling/shit posting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t grade a c**ts.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> For sure - it’s good to keep giving him the opportunity to show what a terrible individual he is though.



You believe everything you see and read...? Always? 

You dont know people here at all...so stop judging the person instead of their posts.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 11, 2021)

I'm a cyclist and I've had a few near misses with stupid impatient drivers.  However, I don't take offence at this thread - in fact it makes me laugh!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I sure the vitriol around cyclists has led to deaths. How many seconds did that HGV driver save? There must be drivers like that that feel emboldened by their hatred of cyclists and genuinely think they’re being held up.
> 
> This is one instance that happened to be recorded and hundreds similar will happen everyday. But hey, let’s joke about it and talk about the dangers of scooters… Saul & Spy may be trolling/shit posting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t grade a c**ts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I sure the vitriol around cyclists has led to deaths. How many seconds did that HGV driver save? There must be drivers like that that feel emboldened by their hatred of cyclists and genuinely think they’re being held up.
> 
> This is one instance that happened to be recorded and hundreds similar will happen everyday. But hey, let’s joke about it and talk about the dangers of scooters… Saul & Spy may be trolling/shit posting but that doesn’t mean they aren’t grade a c**ts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm a cyclist and I've had a few near misses with stupid impatient drivers.  However, I don't take offence at this thread - in fact it makes me laugh!


Most people here are laughing at it. Unfortunately, some are a bit thick, but we can facilitate them by providing crayons for them to eat.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 11, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Most people here are laughing at it. Unfortunately, some are a bit thick, but we can facilitate them by providing crayons for them to eat.







Edcraw snorts crayons...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 11, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> You believe everything you see and read...? Always?
> 
> You dont know people here at all...so *stop judging the person instead of their posts*.



To clarify what you want here - you want us to say that the car people's posts are awful, rather than saying that the car people themselves are awful?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To clarify what you want here - you want us to say that the car people's posts are awful, rather than saying that the car people themselves are awful?


I'd rather that wasn't the case, as I'd hate to forfeit the right to refer to edcraw as an imbecile with an IQ comparable to that of a pickled gherkin


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

lol









						Woman who killed cyclist after telling cops she'd hit fox in hit and run jailed
					

Emma Moughan, 42, from North Yorks, was ten times the cocaine limit and twice the drink-drive limit when she mowed down a cyclist last year




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

He’s got a point


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 12, 2021)

COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow




The pharmacist interviewed shows that this sort of indiscriminate action has knock on consequences that the activists dont care about. He expressed understanding for their position and was particularly reasonable about what was done to his tyres despite being late opening his pharmacy and organising life saving meds for his customers.

I think deflating workers tyres will not help popularise their cause.
Maybe they should target bigger operations.. like manufacturers.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> The pharmacist interviewed shows that this sort of indiscriminate action has knock on consequences that the activists dont care about. He expressed understanding for their position and was particularly reasonable about what was done to his tyres despite being late opening his pharmacy and organising life saving meds for his customers.
> 
> I think deflating workers tyres will not help popularise their cause.
> Maybe they should target bigger operations.. like manufacturers.



He must have been distributing a ton of medicine to need a Land Rover!


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> He must have been distributing a ton of medicine to need a Land Rover!




Maybe if you read his interview you'll see he travelled a fair distance in Scottish winter weather...

To be honest... pitting people against each other will not work. 

Activists should be trying harder to educate and maybe target governments and manufacturing.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Maybe if you read his interview you'll see he travelled a fair distance in Scottish winter weather...
> 
> To be honest... pitting people against each other will not work.
> 
> Activists should be trying harder to educate and maybe target governments and manufacturing.


I'm sure they'll be grateful for advice from petrolheads like you on how they should inconvenience you less when you just want to drive around in a massive death machine.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Maybe if you read his interview you'll see he travelled a fair distance in Scottish winter weather...
> 
> To be honest... pitting people against each other will not work.
> 
> Activists should be trying harder to educate and maybe target governments and manufacturing.



He commutes a 25 mile journey along an A road. I wonder how the people of Scotland managed before pharmacists started buying SUVs?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Interesting article about how climate change deniers are now trying to make a culture and dismiss policies dealing with it as elitist.









						Meet the ‘inactivists’, tangling up the climate crisis in culture wars
					

The long read: As climate science has gone mainstream, outright denialism has been pushed to the fringes. Now a new tactic of dismissing green policies as elitist is on the rise, and has zoned in on a bitter row over a disused airport in Kent




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> He commutes a 25 mile journey along an A road. I wonder how the people of Scotland managed before pharmacists started buying SUVs?



Still no excuse to damage his property. There are better ways to move to a better environment.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm sure they'll be grateful for advice from petrolheads like you on how they should inconvenience you less when you just want to drive around in a massive death machine.



Lol...I'm not a petrol head. I drove an ev for years. 
You plonker


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


>




How much energy are you wasting logging into Twotter every day reading stuff that is not actually doing anything but causing division and hate? 

Go on a march or something more effective and worthy.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> How much energy are you wasting logging into Twotter every day reading stuff that is not actually doing anything but causing division and hate?
> 
> Go on a march or something more effective and worthy.



I do both - thanks for checking 🙏


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2021)

Yeah, we should just pretend that giant cars are no big problem, and write some letters to MPs demanding for some marginal improvement to pedestrian facilities as long as it doesn't inconvenience SUV drivers too much.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I do both - thanks for checking 🙏



How saintly you are then..

Pity you're not able to see the good in anyone but yourself.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow



Useless twats don't even know how to deflate a tyre quickly


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting point of view.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow




I fully approve of the demonizing of SUVs.

Whilst the wallies rail against Suzuki Jimnys with their pathetic 1.5 ltr engines, they leave us proper folk with our >3ltr twin turbo charged estates to get on with hooning around unmolested


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow COP26: Activists deflate tyres on 'luxury' cars in Glasgow


I smell bullshit. They wouldn't have the strength to remove the valve caps.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 12, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I fully approve of the demonizing of SUVs.
> 
> Whilst the wallies rail against Suzuki Jimnys with their pathetic 1.5 ltr engines, they leave us proper folk with our >3ltr twin turbo charged estates to get on with hooning around unmolested



A lot of the 60 SUVs they deflated were likely to be electric/hybrid too. Genius.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

If a protest is upsetting the pro-car peeps on here they’re probably on the right track.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If a protest is upsetting the pro-car peeps on here they’re probably on the right track.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If a protest is upsetting the pro-car peeps on here they’re probably on the right track.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> A lot of the 60 SUVs they deflated were likely to be electric/hybrid too. Genius.



Not sure you’ve been paying much attention to comments about EVs.









						If you think electric vehicles are the answer, you're asking the wrong question - Exeter Observer
					

Mike Walton of Exeter Cycling Campaign says we shouldn't be seduced by the motoring lobby into believing that electric cars can create the future we and our children need.




					exeterobserver.org


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Quick, rush to look through your animal scat image folders guys!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)

Anyway, let's get this back on track. 

Crop dusting cyclists.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Girl dies after being hit on zebra crossing by hit-and-run driver
					

Latest London news, business, sport, showbiz and entertainment from the London Evening Standard.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Yep, 11 year old killed. Just an everyday occurrence really. Laugh it up guys.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If a protest is upsetting the pro-car peeps on here they’re probably on the right track.



View attachment images (1).mp4


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> View attachment 296430


 Glad you edited this post to make more sense.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 12, 2021)




----------



## Aladdin (Nov 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Glad you edited this post to make more sense.



View attachment images.mp4


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 12, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Crop dusting cyclists.



Topical, I guess. Driver Who Hit Six Cyclists While 'Rolling Coal' Charged with Felony Aggravated Assault


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Topical, I guess. Driver Who Hit Six Cyclists While 'Rolling Coal' Charged with Felony Aggravated Assault



Even in the states they are starting to accept that cars are deadly weapons.



> “Today we have filed six felony charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against the juvenile in question, one charge for each cyclist that was injured,” the Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis announced in a statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Even in the states they are starting to accept that cars are deadly weapons.


once again you're mere decades behind the times










						Terrorists Have a Long History of Using Cars as Weapons
					

Tuesday's deadly assault was only the latest in a decades-long string of vehicular terror




					time.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

Glasgow city centre to go car free! 😁









						Glasgow city centre new 'car free' zone announced by council leader
					

A new car free zone in Glasgow city centre has been announced by council leader Susan Aitken as part of a long-term strategy to 'give public spaces…




					www.heraldscotland.com


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Glasgow city centre to go car free! 😁
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Posting GIFs can't stop this happening, which will be upsetting for some.

The tide is turning.

More massive success for this thread and humanity in general.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Posting GIFs can't stop this happening, which will be upsetting for some.
> 
> The tide is turning.
> 
> More massive success for this thread and humanity in general.



I doubt you'll find many car owners care about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre, or Glasgow or any other city. Complaints about such schemes usually come from "traders" because they worry that people won't buy so much tat from them.

When I drive into town I park at the multi-story and then enjoy walking around the pedestrian zone, so I am in favour of pedestrian zones and city-centre car parks.

That you view this as a "massive success" is quite revealing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

The only thing I can think of worse than driving in a city centre would be driving in Glasgow City centre, so I guess it is a success.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I doubt you'll find many car owners care about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre, or Glasgow or any other city. Complaints about such schemes usually come from "traders" because they worry that people won't buy so much tat from them.
> 
> When I drive into town I park at the multi-story and then enjoy walking around the pedestrian zone, so I am in favour of pedestrian zones and city-centre car parks.
> 
> That you view this as a "massive success" is quite revealing.


Yep. I’m all for it. Pedestrianising motorways and country lanes might be an issue.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I doubt you'll find many car owners care about the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre, or Glasgow or any other city. Complaints about such schemes usually come from "traders" because they worry that people won't buy so much tat from them.
> 
> When I drive into town I park at the multi-story and then enjoy walking around the pedestrian zone, so I am in favour of pedestrian zones and city-centre car parks.
> 
> That you view this as a "massive success" is quite revealing.


If it tempts you and your death machine to the city centre instead of some kind of out-of-town place, that's a massive success. Because you are now helping to make more viable a location which is accessible to public transport and active travel users. 

It starts here and then we build upon it. The zone gradually expands. This is what we can see slowly happening in London for example. You and your death machine are slowly pushed to multistorey car parks further and further out, then one day you realise you're an idiot and should just get the train in. Massive success.

I already know what your reply to this will be. Go for it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> More massive success for this thread...



You delusional fool.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If it tempts you and your death machine to the city centre instead of some kind of out-of-town place, that's a massive success. Because you are now helping to make more viable a location which is accessible to public transport and active travel users.
> 
> It starts here and then we build upon it. The zone gradually expands. This is what we can see slowly happening in London for example. You and your death machine are slowly pushed to multistorey car parks further and further out, then one day you realise you're an idiot and should just get the train in. Massive success.
> 
> I already know what your reply to this will be. Go for it.




I blame industrialisation for the horrors of cities. People were healthier and happier before big stinking crowded cities happened


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

Must be a sign things are changing if everyone now agrees that the pedestrianisation of a large part of a city centre is an undeniably good thing to do.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Must be a sign things are changing if everyone now agrees that the pedestrianisation of a large part of a city centre is an undeniably good thing to do.


Yup.

Shows how well this thread works in changing hearts and minds.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If it tempts you and your death machine to the city centre instead of some kind of out-of-town place, that's a massive success. Because you are now helping to make more viable a location which is accessible to public transport and active travel users.
> 
> It starts here and then we build upon it. The zone gradually expands. This is what we can see slowly happening in London for example. You and your death machine are slowly pushed to multistorey car parks further and further out, then one day you realise you're an idiot and should just get the train in. Massive success.
> 
> I already know what your reply to this will be. Go for it.



I'd be happy for such zones to expand to cover all the shopping streets and central tourist attractions, no problem. However they won't ever expand to cover residential neighborhoods, so they will never be so large as to make car journeys into cities idiotic.

Given that retail and office use is declining and being replaced with residential, I've no doubt this Glasgow scheme will eventually be rolled back so people can pick up their disabled grandmothers from the retirement flats that will replace the current offices and shops.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Must be a sign things are changing if everyone now agrees that the pedestrianisation of a large part of a city centre is an undeniably good thing to do.




Isn't that what town squares were about? 

Pedestrianisation...
Not new...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Isn't that what town squares were about?
> 
> Pedestrianisation...
> Not new...


You're starting to get it!  Well done!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> However they won't ever expand to cover residential neighborhoods, so they will never be so large as to make car journeys into cities idiotic.


You've not been paying attention to what's happening in London, then.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'd be happy for such zones to expand to cover all the shopping streets and central tourist attractions, no problem. However they won't ever expand to cover residential neighborhoods


They don't need to. You just make it expensive/miserable/impossible to get a car into the centres where all the good things are.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They don't need to. You just make it expensive/miserable/impossible to get a car into the centres where all the good things are.


Good things? In Glasgow?  🤣


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're starting to get it!  Well done!



Oh look at you ...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> Good things? In Glasgow?  🤣


Glasgow is a great city, I've had some cracking nights out there over the years.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They don't need to. You just make it expensive/miserable/impossible to get a car into the centres where all the good things are.



No problem, just drive into the big car park next to the centre.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You've not been paying attention to what's happening in London, then.



London is an exception. I've never driven into the centre of it because there's too much traffic to make it worthwhile. However if the various emission and congestion zones keep ramping up I'll soon start doing so.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No problem, just drive into the big car park next to the centre.


You're not been paying attention then. Cites around the world are removing parking as they realise the benefits it brings.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They don't need to. You just make it expensive/miserable/impossible to get a car into the centres where all the good things are.



Lots of planning permission for new builds in London are done with no or minimal parking.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I've never driven into the centre of it because there's too much traffic to make it worthwhile.


Keep thinking, you're very nearly there.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You're not been paying attention then. Cites around the world are removing parking as they realise the benefits it brings.



No they aren't. They might be removing on-street parking in the very centre, but they're not removing parking on the perimeters of pedestrianized zones. Certainly not in this country where cash-strapped city councils receive a large proportion of their income from car parks.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No they aren't. They might be removing on-street parking in the very centre, but they're not removing parking on the perimeters of pedestrianized zones. Certainly not in this country where cash-strapped city councils receive a large proportion of their income from car parks.


Oh look, you're wrong.









						Landmark 50-year-old city centre car park demolished
					

Pershore Street Car park is being flattened as part of the £1.5 billion Smithfield redevelopment




					www.birminghammail.co.uk
				




There's another one going soon too.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> London is an exception. I've never driven into the centre of it because there's too much traffic to make it worthwhile. However if the various emission and congestion zones keep ramping up I'll soon start doing so.


Unfortunately for you, London's stated policy is not to reduce congestion for private motorists. Its policy is to either reduce road capacity, or re-allocate it to public transport and active travel. This exactly what is happening with LTNs, expansion of bike lanes and changes to bus lanes.

When other cities in the UK see that this works, they'll do the same. Some of them have already started on this path. Glasgow pedestrianising its centre is an early step on it. It's the thin end of the wedge that we know you are genuinely terrified of (you think it will end up with a totalitarian state).


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh look, you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No I'm prefectly right because this car park is not on the edge of a pedestrianised zone. In any case it's not the number of city centre car parks you should focus on, but the ratio of unoccupied parking spaces to the number of people who want to drive into the city. 

As long as there are spaces in nearby car parks, drivers won't be affected, and the demolition is simply a symptom of the declining appeal of Birmingham city centre as a retail and leisure destination.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Unfortunately for you, London's stated policy is not to reduce congestion for private motorists. Its policy is to either reduce road capacity, or re-allocate it to public transport and active travel. This exactly what is happening with LTNs, expansion of bike lanes and changes to bus lanes.


It must be great, knowing that people are working so hard to remove cars from the streets, in the knife crime capital of the world.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Unfortunately for you, London's stated policy is not to reduce congestion for private motorists. Its policy is to either reduce road capacity, or re-allocate it to public transport and active travel. This exactly what is happening with LTNs, expansion of bike lanes and changes to bus lanes.
> 
> When other cities in the UK see that this works, they'll do the same. Some of them have already started on this path. Glasgow pedestrianising its centre is an early step on it. It's the thin end of the wedge that we know you are genuinely terrified of (you think it will end up with a totalitarian state).



Bus lanes, bike lanes and low-traffic neighborhoods have been around for decades, London is well behind in that regard. None of them have ever stopped me driving into city centres, their main function is to mollify the anti-car lobby and forestall any genuinely regressive measures.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No I'm prefectly right because this car park is not on the edge of a pedestrianised zone.


Literally the entirety of B'ham centre is about to become a giant LTN. Huge swathes of it are already pedestrianised, there are plans for more. Parking is being reduced or got rid of everywhere, tram extensions are being built*, more protected bike lanes are going in etc etc

You're a dinosaur, and your mode of transport is on its way out. Shame you can't see it.




*Shame the bloody things keep getting shut down to to being built like shite mind


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Literally the entirety of B'ham centre is about to become a giant LTN. Huge swathes of it are already pedestrianised, there are plans for more. Parking is being reduced or got rid of everywhere, tram extensions are being built*, more protected bike lanes are going in etc etc
> 
> You're a dinosaur, and your mode of transport is on its way out. Shame you can't see it.
> 
> ...



You seem to think some sort of fundamental change is in the air, but all these measures will do is move a bit of parking around in big cities.

If cars really are banned from everywhere within walking distance of the centre, then in the unlikely event I have to visit Birimgham ever again I'll simply drive there and park at a tram stop.

Anyone trying to apply this supposed paradigm shift to most of the towns and cities in the UK will be laughed out of town e.g. Ely where free city-centre parking is currently offered to attract visitors, and there simply aren't the numbers to sustain a tram and cycle-lane system to bring people in from the surrounding county.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 13, 2021)

All in favour of pedestrianisng the centres of big cities, the deepest I have ever driven into London is Heathrow Airport. If I go London, I will drive to Luton Parkway and get the train from there. I won't drive into central Birmingham these days either.
In the past few years, I have been to Oxford, Cambridge, Bath, Sheffield and York and parked at the Park & Ride. Even Nottingham which is my nearest major city I  drive to Toton Lane and catch the tram. (Son Q who works in the middle of Nottingham does that every day if he goes in). The only major city I have driven in recently is Southampton when we went to see Pollyanna's parents in August because we were staying a few days and public transport wasn't practical for that.
As I've mentioned I don't mind that some of the not inconsiderable amount of money that I turn over to HMRC on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis gets spent on such good things as public transport for other people.
But I can't see the centre of True Blue Yokeltown (pop 7000ish) where I live being pedestrianised anytime soon nor public transport ever getting to the point at which any of the death machines parked outside will ever be got rid of.


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> If cars really are banned from everywhere within walking distance of the centre, then in the unlikely event I have to visit Birimgham ever again I'll simply drive there and park at a tram stop.


Never mind the tram, you could just drive yourself to the very centre of Birmingham in one of the car clubs actually sponsored by Birmingham City Council. Or take an Uber. But then again if this thread has taught me anything is that only privately owned cars cause congestion, pollution, or qualify as death machines. The hundreds or even thousands of exempt private cars owned by residents of every single LTN zone are also harmless and magically exempt from the normal laws of physics.

Also, as MickiQ and indeed most of us who have somehow been branded incorregible petrolheads have repeatedly stated, plenty if not most of us evil death machine worshippers actually are as supportive of most schemes to fully pedestrianise historical city centres as the most anti car fanatic. I suspect it must be quite grating to those posting such stories in this forum expecting to get a rise of some posters to see them being supportive of it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> But then again if this thread has taught me anything is that only privately owned cars cause congestion, pollution, or qualify as death machines. The hundreds or even thousands of exempt private cars owned by residents of every single LTN zone are also harmless and magically exempt from the normal laws of physics.



You're furiously determined to get someone to confirm that they hold the above nonsense position. You keep on repeating it. Over and over. You maniac.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Also, as MickiQ and indeed most of us who have somehow been branded incorregible petrolheads have repeatedly stated, plenty if not most of us evil death machine worshippers actually are as supportive of most schemes to fully pedestrianise historical city centres as the most anti car fanatic. I suspect it must be quite grating to those posting such stories in this forum expecting to get a rise of some posters to see them being supportive of it.



Indeed. The vast majority of people who drive, cycle and pedestrianate are in favour of reasonable adjustments to the balance between various modes of transport, especially in cities where opportunities to improve public transport are plentiful.

The extremist totalitarian car abolitionists on here are a tiny minority, and should be viewed as broadly equivalent to Richard Littlejohn ranting in the Daily Mail.


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're furiously determined to get someone to confirm that they hold the above nonsense position. You keep on repeating it. Over and over. You maniac.


I really can’t be arsed to trawl through thousands of posts to prove this, but you yourself have on numerous occasions over time supported both getting rid of all cars in cities or indeed everywhere, or actively cheering on people ditching their cars and switching to car clubs, and happily continue driving those. Depending on the thread or discussion at the time, of course. Never mind openly admitting to having driven and or/been driven in them evil death whenever you saw it fit to.

You know you have as well as everyone else. Do you actually deny this?  

ETA: you’re by no means alone in doing that among the anti car crowd in here, of course.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> You know you have as well as everyone else. Do you actually deny this?


Yes.


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

It's a perfectly serious answer. The contradictions are in your imagination.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

Remember to thank motorists who have stopped for you at a zebra crossing 🤪


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Remember to thank motorists who have stopped for you at a zebra crossing 🤪
> 
> View attachment 296666



Basic courtesy isn’t it? When driving I always thank other road users who have given way to oncoming traffic. Just because someone ought to yield to you, doesn’t mean you should charge past snootily with your nose in the air.


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Remember to thank motorists who have stopped for you at a zebra crossing 🤪
> 
> View attachment 296666


Damn right


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Basic courtesy isn’t it? When driving I always thank other road users who have given way to oncoming traffic. Just because someone ought to yield to you, doesn’t mean you should charge past snootily with your nose in the air.


Do you thank all the pedestrians giving way to you when you have the green light at pedestrian crossings?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

At all times we must protect the fragile ego of the motorist…


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)

I don’t need or expect to be thanked at zebra crossings by pedestrians- at the end of the day drivers are obligated to stop for them. But I’ve always believed being courteous is a good thing for all concerned, and when I cross as a ped I do raise a hand. I don’t need to thank bus drivers at the end of my journey either for doing the job they are paid to do, but I always do barring those times when the bus is unless rammed and the driver won’t hear you.

It’d be nice if at least the countless pedestrians in London who ignore the Highway Code and cross a busy road with the red man showing because waiting twenty seconds is beyond them would at least have the common decency to wave their hand in acknowledgment to the road traffic they have forced to brake for. But the select few who bother to check for incoming traffic at all invariably look flabbergasted if not actually affronted that the entire road hasn’t stopped to let them through.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Girl dies after being hit on zebra crossing by hit-and-run driver
> 
> 
> Latest London news, business, sport, showbiz and entertainment from the London Evening Standard.
> ...



Ah, she probably forgot to thank the driver. Fair enough then.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah, she probably forgot to thank the driver. Fair enough then.



That's really out of order....as in...disrespectful of the girl who died.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah, she probably forgot to thank the driver. Fair enough then.


----------



## T & P (Nov 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> That's really out of order....as in...disrespectful of the girl who died.


Actually edcraw , yes, unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation at hand it’s disrespectful, crass and out of order. Made worse by the fact that often as not when you post shit like this, you insinuate those you’re disagreeing with at the time are de facto making fun of it.

So until such time until someone actually makes light of relevant or related pedestrian or cyclist fatalities, how about you give your habit of posting links to individual fatal accidents whenever you’re bored/ feeling mischievous/ losing an argument a bit of a fucking rest, eh?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 14, 2021)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

T & P said:


> Actually edcraw , yes, unless it’s actually relevant to the conversation at hand it’s disrespectful, crass and out of order. Made worse by the fact that often as not when you post shit like this, you insinuate those you’re disagreeing with at the time are de facto making fun of it.
> 
> So until such time until someone actually makes light of relevant or related pedestrian or cyclist fatalities, how about you give your habit of posting links to individual fatal accidents whenever you’re bored/ feeling mischievous/ losing an argument a bit of a fucking rest, eh?


Ignore the cunt. He tried trolling me by PM today, but he's as significant as the dog shit I stood in last week.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> That's really out of order....as in...disrespectful of the girl who died.



I don’t agree. It’s relevant as we as a society seem to just accept these constant road deaths as the price we’re willing to pay for a car centred society and you guys are saying people need to thank drivers for doing the bare minimum of not killing them! 

You’re the guys constantly joking about this subject. If you want to have a discussion fine but if you’re going to just troll I’ll keep raising things that make you uncomfortable. You can’t suddenly get on you moral high horse.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t agree. It’s relevant as we as a society seem to just accept these constant road deaths as the price we’re willing to pay for a car centred society and you guys are saying people need to thank drivers for doing the bare minimum of not killing them! You’re the guys constantly joking about this subject. If you want to have a discussion fine but if you’re going to just troll I’ll keep raising things that make you uncomfortable. You can’t suddenly get on you moral high horse.



You're a monumental idiot


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t agree. It’s relevant as we as a society seem to just accept these constant road deaths as the price we’re willing to pay for a car centred society and you guys are saying people need to thank drivers for doing the bare minimum of not killing them!
> 
> You’re the guys constantly joking about this subject. If you want to have a discussion fine but if you’re going to just troll I’ll keep raising things that make you uncomfortable. You can’t suddenly get on you moral high horse.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

Depressing what lengths Birmingham has had to go to to stop people parking on the pavement.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Do you thank all the pedestrians giving way to you when you have the green light at pedestrian crossings?



No, because they're not giving way to me but deciding to heed the warning given by the the red pedestrian figure that, in the interests of safety, they should not cross the carriageway. I wouldn't thank them any more than I'd thank another pedestrian for not tripping me up when I'm walking along a pavement.

Not only do you not know how to use a zebra crossing, you also seem to have no clue as to how pelican crossings work. I suggest you read this book or some similar ones before you set foot outside again by yourself:









						Let's Go Out
					

Young children need to be taught basic road safety at an early age. This safety book is packed with activities, games and projects for ad...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

Why should pedestrians thank drivers for doing something they have to do? I can see it as a courtesy sometimes (just about), but telling kids to do it, as the original picture shows, is sending out a poor message.

Are there any times a driver might thank a pedestrian?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why should pedestrians thank drivers for doing something they have to do? I can see it as a courtesy sometimes (just about), but telling kids to do it, as the original picture shows, is sending out a poor message.



Because according precedence to someone is quite different from blindly obeying a traffic signal, and requires a degree of human interaction. Why is it a poor message to children to encourage them to be polite?



edcraw said:


> Are there any times a driver might thank a pedestrian?



I thank pedestrians when I'm turning into a side road, when I'm prepared to give way to people about to cross the side road, but they stop on the pavement and insist on giving way to me.

It's really not rocket science. Imagine you're both pedestrians in a narrow corridor or something. You nod a thanks to someone who steps aside to let you pass or holds a door open for you. Just because someone is in a car, or you're on a bike, doesn't mean you should blank them.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Because according precedence to someone is quite different from blindly obeying a traffic signal, and requires a degree of human interaction. Why is it a poor message to children to encourage them to be polite?



But they’re not according precedence, they’re doing what they have to do. I think it’s poor messaging as it makes the driver think they’ve done something worthy of being thanked for and the pedestrian think the driver’s done something they should be grateful for.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But they’re not according precedence, they’re doing what they have to do.



Like teuchter, it appears you have no idea about how zebra crossings work. If you’re going to engage in these debates,  I suggest you read The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 as well as The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 for starters. Or perhaps you might be better off beginning with that children’s book I recommended to teuchter.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

No need to be rude. Here’s the rule.



Thanking a driver that stops before you’ve started crossing makes sense but not one that stops when you’ve already started crossing. There is a real issue that pedestrians need to be brave enough to make that initial step onto the crossing and confident enough that the traffic will stop.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah, she probably forgot to thank the driver. Fair enough then.


You're an idiot.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> *But they’re not according precedence*, they’re doing what they have to do. I think it’s poor messaging as it makes the driver think they’ve done something worthy of being thanked for and the pedestrian think the driver’s done something they should be grateful for.



They literally are:

Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings
25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and *the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian*.

The law says a driver shall accord (i.e. give or grant) the pedestrian precedence (i.e. the right to precede the driver).

In any other situation, if one person grants another the right to go first, a simple thank you is warranted.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They literally are:
> 
> Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings
> 25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and *the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian*.
> ...



Shall not should. They’re not granting a right.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Shall not should. They’re not granting a right.



They literally are. Think about the difference between a pelican and a zebra. Being required to stop vs being required to let someone go first. One requires an interaction with a traffic light, the other with a human.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> They literally are. Think about the difference between a pelican and a zebra. Being required to stop vs being required to let someone go first. One requires an interaction with a traffic light, the other with a human.



They are required to stop though. That’s the point.

This is a niche thing but shows the power imbalance between cars and others that people think we should be thanking drivers for doing something they have to do. Cars should be treated as guests in urban environments not pedestrians.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> That's really out of order....as in...disrespectful of the girl who died.


No disrespect in these responses then?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They are required to stop though. That’s the point.
> 
> This is a niche thing but shows the power imbalance between cars and others that people think we should be thanking drivers for doing something they have to do. Cars should be treated as guests in urban environments not pedestrians.



Treating cars as sentient and othering the drivers inside as non-human leads to the sort of conflict on the road that you supposedly are so keen to see an end of.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Treating cars as sentient and othering the drivers inside as non-human leads to the sort of conflict on the road that you supposedly are so keen to see an end of.



I’m not sure that was what I was doing. Car drivers should be very welcome in cities, just without their cars. Likewise there’s no power imbalance between drivers and others if the car isn’t there.

Looking forward to you calling out the constant othering of cyclists in this thread going forward though.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No, because they're not giving way to me but deciding to heed the warning given by the the red pedestrian figure that, in the interests of safety, they should not cross the carriageway. I wouldn't thank them any more than I'd thank another pedestrian for not tripping me up when I'm walking along a pavement.


This is the reply that I predicted and intended you to give. 

It demonstrates the imbalance in power, where pedestrians are supposed to be grateful for car drivers not killing them, while car drivers don't need to thank pedestrians, because the pedestrians are forced to give way by the power imbalance. Of course there is the theoretical risk of legal prosecution for the motorist, but we know that the law seldom actually acts in defence of the pedestrian and most motorists do not consider the law to apply to them.

So in practical terms, for all you want to waffle on about legislation, all that is going on in practical terms is an encounter between two individuals, only one of whom has the power to kill the other. And that's the real reason you don't ever thank a pedestrian for letting you go first.

This is exactly analogous to a situation in a prison camp where you are a psychopathic prison guard and the prisoner is a principled individual who has been arrested by an oppressive state for trying to protect the rights of sick children and other vulnerable groups.

The prison guard wants the prisoner to thank them for their daily gruel and whines about being "othered" if sufficient deference is not displayed. Well, some prisoners decide they are not going to lower themselves to this, even if it comes at cost to them.

And this is exactly what is going on at a zebra crossing, with you angrily revving your engine and muttering that I should be meekly bowing like in those japanese videos.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is the reply that I predicted and intended you to give.
> 
> It demonstrates the imbalance in power, where pedestrians are supposed to be grateful for car drivers not killing them, while car drivers don't need to thank pedestrians, because the pedestrians are forced to give way by the power imbalance. Of course there is the theoretical risk of legal prosecution for the motorist, but we know that the law seldom actually acts in defence of the pedestrian and most motorists do not consider the law to apply to them.
> 
> ...



I thought you'd come up with some diversion from your total ignorance of the most basic principles of pedestrian crossings. How can you possibly hope to have any influence on transport policy if in response to being corrected about a fundamental aspect of crossing roads you start blibbering on about psychopathic prisons guards?



teuchter said:


> And that's the real reason you don't ever thank a pedestrian for letting you go first.



I've already told your fellow ignoramus edcraw that when I'm driving I frequently thank pedestrians. Presumably as you find this concept so alien, we must assume that you yourself never do likewise when zooming about the city in a motorcar.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I've already told your fellow ignoramus edcraw that when I'm driving I frequently thank pedestrians.



You’re quick with the name calling, not sure what I’m ignorant of though.

You mentioned you thank pedestrians when they give up their right of way crossing a side street to let you go first. Do you wonder why they do that? Quite often it’s probably because they’re unsure if your going to stop and don’t want to take the chance. That’s why making these zebras as well would be a great step to reassure pedestrians of their right of way. Also, the default green men pelican crossings that angered people on here to shift the balance of power of pedestrians constantly giving priority to cars.

These shouldn’t be radical things but constantly face opposition.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You mentioned you thank pedestrians when they give up their right of way crossing a side street to let you go first. Do you wonder why they do that?



Not really. When I wait to cross a side road until a car has turned it’s either a courtesy or because I’ve assessed the hazards from e.g. tunnel-visioned cyclists, and think it would be unsafe to force the car to stop on the main road. I assume other pedestrians behave similarly. 



edcraw said:


> Quite often it’s probably because they’re unsure if your going to stop and don’t want to take the chance. That’s why making these zebras as well would be a great step to reassure pedestrians of their right of way.



Pedestrians don’t have a right of way crossing side roads if they’re standing on the pavement, and the proposed zebras wouldn’t change that. In fact they’re a terrible idea that will increase casualties. The reason being that there are restrictions on where zebras can be located for a reason - so that pedestrians and drivers can have sight of each other easily and that drivers have sufficient time to make an assessment on whether a pedestrian intends to cross while also checking around their vehicle for other hazards prior to stopping. Slapping zebra paint on corners isn’t going to help anyone and will just cause confusion and deaths.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No disrespect in these responses then?
> 
> View attachment 296700


----------



## kabbes (Nov 14, 2021)

I have to say that I am big in favour of pedestrians having right of way as soon as they want to cross, but I am concerned about the safety aspects of zebras on junctions. My experience of being a pedestrian in places that do this (e.g. Paris) is that it doesn’t help, and that it actually just creates a dangerous version of the game of chicken


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But they’re not according precedence, they’re doing what they have to do. I think it’s poor messaging as it makes the driver think they’ve done something worthy of being thanked for and the pedestrian think the driver’s done something they should be grateful for.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Nov 14, 2021)

Tourists’ cars may be banned from most popular parts of Lake District
					

National park chief wants to bring in more sustainable transport to stop worsening congestion




					www.theguardian.com
				




This appears to make total sense in this context.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 14, 2021)

eatmorecheese said:


> Tourists’ cars may be banned from most popular parts of Lake District
> 
> 
> National park chief wants to bring in more sustainable transport to stop worsening congestion
> ...



Another option is to only allow people visit the national parks once in any given year. They have to sign up online and buy a ticket and book from a calendar of times. 

I've always thought that people trampling all over the national park land was completely contrary to the reason for preserving the national parks.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2021)

Restricting access by car is a good way of reducing the general pressure on these places and better than some kind of rationing. As long as it is still possible to get around (which means public transport, walking or cycling) then those who really want to visit (enough to put a bit of effort into planning things) can still do so and can do so as often as they want.

The exact same is happening in parts of scotland. There are places which previously saw a scattering of visitors per day, with a few cars in a small car park or along the verge, which are now rammed with vehicles. And a large number of the people that are coming, get out of their car and walk no more than a few minutes away, do their instagram photos and leave again. These are the high-impact visitors, in the sense that a very large proportion of their time, pollution and congestioning is spent getting to the place and leaving again, and a very small proportion actually being there. Unlike people who arrive and then spend a day or a few days walking and actually enjoying the place fully. Those latter people are also much more likely to be invested in protecting the landscape in the longer term.

Rationing to X visits per year would make little difference to the turn up & go brigade and would have a big impact on the latter group. You'd be restricting those who actually want to use national parks for what they are supposed to be for.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Not really. When I wait to cross a side road until a car has turned it’s either a courtesy or because I’ve assessed the hazards from e.g. tunnel-visioned cyclists, and think it would be unsafe to force the car to stop on the main road. I assume other pedestrians behave similarly.
> 
> 
> 
> Pedestrians don’t have a right of way crossing side roads if they’re standing on the pavement, and the proposed zebras wouldn’t change that. In fact they’re a terrible idea that will increase casualties. The reason being that there are restrictions on where zebras can be located for a reason - so that pedestrians and drivers can have sight of each other easily and that drivers have sufficient time to make an assessment on whether a pedestrian intends to cross while also checking around their vehicle for other hazards prior to stopping. Slapping zebra paint on corners isn’t going to help anyone and will just cause confusion and deaths.


You can back that last statement up with figures from everywhere around the world where it’s the norm, yes?

I’ll wait all day.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You can back that last statement up with figures from everywhere around the world where it’s the norm, yes?
> 
> I’ll wait all day.



You can't compare with other countries where it's the norm, because it's not the norm here. If you wanted to compare with other countries you'd have to find somewhere that had zebras and side-road pedestrian priority similar to the UK's current situation but then switched to the proposed system of unlighted zebras at side road corners. If you know of such a country do tell.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You can't compare with other countries where it's the norm, because it's not the norm here. If you wanted to compare with other countries you'd have to find somewhere that had zebras and side-road pedestrian priority similar to the UK's current situation but then switched to the proposed system of unlighted zebras at side road corners. If you know of such a country do tell.


Ah. So because something “isn’t the norm”, we don’t change things. Right.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 15, 2021)

Also, if drivers will get confused and cause accidents because they can’t grasp a simple change of priority at junctions, it kinda makes the point for this entire fucking thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Ah. So because something “isn’t the norm”, we don’t change things. Right.



Did I say that? No. You're the one who wants to learn from other countries, go do some homework.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Also, if drivers will get confused and cause accidents because they can’t grasp a simple change of priority at junctions, it kinda makes the point for this entire fucking thread.



Perhaps you should go for a job at the DfT, and you can make drastic changes to technical road regulations that have been carefully developed over decades, and see how many extra casualties you can cause and blame on stupid car drivers.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2021)

Good point here about how designing communities around cars affects those not able to drive. Have experienced this personally with an elderly relative moving to London exactly because of this and having a ton more freedom.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Restricting access by car is a good way of reducing the general pressure on these places and better than some kind of rationing. As long as it is still possible to get around (which means public transport, walking or cycling) then those who really want to visit (enough to put a bit of effort into planning things) can still do so and can do so as often as they want.
> 
> The exact same is happening in parts of scotland. There are places which previously saw a scattering of visitors per day, with a few cars in a small car park or along the verge, which are now rammed with vehicles. And a large number of the people that are coming, get out of their car and walk no more than a few minutes away, do their instagram photos and leave again. These are the high-impact visitors, in the sense that a very large proportion of their time, pollution and congestioning is spent getting to the place and leaving again, and a very small proportion actually being there. Unlike people who arrive and then spend a day or a few days walking and actually enjoying the place fully. Those latter people are also much more likely to be invested in protecting the landscape in the longer term.
> 
> Rationing to X visits per year would make little difference to the turn up & go brigade and would have a big impact on the latter group. You'd be restricting those who actually want to use national parks for what they are supposed to be for.



Yes, people ought to use national parks in a way that old fogies deem appropriate. Visiting for a short time or taking photographs for social media must be stopped! Anyone under 30 should be required to book a minimum week's walking holiday via an approved local travel agency, for which membership of the Ramblers Association will be required. Entry to the park must be via an approved hiking route from the nearest train station.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good point here about how designing communities around cars affects those not able to drive. Have experienced this personally with an elderly relative moving to London exactly because of this and having a ton more freedom.



There are other versions of this for example where someone starts to feel they are not confident driving at night any more, and then loads of stuff is restricted to daylight hours unless they can get a lift.

Of course there is also the scenario where elderly people carry on driving when they probably really shouldn't because of deteriorating eyesight or other things. And no-one wants to take someone's independence away but at some point a call has to be made on the grounds of safety. I've seen this happen too, with the call being made by relatives rather than any formal process. And someone goes from being largely self sufficient, to totally dependant on others for basic necessities, overnight.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, people ought to use national parks in a way that old fogies deem appropriate. Visiting for a short time or taking photographs for social media must be stopped! Anyone under 30 should be required to book a minimum week's walking holiday via an approved local travel agency, for which membership of the Ramblers Association will be required. Entry to the park must be via an approved hiking route from the nearest train station.


You'd do the North Korea style rationing, then. Interesting.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There are other versions of this for example where someone starts to feel they are not confident driving at night any more, and then loads of stuff is restricted to daylight hours unless they can get a lift.
> 
> Of course there is also the scenario where elderly people carry on driving when they probably really shouldn't because of deteriorating eyesight or other things. And no-one wants to take someone's independence away but at some point a call has to be made on the grounds of safety. I've seen this happen too, with the call being made by relatives rather than any formal process. And someone goes from being largely self sufficient, to totally dependant on others for basic necessities, overnight.


What we should do is move all the old people into the cities against their will. 
I'd love to see cities teaming with miserable old people. Oh... Wait...


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

Saul Goodman said:


> What we should do is move all the old people into the cities against their will.
> I'd love to see cities teaming with miserable old people. Oh... Wait...



I'm sure mandatory downsizing of old people to flats above pizza shops in cities is their real plan, they want to seize the rural properties for themselves so they can finally keep a motor car.

Of course they'll deny this, and claim the solution they want for rural old people is for them to be served by a network of 24-hour buses going everywhere every 5 minutes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 15, 2021)

The UK: 
Oh noes, can’t possibly do something as radical as altering priorities at junctions, it will slow down and confuse car drivers.

Utrecht:


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The UK:
> Oh noes, can’t possibly do something as radical as altering priorities at junctions, it will slow down and confuse car drivers.
> 
> Utrecht:
> View attachment 296904



Yes, if you don't mind killing cyclists:









						2020 posted highest number of cycling casualties in 25 years
					

2020 saw the highest number of cycling casualties in the last 25 years with 229 deaths reported. One third of all bicycle fatalities were on an e-bike. At the same time, a total of 610 people died in road accidents last year which is the lowest number recorded since 2015, Statistics Netherlands...




					nltimes.nl


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, if you don't mind killing cyclists:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Overijssel, *Utrecht *and Flevoland saw fewer accidents compared to years before


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2021)

> Overijssel, *Utrecht* and Flevoland saw fewer accidents compared to years before



Not of cyclists though, the surge in deaths amongst them being mainly attributed to the wanton deployment of canals.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 15, 2021)

Christ.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> Christ.
> 
> View attachment 296967


Or you could… ride a bike?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

I presume it’s a slightly late April fools given the date though wouldn’t be too surprised as Peloton does just seem to be a way to rip off people that can’t be bothered to actually cycle.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 16, 2021)

Seems like a good idea to me, you can exercise to your heart's content in whatever way you want while traveling to work, and  without having to go through red lights, hurtle into pedestrians or scream blue murder at people. 

I don't know why people insist that combining daily exercise with cycling on public roads is a good idea. Getting a good workout and carefully negotiating past other road users don't seem to be compatible activities.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 16, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I don't know why people insist that combining daily exercise with cycling on public roads is a good idea. Getting a good workout and *carefully negotiating past other road users* don't seem to be compatible activities.


Keep going, you’re ever so close.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 16, 2021)

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cyclist+zebra


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

Selfish bastard!


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 16, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Nov 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Selfish bastard!



Fingers crossed. We need to make some examples of these people.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Selfish bastard!



Not before time. Maybe it'll send the correct message to the rest of them, instead of the message they've been getting that it's perfectly OK to be a cunt.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

You probably are all just trolling but now and again it crosses my mind that you really are this ignorant of and oblivious to the situation.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 16, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

It’s difficult to deal with the enormity of the situation so I can see why it’s preferable to simply pretend it’s not happening.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Nov 16, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

Bit weird that’s we need to employ people to help drivers obey zebra crossings in the first place isn’t it?









						Driver threatened to run me over at end of shift says school lollipop lady
					

A Leeds lollipop lady has warned of her fears that she or a child will be killed as they cross the road to go to school because of speeding and abusive drivers.




					www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

Kills a pedestrian on the pavement, lies about it, only gets caught because of CCTV - 1 year ban and community service.









						Student killed man in her BMW after hitting accelerator instead of brake
					

She initially tried to claim the man had been 'in the middle of the road' but CCTV showed this was untrue.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2021)

Kill a pedestrian with a car 🤷

Slightly inconvenience some people by blocking a road for a bit 🤬


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

Excellent results.

More of this sort of thing please 👍👍👍


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 17, 2021)

I hope that judge gets a potato jammed up his tailpipe, causing a dangerous buildup of fumes.

Somebody should fuck with his car as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

I hope he has a jolly good Xmas. We need more like him.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 17, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> I hope that judge gets a potato jammed up his tailpipe, causing a dangerous buildup of fumes.
> 
> Somebody should fuck with his car as well.



The judge is a woman.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 17, 2021)

Oops, guess it was a little sexist of me to automatically associate poor judgment with men.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

It'll be interesting to see how many of these bellends glue themselves to motorways during the next protests now that they know they're genuinely likely to end up doing time. I think this might take the lead out of a pencil or two.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2021)

It'll of course also be "interesting" to watch pedestrian deaths and injuries continue as drivers have the message reinforced that they are unlikely to face any significant sentences for killing people on pavements through reckless driving as long as they say they are sorry and only lie a little bit.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It'll of course also be "interesting" to watch pedestrian deaths and injuries continue as drivers have the message reinforced that they are unlikely to face any significant sentences for killing people on pavements through reckless driving as long as they say they are sorry and only lie a little bit.



Preaching to the converted here though, as you know.

Nothing to see here. 

Move along ...


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

Anyway, for now we should all enjot=y the jailing of these fuckwits! 

Join me for a glass of Champers, edcraw?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Preaching to the converted here



Another endorsement of urban75's most efficacious thread ever.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2021)

Spymaster said:


>


I'm presuming this is in celebration of another pedestrian killing driver walking free!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I'm presuming this is in celebration of another pedestrian killing driver walking free!



Of course you are. That's because you're a moron.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2021)

The venn diagram of cyclist haters and people that call masks muzzles is a circle.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 17, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2021)

So many drivers seem completely ignorant of how cycle crossings are meant to work.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Do many drivers seem completely ignorant of how a cycle crossings are meant to work.




Yes:









						Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
					

Yes I have been to Tokyo and I have spent several weeks living in one of its residential neighbourhoods. They are not full of cars - the streets are incredibly calm, quiet and safe. They are not cluttered with cars because if you own a car you have to park it within your own property. All houses...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2021)

I would propose that all driving licence holders should have to do an annual refresher course and exam, and this would ensure they were aware of anything added to the highway code and/or general road design principles since they sat their original test. This sort of approach is what applies to any kind of safety-critical role carried out as part of someone's job so why don't we apply it to driving?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would propose that all driving licence holders should have to do an annual refresher course and exam, and this would ensure they were aware of anything added to the highway code and/or general road design principles since they sat their original test. This sort of approach is what applies to any kind of safety-critical role carried out as part of someone's job so why don't we apply it to driving?




Because maths.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would propose that all driving licence holders should have to do an annual refresher course and exam, and this would ensure they were aware of anything added to the highway code and/or general road design principles since they sat their original test. This sort of approach is what applies to any kind of safety-critical role carried out as part of someone's job so why don't we apply it to driving?


They should do an annual cycling proficiency test


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> They should do an annual cycling proficiency test
> 
> View attachment 297241



You call them muzzles don’t you?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would propose that all driving licence holders should have to do an annual refresher course and exam, and this would ensure they were aware of anything added to the highway code and/or general road design principles since they sat their original test. This sort of approach is what applies to any kind of safety-critical role carried out as part of someone's job so why don't we apply it to driving?



As you consider this so important, I take it you’ve been doing it already on a voluntary basis. Your zebra ignorance must therefore be due to your lack of driving practice, so I hope you now resolve to get behind the wheel every day and go for a spin around the city centre to refresh your knowledge of the basics.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would propose that all driving licence holders should have to do an annual refresher course and exam, and this would ensure they were aware of anything added to the highway code and/or general road design principles since they sat their original test. This sort of approach is what applies to any kind of safety-critical role carried out as part of someone's job so why don't we apply it to driving?


We did this before. A driving examiner going flat out can manage about 7 tests a day, which is about 1600 in a working year, allowing for all holidays. There are 32 million drivers in the UK, so you would need about 20,000 driving examiners. By comparison, there are currently only 1,600.  The additional 18,400 would be be very challenging to obtain, not least because of the hard criteria to become an examiner.

(I note also that you would be adding about 30 million hours of driving to Britain’s roads as a result of all those tests taking place.)


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> We did this before. A driving examiner going flat out can manage about 7 tests a day, which is about 1600 in a working year, allowing for all holidays. There are 32 million drivers in the UK, so you would need about 20,000 driving examiners. By comparison, there are currently only 1,600.  The additional 18,400 would be be very challenging to obtain, not least because of the hard criteria to become an examiner.
> 
> (I note also that you would be adding about 30 million hours of driving to Britain’s roads as a result of all those tests taking place.)



If it saves one live!

Yearly is obviously too much but something like 5-7 years sounds sensible.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 18, 2021)

I've had two near misses this week, both cyclist twats, just cycling straight off the pavement to cross the road, right in front of me, causing me to break heavily. 

Wankers.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> We did this before. A driving examiner going flat out can manage about 7 tests a day, which is about 1600 in a working year, allowing for all holidays. There are 32 million drivers in the UK, so you would need about 20,000 driving examiners. By comparison, there are currently only 1,600.  The additional 18,400 would be be very challenging to obtain, not least because of the hard criteria to become an examiner.
> 
> (I note also that you would be adding about 30 million hours of driving to Britain’s roads as a result of all those tests taking place.)


Also, you don’t need to be a particularly competent driver to pass the standard driving test, so all of the additional driving you mention would achieve little gain anyway. Increased frequency of testing for the over 65s probably makes sense to pick up deterioration in eyesight/reflexes/health etc, otherwise retesting/training probably only makes sense after accidents or convictions.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 18, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> I've had two near misses this week, both cyclist twats, just cycling straight off the pavement to cross the road, right in front of me, causing me to break heavily.
> 
> Wankers.


Two a week would be pretty much standard in London. Most commonly it’s cyclists turning right without indicating, or being invisible after dark.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 18, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> I've had two near misses this week, both cyclist twats, just cycling straight off the pavement to cross the road, right in front of me, causing me to break heavily.
> 
> Wankers.



Mind you, I've also encountered a twat of a driver this week.

I had stopped to allow space for a bus to turn into the road, and the twat behind me decided to over take, only to come face to face with the bus.   

It's been a strange week.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Nov 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You call them muzzles don’t you?


It’s the motor car drivers I would require to obtain an annual bicycle endorsement for their licences.

..and I call them nose warmers for winter weather cycling.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> We did this before. A driving examiner going flat out can manage about 7 tests a day, which is about 1600 in a working year, allowing for all holidays. There are 32 million drivers in the UK, so you would need about 20,000 driving examiners. By comparison, there are currently only 1,600.  The additional 18,400 would be be very challenging to obtain, not least because of the hard criteria to become an examiner.
> 
> (I note also that you would be adding about 30 million hours of driving to Britain’s roads as a result of all those tests taking place.)


I was thinking more of a classroom session then written test. You could probably even do it online.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I was thinking more of a classroom session then written test. You could probably even do it online.


You could do an online test of the Highway Code, certainly. Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea, though, The practical reality of a portion of people each year failing it and suddenly not being allowed to drive is likely to be more chaotic than would be palatable.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You could do an online test of the Highway Code, certainly. Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea, though, The practical reality of a portion of people each year failing it and suddenly not being allowed to drive is likely to be more chaotic than would be palatable.


We should have people that can't pass a driving test driving?!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You could do an online test of the Highway Code, certainly. Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea, though, The practical reality of a portion of people each year failing it and suddenly not being allowed to drive is likely to be more chaotic than would be palatable.


I think my general reaction to someone suddenly not being able to drive because they couldn’t pass a basic theory test/refresher course would be “tough shit you absolute dumbass”.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You could do an online test of the Highway Code, certainly. Regardless of whether you think it’s a good idea, though, The practical reality of a portion of people each year failing it and suddenly not being allowed to drive is likely to be more chaotic than would be palatable.


Even without a test would be better than nothing. The point is that if there are changes to the highway code, there's no formalised way of making sure that drivers hear about them. And obviously it would also be an opportunity for targeted education on specific points where it's known that there's a problem.

But the fact that there would be chaos if a portion of people failed a test is just an indication of why the overall system is unsafe. It's a result of the car dependency that I keep going on about. Remove car dependency in principle and then there is no longer a problem. And no, it's not possible to do this overnight, before any of the usual suspects has a tantrum.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We should have people that can't pass a driving test driving?!


That depends on how applicable the ability to pass a multiple choice online test about the Highway Code is to the ability to drive safely. Tests are very tricky concepts to pin down. They are constructions that draw in a lot of cultural assumptions about things like what information is relevant and how the procedure works.  They are also abstract, and their construct validity against the things you are actually interested in has to be carefully considered. Their use privileges those for whom a western style of academic learning is a taken-for-granted norm, in short.  As such, using them as a blunt tool that can stop somebody’s ability to continue their livelihood or their caring duties, amongst other things, should never be treated lightly. You would need to provide very strong evidence that their application demonstrably and materially improves safety.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

Right on cue, we have this response:



beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think my general reaction to someone suddenly not being able to drive because they couldn’t pass a basic theory test/refresher course would be “tough shit you absolute dumbass”.



And that demonstrates what I’m saying. Being a “dumbass” according to a definition based on testing procedures taken for granted within particular cultures is not in itself a reason to radically affect somebody’s life.  You might find it satisfying to classify people that way and punish them for not living up to your standards, but your visceral satisfaction is not good enough for public policy.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> That depends on how applicable the ability to pass a multiple choice online test about the Highway Code is to the ability to drive safely. Tests are very tricky concepts to pin down. They are constructions that draw in a lot of cultural assumptions about things like what information is relevant and how the procedure works.  They are also abstract, and their construct validity against the things you are actually interested in has to be carefully considered. Their use privileges those for whom a western style of academic learning is a taken-for-granted norm, in short.  As such, using them as a blunt tool that can stop somebody’s ability to continue their livelihood or their caring duties, amongst other things, should never be treated lightly. You would need to provide very strong evidence that their application demonstrably and materially improves safety.


Are you arguing against all driving tests then?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

People who failed their test would be put into the same position as all the people who currently aren't allowed to drive because of medical conditions.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Even without a test would be better than nothing. The point is that if there are changes to the highway code, there's no formalised way of making sure that drivers hear about them. And obviously it would also be an opportunity for targeted education on specific points where it's known that there's a problem.
> 
> But the fact that there would be chaos if a portion of people failed a test is just an indication of why the overall system is unsafe. It's a result of the car dependency that I keep going on about. Remove car dependency in principle and then there is no longer a problem. And no, it's not possible to do this overnight, before any of the usual suspects has a tantrum.




They update you on changes to the highway code at speed awareness courses, so it's all good.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are you arguing against all driving tests then?


Not at all. Testing somebody’s driving ability by having them drive you around has very high construct validity.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Not at all. Testing somebody’s driving ability by having them drive you around has very high construct validity.


I don't think it would be unreasonable to have to do this every 10 years or so tbh.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Even without a test would be better than nothing. The point is that if there are changes to the highway code, there's no formalised way of making sure that drivers hear about them. And obviously it would also be an opportunity for targeted education on specific points where it's known that there's a problem.



So you're not willing to voluntarily familiarize yourself with changes on a regular basis, but you're happy to force the same on other people?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don't think it would be unreasonable to have to do this every 10 years or so tbh.


No, I don’t think it is unreasonable either, in itself. I don’t think it will do anything though — even a very unsafe, boorish driver can hold it together to redo their test. Passing a test would be very easy for an experienced driver


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> No, I don’t think it is unreasonable either, in itself. I don’t think it will do anything though — even a very unsafe, boorish driver can hold it together to redo their test. Passing a test would be very easy for an experienced driver


It might remind people of the need to indicate for a start!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So you're not willing to voluntarily familiarize yourself with changes on a regular basis, but you're happy to force the same on other people?


I would force it on everyone with a driving licence including myself.

Please note, before getting over-excited, that any negligence on my part, as a driver, reinforces the general argument I make with this thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would force it on everyone with a driving licence including myself.
> 
> Please note, before getting over-excited, that any negligence on my part, as a driver, reinforces the general argument I make with this thread.



So you'd force it on yourself, but you haven't because it's not mandatory for everyone else 

Are you suggesting people should drive negligently so as to advance the case for abolishing cars?

It follows that attempts by you to advance driver education through regulation make it less likely cars will be abolished


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> So you'd force it on yourself, but you haven't because it's not mandatory for everyone else



You're not paying attention. I don't do it in an organised fashion, thanks to my own negligence. However, if it were mandatory, I would be doing it, and this would make me a safer driver. But it seems that you want to prevent me from becoming a safer driver.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Right on cue, we have this response:
> 
> 
> 
> And that demonstrates what I’m saying. Being a “dumbass” according to a definition based on testing procedures taken for granted within particular cultures is not in itself a reason to radically affect somebody’s life.  You might find it satisfying to classify people that way and punish them for not living up to your standards, but your visceral satisfaction is not good enough for public policy.


At work I have to undertake periodic refresher courses and/or testing for various safety critical systems, because there is a high chance of me killing people if I fuck them up. If I failed any of these it’s entirely my fault and I’ve have to face the consequences.

So, explain to me why driving - an activity killing approx 5 people every day in this country - shouldn’t have some sort of similar refresh/training cycle?

If your answer is along the lines of individuals lives being impacted in an unduly negative manner due to not being able to drive… well, you’re kinda making the point for those of us arguing for a structural change away from cars to more sustainable and open to all transportation.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're not paying attention. I don't do it in an organised fashion, thanks to my own negligence. However, if it were mandatory, I would be doing it, and this would make me a safer driver.



Ah, so you are a willfully negligent driver. You're lucky such drivers don't tend to get lengthy sentences when things get a bit too much for them and it all goes wrong.



teuchter said:


> But it seems that you want to prevent me from becoming a safer driver.



On the contrary, I’ve said you should go for a drive every day around your city to brush up your skills.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 18, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, explain to me why driving - an activity killing approx 5 people every day in this country - shouldn’t have some sort of similar refresh/training cycle?



I don't think that anyone disagrees with this though. It's a question of doing it effectively. Testing people annually wouldn't necessarily do that, for the reasons mentioned, but would add millions of driving hours to the road network, (and the attendant pollution etc). Everyone agrees that standards should be raised and maintained. You just have to come up with a way of doing it that's effective and feasible.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think that anyone disagrees with this though. It's a question of doing it effectively. Testing people annually wouldn't necessarily do that, for the reasons mentioned, but would add millions of driving hours to the road network, (and the attendant pollution etc). Everyone agrees that standards should be raised and maintained. You just have to come up with a way of doing it that's effective and feasible.


This, plus that there is no reason to suspect that mandating an annual online test on the Highway Code will actually improve anything either. Before I went with an online test as an idea, I’d need to see proper causative evidence showing that (a) injuries and deaths are caused by _ignorance_ of the Highway Code rather than just a will to disobey it; and (b) that an online test would actually mitigate against this source of risk.  Because in the meantime, there is plenty of evidence showing that this type of testing is systematically biased against particular segments of society.  The cross-section of society that does your job, bees, is not representative of the population of drivers. If you perform online knowledge testing, you will end up discriminating against those segments who are systematically disadvantaged by this style of testing.  As such doing it requires more evidence than just thinking it might be a nice idea to try it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

It wouldn't even have to be a test though. It could be as simple as something you sign in to online, with a limited number of items where you watch some kind of informational video and tick a box that says, yes I have watched this video. It would be an annual opportunity to introduce any changes to the Highway code, or emphasise things that have been identified as being commonly misunderstood or ignored.

The worst that could happen is that some people play the video, don't pay any attention to it and tick the boxes. It would still be better than nothing. The idea that there'd be no meaningful benefit as the result of some people finding out some things they didn't know about, things that ignorance of could well have an impact on safety - that just seems implausible to me. I've no problem with someone doing the proper studies to provide the "proper causitive evidence" but instead of faffing around avoiding changing the current rubbish setup, why not just implement something quite simple with a high likelihood of benefit that as far as I can see could not do any harm?

I have some thoughts about why that doesn't happen, and I don't think it's due to lack of proper causitive evidence.


----------



## Hollis (Nov 18, 2021)

Those pesky cyclists are now undermining the funding model for TfL..


----------



## kabbes (Nov 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It wouldn't even have to be a test though. It could be as simple as something you sign in to online, with a limited number of items where you watch some kind of informational video and tick a box that says, yes I have watched this video. It would be an annual opportunity to introduce any changes to the Highway code, or emphasise things that have been identified as being commonly misunderstood or ignored.
> 
> The worst that could happen is that some people play the video, don't pay any attention to it and tick the boxes. It would still be better than nothing. The idea that there'd be no meaningful benefit as the result of some people finding out some things they didn't know about, things that ignorance of could well have an impact on safety - that just seems implausible to me. I've no problem with someone doing the proper studies to provide the "proper causitive evidence" but instead of faffing around avoiding changing the current rubbish setup, why not just implement something quite simple with a high likelihood of benefit that as far as I can see could not do any harm?
> 
> I have some thoughts about why that doesn't happen, and I don't think it's due to lack of proper causitive evidence.


Yeah, nothing much wrong with that in principle. What about those who don’t have a computer and internet connection though?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, nothing much wrong with that in principle. What about those who don’t have a computer and internet connection though?


I don't think finding a solution for the small number of people that applies to would be insurmountable. Have an option for them to do it at a library. Or driving test centre. Or something.


----------



## T & P (Nov 19, 2021)

As reported in the Climate Change thread, Infuriate Britain have gone into full nutjob mode. Join us, or be a 'genocide enabler' 









						A LETTER TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC | Insulate Britain
					






					www.insulatebritain.com
				




No wonder the majority of the public rightly think they're twats, despite actually agreeing with their aims. It's quite spectacular to manage to turn people who agree with your overall cause against you.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> As reported in the Climate Change thread, Infuriate Britain have gone into full nutjob mode. Join us, or be a 'genocide enabler'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Curious why you're posting this in this thread.


----------



## T & P (Nov 19, 2021)

It was mainly for edcraw 's benefit, seeing as how anxious they have been to constantly pepper this thread with updates on their activities- to which you did not seem object one bit, one could add.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2021)

I would take action on climate change but someone’s compared it to genocide so let the world fucking burn! That’ll show them!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2021)

Never said I particularly support Insulate Britain’s methods or aims but if this is the other side…


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2021)

T & P said:


> It was mainly for edcraw 's benefit, seeing as how anxious they have been to constantly pepper this thread with updates on their activities- to which you did not seem object one bit, one could add.


No, the thread has been peppered with examples of motorists physically assaulting, including with deadly weapons, those who dare to mount a protest on their precious roads.

These examples were presented as they are relevant to the thread subject.

I don't see how the details of one particular group's aims are really relevant, unless you think it's OK to drive your Range Rover into someone just because you disagree with their viewpoint.

I think your posting above demonstrates your confusion about what the point is here.


----------



## T & P (Nov 20, 2021)

Sorry, can’t have your cake and eat it too. If we’re going to tolerate completely irrelevant posts about the sentences handed out for injunction breaches, which have nothing to do with the premise of this thread, then you can hardly complain if the odd equally irrelevant post appears later just because you don’t like it. 

Anyways, it’s a bit late for you to take an interest in policing the relevance of posts in this thread in relation to its opening premise. You’d be lucky If even 25% all posts to date remotely qualify as possibly being valid arguments against ownership or private use of motor cars.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2021)

T & P said:


> Sorry, can’t have your cake and eat it too. If we’re going to tolerate completely irrelevant posts about the sentences handed out for injunction breaches



It was comparing them to the extremely lenient sentences given to drivers killing pedestrians so relevant to this thread. 

Insulate Britain was started by XR co-founder Roger Hallam as most of XR seem to think he’s too controversial and wants to go too far with things. Most people wouldn’t agree with their methods or views but to think they’re going to stop people from dealing with or taking seriously the climate emergency is ridiculous. If anything they help to demonstrate how extremely serious the situation is. We’re well past trying to win people’s support, if you haven’t worked it out yet you probably just don’t care.

Millions will die because of climate change but the use of the term genocide is factually wrong as this won’t be from a particular nation or ethnicity. It is also offensive.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 20, 2021)

No doubt you’re closely following the ongoing trial in Teeside of a pedestrian who stabbed a car driver to death. I look forward to your ludicrous assertions about that verdict.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> No doubt you’re closely following the ongoing trial in Teeside of a pedestrian who stabbed a car driver to death. I look forward to your ludicrous assertions about that verdict.



Fuck me, you’re an actual idiot.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck me, you’re an actual idiot.


It’s taken you this long to work that out?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 20, 2021)

Tesla drivers left unable to start their cars after outage Tesla drivers left unable to start their cars after outage


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Tesla drivers left unable to start their cars after outage Tesla drivers left unable to start their cars after outage



Good. Any car that requires an app to start it can fuck right off.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Good. Any car that requires an app to start it can fuck right off.


Gadgets/tech in cars has got out of control.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 20, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Good. Any car that requires an app to start it can fuck right off.


Does it actually _require_ the app?  I don’t know. From the article, it reads like it’s an option to start it from the app and people got caught out because they had come to rely on that option.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Does it actually _require_ the app?  I don’t know. From the article, it reads like it’s an option to start it from the app and people got caught out because they had come to rely on that option.



No, once a phone is registered to act as a key it doesn't require the app to even be installed, or an internet connection, it works via bluetooth authentication only.

Perhaps the small number of people affected hadn't set up their phones properly.


----------



## T & P (Nov 20, 2021)

Be careful guys, as undoubtedly teuchter will be along any minute now to rightly point out that posts 6197 to 6201 have virtually fuck all to do with any kind of anti-car propaganda, and therefore they have no place in this thread.


















Any minute now...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 20, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Gadgets/tech in cars has got out of control.




My bicycle interacts with my phone…


----------



## edcraw (Nov 21, 2021)

Happy World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims everyone!





__





						World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims | United Nations
					

The Day has become an important tool in global efforts to reduce road casualties. It offers an opportunity for drawing attention to the scale of emotional and economic devastation caused by road crashes and for giving recognition to the suffering of road crash victims and the work of support and...




					www.un.org


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Happy World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims everyone!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People don't normally wish others a "happy" day of remembrance, especially if they've given even a single moment of thought to the matter.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 21, 2021)

…an actual idiot.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck me, you’re an actual idiot.





edcraw said:


> …an actual idiot.





View attachment 297461


View attachment images (4).mp4



Edcraw --thinking he's  smarter than everyone


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 21, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My bicycle interacts with my phone…


Isn’t your bike one of those cheating ones though?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 21, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> View attachment 297461
> 
> 
> View attachment 297616
> ...



Well you and platinumsage which really isn’t saying much.


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well you and platinumsage which really isn’t saying much.



Sure God love you...

You're a sad oul craw...


----------



## nick (Nov 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Isn’t your bike one of those cheating ones though?


My (non-cheaty)  bike talks to my phone.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 21, 2021)

nick said:


> My (non-cheaty)  bike talks to my phone.


Di2?


----------



## nick (Nov 21, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Di2?


Yep - plus (not exactly integrated with the bike) sensors on cranks and wheels to talk to my Garmin to tell me that I am fat and slow


----------



## teuchter (Nov 21, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

A heartwarming tale in two parts.


----------



## nick (Nov 22, 2021)

Presumably a crime against the laws of physics. 
What are they made of? tesseracts?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

nick said:


> Presumably a crime against the laws of physics.
> What are they made of? tesseracts?


Marketing bollocks for the terminally gullible. You’ve got to be a massive wanker to have a personalised plate anyway, selling something as “4D” seems an easy leap to make for those dickheads.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A heartwarming tale in two parts.



Not at all heart warming. 

Uninsured vehicles should be summarily crushed.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not at all heart warming.
> 
> Uninsured vehicles should be summarily crushed.


Well, yes. But you’ve got to feel at least some sense of joy at the sight of one dickhead being nicked for _exactly the same offence_ after turning up to rescue another dickhead


----------



## T & P (Nov 22, 2021)

A fool and his illegal motor are soon parted.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


>




This argument is always ridiculous. So what if cars take up space? Think of all the space that houses take up compared to the people inside them. Does that mean everyone should live in dormitory towers? No, it doesn't.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This argument is always ridiculous. So what if cars take up space? Think of all the space that houses take up compared to the people inside them. Does that mean everyone should live in dormitory towers? No, it doesn't.


I note you have been busy in the twitter comments too.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I note you have been busy in the twitter comments too.
> 
> View attachment 297747



It’s no surprise to see other people invoking the same comparison, because it’s so valid that no one ever has any response to it other than stuff like “oh that’s not the same” or “more whataboutery”, or, as is the case here, people revealing that they don’t know what a dichotomy is.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2021)

Well, if we were letting everybody build these houses wherever they wanted on public land you might have a point.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It’s no surprise to see other people invoking the same comparison, because it’s so valid that no one ever has any response to it other than stuff like “oh that’s not the same” or “more whataboutery”, or, as is the case here, people revealing that they don’t know what a dichotomy is.


If the amount of space that stuff takes up - whether it's transport or housing - doesn't matter, I wonder why people like you get into such a fret about road space being used up by cycle lanes?

It's because you want rich people who can afford to buy cars and land to have loads of space while everyone else is crammed into what's left over, because that's what they deserve for not working hard enough.

Of course you don't want poor people to get too close to you - that's why you drive a giant, aggressively designed vehicle, want all roads to be motorways, and probably put electrified security fencing around your acres of land.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If the amount of space that stuff takes up - whether it's transport or housing - doesn't matter, I wonder why people like you get into such a fret about road space being used up by cycle lanes?
> 
> It's because you want rich people who can afford to buy cars and land to have loads of space while everyone else is crammed into what's left over, because that's what they deserve for not working hard enough.
> 
> Of course you don't want poor people to get too close to you - that's why you drive a giant, aggressively designed vehicle, want all roads to be motorways, and probably put electrified security fencing around your acres of land.



Cyclists take up more space than a car though, so it's no surprise that they're usually wealthy tech-types etc. Car drivers are far more reflective of the general population - mostly working class.

Look at the space being occupied by this massive saloon car compared to the space required by the cyclist:


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

The annotation is incorrect. The version below correctly shows the space that is needed for a cyclist, and the additional space that is needed to introduce a car that is impatient and wants to overtake the cyclist. Of course, even if the car didn't want to overtake, it would still need more space.

Note also that a policeman also takes up as much space as a cyclist. So in your world, you'd also ban policemen, which would suit you fine, because why should your taxes be used to fund the police when you have already paid for your own security guards patrolling your massive property (which is even bigger since you bought up the adjacent social housing and had it demolished)?



But in any case, you say that the amount of space stuff takes up doesn't matter. So it's a bit silly to then launch into a complaint about one type of vehicle needing more space than another.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> This argument is always ridiculous. So what if cars take up space? Think of all the space that houses take up compared to the people inside them. Does that mean everyone should live in dormitory towers? No, it doesn't.



You _actually watched_ a video that Teuchter posted????


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The annotation is incorrect. The version below correctly shows the space that is needed for a cyclist, and the additional space that is needed to introduce a car that is impatient and wants to overtake the cyclist. Of course, even if the car didn't want to overtake, it would still need more space.
> 
> Note also that a policeman also takes up as much space as a cyclist. So in your world, you'd also ban policemen, which would suit you fine, because why should your taxes be used to fund the police when you have already paid for your own security guards patrolling your massive property (which is even bigger since you bought up the adjacent social housing and had it demolished)?
> 
> ...


so which gap would you suggest a cyclist take to pass through that line of cop car, cop and cyclist who seem to be unreasonably blocking the way?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

I think someone arguing that bikes use more space than cars is peak this thread.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 22, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think someone arguing that bikes use more space than cars is peak this thread.


Nah, it was the "motorist restrictions are ethnic cleansing" bit.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


>




This is because privately owned turnpike roads weren’t very popular.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 22, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


>




As you’d expect. Most residential streets are served by a road which is obviously going to take up as much land as the houses on it. The most densely populated areas like London have a lot of flats and tall residential buildings so take up less ground space. Ben Southwood is very easily excited.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The annotation is incorrect. The version below correctly shows the space that is needed for a cyclist, and the additional space that is needed to introduce a car that is impatient and wants to overtake the cyclist. Of course, even if the car didn't want to overtake, it would still need more space.
> 
> Note also that a policeman also takes up as much space as a cyclist. So in your world, you'd also ban policemen, which would suit you fine, because why should your taxes be used to fund the police when you have already paid for your own security guards patrolling your massive property (which is even bigger since you bought up the adjacent social housing and had it demolished)?
> 
> ...



If you want to take context into account, a cyclist who isn’t being overtaken by cars but followed by them is occupying all the space ahead of them on the road that cars could have been in had they overtaken. 

Sure, I don’t mind how much space different things take up in cities, but it’s a favourite trope of cyclofanatics which often goes unchallenged, so it needs to be called out.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, I don’t mind how much space different things take up in cities,


Yes you do, as evidenced by your getting all worked up about cycle lanes.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes you do, as evidenced by your getting all worked up about cycle lanes.



My only working-up about cycle lanes is in relation to them making roads more dangerous for cyclists.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Most residential streets are served by a road which is obviously going to take up as much land as the houses on it.


Nonsense.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> My only working-up about badly designed cycle lanes that are nothing more than a bit of paint is in relation to them making roads more dangerous for cyclists.


Fixed for you


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fixed for you



Well yeah, although we have supposedly kerb-segregated cycle lanes near here that are just as bad.

The main thing cyclists need is space.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nonsense.


Not


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Well yeah, although we have supposedly kerb-segregated cycle lanes near here that are just as bad.
> 
> The main thing cyclists need is space.


What we all need is a better use of space. Which means taking a lot of it away from cars.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> My only working-up about cycle lanes is in relation to them making roads more dangerous for cyclists.




Here we see a cycle lane put to its proper use, free parking.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 22, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The main thing cyclists need is space.



That's far from the main thing they need.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 22, 2021)

Man on probation for trying to run over his wife drives his SUV through a Christmas parade, killing 5 and injuring 40.









						November 22 2021: Wisconsin parade turns deadly
					

At least five people were killed and more than 40 were injured when an SUV plowed into a Christmas parade Sunday in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Follow here for the latest.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## T & P (Nov 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That's far from the main thing they need.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 22, 2021)

Self-entitled  recreational cyclists causing problems again:









						New Forest pony drifts hampered by abusive cyclists, disobedient walkers and poor fencing
					

ABUSIVE cyclists, unmaintained fencing and disobedient walkers are just some of the issues agisters faced during the annual pony drifts this year.




					www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk


----------



## David Clapson (Nov 23, 2021)

Gun control would never stop the massacres in the US. Cars are just as good as weapons. Remember the Nice truck attack? 86 dead. More than any US shooting.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Self-entitled  recreational cyclists causing problems again:
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Drivers showing 'lack of compassion' after foal killed in New Forest
					

'Soon it's going to be a cyclist, a walker, or another car driver'




					www.hampshirelive.news


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 23, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Gun control would never stop the massacres in the US. Cars are just as good as weapons. Remember the Nice truck attack? 86 dead. More than any US shooting.


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 23, 2021)

David Clapson said:


> Gun control would never stop the massacres in the US. Cars are just as good as weapons. Remember the Nice truck attack? 86 dead. More than any US shooting.


By that logic we would ban pillows to stop people from being suffocated by them


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> By that logic we would ban pillows to stop people from being suffocated by them


What logic is that again?


----------



## MickiQ (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What logic is that again?


Ban something because people use it to kill other people


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Ban something because people use it to kill other people


I must have missed where such a logic was being advocated.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 23, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

Watching the latest Bond film last night and considering it in the context of its predecessors I noted that although casual sexism and racism are now largely acknowledged as being unacceptable, glamorising aggressive and reckless driving still seems to be fine.

Looking forward to a future where things like car chases (and car use in general) are depicted in a realistic manner which means showing things like pedestrians and others being killed or disabled for life as a result. And portrayed as selfish rather than heroic actions. We will look back in disgust at films from the current era just as we now cringe at (for example) uncritical depictions of misogynistic behaviour in films from only a few decades ago.

Everyone will agree with me on this I'm sure.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Watching the latest Bond film last night and considering it in the context of its predecessors I noted that although casual sexism and racism are now largely acknowledged as being unacceptable, glamorising aggressive and reckless driving still seems to be fine.
> 
> Looking forward to a future where things like car chases (and car use in general) are depicted in a realistic manner which means showing things like pedestrians and others being killed or disabled for life as a result. And portrayed as selfish rather than heroic actions. We will look back in disgust at films from the current era just as we now cringe at (for example) uncritical depictions of misogynistic behaviour in films from only a few decades ago.
> 
> Everyone will agree with me on this I'm sure.


The thing is, in the context of the narrative the reckless car use was entirely justified (whereas Bond's previous sexism and racism weren't).  Had Bond been on a pushbike he'd have been caught and killed, and the plot to commit genocide wouldn't have been disrupted.

Why do you support genocide?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

Athos said:


> The thing is, in the context of the narrative the reckless car use was entirely justified (whereas Bond's previous sexism and racism weren't).  Had Bond been on a pushbike he'd have been caught and killed, and the plot to commit genocide wouldn't have been disrupted.
> 
> Why do you support genocide?


I think you've misunderstood quite a lot. James Bond films aren't a depiction of real life events, but are entirely fictional. This means that the writers and directors can make choices about how they portray certain things. As you say, aggressive and reckless driving is portrayed as necessary to stop genocide, and furthermore it is portrayed as something without much collateral damage aside for some dead "bad" people.

They could have chosen to portray responsible and careful cycling, or walking, as necessary to stop world genocide, but they didn't.

Pretty tasteless to use worldwide genocide as an excuse to justify racing some cars around, don't you think?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> James Bond films aren't a depiction of real life events, but are entirely fictional.



Bollocks.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think you've misunderstood quite a lot. James Bond films aren't a depiction of real life events, but are entirely fictional. This means that the writers and directors can make choices about how they portray certain things. As you say, aggressive and reckless driving is portrayed as necessary to stop genocide, and furthermore it is portrayed as something without much collateral damage aside for some dead "bad" people.
> 
> They could have chosen to portray responsible and careful cycling, or walking, as necessary to stop world genocide, but they didn't.
> 
> Pretty tasteless to use worldwide genocide as an excuse to justify racing some cars around, don't you think?


Whilst you're right that Bond is fictional, the writers no doubt understand that it would stretch the bounds of credibility to suggest that a middle-aged man on a bike would have the wherewithal to prevent an atrocity (other than by eschewing lycra).


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

Athos said:


> Whilst you're right that Bond is fictional, the writers no doubt understand that it would stretch the bounds of credibility to suggest that a middle-aged man on a bike would have the wherewithal to prevent an atrocity (other than by eschewing lycra).


I see that you are stuck in the mindset that not only are dangerously driven cars necessary to prevent atrocities, but so are middle aged men.

Fortunately we can reasonably hope that people like you will not be determining film narratives 30 or 50 years from now, which will instead recognise that 99% of atrocities are carried out by middle aged men who own cars, just like certain posters on this thread.

In fact I predict that this thread itself will one day be made into a film.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2021)

A horror one.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2021)

Carry On Trolling.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 23, 2021)

Good teuchter - don’t go after Bond. He’ll be 2nd only to Clarkson as these guys’ idol.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 23, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Carry On Trolling.


Well we all have been for over 200 pages now, might as well keep going.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I see that you are stuck in the mindset that not only are dangerously driven cars necessary to prevent atrocities, but so are middle aged men.
> 
> Fortunately we can reasonably hope that people like you will not be determining film narratives 30 or 50 years from now, which will instead recognise that 99% of atrocities are carried out by middle aged men who own cars, just like certain posters on this thread.
> 
> In fact I predict that this thread itself will one day be made into a film.


A poor man's '_Dumb and Dumber_', staring you as both the eponymous characters.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 23, 2021)

Just reading about the horrible parking murders in Taunton. Planners obviously guilty of trying to restrict car ownership through denying parking provision in the absence of alternative transport:

“Residents on the private estate, which was built seven years ago, said disputes over parking are common because of narrow roads and the lack of parking space…‘Generally, everybody has issues with parking around here. These are new built houses which only come with one parking space each. But many people have more than one car because the public transport in this area is not good. There are always issues between neighbours about cars blocking their drives or parked outside their homes. It’s a real nuisance issue on this estate. Overall, it’s a lovely area but people can get quite intense and angry about parking.’”

How about designing new-build estates for how people want to live, not how planners think they ought to be living? If you want households to have only one car, achieve that first before you start designing the place.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Just reading about the horrible parking murders in Taunton. Planners obviously guilty of trying to restrict car ownership through denying parking provision in the absence of alternative transport:
> 
> “Residents on the private estate, which was built seven years ago, said disputes over parking are common because of narrow roads and the lack of parking space…‘Generally, everybody has issues with parking around here. These are new built houses which only come with one parking space each. But many people have more than one car because the public transport in this area is not good. There are always issues between neighbours about cars blocking their drives or parked outside their homes. It’s a real nuisance issue on this estate. Overall, it’s a lovely area but people can get quite intense and angry about parking.’”
> 
> How about designing new-build estates for how people want to live, not how planners think they ought to be living? If you want households to have only one car, achieve that first before you start designing the place.



Fuck me - your take about some murders is that the planners are at fault! This thread’s finally jumped the shark.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Just reading about the horrible parking murders in Taunton. Planners obviously guilty of trying to restrict car ownership through denying parking provision in the absence of alternative transport:
> 
> “Residents on the private estate, which was built seven years ago, said disputes over parking are common because of narrow roads and the lack of parking space…‘Generally, everybody has issues with parking around here. These are new built houses which only come with one parking space each. But many people have more than one car because the public transport in this area is not good. There are always issues between neighbours about cars blocking their drives or parked outside their homes. It’s a real nuisance issue on this estate. Overall, it’s a lovely area but people can get quite intense and angry about parking.’”
> 
> How about designing new-build estates for how people want to live, not how planners think they ought to be living? If you want households to have only one car, achieve that first before you start designing the place.


Or maybe people learn that they can’t always park right outside their home and occasionally have to - gasp - walk a bit.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 23, 2021)

Seriously - justifying murder over parking! WTAF!!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 23, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Just reading about the horrible parking murders in Taunton. Planners obviously guilty of trying to restrict car ownership through denying parking provision in the absence of alternative transport:



Not Taunton, but the village of Norton Fitzwarren, I have friends that live there, that knew this couple, mind you with a population of about 3,000, most people know everyone in the village.

Putting that to one side, I still think you have gone too far with this post.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Looking forward to a future where things like car chases (and car use in general) are depicted in a realistic manner which means showing things like pedestrians and others being killed or disabled for life as a result.


This has been done, hasn’t it?  I’m sure I remember seeing it in a film.  It may have been Austin Powers, although I suspect I’m conflating it there with the dead henchman scene.  There’s definitely something that shows the consequences for the general public in the aftermath of the hero’s chase scene.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2021)

This is a good and socially responsible suggestion. The potential real-life risks to pedestrians posed by car chases have for too long been ignored by the scriptwriters of fictional spy and crime action thrillers, and it’s high time the crucially important message of road safety and the consequences of reckless driving is written in on all future films of the genre. Because even hardened criminals or supervillains bent on world destruction and the pursuing government agents trying to stop them should be expected to slow down in built up areas and stick to the 20 mph limit.

It shouldn’t be limited to car chases either. It’s appalling how the Star Wars franchise constantly features spaceships and planets alike being blown up without any concern for the ever growing problem of space debris. No wonder the Russians have come to think it’s okay to destroy satellites in weapon tests and put the ISS crew at risk.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2021)

In Spectre we see 007 kindly restricting his humanity saving car chasing activities to the nighttime when there are fewer people on the streets. It is important to note that he is being chased rather than being the chaser and at some point teuchter makes a cameo fucking about in a Fiat 500, the acknowledgement of which is why he started this thread in the first place.

I prefer it when he does plane chases though, worse for the environment and potential for collateral damage is much higher.


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In Spectre we see 007 kindly restricting his humanity saving car chasing activities to the nighttime when there are fewer people on the streets. It is important to note that he is being chased rather than being the chaser and at some point teuchter makes a cameo fucking about in a Fiat 500.
> 
> I prefer it when he does plane chaws though, worse for the environment and potential for collateral damage is much higher.


You monster. I for one hope all future James Bond films show him travelling to Vauxhall by Tube or bus. There’s also a Boris bike station not 50 metres away from the MI6 building’s fron entrance. I’m sure the UK’s top agent will be fit enough to  manage a bike ride.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2021)

T & P said:


> You monster. I for one hope all future James Bond films show him travelling to Vauxhall by Tube or bus.




Skyfall sees him utilising the London Underground only for a train be used by a terrorist to kill many, many people. Death machines that they are. No official Remembrance Day for those killed by train crashes, demonstrates the inability to display empathy of the public transport crowd.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

Now I'm going to just post this and then you can all post some further nonsense in response.









						'Fast and the Furious' Movies Linked to People Driving Recklessly
					

Life imitates art.




					www.vice.com


----------



## T & P (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now I'm going to just post this and then you can all post some further nonsense in response.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Films which very premise centres around the glorification of fast cars and illegal car racing are a rather different proposition to spy or crime thrillers that might happen to feature a car chase, as you and anyone else capable of tying their own shoelaces fully realise. Come on, you can do better than this.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2021)

T & P said:


> Films which very premise centres around the glorification of fast cars and illegal car racing are a rather different proposition to spy or crime thrillers that might happen to feature a car chase, as you and anyone else capable of tying their own shoelaces fully realise. Come on, you can do better than this.


Why don't you want fast cars and illegal car racing to be glorified?


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I see that you are stuck in the mindset that not only are dangerously driven cars necessary to prevent atrocities, but so are middle aged men.
> 
> Fortunately we can reasonably hope that people like you will not be determining film narratives 30 or 50 years from now, which will instead recognise that 99% of atrocities are carried out by middle aged men who own cars, just like certain posters on this thread.
> 
> In fact I predict that this thread itself will one day be made into a film.



If you were being held captive at gun point in your home and somehow you managed to contact the police...
Would you rather..

1. They arrived in their fast car within 5 to 10 minutes..
2. Rocked up on their push bikes   hours later.

Speed sometimes requires a car


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> If you were being held captive at gun point in your home and somehow you managed to contact the police...
> Would you rather..
> 
> 1. They arrived in their fast car within 5 to 10 minutes..
> ...



Are you being held at gun point because you got into an argument about parking with a neighbour?


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are you being held at gun point because you got into an argument about parking with a neighbour?



Are you?


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 24, 2021)

As their children, ages 5 and 6, slept upstairs, they were stabbed to death by people upset about parking.









						Somerset couple stabbed to death as young children slept upstairs
					

Two arrested as neighbours say there had been disputes about parking in area




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> As their children, ages 5 and 6, slept upstairs, they were stabbed to death by people upset about parking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's fucking horrific - and the fact that platinumsage used it to try and make some bizarre argument is 🤮


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It's fucking horrific - and the fact that platinumsage used it to try and make some bizarre argument is 🤮



<cough>



edcraw said:


> Are you being held at gun point because you got into an argument about parking with a neighbour?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

It was inevitable it would be raised on this thread, so I thought I'd mention it first to forestall the shameful nonsense that others would have made out of it, so you should thank me for that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> <cough>




Blazing hypocrisy, whatever next? In Ed's case it is understandable, he was posting from his phone whilst at a red light in his RR Sport, so it was naturally a rash post.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> <cough>


Way to miss the point. Apparently violence is justifable if its about parking 🙄


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Way to miss the point. Apparently violence is justifable if its about parking 🙄



I'd leave it.  Whether its intentional or not its all very crass that this is even being raised on this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)




----------



## Ax^ (Nov 24, 2021)

kabbes said:


> This has been done, hasn’t it?  I’m sure I remember seeing it in a film.  It may have been Austin Powers, although I suspect I’m conflating it there with the dead henchman scene.  There’s definitely something that shows the consequences for the general public in the aftermath of the hero’s chase scene.


 death race 2000 came out in the 70s and is pretty much about running over pedestrians


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fuck me - your take about some murders is that the planners are at fault! This thread’s finally jumped the shark.


No Prescott. It was his policy....reduce the number of cars on the road by making it difficult to be a 2 car household. And yes they were murdered over a parking space.

Without improving public transport, it was a bad policy.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

gosub said:


> No Prescott. It was his policy....reduce the number of cars on the road by making it difficult to be a 2 car household. And yes they were murdered over a parking space.
> 
> Without improving public transport, it was a bad policy.


Apart from you seeming to make excuses for murder - where is this policy?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

Depending on when the development was built, it might have been what was called "PPG3" which was national guidance and said that on average no more than 1.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling should be provided in new developments.

You can see that this particular development has some houses with one parking space and some with two.

That guidance didn't preclude the provision of on-street parking. So that would be at the discretion of the developer, I think. Obviously the more parking you provide the fewer (or smaller) houses you can have.

That PPG3 guidance was replaced by the NPPF about ten years ago. I think that it became less prescriptive and leaves it more up to local councils to decide whether they want to prescribe maximum amounts of off street parking. So you would have to look at what the local planning policies say, or said at time of development.


----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Apart from you seeming to make excuses for murder - where is this policy?


I think its PPG13 (which the ConDem's scrapped in 2012.

edited to add Beaten to it. But it was Prescott


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

This is the result of hasty googling and therefore I might have got a superceded document but it looks like this is their local plan policy.





__





						Loading…
					





					www.somersetwestandtaunton.gov.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

Yes, each planning authority sets their own policy or policies, rather than leaving it up to the developers.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

It’s all new build so how about if you don’t have room for the car live somewhere else or don’t have it rather than killing people.

Here’s the estate - if this doesn’t have enough parking god help us.



I note that this topic is even too low for Saul & Spy to get involved with.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s all new build so how about if you don’t have room for the car live somewhere else or don’t have it rather than killing people.
> 
> Here’s the estate - if this doesn’t have enough parking god help us.
> 
> ...



But not for you seemingly. 

Speaking in general terms, as I did earlier and unlike you who seem keen on screenshots of the victims' house - if a family are living in a house with only one parking space their circumstances can change so that they both require a car to get to work for example (e.g. perhaps a bus route is changed). The fact planners expect such people to be unemployed or move house is pretty pathetic.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> if a family are living in a house with only one parking space their circumstances can change so that they both require a car to get to work for example it’s okay to murder their neighbours to get their space


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)




----------



## gosub (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s all new build so how about if you don’t have room for the car live somewhere else or don’t have it rather than killing people.
> 
> Here’s the estate - if this doesn’t have enough parking god help us.
> 
> ...


I suspect it was the couple would used his space (and while not sure of the assalents personal circumstances ) if he'd been in a relationship his other half might have stopped doing something so tragically insane.

Either way the help to buy mortgages type stuff can only be taken out on new builds so may well have had no options


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


>


Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?

It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?
> 
> It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.



I did nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you’re persistently bringing up the details of the case on this thread and messing with quotes etc to engage in some sort of banter, perhaps you should take a look at yourself because it’s not funny.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, what's the point you're trying to make?
> 
> It seems you're using a double murder to further some issue you have with planning permissions.



Fucking around with quotes is both fucking sad, and against the rules.

Grow the fuck up.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I did nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you’re persistently bringing up the details of the case on this thread and messing with quotes etc to engage in some sort of banter, perhaps you should take a look at yourself because it’s not funny.


Okay, what point are you making by bringing up this case?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I note that this topic is even too low for Saul & Spy to get involved with.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> But not for you seemingly.
> 
> Speaking in general terms, as I did earlier and unlike you who seem keen on screenshots of the victims' house - if a family are living in a house with only one parking space their circumstances can change so that they both require a car to get to work for example (e.g. perhaps a bus route is changed). The fact planners expect such people to be unemployed or move house is pretty pathetic.


Why such a different approach to number of dedicated parking spaces than, say, number of bedrooms?

But in any case it looks like there's loads of on street parking a few minutes walk away.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why such a different approach to number of dedicated parking spaces than, say, number of bedrooms?
> 
> But in any case it looks like there's loads of on street parking a few minutes walk away.



I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.


The average number of cars per household in the UK is 1.2. Here they specify a maximum average of 1.5 dedicated spaces per household. If someone buys a house with one dedicated parking space, and then find they need a second car, parking that car immediately at their front door is not necessary for their survival, nor does having to walk a short distance to their second car mean that they have to move house. So what's the problem exactly?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I’m not aware that any planning departments seek to limit the size of families by specifying a maximum number of bedrooms that is well below that required by the average family.


your awareness of things isn't the criterion here


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The average number of cars per household in the UK is 1.2. Here they specify a maximum average of 1.5 dedicated spaces per household. If someone buys a house with one dedicated parking space, and then find they need a second car, parking that car immediately at their front door is not necessary for their survival, nor does having to walk a short distance to their second car mean that they have to move house. So what's the problem exactly?



You think new-build estates should have the number of parking spaces restricted to such an extent that people park in surrounding streets? That would be a policy with no benefit and numerous negative effects.

Using your bedrooms analogy, the average household size is 2.39, so three-bedroom houses would be banned. Should couples with more than one child make them sleep in a tent in a nearby park?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You think new-build estates should have the number of parking spaces restricted to such an extent that people park in surrounding streets? That would be a policy with no benefit and numerous negative effects.


If people park in large numbers in surrounding streets in areas which already have high parking pressure yes this could be a problem. However, if you provide a development that provides a level of dedicated parking that is broadly in line with the average level of car ownership, then the overflow to surrounding streets is likely to be modest and not especially problematic. In this case, looking at Google streetview would appear to confirm this.

Making it slightly inconvenient but not impossible for people who buy a house with one dedicated parking space, to own an additional car, has benefits in providing a disincentive to own more cars than is really necessary.

It is also an alternative to the negative effects of policy which simply provides as much dedicated parking as the free market dictates, which creates sprawling suburban development that makes public transport even more feasible, and disadvantages those who don't have the option of owning a car.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Using your bedrooms analogy, the average household size is 2.39, so three-bedroom houses would be banned. Should couples with more than one child make them sleep in a tent in a nearby park?



Under your free market approach to planning policy, we would not have any planning policy on dwelling size mix, which in many places seeks to retain houses suitable for family occupation, because the most profitable dwelling sizes for developers are often one and two bed flats. So, you'd have families squashed into undersized properties or barred from areas popular with demographics looking for small flats.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 24, 2021)

Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces.  They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.

You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces.  They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.
> 
> You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.



You should pay heed to what Teaboy says teuchter


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> Under a free market approach there is no way volume house builders would waste space on additional parking spaces.  They are far too savvy for that and know full well how to maximise their capital return and parking spaces are most certainly not it.
> 
> You do get small scale developers (plots of 10 homes and below) who seem to think every house needs space for 4 cars but these are rare and reflect the personality of the small scale developer mostly.


The economics will depend completely on the locality surely. If there are no scenarios where developers were inclined to provide 2 or more parking places per dwelling, why do we have planning policies which state maximums per dwelling?


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The economics will depend completely on the locality surely. If there are no scenarios where developers were inclined to provide 2 or more parking places per dwelling, why do we have planning policies which state maximums per dwelling?



The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all.  It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all.  It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.





Teuchter completely on the ropes here


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

Teaboy said:


> The locality is of course important but planning laws have to apply to all.  It's those smaller developers and historical issues rather than what the likes of Persimmon are building these days.


Not sure what your point is. There are scenarios where I'm sure developers would provide 2 or more places per dwelling given free reign, and there are scenarios where they wouldn't. Which category this development in Taunton would fall into, I don't know. In any case this all started with platinumsage saying that the problems there spring from planners failing to allow people to have as much parking as they want.

Also, planning policy has to apply to all but is frequently different according to the location, especially as far as things like parking provision are concerned.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 25, 2021)

What a load of bollocks ^. just what we expect from edcraw.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2021)

It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.

I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.
> 
> I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.


Teaboy was right and you were wrong.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.
> 
> I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.



Your endorsement just confirms it's bollocks.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's not - that's quite an accurate description of what it's like when you are with car people, even if it's an American version.
> 
> I guess car people don't realise what their lives look like from the outside.



Try re-running it when the car-free rural farmer is trying to get to A&E, or the car-free urban pedestrian is trying to take their child to a forest camp.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> What a load of bollocks ^. just what we expect from edcraw.



Amazing take down, really well put.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Your endorsement just confirms it's bollocks.



Another excellent explanation, great stuff 👏


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 25, 2021)

I can see why edcraw doesn't use cars.  
Nobody would want to share a ride with him.
He's a total absolute bore.
Good lord..I mean I bet he whinges to other passengers on the bus as he sticks his tongue out at the drivers.  Probably banned to the back seat.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> I can see why edcraw doesn't use cars.
> Nobody would want to share a ride with him.
> He's a total absolute bore.
> Good lord..I mean I bet he whinges to other passengers on the bus as he sticks his tongue out at the drivers.  Probably banned to the back seat.



From what I see most people using cars aren’t sharing a ride so I should be okay 👍


----------



## Aladdin (Nov 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> From what I see most people using cars aren’t sharing a ride so I should be okay 👍



So you'd drive solo?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Try re-running it when the car-free rural farmer is trying to get to A&E, or the car-free urban pedestrian is trying to take their child to a forest camp.



It’s just constant ambulance trips with you - what a dramatic life you must leave!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 26, 2021)

This thread’s fucking boring now. It’s shit when me and Saul don’t post on it. It has no value other than as our plaything.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2021)

Nonsense. Even the German government has been reading the thread and has decided to change its spending priorities as a result.









						‘New era’ as German coalition prioritises rail spending over road
					

GERMANY: The so-called 'traffic light coalition' formed by the Social Democratic, Green and Free Democratic parties as the next federal government has committed to launching a 'Rapid Capacity Expansion' to enhance railway infrastructure as part of its wider transport strategy.




					www.railwaygazette.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This thread’s fucking boring now. It’s shit when me and Saul don’t post on it. It has no value other than as our plaything.


ahhhhh, you have a little gang of groupies, how cute 🤗


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Nonsense. Even the German government has been reading the thread and has decided to change its spending priorities as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I note the €3 billion annual budget for their little plan dwarfs the €64 billion annual rail investment that was in the latest UK government budget. If the supposedly car-loving Tories can invest 20 times more than the Germans in railway improvement, perhaps you should think about which of the two countries has a government entirely beholden to lobbying by the car manufacturers.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 26, 2021)

It does look like a sop to the Greens.

Germany has been an environmental basket case for quite a few years now.  Its gone way past the time for words, I'll believe it when I see it with German governments.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> ahhhhh, you have a little gang of groupies, how cute 🤗
> 
> View attachment 298219


They’re not fans of mine; they just don’t like you.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I note the €3 billion annual budget for their little plan dwarfs the €64 billion annual rail investment that was in the latest UK government budget. If the supposedly car-loving Tories can invest 20 times more than the Germans in railway improvement, perhaps you should think about which of the two countries has a government entirely beholden to lobbying by the car manufacturers.



A bit silly to take Germany as the benchmark for what's reasonable in terms of placating car manufacturers. But your numbers are wrong anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 26, 2021)

Well, at least there was some good news today with the oil price falling by 10%, which will soon give motorists some much-needed relief at the pumps.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Well, at least there was some good news today with the oil price falling by 10%, which will soon give motorists some much-needed relief at the pumps.


Will be interesting to see if it filters down, and how long that takes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 26, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Well, at least there was some good news today with the oil price falling by 10%, which will soon give motorists some much-needed relief at the pumps.


Let’s hope not


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2021)

Lambeth councillor telling it like it is!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lambeth councillor telling it like it is!




It's a typo. 

He typed "cars" instead of _edcraw_.


----------



## T & P (Nov 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's a typo.
> 
> He typed "cars" instead of _edcraw_.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 27, 2021)

Lots of justified outrage to this advert from TfL. I’m sure one side here won’t understand why though if they actually watch it rather than post animal scat.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 27, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Nov 27, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Nov 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lots of justified outrage to this advert from TfL. I’m sure one side here won’t understand why though if they actually watch it rather than post animal scat.




It means that the type of people who fill in surveys are the type of people who like to complain about others. Sounds about right.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 27, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It means that the type of people who fill in surveys are the type of people who like to complain about others. Sounds about right.



You actually watched it?


----------



## T & P (Nov 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lots of justified outrage to this advert from TfL. I’m sure one side here won’t understand why though if they actually watch it rather than post animal scat.



Pedestrians will certainly constitute the bulk of those quick to diss road users but not see themselves as ever being in the wrong. Which is ironic, given that proportionally speaking they’re by far the most irresponsible, reckless and useless type of road user of them all.

I wonder how many of them ever realise that they put their lives in danger needlessly tens of times every single day, and it’s only through the extra cautious and diligent behaviour of the very wheeled road users they resent so much that they don’t get hit on a daily basis.

As a biker I experience behaviour like that displayed in the video below on a daily basis. For what is worth the video’s author can sometimes be travelling too fast, which I don’t, but it doesn’t retract from the fact that how extraordinarily idiotic and reckless most peds in the video are, regardless of what people think the UK Highway Code might allow them to do.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2021)

T & P said:


> Pedestrians will certainly constitute the bulk of those quick to diss road users but not see themselves as ever being in the wrong. Which is ironic, given that proportionally speaking they’re by far the most irresponsible, reckless and useless type of road user of them all.
> 
> I wonder how many of them ever realise that they put their lives in danger needlessly tens of times every single day, and it’s only through the extra cautious and diligent behaviour of the very wheeled road users they resent so much that they don’t get hit on a daily basis.
> 
> As a biker I experience behaviour like that displayed in the video below on a daily basis. For what is worth the video’s author can sometimes be travelling too fast, which I don’t, but it doesn’t retract from the fact that how extraordinarily idiotic and reckless most peds in the video are, regardless of what people think the UK Highway Code might allow them to do.



Just as a reminder, you typed out this rubbish virtually verbatim about a hundred times already on this thread.

It's either this one about pedestrians or the one where you go on about how people who want to reduce societal car dependency are hypocrites when they have to use a car as a result of societal car dependency.


----------



## T & P (Nov 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Just as a reminder, you typed out this rubbish virtually verbatim about a hundred times already on this thread.
> 
> It's either this one about pedestrians or the one where you go on about how people who want to reduce societal car dependency are hypocrites when they have to use a car as a result of societal car dependency.


I thought this thread was all about rubbish and repetition…  . There have certainly been hundreds if not thousands of posts ITT of individual cases of driver misbehaviour that have fuck all to do with any argument against cars, but you don’t seem to have a problem about those.

Interesting that you don’t even attempt to dispute that a great many pedestrians behave recklessly on a constant basis.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's either this one about pedestrians or the one where you go on about how people who want to reduce societal car dependency are hypocrites when they have to use a car as a result of societal car dependency.



They are though. May as well warn about climate change and use your private jet to get to your private yacht.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 27, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> You actually watched it?



Why would I do that


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2021)

T & P said:


> I thought this thread was all about rubbish and repetition…  . There have certainly been hundreds if not thousands of posts ITT of individual cases of driver misbehaviour that have fuck all to do with any argument against cars, but you don’t seem to have a problem about those.
> 
> Interesting that you don’t even attempt to dispute that a great many pedestrians behave recklessly on a constant basis.


Any pedestrian behaving recklessly is engaging in a selfless act: putting themselves in danger but contributing positively to an overall level of road safety that all can benefit from (even car drivers).


----------



## T & P (Nov 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Any pedestrian behaving recklessly is engaging in a selfless act: putting themselves in danger but contributing positively to an overall level of road safety that all can benefit from (even car drivers).


One or two pages ago there was a brief discussion about which post might have been the peak of the thread. I think we have a new winner here


----------



## edcraw (Nov 28, 2021)

T & P said:


> Pedestrians will certainly constitute the bulk of those quick to diss road users but not see themselves as ever being in the wrong. Which is ironic, given that proportionally speaking they’re by far the most irresponsible, reckless and useless type of road user of them all.
> 
> I wonder how many of them ever realise that they put their lives in danger needlessly tens of times every single day, and it’s only through the extra cautious and diligent behaviour of the very wheeled road users they resent so much that they don’t get hit on a daily basis.
> 
> As a biker I experience behaviour like that displayed in the video below on a daily basis. For what is worth the video’s author can sometimes be travelling too fast, which I don’t, but it doesn’t retract from the fact that how extraordinarily idiotic and reckless most peds in the video are, regardless of what people think the UK Highway Code might allow them to do.




Your video is a great example of why Oxford St & Regent St should allow buses only or be pedestrianised. Thousands of shoppers in those videos and an aggressive motorcyclists is just cutting through the area and is given priority over them. Westminster council needs to grow some balls and do something about this but as it’s the Tories so there’re too scared of a few wealthy residents.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lots of justified outrage to this advert from TfL. I’m sure one side here won’t understand why though if they actually watch it rather than post animal scat.





The road users being referred to are cyclists.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Your video is a great example of why Oxford St & Regent St should allow buses only or be pedestrianised. Thousands of shoppers in those videos and an aggressive motorcyclists is just cutting through the area and is given priority over them. Westminster council needs to grow some balls and do something about this but as it’s the Tories so there’re too scared of a few wealthy residents.



More pedestrians are killed by buses than motorbikes, so not sure why you'd rather permit buses than motorbikes, unless you enjoy seeing pedestrians die.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> More pedestrians are killed by buses than motorbikes


Per mile?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Per mile?



Yes, London is also especially good at using buses to kill pedestrians:





__





						London’s poor position of pedestrian deaths from buses on international benchmark
					

The data provided in your response to Question 2020/3828 shows TfL in the bottom half of its World City benchmark for pedestrian deaths from bus collisions and with a higher deaths per km than about 60% of its World City Peers. Does this result further confirm that the World Leading Bus Safety...




					www.london.gov.uk


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 28, 2021)

Big red death machines.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

I'm convinced. Buses are incredibly dangerous, and anything more dangerous than buses should be outlawed.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm convinced. Buses are incredibly dangerous, and anything more dangerous than buses should be outlawed.
> 
> View attachment 298549



The question was whether they were more dangerous to pedestrians than motorbikes, an important consideration when proposing that motorbikes should be banned from Oxford Street but that buses should not. Well, important if you care about pedestrians not dying.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

Looking at the stats for motorbikes we should encourage as much motorbiking as possible as it looks like that will eventually solve itself.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> The question


Yes but you've really helped with some broader questions too. Thank you.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Looking at the stats for motorbikes we should encourage as much motorbiking as possible as it looks like that will eventually solve itself.



The same applies to bicycles and pedestrians. It would be safest if everyone drove everywhere in their car. We already know this.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> It would be safest if everyone drove everywhere in their car.


I like this. Maybe big cars that can carry between 40 and 80 people at once.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I like this. Maybe big cars that can carry between 40 and 80 people at once.



Yes, although you'd have to ban pedestrians otherwise there would be carnage.


----------



## T & P (Nov 28, 2021)

It’s almost as if the large proportion of London’s pedestrians behaving irresponsibly could have something to do with their being injured or killed by buses and other vehicles more often than in cities where pedestrians perform the basic function of looking before crossing…


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 28, 2021)

Create massive zones just for them. Call it walker-isation or something like that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 28, 2021)

I’m not saying _all_ BMW drivers are thick as mince, but the evidence does keep presenting itself


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m not saying _all_ BMW drivers are thick as mince, but the evidence does keep presenting itself
> 
> View attachment 298614



Not much point adding more grip to the driven wheels if you don't have enough grip to steer is there?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 29, 2021)

This is what happens when people get it into their heads you should cycle everywhere.

A thread of dangerous and foolish cyclists delighting in how they endanger themselves and others:


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 29, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m not saying _all_ BMW drivers are thick as mince, but the evidence does keep presenting itself
> 
> View attachment 298614


edcraw drives a Beamer ! 

Who knew? 😂


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 29, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> A thread of dangerous and foolish cyclists delighting in how they endanger themselves and others:



Crazy, we've all seen how often cars slam into trees when they're not on the road, this really is inviting disaster.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 29, 2021)

*The car paradigm destroyed communities and cities. It is more than time to mend the errors of decades of bad decisions.*


----------



## edcraw (Nov 30, 2021)

Gran, 92, seriously injured after BMW ploughs into living room as she slept
					

"All I could see was devastation. It was frightening."




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2021)

More irresponsible behaviour from the elderly, who only have this coming if they insist on living in dangerous houses that are placed in the path of out of control vehicles. A speed limit wouldn't have prevented this, because the driver was probably using speed to get out of danger during an overtaking manoeuvre. What would have prevented this would have been to demolish the house.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> More irresponsible behaviour from the elderly, who only have this coming if they insist on living in dangerous houses that are placed in the path of out of control vehicles. A speed limit wouldn't have prevented this, because the driver was probably using speed to get out of danger during an overtaking manoeuvre. What would have prevented this would have been to demolish the house.



Don't be silly, it's obviously the car driver's fault and this means we must ban cars. Everything that ever causes damage, injury or death must be banned.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> *The car paradigm destroyed communities and cities. It is more than time to mend the errors of decades of bad decisions.*




tb;dc


----------



## T & P (Nov 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Gran, 92, seriously injured after BMW ploughs into living room as she slept
> 
> 
> "All I could see was devastation. It was frightening."
> ...


Driving Standards thread that way —->


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> *The car paradigm destroyed communities and cities. It is more than time to mend the errors of decades of bad decisions.*




Beeching did it for the community-dividing railways that were destructively splurged everywhere in the 19th century, perhaps we need another bold hero like him to tear up our roads.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> Beeching did it for the community-dividing railways that were destructively splurged everywhere in the 19th century, perhaps we need another bold hero like him to tear up our roads.


Correct. Transport policy at that time moved traffic from one mode with disruptive infrastructure to an even more disruptive one. We now need heros to correct that mistake and move back to the least bad option. Each time you post on this thread it brings this message closer to a potential hero.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Correct. Transport policy at that time moved traffic from one mode with disruptive infrastructure to an even more disruptive one. We now need heros to correct that mistake and move back to the least bad option. Each time you post on this thread it brings this message closer to a potential hero.



I'm glad you admit that railways are disruptive and are consequently against HS2. The least disruptive infrastructure is of course none, people will have to walk everywhere across muddy fields, like in the good olden days.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I'm glad you admit that railways are disruptive and are consequently against HS2. The least disruptive infrastructure is of course none, people will have to walk everywhere across muddy fields, like in the good olden days.


My extremist position is that we should build transport infrastructure that strikes a balance between allowing everyone to move around freely and easily, and minimising the extent to which people's living environment is dominated by such infrastructure.

Of course you take the more moderate position that smashing cars into elderly people's houses is a fair price to pay in return for allowing those who can afford BMWs to get everywhere they want to without having to interact with the lower classes, and consequently you are against the 92 year old woman using up taxpayer resources by being taken to hospital.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> Driving Standards thread that way —->


I tried to slow down and follow the signs to that thread but instead stamped on the accelerator by mistake and slammed into a house.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> My extremist position is that we should build transport infrastructure that strikes a balance between allowing everyone to move around freely and easily, and minimising the extent to which people's living environment is dominated by such infrastructure.
> 
> Of course you take the more moderate position that smashing cars into elderly people's houses is a fair price to pay in return for allowing those who can afford BMWs to get everywhere they want to without having to interact with the lower classes, and consequently you are against the 92 year old woman using up taxpayer resources by being taken to hospital.


Quite.  It's a national scandal how often elderly people's houses get smashed into.  We ought to start a petition.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> It's a national scandal











						Britain most dangerous home? The house hit by cars 21 TIMES since 2015
					

Sue Pile has been left feeling 'unsafe in her own home,' after cars and even a tractor crashed through her home in Combe Martin, Devon, 21 times since she moved their in 2015.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				











						The Bristol neighbourhood where cars keep crashing into the houses
					

"If I’d been locking the door at 10pm, I would be dead"




					www.bristolpost.co.uk
				











						Holt house hit by three cars 'at risk of collapse'
					

In the latest incident, a car crashed through the lounge, leaving the house unstable, its owner said.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				











						Peterborough house hit by car for second time in three years - leading to speed bump call
					

A Peterborough woman has spoken of her shock after a car crashed into her home for the second time in three years.




					www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk
				




I'll sign it if you think it will help.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ... smashing cars into elderly people's houses is a fair price to pay in return for allowing those who can afford BMWs to get everywhere they want to without having to interact with the lower classes ...



Completely reasonable.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> My extremist position is that we should build transport infrastructure that strikes a balance between allowing everyone to move around freely and easily, and minimising the extent to which people's living environment is dominated by such infrastructure.



That's what we have now. Roads are a nice balance between walking over muddy fields and everyone flying everywhere by helicopter.



teuchter said:


> Of course you take the more moderate position that smashing cars into elderly people's houses is a fair price to pay in return for allowing those who can afford BMWs to get everywhere they want to without having to interact with the lower classes, and consequently you are against the 92 year old woman using up taxpayer resources by being taken to hospital.



Of course this argument also applies to bicycles and trains. Let's all ensure we do the statistically least dangerous thing at all times, for example sit in an armchair.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'll sign it if you think it will help.


How shall we word it?  Make It Illegal To Go Round Crashing Loads of Cars Into Loads of Old Peoples' Houses?  That ought to do it.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

My home was once crashed into by a drunk old lady in a Toyota. It didn't make me anti-car.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

I was thinking cars should have the same speed limiters they've introduced in hire escooters, and maybe streets should be designed in ways that keep speeds low.

Let me know when it's my turn to post a silly animal photo.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Let me know when it's my turn to post a silly animal photo.


Don't worry about it. I've got a load ready to go.


----------



## T & P (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I tried to slow down and follow the signs to that thread but instead stamped on the accelerator by mistake and slammed into a house


Best stick to cycling then.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I was thinking cars should have the same speed limiters they've introduced in hire escooters, and maybe streets should be designed in ways that keep speeds low.



Why would you want to redesign streets to keep speeds low if cars have the same speed limiters as e-scooters? Presumably to slow down the dangerous cyclists? Might be easier to ban all vehicles that don't have speed limiters e.g. bicycles.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

My bike does have a speed limiter.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> My bike does have a speed limiter.



So does every car that's ever been produced.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> My bike does have a speed limiter.


Mine has two, I call them “left leg” and “right leg”


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

I'm going to say there's a difference between a motor only assisting up to 25kmph by law, and the laws of physics making cars going infinity mph impossible.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm going to say there's a difference between a motor only assisting up to 25kmph by law, and the laws of physics making cars going infinity mph impossible.


Exactly the kind of thing Stalin would say in communist Russia, as an excuse to take away people's freedoms.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I was thinking cars should have the same speed limiters they've introduced in hire escooters, and maybe streets should be designed in ways that keep speeds low.
> 
> Let me know when it's my turn to post a silly animal photo.


tomorrow 1645. but be quick because it's someone else's turn at 1650.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 30, 2021)

That's years ago.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 1, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Dec 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 298948



You should frame that and put it by your bedside.

I'll sign it if you like.


----------



## T & P (Dec 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 298948


Close the thread, it has been won by this post. I for one herewith renounce all future use of powered vehicles in view of such devastating anti-car argument.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 1, 2021)

If you like but I did actually miss the time slot.


----------



## T & P (Dec 1, 2021)




----------



## Yossarian (Dec 3, 2021)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2021)

Think I prefer looking at traffic jams than naked, flabby men thanks.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 4, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> View attachment 299208



You know they put the road in a tunnel, right? This was possible due to the gentrification associated with the massive decline in industry and the relocation of the federal parliament.

If you're in favour of gentrification and expensive road tunneling schemes, just say so.


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Think I prefer looking at traffic jams than naked, flabby men thanks.



Are there naked, flabby men in that photo? How far did you have to zoom in?


----------



## Yossarian (Dec 4, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> You know they put the road in a tunnel, right? This was possible due to the gentrification associated with the massive decline in industry and the relocation of the federal parliament.
> 
> If you're in favour of gentrification and expensive road tunneling schemes, just say so.



Is there something about the change that makes you feel uncomfortable?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 4, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Are there naked, flabby men in that photo? How far did you have to zoom in?




Create a park near water in Germany and they’re like moths to a flame.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 4, 2021)

Drivers stuck in Arndale car park for up to THREE HOURS
					

'We’ve been in here for two hours. Still on 12th floor... not moved an inch'




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Dec 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drivers stuck in Arndale car park for up to THREE HOURS
> 
> 
> 'We’ve been in here for two hours. Still on 12th floor... not moved an inch'
> ...


Basically a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas. I bet they were all tweeting that there needs to be more parking and more roads.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 5, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Is there something about the change that makes you feel uncomfortable?



Road tunnels are a fantastic way allowing people in cars to move across cities while avoiding pedestrians and cyclists.

However I do indeed feel very uncomfortable about the scheme pictured, because if such a scheme presented itself today, the car-abolitionists would try to prevent it on the grounds that no money should be spent on new roads.

They’d probably have to rely on hyper-gentrification eliminating factories, manual workers, and wholesale trade in goods from the area in order to get such a road-to-park conversion achieved without an accompanying tunnel.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Basically a bunch of turkeys voting for Christmas. I bet they were all tweeting that there needs to be more parking and more roads.



I liked this rant in the comments posted at 4am:

by Northernpower
This isn’t the only nightmare for drivers in Manchester. The city has, over 15+ years, slowly been destroyed by the lunatics, who are planning the layouts and directions with an anti-car bias, bordering on hatred.. they’ve done the exact opposite of what they should have done. People work long and hard to afford a car, which gives them security, convenience and flexibility. Imagine using public transport yesterday to visit Manchester.. walk to bus/tram stop, with kids, all cold and wet… wait for transport, colder and wetter.. get on with the great unwashed and unmasked, cold and wet… eventually get to Manchester, walk from stop to first destination.. howling winds, rain, very cold and very wet… after a couple hours shopping, wait with multiple bags in the torrential rain and 25mph winds at the stop for bus/tram.. and reverse the inward journey.. an absolute living nightmare.. resolve it by…. make all main arterial routes three lanes each way fir at least the last two miles i to the city if not five miles.. remove mad one way systems in centre and replan with a commercially minded planner in place… stop all buses from entering the centre, getting them to stop at strategic points around the ring road..Max 5 minute walk to absolute centre of town.. stop all on street parking except for disabled, stop all deliveries between 0800 and 1800, funnel traffic into the many cars parks… and you’ll get … roads free flowing, delays and increased pollution gone, families safe, warm, dry and happy.. retailers increased trade, better job security and cleaner air..


No doubt people will claim this person is silly, and that their proposed measures will lead to more congestion. But those people will be unable to explain how Manchester's supposedly pro-bus transport policy has been a success.


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 5, 2021)

platinumsage said:


> I liked this rant in the comments posted at 4am:
> 
> by Northernpower
> This isn’t the only nightmare for drivers in Manchester. The city has, over 15+ years, slowly been destroyed by the lunatics, who are planning the layouts and directions with an anti-car bias, bordering on hatred.. they’ve done the exact opposite of what they should have done. People work long and hard to afford a car, which gives them security, convenience and flexibility. Imagine using public transport yesterday to visit Manchester.. walk to bus/tram stop, with kids, all cold and wet… wait for transport, colder and wetter.. get on with the great unwashed and unmasked, cold and wet… eventually get to Manchester, walk from stop to first destination.. howling winds, rain, very cold and very wet… after a couple hours shopping, wait with multiple bags in the torrential rain and 25mph winds at the stop for bus/tram.. and reverse the inward journey.. an absolute living nightmare.. resolve it by…. make all main arterial routes three lanes each way fir at least the last two miles i to the city if not five miles.. remove mad one way systems in centre and replan with a commercially minded planner in place… stop all buses from entering the centre, getting them to stop at strategic points around the ring road..Max 5 minute walk to absolute centre of town.. stop all on street parking except for disabled, stop all deliveries between 0800 and 1800, funnel traffic into the many cars parks… and you’ll get … roads free flowing, delays and increased pollution gone, families safe, warm, dry and happy.. retailers increased trade, better job security and cleaner air..
> ...




He forgot to mention that all their paper shopping bags would get wet and soppy and disintegrate allowing all their Christmas shopping to fall onto the cold and wet ground.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 5, 2021)

Nobody actually from Manchester complains about the rain, dealing with the large volumes of it they get there is almost a point of civic pride.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 5, 2021)

Thanks, I enjoyed it too.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 5, 2021)

Yes, good to see my prediction was correct as usual.


----------



## petee (Dec 5, 2021)




----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2021)

petee said:


>




Great idea. Would need modifying for cyclists though, perhaps with some spikes, although there'd be so many of them failing to give way at the zebra crossing that the underground storage would soon become clogged.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 10, 2021)




----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2021)

The Arctic is stunningly beautiful and absolutely silent because there’s an acute lack of internal combustion engines










Until I got there …


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Arctic is stunningly beautiful and absolutely silent because there’s an acute lack of internal combustion engines
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is that really the arctic? And is that reallh you? 

😁


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Is that really the arctic? And is that reallh you?
> 
> 😁


Yes. I’m not that fat though. I had a down-filled jacket, a fleece, and a wool base layer under that. It was -27 degrees.


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. I’m not that fat though. I had a down-filled jacket, a fleece, and a wool base layer under that. It was -27 degrees.



I wouldnt dream of thinking you were fat...🤣
 Wore that type of gear myself in Finland years ago.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 13, 2021)

Thought the image looked familiar.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Thought the image looked familiar.
> 
> View attachment 300635


yeh spy gets everywhere


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2021)

Sugar Kane said:


> Wore that type of gear myself in Finland years ago.


That was taken at the most northern point of Finland. I’m standing in Finland and the snowmobile is in Norway.


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 13, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That was taken at the most northern point of Finland. I’m standing in Finland and the snowmobile is in Norway.


Lovely country isn't it? 
No traffic jams anywhere..


----------



## T & P (Dec 13, 2021)

Have you managed to see Northern Lights yet?


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Have you managed to see Northern Lights yet?


Saw them in Finland...


----------



## Aladdin (Dec 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Have you managed to see Northern Lights yet?



They were also visible in Donegal this year apparently.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2021)

T & P said:


> Have you managed to see Northern Lights yet?



We have


----------



## kabbes (Dec 13, 2021)

It's a shame that the photograph came as such a surprise.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 15, 2021)

Audi drivers, exhibit 3926:


----------



## T & P (Dec 15, 2021)

It's very inconsiderate of her to cut off the video there; I wanted to see the car happily sailing downstream...


----------



## edcraw (Dec 17, 2021)

Took a while but good news.









						Mum who 'nudged Insulate Britain activist with Range Rover' charged with assault
					

Sherrilyn Speid, 34, from Essex, hit the headlines in October when she was filmed allegedly nudging her £80,000 Range Rover into protestors who were strewn across the road




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## a_chap (Dec 17, 2021)

Not wishing to click a Daily Mirror link, I searched on Google for a more palatable alternative...


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2021)

This Mirror article caught my eye too. Certainly relevant to the thread.









						Selfish school run parents cause havoc and turn grass verges into bogs
					

Resident living near Castle Mead Academy in Leicester have seen the grassy areas outside their homes turned into muddy bogs by selfish parents on the school run




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## petee (Dec 19, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2021)

petee said:


>



I'm interested why you thought this was appropriate for this thread?


----------



## petee (Dec 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm interested why you thought this was appropriate for this thread?



I am validated by your interest.
Also, that was a statement, not a question. Please edit the punctuation accordingly.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 21, 2021)

It's good to see yet more confirmation that mainstream journalists are reading, being inspired by, and being educated by this thread.









						Pity the poor, oppressed driver forced to share their roads with the rest of us | Catherine Bennett
					

We’re still in thrall to the car – to judge by the lenient sentences for reckless motorists




					www.theguardian.com
				






> Howls of below-the-line outrage in traditionally motor-friendly media confirm that views on road use can still, given the number of cycling and walking motorists, be startlingly tribal. To make vulnerable road users safer, as the government intends with revised hierarchy at junctions, appears for the extreme motorised group to be a more grievous insult to their status, if possible, than the sight of a straggly planter where there was formerly a Land Rover’s right to roam.
> 
> 
> 
> What, after all, is the point of a massive city-based 4x4 if it must now give way, as in the revised regulations, to a cyclist enjoying the right to ride safely in the middle of the road, or to go first at a junction? The rage is near palpable. “Goes against the natural order of things,” offers one _Telegraph_ reader. “Cyclists and pedestrians will die clinging on to their rights, while ordinary citizen motorists will rot in gaol at the taxpayer’s expense.”


----------



## teuchter (Dec 21, 2021)

petee said:


> I am validated by your interest.
> Also, that was a statement, not a question. Please edit the punctuation accordingly.


My apologies for the use of such informal syntax. On this thread I do tend to get in the habit of attempting to communicate at the average "car person" level.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 24, 2021)

Must have been a pretty hefty smoke alarm!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Must have been a pretty hefty smoke alarm!
> 
> View attachment 302790


Hahahaha. Serves them right.


----------



## A380 (Dec 24, 2021)

There should be a Christmas truce on this thread. Pro and anti car people could swap cigarettes and chocolates and show each other pictures of their sweethearts back home in a spirt of comradeship. 

Then you could all play football with teuchter as the ball...


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 24, 2021)

A380 said:


> all play football


Got an idea.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 26, 2021)




----------



## Yossarian (Jan 1, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 2, 2022)

Vive La France!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 2, 2022)

Jordan Peterson clearly an influence on certain posters here.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 2, 2022)

Have been reading bits of this book. It has some sensible stuff to say.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 2, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> View attachment 304157


You'd think Katie Price being guilty of drink/drug driving and barely escaping the jail would mean she was the runaway winner of Worst Jordan In A Car 2021 but no.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Have been reading bits of this book. It has some sensible stuff to say.
> 
> View attachment 304266
> 
> ...



Wow they really think the past was a nice place don’t they? Calm citizens wafting gently across tree-lined boulevards.

I assure you any pedestrian would feel safer negotiating today’s Fleet Street than the version prior to pedestrian crossings where it was filled with a vast throng of jostling horse-drawn contraptions.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Wow they really think the past was a nice place don’t they? Calm citizens wafting gently across tree-lined boulevards.
> 
> I assure you any pedestrian would feel safer negotiating today’s Fleet Street than the version prior to pedestrian crossings where it was filled with a vast throng of jostling horse-drawn contraptions.


Wow - how old are you?!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 4, 2022)




----------



## Yossarian (Jan 4, 2022)

Odds of drivers gracefully accepting their place in the hierarchy of road users?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 4, 2022)

Why do people keep posting that Daily Mail graphic all over the internet.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2022)

It's wrong about the "old rules".


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 4, 2022)

To be honest, I am not surprised that anti-car propagandists haven’t managed anything better than reposting a Daily Mail diagram all over social media. The forthcoming changes to the Highway Code certainly aren’t the once-in-a-generation paradigm shift that some lunatic cyclists make them out to be - they are merely a confusing and sorry mess that is symptomatic of the declining quality of our civil servants.


----------



## T & P (Jan 4, 2022)

LOL! In London at least, pedestrians have always behaved in the manner those Highway Code rule changes will now allow them to do legally. So most drivers will not even notice, let alone be outraged by these  new rules, seeing that it will not force them to drive any differently than they have been doing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> To be honest, I am not surprised that anti-car propagandists haven’t managed anything better than reposting a Daily Mail diagram all over social media. The forthcoming changes to the Highway Code certainly aren’t the once-in-a-generation paradigm shift that some lunatic cyclists make them out to be - they are merely a confusing and sorry mess that is symptomatic of the declining quality of our civil servants.


Which bit is “confusing” then? It’s all perfectly clear.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

What about the hierarchy of road users, 

_"Rule H1 of The Highway Code establishes a hierarchy of road users which ensures that
those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce
the danger or threat they may pose to other road users.
The hierarchy places vulnerable road users before motorised vehicles so the top of the
hierarchy would therefore be:
1. pedestrians, in particular children, older adults and disabled people
2. cyclists
3. horse riders
4. motorcyclists"_

Ok, so pedestrians come first, right?

But now the Highway Code will be changed to mean children, older adults and disabled people must take care not to obstruct cyclists on shared pavements!

_"Some routes shared with cyclists will not be separated by such a feature
allowing cyclists and pedestrians to share the same space. Cyclists should
respect your safety (see Rule 62) but you should also take care not to obstruct
or endanger them. Always remain aware of your environment and avoid
unnecessary distractions.
Where signs indicate, some routes are shared between pedestrians, cyclists,
horse riders and horse drawn vehicles. Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of
horse drawn vehicles should respect your safety, but you should take care not
to obstruct or endanger them. Always remain aware of your environment and
avoid unnecessary distractions."
_


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

Aside from new the rules of drivers, many of which are often not even grammatically correct, one fundamental problem is that it adds vast amounts of text to something that people don't read anyway. No attempt to simplify or condense it to the most important points, instead we get new pointless twaddle like this:

Where a roundabout has separate cycle facilities, you should use these
facilities where they make your journey safer and easier although you are not
obliged to use them. This will depend on your experience and skills and the
situation at the time.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2022)

I expect some civil servants drafted a perfectly good version that then had to be messed up and compromised to accommodate the wailing of various consultees with a motorists' rights agenda. Much like any road redesign scheme.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

It’s just constant moaning from drivers about the slightest changes. Think most councillors etc. have realised this and so know to pretty much ignore opposition now & just plough on. Motor lobby really haven’t done themselves any favours.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

This bit:




Is explicitly encouraging cyclists to go where they should never go.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This bit:
> 
> View attachment 304601
> 
> ...


No it’s not, it’s telling drivers they shouldn’t do something dangerous to cyclists.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What about the hierarchy of road users,
> 
> _"Rule H1 of The Highway Code establishes a hierarchy of road users which ensures that
> those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce
> ...


If that confuses you I’m not sure how you manage to walk and breathe at the same time.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This bit:
> 
> View attachment 304601
> 
> ...



The Daily Mail's picture might do but the actual rule doesn't.



> Rule H3: Rule for drivers and motorcyclists
> You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.
> 
> Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.
> ...


If anyone has an issue with any of that then they really shouldn't be driving.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No it’s not, it’s telling drivers they shouldn’t do something dangerous to cyclists.



Be my guest to go up the inside of an HGV at a junction, I have a spare bike that I can spray white in your memory.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Be my guest to go up the inside of an HGV at a junction, I have a spare bike that I can spray white in your memory.


It doesn't say that - it says the HGV should not cut across a cyclist when turning.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It doesn't say that - it says the HGV should not cut across a cyclist when turning.



It shows quite clearly a bicycle going up the inside of a vehicle at a junction. The new rules may state that the HGV shouldn't squish you in the situation, I shall continue to teach my kids to keep the fuck away from there.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2022)

We don't know if the car or bicycle got to that location first.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It shows quite clearly a bicycle going up the inside of a vehicle at a junction. The new rules may state that the HGV shouldn't squish you in the situation, I shall continue to teach my kids to keep the fuck away from there.


That's the Daily Mail's diagram and rather unsurprisingly it's not great.

These rules are pretty clear for cyclists so you can rest assured the highway code isn't encouraging cyclists to put themselves in dangerous position:



> Rule 72​*On the left.* When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
> 
> Rule 73​Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> That's the Daily Mail's diagram and rather unsurprisingly it's not great.



Exactly as I said, but you choose to argue the toss with anyone you think is pro-car and anti-bike, which leads you to come across as a nob.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If that confuses you I’m not sure how you manage to walk and breathe at the same time.



Yeah I'm sure children, older adults and disabled people won't be confused when shared-pavement cyclonutters bark at them to stop causing an obstruction per the Highway Code.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

"Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle."

How does this make sense? "the cyclist"? Shouldn't it be "any cyclist"? And apparently this applies to any junction, even one where the cyclist is approaching a stop line? 

And what does "just as you would do" with a motor vehicle mean? Surely it should read "just as you would not turn" for starters? 

It was presumably written by an undergraduate media studies intern.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Exactly as I said, but you choose to argue the toss with anyone you think is pro-car and anti-bike, which leads you to come across as a nob.


ah okay - yes, the Daily Mail is crap, these highway code changes are blatantly sensible


----------



## T & P (Jan 5, 2022)

I think a distinction should be made between cars overtaking cyclists immediately before a junction then turning- which is a cunt move and one that no considerate and competent driver would do, regardless of whether the HC might have to say about it- and a cyclist intending to go straight at a junction traying to undertake slower moving traffic that were already indicating to turn, and just about to do so.

The expection to this if there is a cycle lane on the road in question. Drivers wanting to turn onto a side street already have to yield to buses and indeed cyclists approaching on the bus lane. But it would be utter bonkers and reckless to suggest cyclists filtering through moving traffic on streets with no dedicated bus or cycle lanes should be allowed or even encouraged to overtake vehicles ahead of them indicating a turn, if they are close enough to the junction.

If the HG thinks otherwise, then the HG is not worth wiping your arse with. Simple as.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

There's also the problem of an increasing number of safety-critical "shoulds" being set out in the HC with no legislative or regulatory backing. This creates unreasonable exceptions of other people's actions, which just creates more opportunities for accidents.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> I think a distinction should be made between cars overtaking cyclists immediately before a junction then turning- which is a cunt move and one that no considerate and competent driver would do, regardless of whether the HC might have to say about it- and a cyclist intending to go straight at a junction traying to undertake slower moving traffic that were already indicating to turn, and just about to do so.
> 
> The expection to this if there is a cycle lane on the road in question. Drivers wanting to turn onto a side street already have to yield to buses and indeed cyclists approaching on the bus lane. But it would be utter bonkers and reckless to suggest cyclists filtering through moving traffic on streets with no dedicated bus or cycle lanes should be allowed or even encouraged to overtake vehicles ahead of them indicating a turn, if they are close enough to the junction.
> 
> If the HG thinks otherwise, then the HG is not worth wiping your arse with. Simple as.


Rule 72 covers all that doesn’t it?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

"When using an electric vehicle charge point, you should park close to the
charge point and avoid creating a trip hazard for pedestrians from trailing
cables. *Display a warning sign if you can.* After using the charge point, you
should return charging cables and connectors neatly to minimise the danger to
pedestrians and avoid creating an obstacle for other road users."

So now anyone who charges an electric car should display a warning sign, even if the cable isn't across a pavement or creating a trip hazard. Displaying a sign isn't conditional on creating a hazard, it's something you are expected to do period. If you don't display a sign and someone contrives to tangle themselves up in your cable, you risk being sued because it's in the HC.

20 million plastic warning signs will be produced, so that every car has one.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "When using an electric vehicle charge point, you should park close to the
> charge point and avoid creating a trip hazard for pedestrians from trailing
> cables. *Display a warning sign if you can.* After using the charge point, you
> should return charging cables and connectors neatly to minimise the danger to
> ...



The warning signs will just be on the chargers themselves.  This seems more about street charging which I agree is an issue, well the ones where the cable is running across the pavement.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

Teaboy said:


> The warning signs will just be on the chargers themselves.  This seems more about street charging which I agree is an issue, well the ones where the cable is running across the pavement.



Well then it's incorrect, another example of a badly worded change. In its current state it is a clearly written instruction to all drivers to display a warning sign every time they charge a car, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Well then it's incorrect, another example of a badly worded change. In its current state it is a clearly written instruction to all drivers to display a warning sign every time they charge a car, regardless of the circumstances.



I think you might be overthinking things.  They are just suggestions.  Any basis for legal redress should someone trip will be based upon a lot more than the highway code.  If you think there is a possible likelihood that your charging cable might tripe someone up then a warning sign is probably a good idea. 

Like every other company car driver in the country I am legally obliged to have a no smoking sign inside my car (at least I was last time I checked).  No one does, no one cares.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

Teaboy said:


> I think you might be overthinking things.  They are just suggestions.  Any basis for legal redress should someone trip will be based upon a lot more than the highway code.  If you think there is a possible likelihood that your charging cable might tripe someone up then a warning sign is probably a good idea.
> 
> Like every other company car driver in the country I am legally obliged to have a no smoking sign inside my car (at least I was last time I checked).  No one does, no one cares.



But this is the Highway Code, not some throwaway guidance. Any item in the HC not prefaced by a "MUST" instruction and referenced to legislation falls into this category:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself,
cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence
in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the
law) to establish liability."

It really shouldn't therefore be a dumping ground for vague or badly-worded suggestions, but contain only the most basic rules that everyone is able to familiarize themselves with and follow.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 5, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Be my guest to go up the inside of an HGV at a junction, I have a spare bike that I can spray white in your memory.


That isn’t what it says. Try again.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That isn’t what it says. Try again.




Read my post again. Properly this time.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Read my post again. Properly this time.


It’s not saying you can go up the inside of something that’s turning. It’s telling drivers not to pass a cyclist if they’re going to turn. 

In other words, if there’s a cyclist up ahead and you want to turn, slow down and wait, rather than lunging past them in an attempt to save oh so valuable seconds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s not saying you can go up the inside of something that’s turning. It’s telling drivers not to pass a cyclist if they’re going to turn.
> 
> In other words, if there’s a cyclist up ahead and you want to turn, slow down and wait, rather than lunging past them in an attempt to save oh so valuable seconds.



The graphic doesn't show that at all, it shows a bike coming up the inside of a vehicle and the words say that the vehicle being crept up upon its inside must look out for the bike.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 5, 2022)

Give this man a knighthood









						‘I felt powerless – so I started filming’: CyclingMikey on his one-man battle with dangerous drivers
					

Mike van Erp has reported more than 1,000 motorists to the police – including Chris Eubank and Guy Ritchie. He explains how his father being killed by a drunk driver inspires his actions




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The graphic doesn't show that at all, it shows a bike coming up the inside of a vehicle and the words say that the vehicle being crept up upon its inside must look out for the bike.


Christ almighty, it shows a car overtaking a bike in order to make a turn. I’m starting to realise why car drivers get so confused by simple things here.



farmerbarleymow said:


> Give this man a knighthood
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, Mikey. Yeah, he’s brilliant.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Christ almighty, it shows a car overtaking a bike in order to make a turn. I’m starting to realise why car drivers get so confused by simple things here.




Doesn't, it shows a car pulling away from lights that have just turned green and a cyclist hooning up on the inside.

You do realise cycling mikey is actually Spymaster, don't you?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Doesn't, it shows a car pulling away from lights that have just turned green and a cyclist hooning up on the inside


Where are the lights? I think you’re over egging this. I agree it’s mislead but only because it doesn’t show which is overtaking which but the text makes it very clear.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Where are the lights? I think you’re over egging this. I agree it’s mislead but only because it doesn’t show which is overtaking which but the text makes it very clear.



They left them off, that's how poor the whole thing is!


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They left them off, that's how poor the whole thing is!


Presume this is a joke but the whole shitshow of a reaction to this changes just show how many god awful drivers there are out there.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Doesn't, it shows a car pulling away from lights that have just turned green and a cyclist hooning up on the inside.
> 
> You do realise cycling mikey is actually Spymaster, don't you?


I don't see a cyclist on either of the bikes. Maybe you need new glasses?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Presume this is a joke but the whole shitshow of a reaction to this changes just show how many god awful drivers there are out there.



I’m pretty sure no one here except for me has read the actual confirmed changes on the government website.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I don't see a cyclist on either of the bikes. Maybe you need new glasses?




It’s a graphic not a photograph


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You do realise cycling mikey is actually Spymaster, don't you?


Pretty sure this is Spymaster


----------



## MickiQ (Jan 6, 2022)

I'm not sure our cars come with a built-in perv cam is much of a selling point tbh


----------



## kabbes (Jan 6, 2022)

The proposed changes are eminently sensible in principle. There does need to be a properly established hierarchy based on level of threat.

However. If you think that loose wording in a document that amounts to official government guidance to legislation doesn’t matter then I can only conclude you’ve never had to fight a legal battle based on such guidance. I’ve been to the high court and court of appeal and I can tell you that judges and barristers endlessly interpret and reinterpret everything not explicitly nailed down when it comes to such guidance. Platinumsage is right that this wording is awful. It leaves a space big enough to drive a bus AND bicycle through. And it will serve as the basis for prosecution so this level of ambiguity is really poor.  Par for the course, sadly. But poor


----------



## edcraw (Jan 7, 2022)

The future looks amazing!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The future looks amazing!



One more tunnel will definitely fix that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 7, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Jan 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> One more tunnel will definitely fix that.



If you've been on the tube in London you'll know that tube trains never slow down or stop in tunnels, especially not when approaching a station.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you've been on the tube in London you'll know that tube trains never slow down or stop in tunnels, especially not when approaching a station.


Yes, a billionaire car manufacturer has managed to make a much more inefficient version of the tube & his fan boys go wild. Fantastic 👏


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2022)

Having spent the last few years of my life dealing with bloody Crossrail and am now staring down the barrel of years of HS2 I can say hand on heart tunnelling is seldom the right answer. In the UK anyway.


----------



## T & P (Jan 7, 2022)

Flying cars. The answer is and will always be flying cars.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you've been on the tube in London you'll know that tube trains never slow down or stop in tunnels, especially not when approaching a station.


My god, you actually think you’re making a clever point there, don’t you?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> My god, you actually think you’re making a clever point there, don’t you?



No, I think you'll find that was you:



beesonthewhatnow said:


> One more tunnel will definitely fix that.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 7, 2022)

T & P said:


> Flying cars. The answer is and will always be flying cars.



Can you imagine the absolute fucking chaos if we let the average driver fly?

I could see them for emergency vehicles but fuck me a couple of average British drivers behind the controls of a flying car and the death toll would approach triple figures within a month


----------



## T & P (Jan 7, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Can you imagine the absolute fucking chaos if we let the average driver fly?
> 
> I could see them for emergency vehicles but fuck me a couple of average British drivers behind the controls of a flying car and the death toll would approach triple figures within a month


On the other hand, the quintessential ‘he came out of nowhere!’ excuse dished out after a collision would ring more true…


----------



## teuchter (Jan 7, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Can you imagine the absolute fucking chaos if we let the average driver fly?
> 
> I could see them for emergency vehicles but fuck me a couple of average British drivers behind the controls of a flying car and the death toll would approach triple figures within a month


It would get some drivers off the roads at least.


----------



## A380 (Jan 8, 2022)

T & P said:


> Flying cars. The answer is and will always be flying cars.


Actually, roadable aeroplanes are probably more the future…


----------



## fishfinger (Jan 8, 2022)

A380 said:


> Actually, roadable aeroplanes are probably more the future…


Ekranoplans for the people!


----------



## T & P (Jan 10, 2022)

Although in common with 99.99% of all posts in this thread this is in no way or form any kind of anti-car propaganda, I thought I would post it here anyway as I know it is going to make people happy and brighten their morning.
Don't say I don't nice things for you lot


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 10, 2022)

T & P said:


> Although in common with 99.99% of all posts in this thread this is in no way or form in kind of anti-car propaganda, I thought I would post it here anyway as I know it is going to make people happy and brighten their morning.
> Don't say I don't nice things for you lot



I wanted to see what happened when the car reached the junction


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 10, 2022)

Glorious


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Everything’s fine - just try not to go outside…









						Londoners told to reduce physical activity on Friday due to pollution
					

Government advises older people and those with lung or heart issues to avoid strenuous activity altogether




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

Just added a Range Rover Evoque to my next car shortlist.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Just added a Range Rover Evoque to my next car shortlist.


For when you have too much money AND want to look like you live in Cheshire.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> For when you have too much money AND want to look like you live in Cheshire.



Unlike some people, I couldn't care less about whatever image my chosen mode of transport is supposed to project. This vehicle ticks lots of boxes so I'd be foolish to rule it out just because some twats drive them.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

Anyway people should think about interior comfort more because we'll be spending 25% more time in cars by 2030.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Unlike some people, I couldn't care less about whatever image my chosen mode of transport is supposed to project. This vehicle ticks lots of boxes so I'd be foolish to rule it out just because some twats drive them.


Must be some odd boxes you have to tick…

“This overpriced luxury SUV has a disappointing drivetrain, a rough and bumpy ride, and confounding controls. By the time our testing was complete, we came to the conclusion that the redesigned Evoque is the least talented luxury compact SUV, yet the most expensive”





__





						2021 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Owner Satisfaction - Consumer Reports
					

Would owners buy the 2021 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque again? Find out from Consumer Report's Owner Satisfaction scores based on extensive survey data.




					www.consumerreports.org
				




Sounds great


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I couldn't care less about whatever image my chosen mode of transport is supposed to project.


This is why all car adverts are just simple lists of features and stats, entirely functional and stripped of anything aspirational.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2022)

The only question that the Evoque answers is the question, "what car is the worst choice to buy under any circumstances?"


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway people should think about interior comfort more because we'll be spending 25% more time in cars by 2030.


Why is spending more time in a thing that's supposed to get you somewhere quickly a good thing?


----------



## JimW (Jan 17, 2022)

Prince Andrew probably drives one, but even he's not thick enough to pay.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

I was delivered a courtesy car today. Mercedes E300 Coupe. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to put it in gear (it turned out to be a stalk where you'd expect to find the indicators), but has a supremely useful gadget.

It's got a G-force meter!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

I just remembered I took a photo for this thread whilst out on a walk the other week.


----------



## T & P (Jan 17, 2022)

All your walks seem to revolve around cars, teuchter . Some people like to observe birds through binoculars, others prefer to take constant photographs of motor vehicles. Still, it's a free country. Whatever relaxes you of a weekend, I guess...


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Must be some odd boxes you have to tick…
> 
> “This overpriced luxury SUV has a disappointing drivetrain, a rough and bumpy ride, and confounding controls. By the time our testing was complete, we came to the conclusion that the redesigned Evoque is the least talented luxury compact SUV, yet the most expensive”
> 
> ...



That site is the American equivalent of "Which?", but even worse.

Anyway the Range Rover Evoque I'm looking at has the same price as an equivalent Ford Kuga, so hardly "overpriced".


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I just remembered I took a photo for this thread whilst out on a walk the other week.
> 
> View attachment 306386



Yes the car industry has been better at recycling than most other consumer product industries for decades.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

T & P said:


> All your walks seem to revolve around cars, teuchter . Some people like to observe birds through binoculars, others prefer to take constant photographs of motor vehicles. Still, it's a free country. Whatever relaxes you of a weekend, I guess...


Quite hard to take a walk in most parts of the UK without the devastating impact of car mania being in view for the majority of the time.

You think that's fine and are happy to continue wiping out any remaining pockets of undenuded environment because there's nothing more important of a weekend than getting to a drive-thru mcdonalds. Still, it's a free country.


----------



## T & P (Jan 17, 2022)

Pffft. I don't do McDonalds, whether in London or the countryside. Countless countryside pubs with free car parks, though


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

That trip was in fact one outside London, where intersecting with the world of the car-people becomes inevitable. On new years day they didn't run any public transport, because why bother. Walked to a stately home, and this is what the car people have done to the grounds.



I'd rather not have to look at this kind of thing, but at least I'm not one of the people who can't imagine an alternative to this kind of miserable world.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That site is the American equivalent of "Which?", but even worse.
> 
> Anyway the Range Rover Evoque I'm looking at has the same price as an equivalent Ford Kuga, so hardly "overpriced".


The Kuga will be a lot more reliable


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I was delivered a courtesy car today. Mercedes E300 Coupe. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to put it in gear (it turned out to be a stalk where you'd expect to find the indicators), but has a supremely useful gadget.
> 
> It's got a G-force meter!


“0G, yep, I’m stuck in a jam again”


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That trip was in fact one outside London, where intersecting with the world of the car-people becomes inevitable. On new years day they didn't run any public transport, because why bother. Walked to a stately home, and this is what the car people have done to the grounds.



next time try Goodwood, nice house with a racetrack. If going by car is really too much for you, train to Godalming, walk up the path behind the station, past the Supervet's place and bosh: Goodwood - Arriving By Air - Festival of Speed 

See you down there


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “0G, yep, I’m stuck in a jam again”


I’ll take that as a challenge.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That trip was in fact one outside London, where intersecting with the world of the car-people becomes inevitable. On new years day they didn't run any public transport, because why bother. Walked to a stately home, and this is what the car people have done to the grounds.
> 
> View attachment 306393
> 
> I'd rather not have to look at this kind of thing, but at least I'm not one of the people who can't imagine an alternative to this kind of miserable world.



They really ought to keep the riff-raff out and only allow access to people who live within walking distance.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I was delivered a courtesy car today. Mercedes E300 Coupe. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to put it in gear (it turned out to be a stalk where you'd expect to find the indicators), but has a supremely useful gadget.
> 
> It's got a G-force meter!



Presumably it's a sticker, designed to look like an instrument gauge, that has an arrow permanently pointing downwards labelled "1G".

"Yes sir, and here's the G-Force meter"

There's one born every minute...


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

a_chap said:


> Presumably it's a sticker, designed to look like an instrument gauge, that has an arrow permanently pointing downwards labelled "1G".



No. It moves around and everything!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

The sort of thing that appeals to men who own an Xbox, wear baseball caps, and live with their mum.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> No. It moves around and everything!
> 
> View attachment 306406


What are you planning to do with the information? 

Is it just the centre part?  So it's not actually telling you anything anyway that you can't already feel?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> What are you planning to do with the information?



I haven't the slightest clue! 

I didn't even know it was there until it beeped.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I haven't the slightest clue!


Then as a dull expert in putting metrics to use, I have to say that it is worse than useless.  It's a distraction from the important information.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Then as a dull expert in putting metrics to use, I have to say that it is worse than useless.  It's a distraction from the important information.


Yeah, but think how impressed blokes down the pub are going to be.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Is it just the centre part?



It's in the middle of the rev counter.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Then as a dull expert in putting metrics to use, I have to say that it is worse than useless.  It's a distraction from the important information.



Well quite. 

As far as pointless features on cars is concerned it's up there with the electrically adjustable steering wheel.


----------



## maomao (Jan 17, 2022)

E300 is an Uber driver's car. Tough times.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 17, 2022)

Whenever car twats are talking about cars. You can get them on to the subject of parking costs. Just to subtely ruin their day. Plant seeds. oh isnt it unfair they'll think. That's annoying. Having to find a parking spot. It's so annoying. 

And I just walk off. That shit don't bother me.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> E300 is an Uber driver's car.



They've got 4 doors though.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

Professionals don't need a G-force meter, just a precariously balanced glass of liquid.


----------



## Aladdin (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It's in the middle of the rev counter.
> 
> View attachment 306407






And target practice enabled too I see.
🙂


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

Aladdin said:


> View attachment 306414
> 
> 
> And target practice enabled too I see.


Yup, just the sort of thing it's no surprise that people like Spymaster are attracted to.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 17, 2022)

A few years ago (more like decades ago) I organised a safe driving event with RoSPA when I hired a contraption designed to show "G force" from the Jim Russell Racing Drivers school. Basically it was a large, shallow plastic bowl that you could attach to the car's bonnet. Put a ball in it and drive round a pre-set course too much acceleration, braking or cornering would have the ball jump out of the bowl (it was on a length of string)

There's nothing new. It's all been invented before


----------



## kabbes (Jan 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It's in the middle of the rev counter.
> 
> View attachment 306407


Then there aren't even any units associated with it.  It's literally doing nothing that you don't already know just by feeling the force yourself.  Although it's actually a worse indicator than feeling the force, because you have to view a visual representation of the force and then translate that through a cognitive process to make sense of it.  Worse than useless.

I know it's just whimsy, but  dashboards are my thing.  Admittedly, these are normally risk dashboards and financial dashboards.  But the principles are the same -- make the knowledge intuitive and useful, and remove anything that distracts from the purpose of the dashboard.  Understand what the user is doing and create something that assists that.  Things like this G-Force meter are actively harmful to the purpose of the dashboard.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Then there aren't even any units associated with it.  It's literally doing nothing that you don't already know just by feeling the force yourself.  Although it's actually a worse indicator than feeling the force, because you have to view a visual representation of the force and then translate that through a cognitive process to make sense of it.  Worse than useless.
> 
> I know it's just whimsy, but  dashboards are my thing.  Admittedly, these are normally risk dashboards and financial dashboards.  But the principles are the same -- make the knowledge intuitive and useful, and remove anything that distracts from the purpose of the dashboard.  Understand what the user is doing and create something that assists that.  Things like this G-Force meter are actively harmful to the purpose of the dashboard.


I think there's an argument that you could use it for being considerate to passengers who suffer from motion sickness, because I think drivers tend to be less aware of the magnitude of forces they are inflicting, than passengers are (because the driver can anticipate and react to them - part of the reason why you can get travel sick as a passenger but not generally as a driver).

I would maybe not put the feedback in the dashboard display though - perhaps some kind of thumbscrew device instead.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

It's actually named for Graham Force, the inventor of the fancy meaningless dashboard tchochke.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yup, just the sort of thing it's no surprise that people like Spymaster are attracted to.
> 
> View attachment 306420



If it actually had a target-acquisition element, like your illustration, it would be more useful.


----------



## Aladdin (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yup, just the sort of thing it's no surprise that people like Spymaster are attracted to.
> 
> View attachment 306420



I was thinking more along the lines of James Bond style gadgetry...


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

Aladdin said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of James Bond style gadgetry...


You don't need any special gadgets to mow down children and elderly people. People are continually demonstrating you just need a car and a driver.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

Cyclists overtake motorists on A-roads
					

The number of cyclists has surpassed that of motorists on several UK A-roads, according to Department for Transport (DfT) data for 2020. In London, 87 per




					www.cityam.com
				




Everything's moving in the right direction.

They are trying not to show it but we know the car proponents on this thread are starting to see that their time is up.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Cyclists overtake motorists on A-roads
> 
> 
> The number of cyclists has surpassed that of motorists on several UK A-roads, according to Department for Transport (DfT) data for 2020. In London, 87 per
> ...



More cars are using bus lanes so that’s a move in the right direction for efficient use of road space.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2022)

maomao said:


> E300 is an Uber driver's car.



Think you might be getting confused.

I've done quite a few miles in this today and it really is a very well put together motor. Once you get used to the quirks (like the G meter) it grows on you. Everything is exactly where you want it, feels rock solid, steer it with one finger, and the quality of the finish of the interior is gorgeous. Fast too, and I've done about 100 miles today including about 20 around Central London, and used very little fuel.

I might get one.


----------



## maomao (Jan 18, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Think you might be getting confused.


The E-class mercedes is the third most common pco registered car in London and ime e300s are very popular. I understand you may have a particularly wanky one that's not even any good for that though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2022)

maomao said:


> The E-class mercedes is the third most common pco registered car in London and ime e300s are very popular. I understand you may have a particularly wanky one that's not even any good for that though.



Sure. Why would Uber cabbies piss about with a £24k hybrid Prius, when they can tool around in a 50 grand, 250ps, 2-door Merc? See them all the time!


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Sure. Why would Uber cabbies drive a £24k Prius, when they can tool around in a 50 grand, 250ps, 2-door Merc? See them all the time!


Partly because they can charge money and partly because a lot of them are car wankers.There were thousands of pco registered e300s two years ago. And where did I say they had two doors? Have you never had an Uber exec? You come across like exactly the type that would pay forty percent more for a shinier car and a driver in a tie to go exactly the same distance.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 19, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> steer it with one finger


For when your other hand is busy elsewhere.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2022)

maomao said:


> Partly because they can charge money and partly because a lot of them are car wankers.There were thousands of pco registered e300s two years ago. And where did I say they had two doors? Have you never had an Uber exec? You come across like exactly the type that would pay forty percent more for a shinier car and a driver in a tie to go exactly the same distance.



Shut up, peanut! Taxi driving was one of the few things you actually _did_ know about, back in the day!


----------



## Aladdin (Jan 19, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Shut up, peanut!



This should be your new tagline Spymaster 😁


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The sort of thing that appeals to men who own an Xbox, wear baseball caps, and live with their mum.



Did Alan Partridge have one?


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Shut up, peanut! Taxi driving was one of the few things you actually _did_ know about, back in the day!


I'm not the one that thinks the e300 only comes in a two door.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 19, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'm not the one that thinks the e300 only comes in a two door.



Stop digging, peanut.


----------



## maomao (Jan 19, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Stop digging, peanut.


Digging what? You're the one talking bollocks. You can call me all the legumes under the sun; you're full of shit as usual.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

Who said it?

"Have you never had an Uber Exec?"

Clue is at post #6579


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 306714
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> ...







__





						Mercedes E300e SE Plug In hybrid £300.00 Per Week | Pcojobs.com
					






					pcojobs.com
				




Comes with a PCO license. I doubt you'd pass the DBS though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 306714
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> ...


They’d look much better without that silly little “extra” window at the back.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They’d look much better without that silly little “extra” window at the back.



Rear quarterlights are normal. It's front quarterlights I detest:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Rear quarterlights are normal. It's front quarterlights I detest:
> 
> View attachment 306719


Not exactly comparing like with like there.

Getting rid of the rear one on the merc would look loads better, one sweeping curve.


----------



## Aladdin (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 306714
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> ...



It has a handlebar moustache 🙂


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not exactly comparing like with like there.
> 
> Getting rid of the rear one on the merc would look loads better, one sweeping curve.



Yeah it would also make the opening of the window rather difficult to achieve.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah it would also make the opening of the window rather difficult to achieve.


Given that we reached a state of technological advancement that enabled us to put men on the moon 50 years back, I reckon that’s not an insurmountable problem.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Given that we reached a state of technological advancement that enabled us to put men on the moon 50 years back, I reckon that’s not an insurmountable problem.



It's solved by having a reasonably proportioned car like a SUV and not some squashed Lewis Hamilton wannabe wank-mobile.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's solved by having a reasonably proportioned car like a SUV and not some squashed Lewis Hamilton wannabe wank-mobile.


Or, even better, a small 1.0L family hatchback, with an estate if space _really_ needed (own multiple dogs and/or sporting equipment). 4x4 Panda for those making oh so tricky countryside trips when it’s rained a bit. Land Rover if you’re a farmer.

Sorted.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

I have an all-in-one solution for all Mercedes windows:


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Or, even better, a small 1.0L family hatchback, with an estate if space _really_ needed (own multiple dogs and/or sporting equipment). 4x4 Panda for those making oh so tricky countryside trips when it’s rained a bit. Land Rover if you’re a farmer.
> 
> Sorted.



I'd rather have one car than three thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> I doubt you'd pass the DBS though.



They obviously don’t check too hard if you passed.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> They obviously don’t check too hard if you passed.


I have an enhanced one.  Not sure if your drunk driving charge would disqualify you. Hopefully.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> I have an enhanced one.  Not sure if your drunk driving charge would disqualify you.



I wouldn't have thought so after 35 years. If they went back that far your stuff with that dog would certainly have come up.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I wouldn't have thought so after 35 years. If they went back that far your stuff with that dog would certainly have come up.


It's relevance though. My 35 year old shoplifting conviction (aged twelve) does come up when the police look me up, it's just not included as it's not relevant to me working with children. Hopefully drink driving would show up for driving jobs. Personally I'd remove any possibility of doubt by tattooing 'selfish cunt' on the foreheads of all drunk drivers.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> Personally I'd remove any possibility of doubt by tattooing 'selfish cunt' on the foreheads of all drunk drivers.



I couldn't agree more but it's a dodgy route to go down. If we tattooed everyone with their mistakes there wouldn't be enough room for all your drug abuse.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> Personally I'd remove any possibility of doubt by tattooing 'selfish cunt' on the foreheads of all drunk drivers.


I don't see why it needs to be limited to that subset of drivers. I'd say car owners instead.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't agree more but it's a dodgy route to go down. If we tattooed everyone with their mistakes there wouldn't be enough room for all your drug abuse.


At least there'd be lots of different words there and not just 'COCAINE' in massive letters like you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> At least there'd be lots of different words there and not just 'COCAINE' in massive letters like you.



_Fuck me_ if that's not the pot calling the kettle black!  Not getting caught isn't the same as not doing it, peanut.

And once again, you have to dig back decades into my past to come up with something.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> _Fuck me_ if that's not the pot calling the kettle black!  Not getting caught isn't the same as not doing it, peanut.
> 
> And once again, you have to dig back decades into my past to come up with something.


On the basis of the last twenty four hours I don't actually think you can read English. I'm claiming to have done *more* drugs than you (though less cocaine).

Though not as many as your lying pisshead mate claimed. This board is a lot nicer since he stopped posting. It'll be even nicer when you join him in rehab or wherever.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> Though not as many as your lying pisshead mate claimed. This board is a lot nicer since he stopped posting. It'll be even nicer when you join him in rehab or wherever.



Cor blimey, you're determined to wear those pots and kettles out today, aren't you?

Aren't you due for your next flounce soon?


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cor blimey, you're determined to wear those pots and kettles out today, aren't you?
> 
> Aren't you due for your next flounce soon?



A flounce is when you announce it. But I'm waiting for your next tizzy first. Though I don't think 'tizzy' really does four hours of pounding obscene abuse into a keyboard while apologising to your mates who've said pretty much the same thing as I had for any offence you might have caused. Almost as amusing as your mate trying to explain the big difference between wishing someone dead of natural causes and wishing them dead by murder.


----------



## T & P (Jan 20, 2022)

Fuck’s sake, guys…


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> A flounce is when you announce it. But I'm waiting for your next tizzy first. Though I don't think 'tizzy' really does four hours of pounding obscene abuse into a keyboard while apologising to your mates who've said pretty much the same thing as I had for any offence you might have caused. Almost as amusing as your mate trying to explain the big difference between wishing someone dead of natural causes and wishing them dead by murder.


Well you are the only poster who wishes people dead around here, in fairness to him. 

Anyway, you’re in that phase you get yourself into now. Chill out for a bit, fella. You know what happens when you work yourself up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'd rather have one car than three thanks.


You only need the small hatchback. The evidence for this is that you’re considering buying an Evoque, so you clearly have no need for interior space or off road ability.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You only need the small hatchback. The evidence for this is that you’re considering buying an Evoque, so you clearly have no need for interior space or off road ability.


Who’s buying an Evoque?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You only need the small hatchback. The evidence for this is that you’re considering buying an Evoque, so you clearly have no need for interior space or off road ability.



Went past this the other day. Hard to tell from the pic but it has sunk six inches. A hatchback with a typical ground clearance of 130mm would easily get stuck. That's the good thing about a SUV on country lanes - you can easily pull off to the side to let people pass without worrying about getting grounded and having to find a tow rope.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Went past this the other day. Hard to tell from the pic but it has sunk six inches. A hatchback with a typical ground clearance of 130mm would easily get stuck. That's the good thing about a SUV on country lanes - you can easily pull off to the side to let people pass without worrying about getting grounded and having to find a tow rope.
> 
> View attachment 306759


Gosh, if something was coming the other way you’d have to wait a few seconds and pull around it. The _horror_.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Who’s buying an Evoque?



I just reluctantly added it to my shortlist when I realized it was cheaper than an equivalent-spec mid-range Qashqai:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I just reluctantly added it to my shortlist when I realized it was cheaper than an equivalent-spec mid-range Qashqai:
> 
> View attachment 306760
> 
> ...


But the Nissan will actually work.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Gosh, if something was coming the other way you’d have to wait a few seconds and pull around it. The _horror_.



No, you couldn't pull around it without the risk of getting stuck, you'd have to force the other party to pull off the road for you, hoping it's a SUV or truck, or else reverse back and possibly cause problems for other drivers.

Best just to have a vehicle suitable for the conditions on the roads you commonly drive on.


----------



## maomao (Jan 20, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well you are the only poster who wishes people dead around here, in fairness to him.


I'm clearly not. I think you need an Alzheimer's check or something though. You're not what you used to be.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 20, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're not what you used to be.



You are.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Went past this the other day. Hard to tell from the pic but it has sunk six inches. A hatchback with a typical ground clearance of 130mm would easily get stuck. That's the good thing about a SUV on country lanes - you can easily pull off to the side to let people pass without worrying about getting grounded and having to find a tow rope.
> 
> View attachment 306759


You're not very good at reversing then?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You're not very good at reversing then?



Yeah it's helpful to everyone when you can't drive forwards due to owning a car with insufficient ground clearance, so have to ask the tractor and funeral cortege behind you if they wouldn't mind all moving backwards too. 

It's like people driving on snow in BMWs on summer tyres and blocking the road for everyone else.

Use a vehicle appropriate for the road and everything goes smoothly.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah it's helpful to everyone when you can't drive forwards due to owning a car with insufficient ground clearance, so have to ask the tractor and funeral cortege behind you if they wouldn't mind all moving backwards too.
> 
> It's like people driving on snow in BMWs on summer tyres and blocking the road for everyone else.
> 
> Use a vehicle appropriate for the road and everything goes smoothly.


You're actually supposed to stay on the road, not drive off the side of it. Are you aware of this?

If your car is too wide for the road, that's your fault, not anyone else's.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You're actually supposed to stay on the road, not drive off the side of it. Are you aware of this?
> 
> If your car is too wide for the road, that's your fault, not anyone else's.



How do you pass other vehicles on single-track roads without passing places, such as the one I pictured above?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How do you pass other vehicles on single-track roads without passing places, such as the one I pictured above?


One or other person has to reverse to the nearest place where there's room for two vehicles to pass. If you can't reverse then you shouldn't be driving on these roads. In the example in your photo, there's no way two vehicles could pass there anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Went past this the other day. Hard to tell from the pic but it has sunk six inches. A hatchback with a typical ground clearance of 130mm would easily get stuck. That's the good thing about a SUV on country lanes - you can easily pull off to the side to let people pass without worrying about getting grounded and having to find a tow rope.
> 
> View attachment 306759


A road like that is exactly why you want a nice small Panda 4x4 and not a bloated wide monstrosity like a Range Rover.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> One or other person has to reverse to the nearest place where there's room for two vehicles to pass. If you can't reverse then you shouldn't be driving on these roads. In the example in your photo, there's no way two vehicles could pass there anyway.



Neither has to reverse if one of them is driving a vehicle that can safely use the verge.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

kabbes said:


> A road like that is exactly why you want a nice small Panda 4x4 and not a bloated wide monstrosity like a Range Rover.



How would having a SUV that is 20cm narrower help.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Neither has to reverse if one of them is driving a vehicle that can safely use the verge.


Read the highway code and stop damaging publicly owned infrastructure just because you can't reverse.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How would having a SUV that is 20cm narrower help.


Mine is the older 2008 model and is narrower still

If you can’t work out why narrow doesn’t help then there is nothing I can do for you


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

Of the small amount of driving I do, quite a high portion of it is done on single track roads in the Highlands. I can't think of any time that a road has become blocked because a car has become grounded. Blockages and delays are however often caused by people in oversized vehicles who can't reverse them properly.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Read the highway code and stop damaging publicly owned infrastructure just because you can't reverse.



Thats exactly what a city-dweller would say. It’s your sort who delay hard-working farmers from going about their business because you‘re too prissy to put the tyres of your Corsa on a bit of grass and instead insist on causing a reversing drama.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Of the small amount of driving I do, quite a high portion of it is done on single track roads in the Highlands. I can't think of any time that a road has become blocked because a car has become grounded. Blockages and delays are however often caused by people in oversized vehicles who can't reverse them properly.



Your Highlands holiday playground isn’t exactly typical of the UK countryside.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

Just be honest with yourself, you want that Range Rover because of its image. There is no other reason - literally none - that can’t be fulfilled better by other vehicles.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just be honest with yourself, you want that Range Rover because of its image. There is no other reason - literally none - that can’t be fulfilled better by other vehicles.


The image of being a twat?


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 20, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just be honest with yourself, you want that Range Rover because of its image. There is no other reason - literally none - that can’t be fulfilled better by other vehicles.



I don’t want it, as I’ve been clear about. If it does come top of my shortlist of vehicles in this class, it will be purely due to price. If I then chose a different vehicle solely due to thinking that other people might think I was a twat, I’d be a twat.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 20, 2022)

The decision will derive purely from economic necessity. If that's the cheapest of the pointedly expensive status symbols on the market, then so be it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 20, 2022)

“But the ground clearance…”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2022)

Meanwhile, another Mercedes driver shows why they’re famed for their common sense.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 21, 2022)

Another unsuitable vehicle. Should have bought a Ford Ranger instead. Sure the driver is a few gears short of a box but was probably convinced by some car-abolitionist cyclist nutters that a small coupé would be less anti-social for city driving.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Another unsuitable vehicle. Should have bought a Ford Ranger instead. Sure the driver is a few gears short of a box but was probably convinced by some car-abolitionist cyclist nutters that a small coupé would be less anti-social for city driving.


Yeah, there’s literally no other option than using a massive pickup for large and heavy loads in our cities. None at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 21, 2022)

Yeah let’s make everything harder and more laborious for everyone. Why not replace trains with stagecoaches while you’re at it, anything to make cities quieter and leafier for their privileged white-collar denizens.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> convinced by some car-abolitionist cyclist nutters


My anti-car rants always include an exception for supercharged Mercedes convertibles.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “But the ground clearance…”


Yeah ground clearance doesn't matter:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah let’s make everything harder and more laborious for everyone. Why not replace trains with stagecoaches while you’re at it, anything to make cities quieter and leafier for their privileged white-collar denizens.


You’re… really not very good at this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah let’s make everything harder and more laborious for everyone. Why not replace trains with stagecoaches while you’re at it, anything to make cities quieter and leafier for their privileged white-collar denizens.



Harder and more laborious. Like how breathing is harder and more laborious in a city where every cunt drvies everywhere.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 21, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Harder and more laborious. Like how breathing is harder and more laborious in a city where every cunt drvies everywhere.



"I want a massive new workforce of minimum-wage bike labourers to support me so I can pretend I live in the countryside"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "I want a massive new workforce of minimum-wage bike labourers to support me so I can pretend I live in the countryside"


Really, _really_ bad at this.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Really, _really_ bad at this.



That’s because the arguments are so laughably ridiculous that no considered response is possible.


----------



## maomao (Jan 21, 2022)

Climate change and pollution disproportionately affect the poor and the 44 percent of London households that dont have a car are not the richest ones. I did have Bioboy down as just an inane futurist twat but the claim that fighting climate change is somehow a middle class obsession is a regular argument of proper right wingers and Daily Mail types.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

Love how platinumsage feels the need to counter absolutely every post no matter the mental gymnastics it takes!


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 22, 2022)

How will replacing van and lorry drivers with 100X as many cycling labourers affect the price of goods in cities? How will that affect poor people exactly?

Car abolition is a middle-class fetish that has very little to do with actually tackling climate change.


----------



## maomao (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love how platinumsage feels the need to counter absolutely every post no matter the mental gymnastics it takes!


He does it daily to justify his degenerate lifestyle to himself anyway


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

Disqualified Range Rover driver reverse wrong way down a road, hits a girl, drags her along, pulls her out from under the wheels & speeds off. 

Hard to even care about the soft sentence as no sentence or disqualification will stop this happening. We need other measures.









						Disqualified driver jailed after hit-and-run involving Islington schoolgirl
					

A "reckless and selfish" disqualified motorist who seriously injured a 12-year-old girl in a hit-and-run in Islington has been jailed for…




					www.islingtongazette.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Disqualified Range Rover driver reverse wrong way down a road, hits a girl, drags her along, pulls her out from under the wheels & speeds off.
> 
> Hard to even care about the soft sentence as no sentence or disqualification will stop this happening. We need other measures.
> 
> ...



Those measures are already out there. I couldn't have done this in my Volvo because it doesn't let  you reverse into people, it beeps loudly and slams on the brakes.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Those measures are already out there. I couldn't have done this in my Volvo because it doesn't let  you reverse into people, it beeps loudly and slams on the brakes.


Well they’re not because this happened. Making them compulsory on all vehicles would be the measure.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well they’re not because this happened. Making them compulsory on all vehicles would be the measure.



There are plans and a roadmaps for all these things. If you were actually interested you could read all the relevant European Commission, DoT and EuroNCAP technical briefings. Contrary to what you think it's not as easy as suddenly making such systems compulsory on all vehicles. Retro-fitting would be prohibitively expensive for many people for starters.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are plans and a roadmaps for all these things. If you were actually interested you could read all the relevant European Commission, DoT and EuroNCAP technical briefings. Contrary to what you think it's not as easy as suddenly making such systems compulsory on all vehicles. Retro-fitting would be prohibitively expensive for many people for starters.


Links? What’s the timescales for implementation in this country? 

In the meantime let’s look at other measures to reduce road danger though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Making them compulsory on all vehicles would be the measure.



If it was made complusory to shoot everyone with an IQ of less than 50, you wouldn't be posting now.

A bit drastic though.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> If it was made complusory to shoot everyone with an IQ of less than 50, you wouldn't be posting now.
> 
> A bit drastic though.


Not sure what point you’re trying desperately to make but don’t think it’s going to stop some cunt not run over a kid and leave them for dead.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what point you’re trying desperately to make but don’t think it’s going to stop some cunt not run over a kid and leave them for dead.





edcraw said:


> In the meantime let’s look at other measures to reduce road danger though.



What interim measures do you think would be suitable in the meantime to stop people getting run over by cunts?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> .... don’t think it’s going to stop some cunt not run over a kid and leave them for dead.



But it would help us cunts not have to read your boring bollocks on the internet.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What interim measures do you think would be suitable in the meantime to stop people getting run over by cunts?


Measures to reduce the amount of traffic on urban streets eg. LTNs, road pricing, congestion charging etc. are one way. Obviously doesn’t  stop it but reduces the danger as they reduce the frequency vehicles come into conflict with vehicles.

Better than throwing your hands up in the air and saying nothing can be done until we make it physically impossible for drivers to run people over in some far off time in the future.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 23, 2022)

If only there was a way perhaps one that has been shown to work I just can’t think of anything at all it’s a real problem oh well best we just stick with allowing cars unrestricted access everywhere their owners want (cont. p.94)


----------



## 8ball (Jan 27, 2022)

Not looked in this thread for a while because it’s 99.7% shite, but thought I’d leave this here, found it an interesting watch.  Not anti-car so much as pro humanising cities.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

You can't humanise cities without being anti car, I'm afraid. This is what people have to get to understand.


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You can't humanise cities without being anti car, I'm afraid. This is what people have to get to understand.



You won’t find many people in Tokyo who profess to be “anti-car” - it doesn’t take fervent abolitionist zealotry to create cities with decent transport arrangements, in fact such stances tend to be counter-productive.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You won’t find many people in Tokyo who profess to be “anti-car” - it doesn’t take fervent abolitionist zealotry to create cities with decent transport arrangements, in fact such stances tend to be counter-productive.


99.8%


----------



## edcraw (Jan 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love how platinumsage feels the need to counter absolutely every post no matter the mental gymnastics it takes!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

platinumsage doing some mental gymnastics


----------



## 8ball (Jan 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You won’t find many people in Tokyo who profess to be “anti-car” - it doesn’t take fervent abolitionist zealotry to create cities with decent transport arrangements, in fact such stances tend to be counter-productive.



Good follow-up, I agree on both counts.  The example of Copenhagen in the video shows a city that is hardly “anti-car”, but isn’t car-dependent.
You can have low car-dependency and still wind up giving a lot of space over to cars, though.
But anyway, I’m trying to take a break from the religion wars at the wars at the moment <crosses self> - just took the thread off ignore for a minute because I thought there were some ideas there.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> Good follow-up, I agree on both counts.  The example of Copenhagen in the video shows a city that is hardly “anti-car”, but isn’t car-dependent.
> You can have low car-dependency and still wind up giving a lot of space over to cars, though.
> But anyway, I’m trying to take a break from the religion wars at the wars at the moment <crosses self> - just took the thread off ignore for a minute because I thought there were some ideas there.



One reason that Copenhagen has ended up as it has, is that unlike many other European cities it did not pursue post-war road building schemes. It did not build the things like ring roads that most places did. Apparently this was initially down to a lack of money, but this delayed things enough that by the time that such things could have been built, it had already been seen what damage they had done to other cities, and Copenhagen made a positive decision not to do the same. That is an anti car decision, especially in context of what was happening elsewhere.

Regarding Tokyo - ask most residents if they'd like their streets converted to something more like the European standard model and I reckon you'd find pretty quickly that they were "anti-car".


----------



## platinumsage (Jan 28, 2022)

Nonsense - being against ring roads doesn't make someone anti-car. I think Coventry for example would be much nicer for motorists if it didn't have a ring road.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 28, 2022)

I suppose the video isn't that anti-car apart from showing the way cars make streets more dangerous, how to improve streets by removing cars, better uses of parking spaces than storing cars, a city making alternatives to cars more tempting, being down on car-centric cities, and so on.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

Shall I rename the thread "propaganda that is not exactly pro-car as such, but don't panic everyone" or something like that?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Shall I rename the thread "propaganda that is not exactly pro-car as such, but don't panic everyone" or something like that?



If you want a propaganda thread, call it whatever you like.  If you want a thread on better forms of urban planning that gets posted on by more people interested in similar ideas but less interested in weird tribal bunfights, maybe make another thread.
This was the closest thread I could think of for that particular video.  There are loads of ideas aside from those, obv.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

8ball said:


> If you want a thread on better forms of urban planning that gets posted on by more people interested in similar ideas but less interested in weird tribal bunfights, maybe make another thread.


I've done plenty of threads like that. Not much point just talking to people who already agree though - and they often end up as tribal bunfights regardless.

With this thread I decided just to go straight for antagonistic propaganda. It's been incredibly popular and successful and has even influenced national policy and mainstream journalism so I'm pretty pleased with the results.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's been incredibly popular and successful and has even influenced national policy and mainstream journalism so I'm pretty pleased with the results.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

My kids school has started publishing a weekly newsletter to parents, listing all the registration numbers who have broken the car free street zone rules at drop-off/pickup times 

Anyone who gets a repeat mention is being reported to the police


----------



## teuchter (Jan 28, 2022)

Good to know the thread is not just influencing policy at a national level but at individual school newsletter level too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Good to know the thread is not just influencing policy at a national level but at individual school newsletter level too.


It was me who got the headteacher to put the school forward to take part in the scheme in the first place


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyone who gets a repeat mention is being reported to the police



Then what?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Then what?


Fines I think.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fines I think.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 307802


 

There’s similar schemes popping up all over the country.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

“Driving in the Pedestrian & Cycle Zone during the identified times that this restriction is in place is a moving traffic offence, so it is the Police who are the enforcing body and they are able to issue a £50 fixed penalty fine to anyone caught driving here without permission.”

From:

Report


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 28, 2022)

Isn't this one of the minor offences that councils are/will be collecting fines for rather than the police? I imagine they'll be keener to collect.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Isn't this one of the minor offences that councils are/will be collecting fines for rather than the police? I imagine they'll be keener to collect.


See previous post


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 28, 2022)

Sorry for the Mail link, this may change in June, though councils need to apply for these powers: Councils to get powers from 1 June to fine drivers for minor offences


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There’s similar schemes popping up all over the country.




Yep, same with community speeding efforts, none has the authority to issue fines and their evidence on its own is not enough for plod to do so either. A stern letter is the weapon in the arsenal here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep, same with community speeding efforts, none has the authority to issue fines and their evidence on its own is not enough for plod to do so either. A stern letter is the weapon in the arsenal here.


Except the police have both the ability to issue fines, and camera evidence of those driving where they shouldn’t.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Except the police have both the ability to issue fines, and camera evidence of those driving where they shouldn’t.



So your kid's school is collecting time and date stamped camera evidence now?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So your kid's school is collecting time and date stamped camera evidence now?


I believe there’s at least one camera, yes. Actual police turn up every so often as well - the school was part of the initial pilot scheme so in the spotlight as it were. And B’ham at the moment is heading in a fairly radical direction when it comes to cars…


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I believe there’s at least one camera, yes. Actual police turn up every so often as well - the school was part of the initial pilot scheme so in the spotlight as it were. And B’ham at the moment is heading in a fairly radical direction when it comes to cars…




A very different story to this one...



beesonthewhatnow said:


> My kids school has started publishing a weekly newsletter to parents, listing all the registration numbers who have broken the car free street zone rules at drop-off/pickup times
> 
> Anyone who gets a repeat mention is being reported to the police


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A very different story to this one...


Or two parts of the same story. The bit I liked was the offenders reg being published. School gossip being what it is I’m sure those being selfish will soon be getting grumbled at by the gate


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Or two parts of the same story. The bit I liked was the offenders reg being published. School gossip being what it is I’m sure those being selfish will soon be getting grumbled at by the gate



Sounds like the school is committing serious GDPR and safeguarding breaches here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 28, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sounds like the school is committing serious GDPR and safeguarding breaches here.


Not sure how a vehicle registration number is either of those tbh


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not sure how a vehicle registration number is either of those tbh



Publishing identifying details of who is taking and collecting children from school is very much both of those.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 29, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Publishing identifying details of who is taking and collecting children from school is very much both of those.


no it’s not, a number plate doesn’t identify the driver etc. Love how you thinking twatty drivers must be protected at all costs though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> no it’s not, a number plate doesn’t identify the driver etc. Love how you thinking teary drivers must be protected at all costs though.




My sister who is the safeguarding officer for SW Surrey disagrees with you.

Parents in messy divorces where one party has limited access to the child is the issue, not ‘teary drivers’


----------



## edcraw (Jan 29, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My sister who is the safeguarding officer for SW Surrey disagrees with you.
> 
> Parents in messy divorces where one party has limited access to the child is the issue, not ‘teary drivers’


Sorry - meant ‘twatty’ but could have said ‘law breaking’ as well. We should prob ban number plates in case ‘parents in messy divorces’ stand on the street and look at them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> a number plate doesn’t identify the driver




An edcraw fact


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jan 29, 2022)

Is publishing car registration numbers a breach of GDPR?



> The answer to that question is: *yes, a car registration plate is personal data if the car is owned by an individual or sole trader*. ... The GDPR and the Data Protection Act define personal data as: “any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual”.



HTH


----------



## edcraw (Jan 29, 2022)

At least I’m not making up relatives to win arguments on the internet.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2022)

A car registration is personal data, but that doesn't necessity mean that publishing it without consent is unlawful. The school could argue it's relying on 'public task' or 'legitimate interests' grounds, given their trying to uphold a law that's in place to protect their pupils.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> At least I’m not making up relatives to win arguments on the internet.




Oh dear.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 29, 2022)

Athos said:


> A car registration is personal data, but that doesn't necessity mean that publishing it without consent is unlawful. The school could argue it's relying on 'public task' or 'legitimate interests' grounds, given their trying to uphold a law that's in place to protect their pupils.




Bees’ school isn’t doing it to protect anyone, they are doing it so that…




beesonthewhatnow said:


> those being selfish will soon be getting grumbled at by the gate


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 29, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Oh dear.



The man's a twat. Just post him donkey pictures.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 29, 2022)

Here’s a story about how much the police care about these things.

The council closed a byway here to traffic and asked local residents to report people breaking the closure. So I did my duty, dutifully photographing cars, during my daily constitutional, that had parked up the byway despite the signs saying it was closed, and sending these to local plod as part of their multi-page, irritating-to-navigate online form.  After I’d done about a dozen of them, they sent me an email telling me to stop reporting it because I was causing too much admin.  I responded, copying in the highways officer that had closed the road and made the request, saying that this is what we had been asked to do, and asking what the police were doing with the information I had sent them?  I got no response.  I didn’t send any more photographs either (tempting as it was to up my rate by a factor of 10).

I don’t know that this story particularly helps either side of this little debate, but it does demonstrate the non-joined-up nature of local authorities, and that nobody really has a clue even what they are trying to achieve, let alone how to achieve it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bees’ school isn’t doing it to protect anyone, they are doing it so that…


Leveraging public shaming to ensure compliance with the law.  Like China.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Here’s a story about how much the police care about these things.
> 
> The council closed a byway here to traffic and asked local residents to report people breaking the closure. So I did my duty, dutifully photographing cars, during my daily constitutional, that had parked up the byway despite the signs saying it was closed, and sending these to local plod as part of their multi-page, irritating-to-navigate online form.  After I’d done about a dozen of them, they sent me an email telling me to stop reporting it because I was causing too much admin.  I responded, copying in the highways officer that had closed the road and made the request, saying that this is what we had been asked to do, and asking what the police were doing with the information I had sent them?  I got no response.  I didn’t send any more photographs either (tempting as it was to up my rate by a factor of 10).
> 
> I don’t know that this story particularly helps either side of this little debate, but it does demonstrate the non-joined-up nature of local authorities, and that nobody really has a clue even what they are trying to achieve, let alone how to achieve it.


I would say it illustrates one of  the "real" costs of properly maintaining a road network that is available to private vehicles. Arguments always come up about the relative public costs of road and rail, or whether "road tax" covers the real cost of providing everything necessary to enable private motoring. Both of those questions are kind of unanswerable because it's impossible to fully separate out costs ... But the numbers given for the cost of maintaining the road network usually exclude all sorts of stuff, the stuff often called "externalities".

One commonly mentioned externality is for example policing. But what you describe is an externality that _should_ be done and actually isn't. In other words the money that ought to be spent (and in my opinion the cost should be passed on to motorists) isn't, because the council and police aren't resourced to deal with it.

It's just like the non-enforcement of speed limits in urban areas. The cost is basically passed on to those who suffer the negative effects. Instead of the motorist paying, everyone else pays, in the form of dangerous or damaged environments.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 29, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bees’ school isn’t doing it to protect anyone


That’s exactly why they’re doing it. It’s just unfortunate that simply asking drivers to do the right thing and _not endanger children_ somehow isn’t enough. 

But sure, let’s worry about the privacy of poor little drivers who can’t be arsed to walk 200 yards each morning.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 29, 2022)

Just overheard a conversation between two parents at my kids swimming class.

“There’s new parking restrictions coming in next week outside school, solid yellow lines now, it’s utterly ridiculous”

“Yeah, all it will do is spread everyone further away and make us walk the last bit”

Drivers. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.




Edit - seen in the car park afterwards, one getting into an Evoque, one into a Tesla. The stereotypes exist for a reason


----------



## edcraw (Jan 30, 2022)

OneLambeth Twitter account didn’t post for about a week and has now protected their tweets. Great campaigning there!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 1, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just overheard a conversation between two parents at my kids swimming class.
> 
> “There’s new parking restrictions coming in next week outside school, solid yellow lines now, it’s utterly ridiculous”
> 
> ...



Imagine having to teach your kids how to walk.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 1, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Imagine having to teach your kids how to walk.


The _horror_.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 1, 2022)

"seriously we mean under no circumstances should you be fucking around with your phone while driving"





And personally more than happy to call out cyclists tootling along in traffic while holding a mobile.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Be interested to know how much that ended up costing the farmer.
> 
> The insurers of the car will be going for the jugular and I expect he'll get his collar felt too.




Farmer acquitted on all charges in court 









						Car-flip farmer cleared of dangerous driving and criminal damage
					

Robert Hooper's partner said he had been through "months of hell" after removing the Corsa from his property.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 4, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Farmer acquitted on all charges in court
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I suspected at the time, there was a fuckton of previous, including the farmer being punched by the driver's mate.

So fuckem.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> As I suspected at the time, there was a fuckton of previous, including the farmer being punched by the driver's mate.
> 
> So fuckem.



One of the pissed up wankers claimed he was planning on walking back to Tyneside, 52 miles away


----------



## teuchter (Feb 4, 2022)

> Mr Hooper claimed Mr Burns had punched him twice through the window of the farm vehicle he was driving, bursting his lip.
> "I thought it is time to get out of there, and I said, 'If you don't move it, I will'," he told the court.
> "My mind was racing."
> Mr Hooper said he was concerned at what the two young men might do and "what they had in terms of weapons".
> "I thought if the car was off the property, that would be them off the property, out of the way," he added.



Much as I might enjoy flipping over someone's car in such a dispute, I'm not sure I would conclude that this action would end the matter, or that it would reduce the chances of them attacking me with weapons.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

From Nextdoor. Won’t anyone think of the poor drivers who are unable to see what’s on the pavement as they drive over it!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> From Nextdoor. Won’t anyone think of the poor drivers who are unable to see what’s on the pavement as they drive over it!
> 
> View attachment 308818



Attacking women drivers now, goat man?

Shame on you.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> From Nextdoor. Won’t anyone think of the poor drivers who are unable to see what’s on the pavement as they drive over it!
> 
> View attachment 308818


“My car is badly designed and has huge blind spots due to its size. Also, I’m driving on the pavement due to being a selfish, inconsiderate, arsehole”

These people are just fucking thick.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Attacking women drivers now, goat man?
> 
> Shame on you.


The fact that’s your take away speaks volumes about the Jeremy Clarkson wannabe you are.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

The internet is brimming with outraged cyclists complaining about "dangerous" obstructions on pavements intended to mitigate their selfish cycling

e.g.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The internet is brimming with outraged cyclists complaining about "dangerous" obstructions on pavements intended to mitigate their selfish cycling
> 
> e.g.
> 
> View attachment 308826


Now imagine that was a cargo bike. Or a tandem. Or an adapted wheelchair trike. Or a hand cycle trike. Or any other of the many options that are available for disabled people. Or a double buggy.

Then shut up.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The internet is brimming with outraged cyclists complaining about "dangerous" obstructions on pavements intended to mitigate their selfish cycling
> 
> e.g.
> 
> View attachment 308826


…but cyclists!

Well done! 👏


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Now imagine that was a cargo bike. Or a tandem. Or an adapted wheelchair trike. Or a hand cycle trike.
> 
> Then shut up.



Now imagine this was a wheelchair, or a pram or a blind person. 

Then shut up:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Now imagine this was a wheelchair, or a pram or a blind person.
> 
> Then shut up:


Yea, they’d be able to both see it, and easily move around it, you tiresome tit.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Now imagine this was a wheelchair, or a pram or a blind person.
> 
> Then shut up:
> 
> View attachment 308828


What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yea, they’d be able to both see it, and easily move around it, you tiresome tit.



Have you tried telling a blind person they ought to be able to see pavement obstructions and move around them?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What the fuck are you on about?


This is all they’ve got, it’s desperate.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage out of his depth again and needing to respond to every post anyway with meaningless drivel.

This is the pavement in question by the way.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have you tried telling a blind person they ought to be able to see pavement obstructions and move around them?


_sigh_

I’ve had blind family members, worked with both the RNIB and Guide Dogs, and volunteered with an organisation that supports both visually impaired and other physically disabled cyclists. But sure, go ahead and try to argue that infrastructure designed to stop cars from driving on the pavement is a bad thing.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> platinumsage out of his depth again and needing to respond to every post anyway with meaningless drivel.
> 
> This is the pavement in question by the way.
> 
> View attachment 308829



Yes it's appalling. Why not a standard full-height bollard


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> platinumsage out of his depth again and needing to respond to every post anyway with meaningless drivel.
> 
> This is the pavement in question by the way.
> 
> View attachment 308829


I mean, how could _anyone_ possibly get around such monumental obstructions as that?


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2022)

Is hard to conceive of any legitimate reason for any car mount the pavement there!


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes it's appalling. Why not a standard full-height bollard


Fuck me - I’ll break it down for you.

Cars shouldn’t be driving on pavements.

Drivers should be able to see massive objects in their way.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

Athos said:


> Is hard to conceive of any legitimate reason for any car mount the pavement there!



Sure, so why not place a proper bollard there, rather than some sneaky floor-level thing that is clearly just as much a danger to pedestrians as it is to cars?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes it's appalling. Why not a standard full-height bollard


The only reason it could be considered appalling is the fact it’s even needed in the first place.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

If you're angry about bell bollards and want to end them, why not form a campaign group? You just need to figure out a name for those who want to end bells.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, so why not place a proper bollard there, rather than some sneaky floor-level thing that is clearly just as much a danger to pedestrians as it is to cars?


It isn’t dangerous to pedestrians.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, so why not place a proper bollard there, rather than some sneaky floor-level thing that is clearly just as much a danger to pedestrians as it is to cars?


Because they are designed to stop heavy vehicles that a "proper bollard" would not.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, so why not place a proper bollard there, rather than some sneaky floor-level thing that is clearly just as much a danger to pedestrians as it is to cars?


“Sneaky”


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

Next up: instead of kerb stones why not have sneaky spike traps to catch out cyclists and motorists who ought not to be mounting pavements?


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, so why not place a proper bollard there, rather than some sneaky floor-level thing that is clearly just as much a danger to pedestrians as it is to cars?


Sneaky 🤣


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

“I want to drive wherever I want”

As ever, this is the only argument they have.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Because they are designed to stop heavy vehicles that a "proper bollard" would not.



Absolute nonsense.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “I want to drive wherever I want”
> 
> As ever, this is the only argument they have.



Complete misrepresentation. Hilarious.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Next up: instead of kerb stones why not have sneaky spike traps to catch out cyclists and motorists who ought not to be mounting pavements?


Because a nice big lump of metal or concrete does the job quite well. See picture up thread for details.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because a nice big lump of metal or concrete does the job quite well. See picture up thread for details.


Pretty sure those tress wouldn’t last too long without it there.

The fact we even need to put bollards on pavements shows just how crap so many drivers are.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Complete misrepresentation. Hilarious.


Go on. Talk us through the fascinating point you’re trying to make.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Complete misrepresentation. Hilarious.


Even by your low, miserable standards you’re on form today. Let’s get out the crayons and do this step by step.

1 - cars shouldn’t be on pavements
2 - car drivers know this
3 - they drive on pavements anyway, because fuck everyone else
4 - measures are put in place to stop them 
5 - drivers produce salty tears of indignation


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Go on. Talk us through the fascinating point you’re trying to make.


It's a conspiracy and councils are in the thrall of big bollard.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The fact that’s your take away speaks volumes about the Jeremy Clarkson wannabe you are.



Wrong. Clarkson wants to be Spymaster.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Even by your low, miserable standards you’re on form today. Let’s get out the crayons and do this step by step.
> 
> 1 - cars shouldn’t be on pavements
> 2 - car drivers know this
> ...



Where have I disagreed with any of this? 

All I said was the measure put in place to stop them isn't very good. It didn't even stop them did it - it just stopped them driving off the pavement.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

It looks pretty stopped to me.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It looks pretty stopped to me.



Yeah, on the pavement, after driving on it. Not stopped from driving on the pavement.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

Do you think it's better to drive a little on the pavement and then stop, or drive a lot on the pavement and not stop?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Do you think it's better to drive a little on the pavement and then stop, or drive a lot on the pavement and not stop?



Clearly the vehicle had completed at least 50% of its pavement driving prior to being stopped. A full-hight bollard would have reduced that percentage to well below 50, and probably would have stopped it happening in the first place.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah, on the pavement, after driving on it. Not stopped from driving on the pavement.


Yeah - all pavements should have walls round them with doors at crossing points presumably.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - all pavements should have walls round them with doors at crossing points presumably.



No, clearly they need roadside pedestrian trip hazards to face-plant blind people into oncoming traffic.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, clearly they need roadside pedestrian trip hazards to face-plant blind people into oncoming traffic.


You’re not v bright really are you?


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

I could get on board with the idea of getting rid of all of these types of bollards but we'd need to ban all kinds of vehicles from these streets to achieve this. Pretty radical, some would say extreme.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Now imagine this was a wheelchair, or a pram or a blind person.
> 
> Then shut up:



Thought you meant, imagine if the bollard was a wheelchair, pram or blind person.

And that maybe you had seen the light.

But no.


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2022)

A bigger bollard would've been better, as they'd have seen it and not driven into the pavement in the first place. But, it takes some lack of self-awareness to publicly complain about the size of a bollard when the primary cause is you driving a car on the pavement!


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Thought you meant, imagine if the bollard was a wheelchair, pram or blind person.
> 
> And that maybe you had seen the light.
> 
> But no.



OK let's run with that. If this low-height bollard was a wheelchair, pram or blind person, they would be dead, presuming the driver hadn't seen them and taken avoiding action.

If a wheelchair, pram or blind person had been standing either side of this low-level bollard in the path of the SUV they would be dead too.

Not great is it?

What if it had been a full-height bollard vehicle-stopping that was easy for even the most oblivious driver to see? What would have happened then? Well, firstly there is high chance this SUV wouldn't have mounted the pavement, and secondly a wheelchair, pram or blind person located beyond the bollard would have survived.

This sounds to me like good argument for replacing this low-down bollard with a taller, more-visible one.

But apparently I'm wrong and there is some sort of argument for why this low-down bell-bollard is a better choice for this location. I know they're meant to deflect the tyres of large vehicles, but it's worth considering what exactly the highways authority were trying to prevent by the installation of this bollard, and who (or what) they were trying to protect.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> OK let's run with that. If this low-height bollard was a wheelchair, pram or blind person, they would be dead, presuming the driver hadn't seen them and taken avoiding action.
> 
> If a wheelchair, pram or blind person had been standing either side of this low-level bollard in the path of the SUV they would be dead too.
> 
> ...


I don't know enough about bollard design to argue one way or the other, whether a bell type or taller type would be more effective in preventing drivers from killing innocent people on pavements with their murder machines.

Do you?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I don't know enough about bollard design to argue one way or the other, whether a bell type or taller type would be more effective in preventing drivers from killing innocent people on pavements with their murder machines.
> 
> Do you?



Is that why this bollard was installed there? That’s news to me because it certainly doesn’t look like it.

HAs install bollards for all sorts of reasons, for example preventing damage to paving, trees and buildings.

Anyway thanks for confirming you don’t know what you’re talking about.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> OK let's run with that. If this low-height bollard was a wheelchair, pram or blind person, they would be dead, presuming the driver hadn't seen them and taken avoiding action.
> 
> If a wheelchair, pram or blind person had been standing either side of this low-level bollard in the path of the SUV they would be dead too.
> 
> ...


The problem isn’t the bollard it’s SUVs with shit visability and crap drivers not paying attention.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Is that why this bollard was installed there? That’s news to me because it certainly doesn’t look like it.
> 
> HAs install bollards for all sorts of reasons, for example preventing damage to paving, trees and buildings.
> 
> Anyway thanks for confirming you don’t know what you’re talking about.


You didn't answer my question - I asked if you knew enough about bollard design to argue that one type of bollard is better than another in this particular location.

It looks like you don't.

I don't, which means that I don't know. It doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about, because unlike you I'm not trying to argue either way. Hope that clarifies everything.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You didn't answer my question - I asked if you knew enough about bollard design to argue that one type of bollard is better than another in this particular location.
> 
> It looks like you don't.
> 
> I don't, which means that I don't know. It doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about, because unlike you I'm not trying to argue either way. Hope that clarifies everything.



Of course I know enough about bollard design to argue the points that I have argued, otherwise I wouldn't have argued them. I can back up everything I say with evidence.

I'm not like some people on this thread who just ignore actual facts and logic and start ranting about SUVs, presumably because they've been fed too much anti-car propaganda and have lost the ability to think rationally.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

Completely bonkers!


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I can back up everything I say with evidence.


What is your evidence that the benefits of a taller bollard would outweigh the benefits of a bell type bollard in this particular location?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - all pavements should have walls round them with doors at crossing points presumably.



That might stop cyclists from riding on them.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What is your evidence that the benefits of a taller bollard would outweigh the benefits of a bell type bollard in this particular location?



A quick look at the product literature for the Furnitubes Bell Bollards (they are the exclusive manufacturer) will tell you that they're primarily intended to keep lorries from over-running long shallow curves by deflecting the vehicle's tyres. The installation of a single bell bollard on a small pavement protrusion is obviously contrary to its intended use.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A quick look at the product literature for the Furnitubes Bell Bollards (they are the exclusive manufacturer) will tell you that they're primarily intended to keep lorries from over-running long shallow curves by deflecting the vehicle's tyres. The installation of a single bell bollard on a small pavement protrusion is obviously contrary to its intended use.


Are you a qualified highways engineer and does your assessment of the site extend beyond looking at a photo on internet discussion board "urban75"?









						Bell Safety Cast Iron Traffic Bollard - UK supplier
					

Cast iron Bell bollards are heavy duty supplied in a primed finish - deflects wheels of heavy traffic for pedestrian safety and protection of property




					www.furnitubes.com
				






> Product Notes​     It is highly recommended that the site is assessed by a qualified highways engineer, with placement of individual bollards taking account of vehicular sweeps, to be determined with the aid of vehicular tracking software if neccessary. A pre-construction safety audit may also be advisable in order to assess any issues such as visibility of the proposed Bell bollards, from both a driver and pedestrian points of view.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Are you a qualified highways engineer and does assessment of the site extend beyond looking at a photo on internet discussion board "urban75"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do enough planning work to be confident enough to bet you £10 to the server fund that an FOI request to the Highways Authority will reveal that there was no safety audit conducted for this bollard.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I do enough planning work to be confident enough to bet you £10 to the server fund that an FOI request to the Highways Authority will reveal that there was no safety audit conducted for this bollard.


That wasn't my question. Any deficiencies in the design of the installation are irrelevant to the matter of your competency.

Furthermore, your assertion that they are only appropriate for "long shallow curves" appears to be made up.

Are you a qualified highways engineer or aren't you?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That wasn't my question. Any deficiencies in the design of the installation are irrelevant to the matter of your competency.



I'm more interested in establishing the deficiencies in the design of the installation than convincing other people of my competency to do so. I would hope you would judge my competency by making your own assessment of the evidence and comparing our conclusions. I know plenty of "qualified highways engineers" who are not competent.



> Furthermore, your assertion that they are only appropriate for "long shallow curves" appears to be made up.



I made no such assertion.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I made no such assertion.


Good, then we can remove one of your objections to this particular siting.

Meanwhile here is an article about bollards by an actual highways engineer. You might be interested in the bit that points out that full height bollards can make children invisible to drivers.





__





						What A Load Of Bollards!
					

bollards! they are everywhere on our streets, but do we really need so many of them? What are they for? who do they help? who do they hinde...




					therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Good, then we can remove one of your objections to this particular siting.



Can we?



> Meanwhile here is an article about bollards by an actual highways engineer. You might be interested in the bit that points out that full height bollards can make children invisible to drivers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am well aware of that, but this tiny build-out doesn't contain a long straight row of bollards, or indeed bollards in the plural sense, so I don't see the relevance of your point.

That man "Ranty Highwayman" used to live locally to me, so I need no introduction to his ranting.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

Anyway, at least you’ve acknowledged that there are potential design problems with bollards and their location, and that it’s not as simple as blaming everything on stupid drivers.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> From Nextdoor. Won’t anyone think of the poor drivers who are unable to see what’s on the pavement as they drive over it!
> 
> View attachment 308818


I was joking when I wrote this but it’s platinumsage actual position!


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I was joking when I wrote this but it’s platinumsage actual position!



What other position is it reasonable to hold? Road design is meaningless? People who come a cropper on roads have only themselves to blame, and there's no point designing better infrastructure.? You're the joker here.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What other position is it reasonable to hold? Road design is meaningless? People who come a cropper on roads have only themselves to blame, and there's no point designing better infrastructure.? You're the joker here.


Again - drivers shouldn’t drive on the pavement & should also be able to see big obstacles in their way. Hardly fucking radical.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway, at least you’ve acknowledged that there are potential design problems with bollards and their location, and that it’s not as simple as blaming everything on stupid drivers.


When a driver drives onto the pavement, then the driver is unambiguously 100% to blame for any resulting damage because they should not be on the pavement in the first place. 

Of course I acknowledge that there are potential design problems with bollards and their location. All of these problems are a consequence of their necessity in the first place.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Again - drivers shouldn’t drive on the pavement & should also be able to see big obstacles in their way. Hardly fucking radical.



There are lots of things that people shouldn’t do, such as leave the gas on, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t design things to account for the fact that some people do those things sometimes, such as flame failure devices. Designing effective flame failure devices saves more lives then telling people not to be stupid and leave the gas on.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> When a driver drives onto the pavement, then the driver is unambiguously 100% to blame for any resulting damage because they should not be on the pavement in the first place.
> 
> Of course I acknowledge that there are potential design problems with bollards and their location. All of these problems are a consequence of their necessity in the first place.



I assume you started this thread because you have competency in this subject, perhaps you are a Chartered Transport Planning Professional. If so you’ll know that blame isn’t a useful concept when it comes to designing safe environments.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are lots of things that people shouldn’t do, such as leave the gas on, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t design things to account for the fact that some people do those things sometimes, such as flame failure devices. Designing effective flame failure devices saves more lives then telling people not to be stupid and leave the gas on.


this design seems to be working rather effectively. It’s stopping drivers cutting the corner and if they do they’re penalised by having to pay to get their car off the bollard and repair the damage to it.

A normal bollard there would get hot and need to be replaced each time.


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> this design seems to be working rather effectively. It’s stopping drivers cutting the corner and if they do they’re penalised by having to pay to get their car off the bollard and repair the damage to it.
> 
> A normal bollard there would get hot and need to be replaced each time.



The main problem there is visibility. Despite the fact people on here like to see cars getting damaged it’s not actually a good thing because it can lead to injuries.

I can think of a wide variety of bollard and non-bollard solutions for that build-out that would be safer and require less maintenance.

Luckily it hasn’t flipped a car onto a pedestrian yet.









						Car overturns after crashing into infamous bollard
					

A car overturned when it crashed into a metal "bell" blamed for several accidents at a busy junction.




					www.kentonline.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

3 pages of defending driving on pavements! We’ve jumped the shark!


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 3 pages of defending driving on pavements! We’ve jumped the shark!



Do you always do this? Just criticise some fake thing that no one has said whenever the debate looks like it's getting too detailed or complicated for you?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> When a driver drives onto the pavement, then the driver is unambiguously 100% to blame for any resulting damage because they should not be on the pavement in the first place.


Whether or not somebody agrees with that (and I do), they must surely agree that if somebody is going to do something as dangerous as mounting a pavement with a car, it’s their duty to be absolutely and clearly aware of every single potential obstruction.  To drive over a board like this is a clear dereliction of all duty of care. All kinds of things exist on pavements that shouldn’t be driven on. Thankfully, this was something that only inconvenienced the driver.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I assume you started this thread because you have competency in this subject, perhaps you are a Chartered Transport Planning Professional. If so you’ll know that blame isn’t a useful concept when it comes to designing safe environments.


I consider myself to have full competency in initiating argumentative threads on urban75, yes,

But let's return to the specifics that you are trying to avoid. I think we can all assume you have no particular experience or competence in the detailed design of safe street environments. Nonetheless you seem to be making a specific proposal for this particular location, which is that the bell bollard should be replaced with some other kind of bollard. Is that correct?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I consider myself to have full competency in initiating argumentative threads on urban75, yes,
> 
> But let's return to the specifics that you are trying to avoid. I think we can all assume you have no particular experience or competence in the detailed design of safe street environments. Nonetheless you seem to be making a specific proposal for this particular location, which is that the bell bollard should be replaced with some other kind of bollard. Is that correct?



No, it’s not.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, it’s not.


What is it then?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

Now, if only we had a qualified traffic engineer on these boards who designs road junctions and traffic infrastructure for a living  

Paging Zapp Brannigan


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re not v bright really are you?


Seriously, it’s taken you this long to work that out?


----------



## platinumsage (Feb 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What is it then?



My position is that situating a single black bell bollard on a pavement buildout with a low kerb height such as this is unsafe, and that the Highways authority really ought to have realised this and implemented a different design, whether simply a different kind of obstruction e.g. bollard, or a completely different layout.

Having looked at Google streetview history I see that they added some trees after completion. Presumably to create a barrier because drivers were confused with the slightly different shade of yellow shared surface nonsense, and were driving on the pavement when turning out of that junction. 

TBH the whole redesign is a mess and I’m glad I don’t live in Clapham.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Feb 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Now, if only we had a qualified traffic engineer on these boards who designs road junctions and traffic infrastructure for a living
> 
> Paging Zapp Brannigan


227 pages bro, point me to where this particular argument started


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 5, 2022)

Zapp Brannigan said:


> 227 pages bro, point me to where this particular argument started


Essentially our resident Poundland Clarkson seems to think measures preventing cars driving on pavements are a bad thing, but if you start at post 6722 (page 225) you’ll get the idea


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> platinumsage out of his depth again and needing to respond to every post anyway with meaningless drivel.
> 
> This is the pavement in question by the way.
> 
> View attachment 308829


Quite nice piece of design.  High contrast between the blacktop road surface and the kerbs and paving slabs, excellent for alerting drivers where the sodding road is.

A bigger bollard with reflective strips isn't needed because it's not there to highlight an inconspicuous hazard (e.g. a road narrowing in an unlit street), it's there to stop drivers from making a deliberate choice to do something stupid (i.e. mount the pavement where there's no need to).

Don't drive on the pavement, don't hit the bollard.  Simple as that really.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Do you always do this? Just criticise some fake thing that no one has said whenever the debate looks like it's getting too detailed or complicated for you?


That’s the point that you’re making though isn’t it? Drivers are always going to drive on pavements so we need to design infrastructure to stop them doing it.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Having looked at Google streetview history I see that they added some trees after completion. Presumably to create a barrier because drivers were confused with the slightly different shade of yellow shared surface nonsense, and were driving on the pavement when turning out of that junction.


Maybe they put in trees because they are nice. Or can we not have nice things because there are lots of shit drivers?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Maybe they put in trees because they are nice.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Presumably to create a barrier because drivers were confused with the slightly different shade of yellow shared surface nonsense, and were driving on the pavement when turning out of that junction.


I actually agree that without the trees it could be confusing to an inattentive driver:




However, with the trees it's entirely clear that you are supposed to go onto the road in front of you, and then turn left into the other street:




So it remains a mystery why the bell bollard is a problem. It's not a "pavement build-out" it's a section of pavement in between two road junctions, one of which has a raised platform with markings that clearly indicate to drivers that they are crossing a pedestrian zone.

You think they need some extra assistance in understanding what is pavement and what isn't, here, apparently.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 5, 2022)

Love that all the mini Clarksons realise how bizarre platinumsage position is and are keeping shtum. 

Obv Spy is posting goat images but at least it’s not goatse which is prob his true love.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 5, 2022)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 5, 2022)

Bloke up the street just bought a 2 year old panamera S with the big engine. I am quite tempted but it would take up the parking space for 2 cars. But I would likely want 3 just to make sure I don’t get any scratches from inconsiderate people in shitty electric noddy  cars . There is a charging point outside my house so I could straddle 2 spaces to secure the safety of it. Keep the joe 90s and riff raft out of the way. I pay my road tax so it’s morally legit probably won’t drive it much as it costs too much at 15 mpg


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

Quite good parody, needs more than just a couple of typos though, 6/10.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 6, 2022)

No further comment required really


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 6, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Feb 6, 2022)

I suppose the "majority" of the people want vehicles banned from making deliveries to Brick Lane shops in the same way that the "majority" of the people in Southend West voted for a Conservative MP.

A quick look at their Instagram shows that they were likely either effecting deliveries or saving the space for their delivery van, working hard to serve their community before the gentrificationist anti-vehicle nutters make their business impractical and force them to close.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 6, 2022)

Yes, that'll be it.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 6, 2022)

Top work platinumsage !!!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I suppose the "majority" of the people want vehicles banned from making deliveries to Brick Lane shops in the same way that the "majority" of the people in Southend West voted for a Conservative MP.
> 
> A quick look at their Instagram shows that they were likely either effecting deliveries or saving the space for their delivery van, working hard to serve their community before the gentrificationist anti-vehicle nutters make their business impractical and force them to close.


You’re almost good enough to put on stage.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 6, 2022)

You can tell an area is fully gentrified when the last of the Range Rovers with personalised number plates leaves.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 8, 2022)

Everybody: aren’t some drivers bloody awful, trashing a verge cos they can’t be arsed to wait at the lights.

platinumsage: this vehicle desire line clearly shows a 6 lane motorway should be built here.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 11, 2022)

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.









						New greenfield housing still designed around cars, report finds
					

Services such as shops, schools and doctors are often almost impossible to reach on foot or by bike



					www.bbc.co.uk
				





(Narrators voice: I was not at all shocked)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 17, 2022)

lol









						Furious drivers dump their cars and walk home after hours of gridlock
					

DRIVERS dumped their cars and walked home after hours of long delays hitting Canvey traffic.




					www.echo-news.co.uk
				




Some drivers had to walk for _FIFTEEN MINUTES. _


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 21, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>




Let's crush electric cars?


----------



## T & P (Feb 21, 2022)

Trees have been trying to tell us something for _years!

_


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 22, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2022)

MOL car carrier Felicity Ace sinks along with $300m supercar cargo | TradeWinds
					

Vessel was heading to a port of refuge off the Azores under tow when it went into a list




					www.tradewindsnews.com
				




Oh well.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> MOL car carrier Felicity Ace sinks along with $300m supercar cargo | TradeWinds
> 
> 
> Vessel was heading to a port of refuge off the Azores under tow when it went into a list
> ...




You’ll be happy to learn that earned me £2500


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You’ll be happy to learn that earned me £2500



If that’s all you got for planting the bomb you were seriously underpaid.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 2, 2022)

Man who doesn’t own a car buys a flat with no parking space, then buys a car and complains he has nowhere to park it.









						Hackbridge homeowner left with ‘nowhere’ to park as Council introduces permits
					

The owner of a flat in the New Quarter Mill development in Hackbridge says he is disappointed with developers and Sutton Council as there is…




					www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Man who doesn’t own a car buys a flat with no parking space, then buys a car and complains he has nowhere to park it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well that's not what he's complaining about. His gripe is that they used to be able to park in the side streets but the council have changed the rules and he's not eligible for a permit. 

Violin size small, but he has half a point.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 2, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's not what he's complaining about. His gripe is that they used to be able to park in the side streets but the council have changed the rules and he's not eligible for a permit.
> 
> Violin size small, but he has half a point.


No he doesn’t. He could park there, now he can’t. Tough shit, welcome to car ownership, other modes of transport are available etc etc


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 2, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No he doesn’t. He could park there, now he can’t. Tough shit, welcome to car ownership, other modes of transport are available etc etc




He could still park there, just clone spy's plates and fill yer boots.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He could still park there, just clone spy's plates and fill yer boots.



Why mine?

Clone Bees'.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2022)

He bought a flat for which the lease said he could not apply for a parking permit. The flat is within about 100m of a train station and several bus stops.

Parking restrictions brought in due to excessive car use by other people like him, so he can't park his car on the public road next to his house, but can park it 15 minutes walk away.

What an idiot. He should be made an example of, to discourage others from doing the same.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> He bought a flat for which the lease said he could not apply for a parking permit. The flat is within about 100m of a train station and several bus stops.
> 
> Parking restrictions brought in due to excessive car use by other people like him, so he can't park his car on the public road next to his house, but can park it 15 minutes walk away.
> 
> What an idiot. He should be made an example of, to discourage others from doing the same.



He is being made an example of.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2022)

I suspect they introduced controlled parking on surrounding streets as there was a bloody big development built nearby without enough parking for the residents there!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 2, 2022)

Blimey, Edward Einstein has arrived.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> He bought a flat for which the lease said he could not apply for a parking permit. The flat is within about 100m of a train station and several bus stops.
> 
> Parking restrictions brought in due to excessive car use by other people like him, so he can't park his car on the public road next to his house, but can park it 15 minutes walk away.
> 
> What an idiot. He should be made an example of, to discourage others from doing the same.



The actual effect will be to encourage suburban expansion where every house has off-street parking.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The actual effect will be to encourage suburban expansion where every house has off-street parking.


Also, we shouldn't try to stop people bludgeoning kittens to death in London, because it'll just encourage them to go and bludgeon kittens to death outside the M25 instead.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, we shouldn't try to stop people bludgeoning kittens to death in London, because it'll just encourage them to go and bludgeon kittens to death outside the M25 instead.



You could achieve an end to the bludgeoning of cats by banning ownership of them with immediate effect and confiscating them all to be euthanised. Although I doubt you’d manage it in a pet-loving democracy such as the UK.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You could achieve an end to the bludgeoning of cats by banning ownership of them with immediate effect and confiscating them all to be euthanised. Although I doubt you’d manage it in a pet-loving democracy such as the UK.


It's interesting that in your version of the analogy it's the poor, fluffy, motor cars that are getting bludgeoned to death, rather than the public good, the environment, equality of access and social cohesion.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's interesting that in your version of the analogy it's the poor, fluffy, motor cars that are getting bludgeoned to death, rather than the public good, the environment, equality of access and social cohesion.



This is the sort of view espoused by selfish cat-haters who moan about other people’s cats shitting in their garden. Cats provide a great benefit to many people despite their negative externalities. 

If you don't feel you'll ever be able to live in a society containing cats you could always move to North Korea, where Kim Jong-un last year ordered all cats to be eliminated.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> This is the sort of view espoused by selfish cat-haters who moan about other people’s cats shitting in their garden. Cats provide a great benefit to many people despite their negative externalities.
> 
> If you don't feel you'll ever be able to live in a society containing cats you could always move to North Korea, where Kim Jong-un last year ordered all cats to be eliminated.


Congrats 🥳 platinumsage !!!! Great reference to North Korea!!!!









						Council accused of acting like North Korea with threats against low traffic zone protester
					

Local authority in Lambeth demands that campaigner remove placard calling for end to road closures or face fines and legal action




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> you could always move to North Korea,


Can you explain the process to do this, please?


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Can you explain the process to do this, please?



I think if you drive there in a big SUV suitable for Russian rural roads you can sneak across the border, and then claim asylum by stating you risked persecution for your anti-car and anti-cat beliefs. Since private car and cat ownership is banned there, you should be welcomed with open arms.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Mar 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


>




They probably need to look at the environmental cost of recycling a tyre and the irreparable damage caused by making one flat.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They probably need to look at the environmental cost of recycling a tyre and the irreparable damage caused by making one flat.


FYI you just pump some air back into it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> FYI you just pump some air back into it.




Fill tyres with CO2, so if any enviroprick deflates it they release that stored CO2 in to the atmosphere.


----------



## T & P (Mar 5, 2022)

Seeing as the perpetrators of this particular act are quoting in their stickers CO2 emissions as the reason for targeting ‘SUVs’, I hope they had the foresight to target only those vehicles that do genuinely produce high emission figures- rather than picking up any car they deem as an SUV based on size, without having any knowledge of how polluting or otherwise they might be.

Imagine how much of a cunt they would make themselves look if they sabotaged a highly efficient hybrid SUV that actually emits far lower amounts of CO2 than dozens of older small hatchback models parked in the vicinity.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2022)

Who'd have thought urban75 would be full of apologists lining up to defend SUV owners in the poshest part of south london?

Me of course. It's exactly what i predicted.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Seeing as the perpetrators of this particular act are quoting in their stickers CO2 emissions as the reason for targeting ‘SUVs’, I hope they had the foresight to target only those vehicles that do genuinely produce high emission figures- rather than picking up any car they deem as an SUV based on size, without having any knowledge of how polluting or otherwise they might be.
> 
> Imagine how much of a cunt they would make themselves look if they sabotaged a highly efficient hybrid SUV that actually emits far lower amounts of CO2 than dozens of older small hatchback models parked in the vicinity.


The overuse of the term "whataboutery" is something I'm starting to find a little tedious. But congratulations on typing out these two overly wordy and entertainingly indignant paragraphs as an absolute textbook example of it.


----------



## T & P (Mar 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The overuse of the term "whataboutery" is something I'm starting to find a little tedious. But congratulations on typing out these two overly wordy and entertainingly indignant paragraphs as an absolute textbook example of it.


There’s absolutely no whataboutery whatsoever in this. The very people who committed this action, which you saw fit to report in this thread, are openly admitting they’re targeting ’SUVs’ because of their assumed unacceptably high CO2 emissions.

As demonstrated in numerous threads or posts in here as well as the politics forums (and indeed the manufacturers’ own classifications), the term SUV has come to encompass a markedly wide range of vehicles. A Toyota Yaris Cross is not only massively more efficient, smaller, and less polluting than a Range Rover, it is also significantly less polluting than millions of older Fiestas, Polos, Micras, and similar small cars still roaming the streets without as much as a second look from those prepared to deflate car tyres of vehicles they believe to be intolerably inefficient based solely on their classification.

Of course, it is possible those who carried out this act had the presence of mind to recognise this. Perhaps we need a new car classification in this country, so there’s no doubt about which vehicles are the proper oversize SUV type most people object to, and  those which are simply slightly larger compact designs that have been become to be known SUVs but are nothing of the kind.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Who'd have thought urban75 would be full of apologists lining up to defend SUV owners in the poshest part of south london?
> 
> Me of course. It's exactly what i predicted.


It’s weird - how did these suburbanite Tories even find urban75 let alone stick around?


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s weird - how did these suburbanite Tories even find urban75 let alone stick around?



It‘s funny when LibDems are so far removed from ordinary working people that  they think anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their sandal-fascism must be a Tory.


----------



## a_chap (Mar 6, 2022)

This will upset the petrol-heads on here. On my Twitter feed just now:


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s weird - how did these suburbanite Tories even find urban75 let alone stick around?




Yes it is weird, especially as for years people have been telling him to fuck off an’all, but teuchter’s teuchter and I guess people either just ignore or laugh at him these days.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 6, 2022)

SUVs have more comfortable seats, necessary if you've been spending all day bending over backwards to justify their existence.


----------



## a_chap (Mar 6, 2022)

Bending over _forwards_, surely...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 8, 2022)

Just fly to the shops or on the school run and save teh planet


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

I saw one this morning too - on a disabled neighbour's Toyota hybrid  

"You will have no difficulty getting around without your gas guzzler, with walking, cycling or public transport" 

Selfish cretins, I'd love to do a climate audit of their own pathetic middle-class lives. I bet they don't even have 270mm of loft insulation.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 8, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 313398
> 
> 
> 
> Just fly to the shops or on the school run and save teh planet


Good to see the movement’s spreading!!


----------



## edcraw (Mar 8, 2022)

It’s weird how every SUV seems to be a hybrid with a disabled owner 🤔


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s weird how every SUV seems to be a hybrid with a disabled owner 🤔



It doesn't matter what proportion are, because whoever did this obviously doesn't care.

Anyway it's clearly Extinction Rebellion, you can tell from their website.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 8, 2022)

Article here explaining it if anyone actually cares otherwise “bUt WhAt AbOuT cHiNa!!!11!!!”









						SUVs Are Worse for the Climate Than You Ever Imagined
					

But if you drive one, you can still reduce your carbon footprint—and you can vote for climate change policies with even bigger impact.




					www.wired.com
				




ps. were absolutely fucked - hopefully Farage’s referendum will sort it out though!


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Article here explaining it if anyone actually cares otherwise “bUt WhAt AbOuT cHiNa!!!11!!!”
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There was a whole thread about SUVs vs vehicles that are actually "bad for the climate". Maybe go check it out, it was only around 50 pages.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> on a disabled neighbour's Toyota hybrid


They did it to my uncle who works at Nintendo too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s weird how every SUV seems to be a hybrid with a disabled owner 🤔



They are not, but the majority who are not have created a market for the things to exist in the first place, benefitting the disabled community and should be applauded for their selfless behaviour.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It doesn't matter what proportion are, because whoever did this obviously doesn't care.


And you obviously don't care about the disabled children that these cars might have run over, if their tyres hadn't been deflated. Disgusting attitude.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

I note their instructions say 







__





						How To Deflate An SUV Tyre
					

It's quick, easy and anyone can take part! Simply print out our leaflet and read on.



					www.tyreextinguishers.com
				




It seems reasonable to suggest that blue badge holders display their badge when parked. Maybe a small inconvenience, but it's been made necessary by car owners, not by the climate heroes.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> And you obviously don't care about the disabled children that these cars might have run over, if their tyres hadn't been deflated. Disgusting attitude.



Why don't you care about the coachloads of disabled children these vehicles will massacre when they flip on the motorway due to damaged tyres caused by sabotage


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I note their instructions say
> 
> View attachment 313403
> 
> ...



Not surprising to see they've made an exemption for their pre-Euro I diesel soot-mobile hippy buses.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It seems reasonable to suggest that blue badge holders display their badge when parked. Maybe a small inconvenience, but it's been made necessary by car owners, not by the climate heroes.



I always display one when parked, saves on the need to not park on double yellows and my mother in law doesn't mind as she has a a garage for her car.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

Here's someone who


is such an irresponsible driver that they don't check their tyres before setting off with children in the car
thinks that an electric vehicle magically solves all the problems
owns two cars
still chooses to use the giant one instead of the smaller one

Pretty much typical SUV owner.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Here's someone who
> 
> 
> is such an irresponsible driver that they don't check their tyres before setting off with children in the car
> ...




Perhaps you should challenge them, maybe ask to see some pictures of their child in hospital, together with a detailed justification of everything they've ever done. I mean that's clearly how we're going to solve the climate crisis - by carping at each other's CO2 footprints:


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps you should challenge them, maybe ask to see some picture of their child in hospital, together with a detailed justification of everything they've ever done. I mean that's clearly how we're going to solve the climate crisis - by carping at each other's CO2 footprints:



They took the child to hospital in the second car. That's all the evidence I need to know that the giant SUV was unnecessary and should be crushed.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> They took the child to hospital in the second car. That's all the evidence I need to know that the giant SUV was unnecessary and should be crushed.



What happened to the other two children and any adults present, did they all fit in the tiny Fiat? Perhaps some of them had to get a taxi (probably a big, heavy, diesel estate car). You should probably start you investigation there.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What happened to the other two children and any adults present, did they all fit in the tiny Fiat? Perhaps some of them had to get a taxi (probably a big, heavy, diesel estate car). You should probably start you investigation there.


As a result of this intervention they have spent most of the morning reading the tyre extinguishers  website and are asking their mum (a) why they have such a large car when the money it cost could have been donated to a childrens' hospital and (b) if they can use the printer in her home office. They say they want to go out on a walk around their neighbourhood tonight.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> As a result of this intervention they have spent most of the morning reading the tyre extinguishers  website and are asking their mum (a) why they have such a large car when the money it cost could have been donated to a childrens' hospital and (b) if they can use the printer in her home office. They say they want to go out on a walk around their neighbourhood tonight.



You must have a very misanthropic view of humanity if you think that after experiencing a sibling hospital transport sabotage incident, that the children involved would want to perpetrate such a crime against other families. Especially given the blatantly false propaganda on that website that most eight-year-olds wouldn’t fall for.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You must have a very misanthropic view of humanity if you think that after experiencing a sibling hospital transport sabotage incident, that the children involved would want to perpetrate such a crime against other families. Especially given the blatantly false propaganda on that website that most eight-year-olds wouldn’t fall for.




teuchter a misanthrope? A Scotch-Tory gentrifyer who hates his fellow human? Say it ain't so!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

It would be madness for children to protest against SUVs.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It would be madness for children to protest against SUVs.
> 
> View attachment 313409



They're helping to demonstrate the need for autonomous braking and pedestrian detection, which is now fitted to all new European SUVs.

Volunteering to help improve vehicle safety and influence consumer buying choices away from unsafe old hatchbacks is very different from sabotaging vehicles and trying to kill people.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

We should introduce a rule that people can only own a car if they are prepared to have their own children laid in front of it while the car is driven at them by a blindfolded driver.

This will verify pedestrian detection systems and also eliminate dangerous old hatchbacks.

Those without children will have to do the laying down themselves, and they will be driven at by a toddler with a blindfold.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We should introduce a rule that people can only own a car if they are prepared to have their own children laid in front of it while the car is driven at them by a blindfolded driver.
> 
> This will verify pedestrian detection systems and also eliminate dangerous old hatchbacks.
> 
> Those without children will have to do the laying down themselves, and they will be driven at by a toddler with a blindfold.



The rule should also apply to those who prefer to rely on driver skill - to verify their skill is sufficient, they won't be blindfolded but must avoid killing child pedestrians by controlling their dangerous old hatchbacks with their hands and feet.

Oh wait, this is what has been happening for over 100 years and it doesn't work. 

But never mind decades of thousands of child deaths caused by old cars, these new SUVs with pedestrian detection and autonomous braking look 20cm too tall.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> this is what has been happening for over 100 years and it doesn't work.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh wait, this is what has been happening for over 100 years and it doesn't work.


It only took 230 pages of this thread to educate you to this realisation. Some progress at least.

Next, we need to consider whether autonomous braking systems "work".



			https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/aar/files/Research-Report-Pedestrian-Detection.pdf
		




Yup that all seems totally fine.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It only took 230 pages of this thread to educate you to this realisation. Some progress at least.



Oh I've long been aware that older cars as a group are more dangerous to pedestrians and far more polluting than new SUVs. Strange then that this group aren't deflating the tyres of the most dangerous and polluting vehicles on the road. 



teuchter said:


> Next, we need to consider whether autonomous braking systems "work".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



American crap.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 8, 2022)

No doubt this band of museli-weaving tyre farters are Putin supporters:


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2022)

Man cave millionaire blocks road with Bentleys as D-Day hits
					

No bulldozers even though Graham Wildin was given until today by the courts to pull down the backyard leisure complex




					www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk
				




Very much a typical car owner.

All car owners are basically like this; the only difference is he has more money.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2022)

Fucking insane. Most modern cars wouldn’t even fit in it.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fucking insane. Most modern cars wouldn’t even fit in it.




Rubbish, it's shown as being around 2.97 wide with a 2.65m entrance. Plenty of room to park most modern cars in there and get in and out of them via the driver's door.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fucking insane. Most modern cars wouldn’t even fit in it.





I live in a townhouse with an integrated garage which is too small for my car, in fact in my close no one parks their car in their garage ever. My garage does contain 5 bikes though and a work bench / tool station for when I’m working on them, thought you’d approve of a decent space to do that..?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I live in a townhouse with an integrated garage which is too small for my car, in fact in my close no one parks their car in their garage ever. My garage does contain 5 bikes though and a work bench / tool station for when I’m working on them, thought you’d approve of a decent space to do that..?


When part of a house that’s a decent size, yeah. But that’s needlessly sacrificing living space. It even has a driveway ffs


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> When part of a house that’s a decent size, yeah. But that’s needlessly sacrificing living space. It even has a driveway ffs



Needlessly? Did you ask the owners if they’re happy with their living space or not? Did you tell them that garages should be reserved for folks who own big houses, unlike theirs?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Needlessly? Did you ask the owners if they’re happy with their living space or not? Did you tell them that garages should be reserved for folks who own big houses, unlike theirs?


You’re still not very good at this.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You’re still not very good at this.



What, middle-class sneering?


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 12, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 314152



This should be a caption competition:

teuchter : "NARNIA?"


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 12, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This should be a caption competition:


"Radio 2 DJ Steve Wright clambers out of the boot of his Range Rover because his garage is too small to go out the doors like he would normally."


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This should be a caption competition:
> 
> teuchter : "NARNIA?"


Isn't that an artist's impression of teuchter being left on the shelf?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 13, 2022)

Left on the shelf? How old are you? 110!


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 13, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Isn't that an artist's impression of teuchter being left on the shelf?


It's Radio 2 DJ Steve Wright.


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 13, 2022)

In summary, this is where the anti-car propagandists appear to have positioned themselves with regard to garages in UK new-build homes:

They approve of large garages that you can easily fit a Range Rover Sport inside, without needlessly sacrificing living space. If you can afford this sort of house you're fine, because you can subversively use the garage to run a bike repair workshop or yurt-weaving classes:



They disapprove of small garages that can only fit a Skoda Octavia inside. These garages sacrifice living space and mean that people who can only afford such small houses will have a miserable existence eating dinner in their kitchens or sharing their living room with children's toys:


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 13, 2022)

Which one is best for sneaking downstairs to have your way with the car? I don't know if proximity is best so less sneaking is required, or being slightly detached so your squeals of delight are less likely to be heard.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 13, 2022)

Yurts are made of felt. You don't weave them. If someone offers a yurt-weaving class, they are not offering legitimate training.

It would be quite sensible to offer smaller houses with purpose designed workshop/utility space rather than a garage. Then it wouldn't have to be the size of a car and could be in proportion to the rest of the house. It could have things like natural daylight and ventilation.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> If someone offers a yurt-weaving class, they are not offering legitimate training.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Mar 13, 2022)




----------



## Calamity1971 (Mar 13, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


>



They removed one of those in Durham as people tried to get through on back of the cars paymet in front. I witnessed a car getting it's radiator bollarded, water pissing everywhere and the couple stuck on it looking fucking embarrassed.


----------



## T & P (Mar 13, 2022)

Calamity1971 said:


> They removed one of those in Durham as people tried to get through on back of the cars paymet in front. I witnessed a car getting it's radiator bollarded, water pissing everywhere and the couple stuck on it looking fucking embarrassed.


I wonder if any car parks that install such bollards to prevent fare dodgers have included something in their T&Cs about car owners being responsible for the damage caused by such bollards. I suspect a lawyer-happy driver might want to argue in court that claiming thousands of Pounds of damage to a car to prevent the evasion of a measly two-figure amount parking fee is a disproportionate measure.


----------



## Elpenor (Mar 13, 2022)

A friends dad worked on a private estate which had similar bollards at the access gates for estate workers. If your car damaged them - you were liable.


----------



## Calamity1971 (Mar 13, 2022)

T & P said:


> I wonder if any car parks that install such bollards to prevent fare dodgers have included something in their T&Cs about car owners being responsible for the damage caused by such bollards. I suspect a lawyer-happy driver might want to argue in court that claiming thousands of Pounds of damage to a car to prevent the evasion of a measly two-figure amount parking fee is a disproportionate measure.


Looks like someone claimed successfully. 
You'd think the filth would get a free pass ! 








						Bollard claims new victim
					

A POLICE officer was left redfaced after becoming the latest victim of a city’s rising bollard.




					www.thenorthernecho.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Mar 13, 2022)

All our local ones in the town centre have been removed and replaced by enforcement cameras. Much easier for the council to maintain, and they bring in revenue too. Of course what cameras don't do is stop people driving down the roads in question, so people with dodgy plates or too much money get to charge about like they own the place.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 14, 2022)

Good point here:


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good point here:




And that was just an average week for Bahnhof Strasse


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2022)

Good post about all the public money wasted subsidising private car ownership.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Good post about all the public money wasted subsidising private car ownership.




Tbf if Lambeth's parking spaces are in Holland I can see why they can't charge top dollar for it.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 16, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tbf if Lambeth's parking spaces are in Holland I can see why they can't charge top dollar for it.


Does one in Lambeth look much different! It’s a weird point to focus on.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 16, 2022)

This is amazing!! At last were caring about our public spaces and not listen to the pro-car loons.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Good post about all the public money wasted subsidising private car ownership.




6 meters squared be buggered. My cars take up about 10 square meters and I’ve got two of them on Westminster residents permits at about £160 each a year. 

Seriously good value in these rip-off times.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> 6 meters squared be buggered. My cars take up about 10 square meters and I’ve got two of them on Westminster residents permits at about £160 each a year.
> 
> Seriously good value in these rip-off times.


By my rough calculations, Westminster council is losing about £1,500,000 per year because of this, and that could be used towards building a children's hospital, so I hope you are going to do the right thing.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> By my rough calculations, Westminster council is losing about £1,500,000 per year because of this, and that could be used towards building a children's hospital, so I hope you are going to do the right thing.


They'd probably just spend it on another shit hill!! Truly awful council.


----------



## a_chap (Mar 20, 2022)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 20, 2022)

Tbf it’s the Mini that looks daftest in that picture.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 20, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tbf it’s the Mini that looks daftest in that picture.


Can’t agree with that. It’s definitely the stupid oversized SUV


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 20, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Can’t agree with that. It’s definitely the stupid oversized SUV




I am 5’10” and struggle to fit in old Minis, whilst no fan of SUVs getting in and out without spinal cord injury is where I set my baseline for cars.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 20, 2022)

I reckon banning cars altogether would be a great way of reducing spinal cord injuries in general.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 20, 2022)

A reminder that’s electric cars are not the answer.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I reckon banning cars altogether would be a great way of reducing spinal cord injuries in general.




Ban horses for anything other than meat.

Never forget Superman, man.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 20, 2022)

Horse tastes great, at least raw. Never had it cooked.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 21, 2022)

Think I’ve found platinumsage ‘s Twitter account!


----------



## edcraw (Mar 21, 2022)

and one of these has to be @Spymaster…


----------



## teuchter (Mar 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Think I’ve found platinumsage ‘s Twitter account!





I can certainly picture this guy giving me a serious lecture about the safety features of his SUV.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> and one of these has to be @Spymaster…




I'd rather have a drink with you than watch Spurs v West Ham. 

Only marginally more appealing than deep frying my own testicles.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 21, 2022)

Tastes great, at least raw. Never had it deep fried.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 21, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Only marginally more appealing than deep frying my own testicles.





liquidindian said:


> Tastes great, at least raw. Never had it deep fried.



The little vore that could


----------



## edcraw (Mar 29, 2022)

Deleted


----------



## alex_ (Mar 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> How the fuck does this happen?




Drivers driving too fast on roads they can’t stop on in time.

It’s what - 200 meters max visibility.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> How the fuck does this happen?




Giving driving licences to cyclists.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 29, 2022)

People are probably dying in that, take it down..


----------



## alex_ (Mar 29, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> People are probably dying in that, take it down..



Yes 5 apparently.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 29, 2022)

Lol


----------



## T & P (Mar 29, 2022)

Driving Standards thread that way —->


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Lol



Just came here to post this one


----------



## edcraw (Mar 29, 2022)

Another great one!


----------



## edcraw (Mar 30, 2022)

Huge injustice? She pled guilty 🤦‍♂️ 









						Mum who 'nudged' Insulate Britain protester with 4x4 says conviction is 'huge injustice'
					

A single mum who used her Range Rover to try and 'nudge' an Insulate Britain protester out of the road has told LBC her conviction was a "huge injustice" and claimed she was singled out by the police.




					www.lbc.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Huge injustice? She pled guilty 🤦‍♂️
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Almost as if she’s a horrible, entitled, twat.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 30, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Almost as if she’s a horrible, entitled, twat.


I guess the Range Rover for the school run was the first clue.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

It’s almost like there should be some sort of test for drivers so they understand the fucking rules.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s almost like there should be some sort of test for drivers so they understand the fucking rules.




Apparently the cyclist who filmed this was exposing himself at the time and the driver was trying to get away.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

This driver happened to be riding a bike when he thoughtfully stopped for an ambulance. Just a shame there was an impatient cyclist in the car behind 😡!!


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

Again, the Driving Standards thread is that way —>


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Again, the Driving Standards thread is that way —>


A good sign of effective propaganda is when people want to try and move it out of sight to other locations. Keep posting, everyone.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Again, the Driving Standards thread is that way —>


How about merging that thread into this? Highlighting how shit the majority of drivers are is v effective anti-car propaganda.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Mar 31, 2022)

Do find it odd how I’d have to recertify every couple of years to maintain an IT qualification but if I passed my driving test I can carry on until I fall over or hit a parade of nuns whichever comes first


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> A good sign of effective propaganda is when people want to try and move it out of sight to other locations. Keep posting, everyone.


On the contrary. I am trying to do your cause a favour by attempting to keep the thread free of irrelevant clutter, so anyone tempted to read it can easily find material that can be considered anti car propaganda, and be persuaded to quit driving.

As it is, all they are going to be able to see is individual reports of misbehaviour, which are as much anti car propaganda as individual reports of alcohol-fuelled crime are an argument for banning the sale of alcohol in the UK. Indeed, any observer would be tempted to conclude there is no anti car propaganda at all to be seen here, and its proponents are having to resort to filling the thread with inconsequential garbage out of desperation, as they have nothing relevant to show to support their arguments.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

So touchy


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

Here’s 22 individuals. These are just the c***s that got filmed & prosecuted.


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Here’s 22 individuals. These are just the c***s that got filmed & prosecuted.



I see your 22 individual cases of bad drivers, seemly sufficient to justify your support for a ban on private cars/ drivers, and raise you to 561,000 separate alcohol-related crimes in England and Wales in the 2018/19 period.





__





						Consequences: Adult drinking in the UK  | Drinkaware
					

Data around alcohol dependency, alcohol-related crime, hospital admissions and deaths in the UK.




					www.drinkaware.co.uk
				




Surely, undoubtedly and unquestionably you will now support a full and permanent ban on the sale of all alcohol in the UK, right? Because if 22 examples of bad drivers among a pool of tens of millions constitutes damning enough evidence for you, half a million cases of problematic drinkers seems a pretty compelling argument to me, by your narrative at least.

#banboozenow


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> I see your 22 individual cases of bad drivers, seemly sufficient to justify your support for a ban on private cars/ drivers, and raise you to 561,000 separate alcohol-related crimes in England and Wales in the 2018/19 period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're comparing case studies with national level statistics. In 2017 1.38 million people were prosecuted for driving offenses at magistrates courts in the UK.









						Driving Offences Statistics UK 2019 - DPP Law 🚗
					

This page outlines the results of DPP Law’s study on the subject of driving offences and provides a comprehensive breakdown of 2019 UK driving offence stats.




					www.dpp-law.com


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2022)

All edclaws is going to achieve is a stream of videos of cyclists acting like cunts, it's like they are trolling on behalf of the car lobby


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're comparing case studies with national level statistics. In 2017 1.38 million people were prosecuted for driving offenses at magistrates courts in the UK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nevertheless, it is absolutely undeniable that alcohol-related crimes are in the hundreds of thousands every year, and who anyone that seriously maintains the bad actions of a minority of drivers justify demanding a ban on private cars, must also agree with a ban on the sale on alcohol in this country based on the equally reprehensible actions of a minority of drinkers.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Nevertheless, it is absolutely undeniable that alcohol-related crimes are in the hundreds of thousands every year, and who anyone that seriously maintains the bad actions of a minority of drivers justify demanding a ban on private cars, must also agree with a ban on the sale on alcohol in this country based on the equally reprehensible actions of a minority of drinkers.


You could cut nearly 100,000 off the alcohol related crimes figure by banning driving.


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> You could cut nearly 100,000 off the alcohol related crimes figure by banning driving.


Indeed you could. It would still leave several hundred thousand more booze-fuelled crimes left.

The bottom line is, and it is always going to be, that seeking to ban an activity undertaken by large amounts of people because of the behaviour of a minority is a dodgy-as-fuck premise, in my book at least. But more importantly, if we're going to take that route we can't pick and choose which activities to ban and which to happily continue enjoying. Anyone who demands driving should be banned based on the behaviour of a minority whilst enjoying a refreshing pint, or simply opposing a ban on alcohol in this country would be the mother of all hypocrites.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2022)

Shall we do the alcohol analogy? Ok, let's.

Alcohol causes lots of harm. So, in fact we already restrict its use in lots of ways, and we let people drive at a younger age than we let them drink.

Like driving, drinking has become deeply embedded in society.

In both cases, it's very difficult to enact policy that reduces harm, mainly because a reactionary, blinkered and conservative portion of the populace is very resistant to it.

If we want to try and do stuff to encourage people towards less harmful alternatives to driving, those people go all red in the face and lose the plot as seen on this thread.

If we want to change drug policy, to make it easy and safe for people to access much less harmful alternatives to alcohol, much the same people go red in the face and lose the plot.

I retain some faith that younger generations will be more enlightened on both counts. Perhaps in the future we will manage to reduce harm from means of transport and also alcohol and recreational drug taking in general.

The dinosaurs will go extinct eventually.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Indeed you could. It would still leave several hundred thousand more booze-fuelled crimes left.
> 
> The bottom line is, and it is always going to be, that seeking to ban an activity undertaken by large amounts of people because of the behaviour of a minority is a dodgy-as-fuck premise, in my book at least. But more importantly, if we're going to take that route we can't pick and choose which activities to ban and which to happily continue enjoying. Anyone who demands driving should be banned based on the behaviour of a minority whilst enjoying a refreshing pint, or simply opposing a ban on alcohol in this country would be the mother of all hypocrites.


A minority 😂


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Anyone who demands driving should be banned based on the behaviour of a minority whilst enjoying a refreshing pint, or simply opposing a ban on alcohol in this country would be the mother of all hypocrites.


I'm not sure that a simple count of offenses commited constitutes a proper cost benefit analysis tbh despite it confirming my suspicion that driving is a much bigger problem than drinking (order of magnitude larger). And I don't drink and would support more controls on alcohol use.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A minority 😂


2.3 million people _currently_ have points on their licenses. I can't find a figure for the percentage of people who commit a motoring offence at some point during their lives.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> 2.3 million people _currently_ have points on their licenses. I can't find a figure for the percentage of people who commit a motoring offence at some point during their lives.


And that’s just people getting caught!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Shall we do the alcohol analogy? Ok, let's.
> 
> Alcohol causes lots of harm. So, in fact we already restrict its use in lots of ways, and we let people drive at a younger age than we let them drink.



We let under 5 years olds drive now do we?


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A minority 😂


Yes, the same minority (or otherwise) of people who commit alcohol-related offences. Or are you seriously going to argue one group constitutes a minority and the other does not? Please, do elaborate...


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> And that’s just people getting caught!


And how many people who commit alcohol-fuelled offences and crimes do not get caught or even reported? Because I'm willing to bet far, far, far fucking more crimes and offences are commited every day of the week by pissheads than by drivers.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We let under 5 years olds drive now do we?


On private roads, yes.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We let under 5 years olds drive now do we?


On private land yes, I believe.


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

jinx


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> On private land yes, I believe.





maomao said:


> On private roads, yes.



Not if the public ordinarily could access it, no.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> jinx




In a monothought clique with teuchter, am very sorry for your loss of cranial ability


----------



## maomao (Mar 31, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In a monothought clique with teuchter, am very sorry for your loss of cranial ability


At least we don't trade sexual favours like the Top Gear Ultras.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not if the public ordinarily could access it, no.


Please continue onwards to making your point.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 31, 2022)

The standard of driving is bad in this country, but let’s not forget they’re trashing the planet also.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> At least we don't trade sexual favours like the Top Gear Ultras.




What?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Nevertheless, it is absolutely undeniable that alcohol-related crimes are in the hundreds of thousands every year, and who anyone that seriously maintains the bad actions of a minority of drivers justify demanding a ban on private cars, must also agree with a ban on the sale on alcohol in this country based on the equally reprehensible actions of a minority of drinkers.


I don't think anyone has argued for a _complete_ ban on cars, more that the harm/issues caused from them is looked at and acknowledged, their use a lot more restricted as a result, and meaningful alternatives offered. So, in that regard, yes, let's do exactly the same with alcohol where it's causing problems/deaths.


----------



## Cid (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> And how many people who commit alcohol-fuelled offences and crimes do not get caught or even reported? Because I'm willing to bet far, far, far fucking more crimes and offences are commited every day of the week by pissheads than by drivers.



Tbf there's substantial overlap.


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I don't think anyone has argued for a _complete_ ban on cars, more that the harm/issues caused from them is looked at and acknowledged, their use a lot more restricted as a result, and meaningful alternatives offered. So, in that regard, yes, let's do exactly the same with alcohol where it's causing problems/deaths.


Well, there have certainly been plenty of calls in this thread for a complete ban on private car ownership… Indeed, that is the very aim of this thread, as confirmed in the OP. So I thought I’d be nice and help keep the thread on topic and flag posts that don’t qualify as anti car propaganda- thus actually helping the aims of this thread even though I disagree with the views of the OP. That’s how nice a fellow I am.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2022)

A minority? The worst thing about this isn’t even paying zero attention whilst in charge of a fucking stupidly large vehicle. It’s using a stupidly large vehicle to transport one person. Absolute twat and we’re giving him a tax cut!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2022)

T & P said:


> Well, there have certainly been plenty of calls in this thread for a complete ban on private car ownership… Indeed, that is the very aim of this thread, as confirmed in the OP. So I thought I’d be nice and help keep the thread on topic and flag posts that don’t qualify as anti car propaganda- thus actually helping the aims of this thread even though I disagree with the views of the OP. That’s how nice a fellow I am.


You're certainly helping the aims of the thread. Carry on


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You're certainly helping the aims of the thread. Carry on


I certainly am aiding the true aims of the thread, rather than its alleged ones.


----------



## T & P (Mar 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A minority? The worst thing about this isn’t even paying zero attention whilst in charge of a fucking stupidly large vehicle. It’s using a stupidly large vehicle to transport one person. Absolute twat and we’re giving him a tax cut!



You do realise how your post contradicts itself after its very first sentence, right?


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 1, 2022)

I'm convinced, everyone's driving license should be regularly reviewed by the council and should only allow people to drive at specified times.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2022)




----------



## kabbes (Apr 5, 2022)

What’s the joke there?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2022)

kabbes said:


> What’s the joke there?


It's not a joke, but a statement of fact. The car owners filling up their murder machines with increasingly expensive petrol are the losers, not bus passengers. The drivers always have been losers of course but now they are also losers financially, thanks to fuel prices thanks to Putin and I bet he's a car owner too.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 5, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Apr 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 317242


Only drivers have suspension on bikes.


----------



## Aladdin (Apr 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I'm convinced, everyone's driving license should be regularly reviewed by the council and should only allow people to drive at specified times.




What times?


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 5, 2022)

Any time before 2022 AD.


----------



## T & P (Apr 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's not a joke, but a statement of fact. The car owners filling up their murder machines with increasingly expensive petrol are the losers, not bus passengers. The drivers always have been losers of course but now they are also losers financially, thanks to fuel prices thanks to Putin and I bet he's a car owner too.


Funny how they are murder machines (upgrade from ‘death machines’ duly noted) only when you’re not riding one of them for your convenience…









						Where are you on the transport network?
					

Possibly driven by one of my mates - an impeccable bus driver from way back in LT days , who has had a superb day out "on the road"....   don't think i quite managed to ride on all 30+ buses...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Funny how they are murder machines (upgrade from ‘death machines’ duly noted) only when you’re not riding one of them for your convenience…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Successfully baited yet again!


----------



## T & P (Apr 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Successfully baited yet again!


Was I? Please enlighten us


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Was I?


Someone participated in society.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 8, 2022)




----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2022)

Clearly a BMX cyclist on his first day after obtaining a motorcycle licence. Also interested to see anti car folks post videos of collisions in here whereby the car involved is not at fault. Amusing video but perhaps not the greatest piece of anti car propaganda this thread has seen.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2022)

It demonstrates that licences for motor vehicles are given away much too freely to people who have little more than bmx experience. It should be much harder to get a driving license. What's disgusting in that video, is that even though licenses are being given away much too freely, the car driver is just sitting there doing nothing about it.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 8, 2022)

That looks like it could be America, where driving licences are given out in cornflake packets.


----------



## T & P (Apr 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It demonstrates that licences for motor vehicles are given away much too freely to people who have little more than bmx experience. It should be much harder to get a driving license. What's disgusting in that video, is that even though licenses are being given away much too freely, the car driver is just sitting there doing nothing about it.


In a similar vein, here’s another shocking video, this time suggesting drinking in the UK should severely restricted if not banned altogether. Apart from the many culprits, other ‘revellers’ passive attitude clearly shows people shouldn’t be allowed to drink outside their homes.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 9, 2022)

On drugs, uninsured, fled the scene.









						Uninsured BMW driver convicted of killing 18-day-old baby in Walsall pram crash
					

James Davis, 35, will be sentenced at Wolverhampton Crown Court later today




					www.birminghammail.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Apr 9, 2022)

seven year driving ban…



> The court heard Davis had landed in court 11 times before, receiving convictions for 27 offences - including drug dealing, drink-driving and driving without insurance.











						Horrifying moment killer BMW driver smashes into car before crushing newborn
					

James Davis, 35, was locked up at Wolverhampton Crown Court today




					www.birminghammail.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Apr 9, 2022)

Really need to change the law.



> Judge Williams acknowledged many people would feel the term he passed on Martin Newman was inadequate, but said sentencing laws set by parliament meant he could not jail him for longer.











						Children’s family ‘devastated’ after M4 drink-driver jailed for just nine years
					

Martin Newman was sipping wine and had taken drugs when he veered into car, killing three- and four-year-old and injuring mother




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## alex_ (Apr 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> seven year driving ban…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would love to understand the difference between this case and this case Man jailed for murdering teacher Sabina Nessa - BBC News


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Really need to change the law.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure a seven year driving ban will teach him a lesson. . 

Any drink driving offense should always lead to a lifetime ban from driving. This wouldn't have happened if it did.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 9, 2022)

maomao said:


> Any drink driving offense should always lead to a lifetime ban from driving. This wouldn't have happened if it did.



Lifetime bans would just lead to more driving whilst disqualified (hence uninsured). Just leave him in prison.


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Lifetime bans would just lead to more driving whilst disqualified (hence uninsured).


Ridiculous argument. Just enforce the bans properly and have serious (custodial) consequences for breaking them.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 9, 2022)

We’ve designed large parts of our society around everyone needing to operate incredibly dangerous machinery to get anywhere and loads of people see no issue with that just cos they want their large house and suburban lifestyle.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 9, 2022)

maomao said:


> Ridiculous argument. Just enforce the bans properly and have serious (custodial) consequences for breaking them.



It’s not a ridiculous arguement - it’s exactly what happens - the solution is what you propose. This guy should be banged up for life.


----------



## maomao (Apr 9, 2022)

alex_ said:


> This guy should be banged up for life.


For manslaughter? Not sure I agree with that, however reckless it was it was an accident not deliberate infanticide. It's letting the fucker anywhere near a steering wheel again that's unconscionable.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 9, 2022)

maomao said:


> For manslaughter? Not sure I agree with that, however reckless it was it was an accident not deliberate infanticide. It's letting the fucker anywhere near a steering wheel again that's unconscionable.



And at the point they get in the car anyway ?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 11, 2022)

This looks good





__





						Speedcam Anywhere
					






					speedcamanywhere.com


----------



## NoXion (Apr 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Only drivers have suspension on bikes.



What an utterly bizarre statement. As someone who has never owned a car or had a full driving licence, but who has had a bike for getting around, I much prefer having adjustable suspension than not. In fact I will vouch that mountain bikes in general are far superior to shitty overpriced road bikes, which ride uncomfortably and have those _stupid_ narrow wheels that transfer the force of every pothole and raised manhole cover while getting stuck in tram tracks (and of course, they are the favoured transportation of knobheads in Lycra who think they're in the Tour De France). The best ones in my experience are the ones with a hinged frame and a spring that can be adjusted by hand. A short stop and a few twists, and your bike can adapt its ride handling for smooth roads or rougher stretches.

Suspension on bikes is a _great_ idea. Anyone who disagrees must have never had to deal with poorly-maintained roads and/or rougher unpaved paths as a cyclist. Or is a masochist who likes having their goolies pummelled while riding.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2022)

A short travel front fork to soak up the worst of our road bumps isn't too bad*, but rear suspension on anything other than a rocky dirt track is horrible, you can feel all your energy from each pedal stroke vanishing as the bike squishes around underneath you 


*I still wouldn't personally have one, too used to the feel of a road bike now


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2022)

NoXion said:


> What an utterly bizarre statement. As someone who has never owned a car or had a full driving licence, but who has had a bike for getting around, I much prefer having adjustable suspension than not. In fact I will vouch that mountain bikes in general are far superior to shitty overpriced road bikes, which ride uncomfortably and have those _stupid_ narrow wheels that transfer the force of every pothole and raised manhole cover while getting stuck in tram tracks (and of course, they are the favoured transportation of knobheads in Lycra who think they're in the Tour De France). The best ones in my experience are the ones with a hinged frame and a spring that can be adjusted by hand. A short stop and a few twists, and your bike can adapt its ride handling for smooth roads or rougher stretches.
> 
> Suspension on bikes is a _great_ idea. Anyone who disagrees must have never had to deal with poorly-maintained roads and/or rougher unpaved paths as a cyclist. Or is a masochist who likes having their goolies pummelled while riding.


You can use the handlebars and your body weight to steer around potholes instead of going over them. Giving you this tip for free.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You can use the handlebars and your body weight to steer around potholes instead of going over them. Giving you this tip for free.



I like to cycle on the roads, and randomly swerving around to avoid every little bump and crevice is a dangerous thing to do, both for myself and other road users. I'd have thought you of all people would be more considerate.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 12, 2022)

A lot of British roads are all pothole, same with pavements, which is why I'm surprised e-scooters are so popular.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2022)

NoXion said:


> I like to cycle on the roads, and randomly swerving around to avoid every little bump and crevice is a dangerous thing to do, both for myself and other road users. I'd have thought you of all people would be more considerate.


If you are swerving to avoid obstacles, it's not "random".


----------



## NoXion (Apr 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> If you are swerving to avoid obstacles, it's not "random".



Most of the roughness of the roads are not obstacles any meaningful sense. Imperfections such as potholes and raised ironworks make roads less comfortable, instead of outright impassable. Furthermore, these kinds of things might be apparent to me, but that does not mean that they are apparent to other road users. So absent extreme cases, it makes no sense for me as a road user to make my movements less predictable by others, especially since since I'm sharing the road with motor vehicles which will have less reason to pull similar manoeuvers themselves. I do not think my comfort is sufficient justification for increasing my risks and the risk to others. Especially since I can use a bike with decent suspension to ameliorate the ride comfort issue in a safer manner.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2022)

Moving around in the lane does not in principle increase risk because it communicates to drivers that they should not rely on you staying in one position within your lane. Instead if they are aware that you may have to move sideways within your lane, it will remind them that if they want to overtake you they have to allow a substantial margin between you and them. This is the same reason not to ride tight to the edge of the road. 

If you adopt a strategy where you try and stick to a consistent line, sacrificing your own comfort in the process, then if you encounter a more major obstacle - one that you cannot ride over safely even with suspension, you will be forced to swerve, and if a following driver has been trained to think this will not happen, then you increase the risk that at that moment they are performing a too-close pass that puts them into conflict with you.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> This looks good
> 
> 
> 
> ...



predictably, drivers have lost the plot over this. Outraged at the possibility their right to speed might be challenged.









						Speed camera app developers face abuse from UK drivers
					

Speedcam Anywhere allows anyone to submit evidence of drivers speeding




					www.theguardian.com
				






> since it launched in March, the vitriol levied at the team is such that they are afraid of sharing their real identities. “We’re getting quite abusive emails,” said Sam, the app’s founder, who spoke on condition of anonymity.





> One online review for the app said: “In East Germany, citizens were encouraged to report their neighbours to the Stasi for even the smallest societal infraction. ‘Congratulations’ on creating a modern day version of that. If you couldn’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. This app disgusts me.”


----------



## T & P (Apr 12, 2022)

Those drivers needn't have worried...



> The app cannot lead to drivers receiving speeding tickets. Since Speedcam Anywhere’s algorithm has not been vetted by the Home Office, it is not legally a speed camera, and cannot provide sufficient evidence for a police force to issue a prosecution for speeding


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2022)




----------



## NoXion (Apr 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Moving around in the lane does not in principle increase risk because it communicates to drivers that they should not rely on you staying in one position within your lane.



You're assuming that's what other road users will interpret from my behaviour. I question that assumption. If they see me swerving about unnecessarily like a fuckwit, then there are any number of potential explanations they could divine from such behaviour, not all of which will have the same optimal response in terms of driving. 



teuchter said:


> If you adopt a strategy where you try and stick to a consistent line, sacrificing your own comfort in the process, then if you encounter a more major obstacle - one that you cannot ride over safely even with suspension, you will be forced to swerve



Unlike how I would be forced to swerve if I decided to try and avoid every bump and dent in the road? If I see that there is some obstacle ahead that I cannot safely traverse, then of course I will try to avoid it. But that's for the sake of safety, not comfort. Were I to follow your advice, my movements would be less tractable than if I were to just only make those manoeuvrers I need to ensure my own safety and the safety of others.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

_makes note not to make throw away jokes about bike suspension on the internet again_


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> _makes note not to make throw away jokes about bike suspension on the internet again_





"It's disappointing to see ... that you haven't yet realised  ... that transport mechanics are a very serious business round these parts".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 318317





One car and one minibus removed, plus 30 or so bicycles.

Spymaster wins this round.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 13, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 13, 2022)

Please tell me that’s a parody account


----------



## T & P (Apr 13, 2022)




----------



## petee (Apr 25, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2022)

“Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all”


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 26, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all”



Presumably you think people who sleep on the streets are proving they don't need accommodation.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Presumably you think people who sleep on the streets are proving they don't need accommodation.











						False equivalence - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 26, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> False equivalence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you say "Man *proves *for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all" then you'll need to support it with more than simply that statement itself, otherwise it's not a false equivalence at all. So, where's the proof?


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So, where's the proof?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you say "Man *proves *for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all" then you'll need to support it with more than simply that statement itself, otherwise it's not a false equivalence at all. So, where's the proof?


The fact that he's coped for a year doing it suggests having a car isn't a vital thing to take his kids to school, presuming he's not taken his kids out of school in protest.  Nothing in the article suggests he has a disability, and he appears to be complaining about having to use public transport due to the delay in getting the car is unfair.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 26, 2022)

Not sure how any of that couldn’t equally be used against someone who “copes” for a year sleeping on the streets. The only difference is a third-party’s judgement of what someone else needs, so it’s a matter of opinion and not some sort of irrefutable truth.

Its fine to say “I don’t think he needs a car”, but to claim the fact he has survived without one is proof he doesn’t need one is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure how any of that couldn’t equally be used against someone who “copes” for a year sleeping on the streets.


That's a ridiculous argument.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 26, 2022)

Walkings good for the kids, if it's wet let em walk by themselves.

Oh wait we can't do that here. If the cars don't get them something else will


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2022)

Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely _exactly_ the same as being homeless.


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 26, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely _exactly_ the same as being homeless.



FFS I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's an opinion that someone could hold, and they could support it by making the same assertion that you did: that the fact someone doesn't have something is proof they don't need it. That doesn't stack up with carless people just the same as it doesn't stack up with homeless people.

If you want to prove he doesn't need a car you'll have to do better than "he doesn't have one".


----------



## platinumsage (Apr 26, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Walkings good for the kids, if it's wet let em walk by themselves.



How many miles do they have to walk? Oh wait, you don't know.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 26, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely _exactly_ the same as being homeless.


It doesn’t need to be exactly the same thing though does it? There are many things that people don’t _have_ to do but their lives would be significantly more difficult without.


----------



## nick (Apr 26, 2022)

I guess there is a fairly long scale between NEEd to maintain life <====> completely useless to me
and a whole spectrum of wants, desires, conveniences  etc


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2022)

This is a good one as well: Angry couple 'cut off' by roadworks outside their own home

It's either a whole 11min drive:



or a 22min walk:



How anyone thinks it's worth going to the papers for this....

update: don't know much about pretrol consumption but to cost an extra £1,200 over 2.5 months at £1.60 a litre and 7 miles to the litre reckon they'd need to be doing about 15 trips into town a day!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> FFS I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's an opinion that someone could hold, and they could support it by making the same assertion that you did: that the fact someone doesn't have something is proof they don't need it. That doesn't stack up with carless people just the same as it doesn't stack up with homeless people.
> 
> If you want to prove he doesn't need a car you'll have to do better than "he doesn't have one".


“I’m just asking questions here”


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How many miles do they have to walk? Oh wait, you don't know.



It's Castle Bromwich, it's not the Scottish fucking Highlands.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This is a good one as well: Angry couple 'cut off' by roadworks outside their own home


Interestingly and unusually, most of the comments under that article are from people telling them to get a grip.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Interestingly and unusually, most of the comments under that article are from people telling them to get a grip.


This appears to be from the chap in the article

**


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2022)

It's quite common for car people to have this notion that their liberties are being restricted by faceless bureaucrats.

We should have a day each year where all traffic lights are turned off, parking is allowed absolutely anywhere, the highway code doesn't apply and anyone is allowed to drive.

See how long it takes for them to demand that faceless bureaucrats re-activate all the huge systems of regulation and control that are necessary to let motor traffic function without complete chaos ensuing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2022)




----------



## kabbes (Apr 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's quite common for car people to have this notion that their liberties are being restricted by faceless bureaucrats.
> 
> We should have a day each year where all traffic lights are turned off, parking is allowed absolutely anywhere, the highway code doesn't apply and anyone is allowed to drive.
> 
> See how long it takes for them to demand that faceless bureaucrats re-activate all the huge systems of regulation and control that are necessary to let motor traffic function without complete chaos ensuing.


I appreciate the thought but I suspect if you did this on one special day a year, people would be very courteous on that day and things would actually run smoother than usual. It would go wrong if if were like this regularly, not as a one-off


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I appreciate the thought but I suspect if you did this on one special day a year, people would be very courteous on that day and things would actually run smoother than usual.


Not if I got my hands on an articulated lorry they wouldn't.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Apr 26, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



They should just install average speed cameras in as many places as possible - not easy for selfish and bad drivers to argue they weren't speeding then.


----------



## nick (Apr 28, 2022)

Average speed is fairly low if you park the Range Rover sport on the yellow zig zags outside the gate when dropping off Esmerelda and Finn for the school day. 
To do anything else would be foolhardy and dangerous because of all of those cars on the school run


----------



## teuchter (May 2, 2022)

*








						Lorry driver allegedly rammed P&O protest blockade at Scots port as man charged
					

Witnesses told how the 7.5-tonne vehicle forced protesters to retreat at the entrance to Cairnryan Ferry Port in Dumfries and Galloway.




					www.dailyrecord.co.uk
				



*
Good to see the RMT taking inspiration from Insulate Britain.

And more proof that drivers don't just hate the environment - they hate workers' rights and maritime safety too.

No surprises there of course.


----------



## T & P (May 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Irreproachable evidence that proves beyond doubt all drivers are like this guy.

Might as well close the thread now, nothing else to add to the debate.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 4, 2022)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 4, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2022)

Welcome to Shoreham, Kent, where car owners park on the pavement around a parking layby. It's like this all the time.

I'm considering hiring a few cars and parking them in the parking layby for a few days to see what happens.


----------



## T & P (May 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Welcome to Shoreham, Kent, where car owners park on the pavement around a parking layby. It's like this all the time.
> 
> I'm considering hiring a few cars and parking them in the parking layby for a few days to see what happens.
> 
> View attachment 321356


That’s undoubtedly a cunt’s trick. Can’t imagine many people thinking otherwise.

Car owners in some suburban areas can be well fucking selfish, weird and sometimes plain unhinged when it comes to parking issues. They even exist in such areas as Tooting, which is London for all purposes even if they don’t have a London post code, 

We would sometimes visit friends who lived there and they would get twitchy if there happened to be a space a few doors down from them and we parked there. ‘Oh, the neighbour is not going to be happy if he comes back before you’re gone’ they would say with a nervous laugh. I invariably told them that whereas I wasn’t trying to cause conflict between them and their local fellow residents, the neighbour could go fuck himself if he thought he had a god-given right to the public road space outside his gaff, and he could come talk to me to convince me otherwise if he wanted.


----------



## Spymaster (May 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Welcome to Shoreham, Kent, where car owners park on the pavement around a parking layby. It's like this all the time.
> 
> I'm considering hiring a few cars and parking them in the parking layby for a few days to see what happens.
> 
> View attachment 321356





Where's that? 

I'd be polishing up the paint stripper spray gun


----------



## T & P (May 5, 2022)

Newish developments, in particular those bendy roads and cul-de-sacs, are often particularly bad for territorial nutjobs.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Newish developments, in particular those bendy roads and cul-de-sacs, are often particularly bad for territorial nutjobs.


It’s car owners everywhere pretty much. The number of people that object to cycle hangars outside their house round here 🤦‍♂️


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> .And more proof that drivers don't just hate the environment - they hate workers' rights and maritime safety too.
> 
> No surprises there of course.



Hang on, aren’t you a driver? Takes one to know one I guess.


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s car owners everywhere pretty much. The number of people that object to cycle hangars outside their house round here 🤦‍♂️



If there’s no need for a cycle hangar at a particular location its probably not surprising that people there object to it.


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Newish developments, in particular those bendy roads and cul-de-sacs, are often particularly bad for territorial nutjobs.



You can blame the planners as usual, inadequate provision for pretty much everything is sure to spawn a few nutjobs.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If there’s no need for a cycle hangar at a particular location its probably not surprising that people there object to it.


Why do think there’s no need? In Lambeth there’s a huge waiting list and until recently a couple of individuals on a street could stop them being put it.


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why do think there’s no need? In Lambeth there’s a huge waiting list and until recently a couple of individuals on a street could stop them being put it.



You said people were objecting to cycle hangers “outside their house”. If every householder on a street did that, there obviously wouldn’t be a burning desire for anyone on that street to have a cycle hanger.

If a council is allowing a couple of individuals on a street to prevent any cycle hangers from being put on that street, that’s obviously an entirely different situation to that which you originally outlined.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You said people were objecting to cycle hangers “outside their house”. If every householder on a street did that, there obviously wouldn’t be a burning desire for anyone on that street to have a cycle hanger.
> 
> If a council is allowing a couple of individuals on a street to prevent any cycle hangers from being put on that street, that’s obviously an entirely different situation to that which you originally outlined.


The council identifies a suitable location and asks the street - a couple of people object and it has been people that live where the location is outside - and so they couldn’t install it. They’ve changed it now and just get on with it.

As I’m sure you know - most drivers seem to think they own the space outside they’re house which is indicative of what a twat owning a car seems to make a lot of people.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 6, 2022)

Tbf cyclists seem to get all humpy if my lock happens to go around their bike as well as mine. Too much rage in the world.


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The council identifies a suitable location and asks the street - a couple of people object and it has been people that live where the location is outside - and so they couldn’t install it. They’ve changed it now and just get on with it.



Sounds like your council is shit, most of them are so that's no surprise.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sounds like your council is shit, most of them are so that's no surprise.


You really add soooo much to this thread…..


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You really add soooo much to this thread…..



I'm afraid without my sympathy posts to keep it going this thread would have run out of steam a long time ago. Principally because actual "propaganda" to support teuchter's deeply misconceived "long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever" has not been forthcoming.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm afraid without my sympathy posts to keep it going this thread would have run out of steam a long time ago. Principally because actual "propaganda" to support teuchter's deeply misconceived "long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever" has not been forthcoming.



That's certainly not true! Just in the last page or two, you can see that a couple of the thread's most backwards posters are coming round to a more enlightened mode of thinking - thanks to the education they have received on this thread:



T & P said:


> Car owners [are] weird and sometimes plain unhinged





T & P said:


> if he thought he had a god-given right to the public road space outside his gaff, and he could come talk to me to convince me otherwise if he wanted.





Spymaster said:


> I'd be polishing up the paint stripper spray gun


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That's certainly not true! Just in the last page or two, you can see that a couple of the thread's most backwards posters are coming round to a more enlightened mode of thinking - thanks to the education they have received on this thread:



I don't think they're coming round to anything tbf. I think this highlights your illusory perceptions about other people's attitudes to cars. It's perfectly reasonable to think that people shouldn't claim ownership of the road outside their house, and shouldn't park on pavements, or mow down lots children while disqualified while watching TikTok vidoes on their phone. These are normal middle-of-the road positions and don't indicate any adherence to an agenda of permanent private car elimination.

I'm against drunk strangers being sick on me and stabbing people with broken bottles. That doesn't mean I'm coming round to a more enlightned mode of thinking that involves the criminalization of possession of alcoholic drinks.


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> people shouldn't claim ownership of the road outside their house, and shouldn't park on pavements, or mow down lots children while disqualified while watching TikTok vidoes on their phone



Wow - even platinumsage is starting to get it! Massive progress since earlier stages of this thread. Well done, platinumsage.


----------



## platinumsage (May 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Wow - even platinumsage is starting to get it! Massive progress since earlier stages of this thread. Well done, platinumsage.



No "progress" at all. I've always held reasonable balanced views on such matters. I climbed on a car and walked over it's roof once because it was obstructing the pavement, well before seeing this thread. If you go on the pistonheads bad parking thread you'll find plenty of petrolheads arguing that pavement parking cars should be vandalized.

I know it must be disappointing for you to realize that most people are able to take a rational view of such matters without following you to your Kim Jong-un banfest hell where everyone trudges over muddy fields from their homes to the Tesco shuttle bus station, or is deported from their rural home to a highrise block in the newly created London borough of Basildon.

I know that you are a willing and enthusiastic car driver, so I hope that one day you'll find a way to align your professed opinions with your actions and take proper responsibility for your car use.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2022)

As ever, car people provide the content for this thread, without me needing to do much work:


----------



## T & P (May 10, 2022)

Clearly a false flag operation by teuchter in a wig spreading misinformation.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 10, 2022)




----------



## T & P (May 10, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


>


Exactly. What safety improvements have bicycle manufacturers introduced recently, or in the last half century for that matter, compared with the numerous, continuous and commendable advances by car makers? Bicycle manufacturers have a lot to answer for and no mistake.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Exactly. What safety improvements have bicycle manufacturers introduced recently, or in the last half century for that matter, compared with the numerous, continuous and commendable advances by car makers? Bicycle manufacturers have a lot to answer for and no mistake.


They won't need to when we ban cars.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> They won't need to when we ban cars.



Who the fuck is "we"? Banning cars is not happening any time soon, it's a fever dream of a tiny minority of weirdos.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Who the fuck is "we"? Banning cars is not happening any time soon, it's a fever dream of a tiny minority of weirdos.


Those of us who are sensible rational people.  Obviously this doesn't include many of the weirdos who post on this thread.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Those of us who are sensible rational people.  Obviously this doesn't include many of the weirdos who post on this thread.



Plenty of "sensible rational people" disagree.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Plenty of "sensible rational people" disagree.


Plenty of lazy selfish twats.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> Plenty of lazy selfish twats.



And the difference between them is whether they agree with you or not, of course.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> And the difference between them is whether they agree with you or not, of course.


The difference between who?


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> The difference between who?



You think all "sensible rational people" agree with you on this subject?


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You think all "sensible rational people" agree with you on this subject?


I think people who don't agree with me about the dominance of the private motorcar in modern societies aren't sensible or rational on that particular topic, yes. With some wiggle room for people who partially agree with me being partially sensible and rational.

I don't recall using the words sensible or rational tbh but I'll go with them on this occasion.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> Banning cars is not happening any time soon, it's a fever dream of a tiny minority of weirdos.


I'm quoting this post in case you try and edit it in the future, when you become proven wrong.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm quoting this post in case you try and edit it in the future, when you become proven wrong.



You make the same mistake that veganists do; observe a trend and then make the unwarranted logical leap that said trend will continue indefinitely. The fact that measures such as pedestrianisation, traffic calming, etc are being implemented with increasing frequency in urban areas says nothing about the continued future of private car ownership.


----------



## MickiQ (May 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm quoting this post in case you try and edit it in the future, when you become proven wrong.


The only way there will be a massive reduction in the number of private cars is large scale vehicle automation.  That probably will come eventually but it is going to be on a fairly long time scale. I don't know how old you are teuchter but unlikely in your lifetime.


----------



## tonysingh (May 11, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> The only way there will be a massive reduction in the number of private cars is large scale vehicle automation.  That probably will come eventually but it is going to be on a fairly long time scale. I don't know how old you are teuchter but unlikely in your lifetime.



teuchter is 79.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You make the same mistake that veganists do; observe a trend and then make the unwarranted logical leap that said trend will continue indefinitely. The fact that measures such as pedestrianisation, traffic calming, etc are being implemented with increasing frequency in urban areas says nothing about the continued future of private car ownership.


Incorrect. You and your dinosaur ways are about to be swept away from under your feet.

You seem to underestimate the influence this thread is having on world transport trends.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> The only way there will be a massive reduction in the number of private cars is large scale vehicle automation.  That probably will come eventually but it is going to be on a fairly long time scale. I don't know how old you are teuchter but unlikely in your lifetime.



To be honest, I don't think even that is necessary.

If all forms of mass transit were made free at the point of use, then I think that alone would significantly reduce car usage, as well as the desire to own a car.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Incorrect. You and your dinosaur ways are about to be swept away from under your feet.
> 
> You seem to underestimate the influence this thread is having on world transport trends.



You're either delusional or trolling.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2022)

I don’t want to see private cars banned, I just want cities that are designed, built, and run in a way that makes using one there so utterly stupid/expensive/miserable that nobody bothers.


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You're either delusional or trolling.


That’s only just occurring to you?


----------



## T & P (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> You're either delusional or trolling.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2022)

Trolling in the original sense of 'making lots of people look stupid with minimal input'.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> If all forms of mass transit were made free at the point of use, then I think that alone would significantly reduce car usage, as well as the desire to own a car.



This is the kind of simplistic solution that people come up with before they really think things through properly and accept that there are some more fundamental things that need to change as well. Read the thread, and then get back to us and we'll let you know if you're starting to get it or not.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> This is the kind of simplistic solution that people come up with before they really think things through properly and accept that there are some more fundamental things that need to change as well. Read the thread, and then get back to us and we'll let you know if you're starting to get it or not.



No, you don't like the proposal because it doesn't involve the spiteful exercise of state force against a group you consider to be wrong 'uns.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> No, you don't like the proposal because it doesn't involve the spiteful exercise of state force against a group you consider to be wrong 'uns.


Read the thread.


----------



## NoXion (May 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Read the thread.



It's not my job to support your arguments, that's on you.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2022)

NoXion said:


> No, you don't like the proposal because it doesn't involve the spiteful exercise of state force against a group you consider to be wrong 'uns.


I bet you oppose the idea of rent controls too. The spiteful state trying to constrain the god given freedoms of private property owners.


----------



## kabbes (May 11, 2022)

Teuchter is without doubt the greatest troll I have ever had the joy of witnessing.  Proper, old-school trolling where you inspire 100 pages of arguments with one well-placed sentence.  Where you manage to create rage and ranting without employing a single insult.  It’s wonderful to watch.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Teuchter is without doubt the greatest troll I have ever had the joy of witnessing.  Proper, old-school trolling where you inspire 100 pages of arguments with one well-placed sentence.  Where you manage to create rage and ranting without employing a single insult.  It’s wonderful to watch.


Dwyer vs Teuchter is like Hendry vs O'Sullivan.


----------



## NoXion (May 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Teuchter is without doubt the greatest troll I have ever had the joy of witnessing.  Proper, old-school trolling where you inspire 100 pages of arguments with one well-placed sentence.  Where you manage to create rage and ranting without employing a single insult.  It’s wonderful to watch.



Nah, it's shit and always has been, and I would argue it breaks the "don't be a dick" rule.


----------



## sim667 (May 12, 2022)

It seems by looking through this thread lots of people seem to think there is no justification for owning a car at all? At what point do people think its ok to own a car?

Also yes, for full disclosure, I do have a SUV, bumping over fields in my old 2 door hatchback with a bunch of PA equipment in was just knackering the suspension/bumper constantly.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2022)

sim667 said:


> It seems by looking through this thread lots of people seem to think there is no justification for owning a car at all? At what point do people think its ok to own a car?
> 
> Also yes, for full disclosure, I do have a SUV, bumping over fields in my old 2 door hatchback with a bunch of PA equipment in was just knackering the suspension/bumper constantly.


Owning a car is fine. But, much like a shotgun, it's where and what that you do with it that matters.


----------



## platinumsage (May 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Owning a car is fine. But, much like a shotgun, it's where and what that you do with it that matters.



So you’re in favour of mass production of motor cars so that rich toffs can accumulate them in vast garages and blat them around racetracks at their leisure. Meanwhile a nurse trying to get to hospital in a basic family car after dropping her kids at school ought to be hauled out of the driver‘s seat and plonked on an e-bike?


----------



## edcraw (May 12, 2022)

platinumsage - the gift that keeps on giving 🤪


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you’re in favour of mass production of motor cars so that rich toffs can accumulate them in vast garages and blat them around racetracks at their leisure. Meanwhile a nurse trying to get to hospital in a basic family car after dropping her kids at school ought to be hauled out of the driver‘s seat and plonked on an e-bike?


By christ you're shit at this. No, yes.


----------



## platinumsage (May 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, yes.


Make your mind up.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Make your mind up.


Cars shouldn't exist purely for racetracks. School runs and urban commutes should be done on (e)bikes. Fuck me, this isn't rocket science.


----------



## T & P (May 13, 2022)

sim667 said:


> It seems by looking through this thread lots of people seem to think there is no justification for owning a car at all? At what point do people think its ok to own a car?


Well, that’s a very good question to ask to the ‘lots of people’ in this thread who have displayed anti car sentiments, seeing as nobody in that camp seems to agree or even be very clear themselves on whether they want a total ban on cars, or only privately owned ones.

One moment it’s ‘all cars are ‘death machines‘ that must be completely eradicated from the face of the Earth’ (or at least all towns and cities, the jury is still out on that), and the next it’s only privately owned vehicles that appear to pose an unacceptable degree of mortal danger to pedestrians and cyclists, with hire and car club vehicles, taxis, or those useful delivery vans that deliver one’s online purchases to one’s doorstep suddenly and magically not being an issue, depending on the narrative or discussion taking place at the time. It’s all rather confusing.


----------



## platinumsage (May 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars shouldn't exist purely for racetracks. School runs and urban commutes should be done on (e)bikes. Fuck me, this isn't rocket science.



So according to you “owning a car is fine” but must not be used for getting to school or hospital, yet cars can be bought and accumulated by rich toffs for use on racetracks.

That’s exactly what I thought you position was. Thanks for confirming you’re  basically Norman Tebbit, as you tell working class people they ought to use bicycles.


----------



## edcraw (May 13, 2022)

Yeah - Norman Tebbit hero of the evil cycling lobby!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So according to you “owning a car is fine” but must not be used for getting to school or hospital, yet cars can be bought and accumulated by rich toffs for use on racetracks.
> 
> That’s exactly what I thought you position was. Thanks for confirming you’re  basically Norman Tebbit, as you tell working class people they ought to use bicycles.


I’m starting to think you can’t read.


----------



## platinumsage (May 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m starting to think you can’t read.



Go on then, who should own cars and who shouldn't? When should they be used and when shouldn't they? Because so far you've said they shouldn't exist "purely for racetracks" but that "school runs and urban commutes should be done on (e)bikes". Literally things you actually said.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Go on then, who should own cars and who shouldn't? When should they be used and when shouldn't they? Because so far you've said they shouldn't exist "purely for racetracks" but that "school runs and urban commutes should be done on (e)bikes". Literally things you actually said.


Which you extrapolated to something about “toffs”.


----------



## platinumsage (May 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which you extrapolated to something about “toffs”.



It's clearly a example of the kind of private car ownership you appear to find acceptable - a garage full of cars on the country estate which are used occasionally on racetracks.  

Meanwhile a working class person driving through a city to work, school or a hospital is the enemy in your eyes.

I bet you have voted LibDem


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's clearly a example of the kind of private car ownership you appear to find acceptable - a garage full of cars on the country estate which are used occasionally on racetracks.
> 
> Meanwhile a working class person driving through a city to work, school or a hospital is the enemy in your eyes.
> 
> I bet you have voted LibDem


As ever, wrong on all counts


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's clearly a example of the kind of private car ownership you appear to find acceptable - a garage full of cars on the country estate which are used occasionally on racetracks.


Pretty sure he said the exact opposite. 

I wouldn't ban the manufacture or purchase of cars, I'd just ban driving them anywhere. I'd leave race tracks open but I'd combine them with shooting ranges (well, artillery really) so they were more fun.


----------



## platinumsage (May 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> As ever, wrong on all counts



If you'd answered this you could have clarified your position:



platinumsage said:


> Go on then, who should own cars and who shouldn't? When should they be used and when shouldn't they?


----------



## platinumsage (May 13, 2022)

maomao said:


> Pretty sure he said the exact opposite.
> 
> I wouldn't ban the manufacture or purchase of cars, I'd just ban driving them anywhere. I'd leave race tracks open but I'd combine them with shooting ranges (well, artillery really) so they were more fun.



How would people take their cars to the racetrack? By cargo bike or would you allow vans to be driven anywhere?


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How would people take their cars to the racetrack? By cargo bike or would you allow vans to be driven anywhere?


As it's just a random fantasy I don't need to account for practicalities like that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 13, 2022)

Who should own a car? Anyone that wants one really.

But. Many buts.

They shouldn’t be the default. We shouldn’t design our cities around them. They should be the last resort. We should have infrastructure that makes them the most difficult, expensive and sometimes downright stupid option. The bar for operating one should be much higher. The penalties for abusing them much harsher.

People need to travel. The problem is not that people _need_ a car to do so, it’s that they don’t have viable alternatives. That is changing - rapidly in some places around the world - and will continue to do so.

The car was (is) an amazing invention. But so was the typewriter. The world moves onwards to better ways of achieving the same result.


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2022)

The car actually destroyed previously viable methods of transport, due to a lack of foresight about what its widespread use would lead to, meaning that lots of useful infrastructure was torn up much too hastily. Now its as much about restoring better ways to move around, as it is about moving onwards to "new" ways.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Who should own a car? Anyone that wants one really.
> 
> But. Many buts.
> 
> ...


 Nonsense


----------



## platinumsage (May 14, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Who should own a car? Anyone that wants one really.



OK, good to know you don’t subscribe to teuchter’s North Korea vision of banning them.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> We should have infrastructure that makes them the most difficult, expensive and sometimes downright stupid option. The bar for operating one should be much higher. The penalties for abusing them much harsher.



All of which favours the wealthy, for whom taxes, penalties etc present far less of a challenge.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> People need to travel. The problem is not that people _need_ a car to do so, it’s that they don’t have viable alternatives. That is changing - rapidly in some places around the world - and will continue to do so.



I have yet see a proposal for a viable set of alternatives which would make much of a difference to anyone not living in a large city.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> The car was (is) an amazing invention. But so was the typewriter. The world moves onwards to better ways of achieving the same result.



Poor analogy, electronic word processing is obviously superior to mechanical typewriters in every way. I can’t see how any kind of transport solution which isn’t motorised and self-directed can ever be superior in lots of key ways to one that is.


----------



## edcraw (May 14, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


>



This. Some people really don’t have much of an imagination.


----------



## T & P (May 15, 2022)

.


edcraw said:


>



Absolutely 100% guaranteed that person has used or benefited from internal combustion engine vehicles multiple times every single year of their adult life.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

T & P said:


> .
> 
> Absolutely 100% guaranteed that person has used or benefited from internal combustion engine vehicles multiple times every single year of their adult life.


👏👏👏👏👏👏


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

Of course people can imagine a world in which they don’t need a car - one where they live in a flat in London and all their friends and family do likewise, or else live near a station.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This. Some people really don’t have much of an imagination.





platinumsage said:


> Of course people can imagine a world in which they don’t need a car - one where they live in a flat in London and all their friends and family do likewise, or else live near a station.


QED.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

Well glad that we’ve agreed a ban on cars in London. It’s a start!


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> QED.



If you're trying to hint that with a bit more "imagination" then a world where no one needed a car would be readily achievable, or indeed desirable, than I'm guessing you've not left London much


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well glad that we’ve agreed a ban on cars in London. It’s a start!



Did we?


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Did we?


Yes


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you're trying to hint that with a bit more "imagination" then a world where no one needed a car would be readily achievable, or indeed desirable, than I'm guessing you've not left London much


I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in London.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you're trying to hint that with a bit more "imagination" then a world where no one needed a car would be readily achievable, or indeed desirable, than I'm guessing you've not left London much


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in London.



In spirit perhaps, like those FBPE twitter folks who live in the EU but don't.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> In spirit perhaps, like those FBPE twitter folks who live in the EU but don't.


ah, you’re a Brexiteer! Makes sense now.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2022)

The days where the pro-car defence is mounted by T & P and platinumsage are the best ones. You can just put your feet up and leave them to it.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

There doesn’t need to be a “pro-car defence” because there’s zero chance that they’ll ever be banned. 

I’ve been trying to coax some sort of implementable banning plan out of the abolitionists but they’ve got nothing.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There doesn’t need to be a “pro-car defence” because there’s zero chance that they’ll ever be banned.
> 
> I’ve been trying to coax some sort of implementable banning plan out of the abolitionists but they’ve got nothing.


We’ve agreed on cities so far.

When is a car necessary? Or is it actually just a choice?


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We’ve agreed on cities so far.



No, we haven't



edcraw said:


> When is a car necessary? Or is it actually just a choice?



How is this relevant? Lots of things are choices and not necessary - internet use, living in a building, using gas and electricity, attending hospitals and schools.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There doesn’t need to be a “pro-car defence” because there’s zero chance that they’ll ever be banned.


We all know that it's not an outright ban everywhere that you're scared of in the foreseeable future. Yet all you can muster an argument against is the notion of an outright ban. Meanwhile T & P's killer argument is the same as it always has been: people who argue against car dependency might sometimes have to use a car themselves.

It's quite a pantomime act really. Keep it up.


----------



## liquidindian (May 15, 2022)

T & P said:


> It’s all rather confusing.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, we haven't
> 
> 
> 
> How is this relevant? Lots of things are choices and not necessary - internet use, living in a building, using gas and electricity, attending hospitals and schools.


Yes - and we ban or at least severally restrict choices that affect others. Welcome to the war on cars!


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes - and we ban or at least severally restrict choices that affect others. Welcome to the war on cars!



You might want to ban or at least severely restrict all "choices that affect others" but thankfully no one else does.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We all know that it's not an outright ban everywhere that you're scared of in the foreseeable future. Yet all you can muster an argument against is the notion of an outright ban. Meanwhile T & P's killer argument is the same as it always has been: people who argue against car dependency might sometimes have to use a car themselves.
> 
> It's quite a pantomime act really. Keep it up.



I've mustered an argument against all sorts of delusionary nonsense on this thread, because it's entertaining poking people who are trying to advocate for something that they can't actually present a case for.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You might want to ban or at least severely restrict all "choices that affect others" but thankfully no one else does.


We should certain do the ones that seriously affect others as cars do! Just because you’ve built your live around having a car it doesn’t mean we should humour you.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We should certain do the ones that seriously affect others as cars do! Just because you’ve built your live around having a car it doesn’t mean we should humour you.



The internet accounts for nearly 4% of global CO2 emissions, therefore "seriously affects others" and should be banned. Cherio then.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The internet accounts for nearly 4% of global CO2 emissions, therefore "seriously affects others" and should be banned. Cherio then.


You’re on a roll with your gotchas! I agree we should look to reduce this harm.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re on a roll with your gotchas! I agree we should look to reduce this harm.



"ban or severely restrict" I think you said.

Unless you didn't actually mean that but rather "mitigate the adverse affects as far as is reasonable".


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "ban or severely restrict" I think you said.
> 
> Unless you didn't actually mean that but rather "mitigate the adverse affects as far as is reasonable".


We’ve tried that for cars & it hasn’t worked. Ban ➡️


----------



## T & P (May 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The days where the pro-car defence is mounted by T & P and platinumsage are the best ones. You can just put your feet up and leave them to it.


To be fair after thousands of posts in here  we’re yet to see a single one that remotely qualifies as a valid and thought-out argument against cars, so I guess we’re quits.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

Yep - everything’s fine….









						First picture of woman killed with three golden retrievers in Chelsea car crash
					

The woman has been named as 41-year-old Oliva Riley from Suffolk




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

The police were no doubt too busy persecuting cyclists:









						Cyclist arrested after police force rider off M3 motorway
					

Hampshire Constabulary say rider failed to stop at first – and moved into the outside lane




					road.cc


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

Not sure what vague point you’re trying to make but pretty low tbh.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what vague point you’re trying to make but pretty low tbh.



Are we at the "posting about a recent death to make a point" stage again? 

We have access to all the necessary detailed death statistics for various things, together with case studies of prosecutions and court cases that have actually been completed, so I'm not sure that there is much to be gained by discussing cases that are still under investigation.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Are we at the "posting about a recent death to make a point" stage again?
> 
> We have access to all the necessary detailed death statistics for various things, together with case studies of prosecutions and court cases that have actually been completed, so I'm not sure that there is much to be gained by discussing cases that are still under investigation.


We don’t need to wait and see what the cause was - cars are inherently dangerous and we’re doing nothing to deal with it. If you do have access to all the necessary statistics and your takeaway is that it’s all okay then ➡️


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We don’t need to wait and see what the cause was - cars are inherently dangerous and we’re doing nothing to deal with it. If you do have access to all the necessary statistics and your takeaway is that it’s all okay then ➡️


It's all fine. Thousands of dead kids are a small price to pay for convenience.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We don’t need to wait and see what the cause was - cars are inherently dangerous and we’re doing nothing to deal with it. If you do have access to all the necessary statistics and your takeaway is that it’s all okay then ➡️



Lots of things are inherently dangerous - guns, organic lettuce, swimming pools, peanuts, bicycles. 

Do you think we should ban them all or only those ones you don't use yourself?


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of things are inherently dangerous - guns, organic lettuce, swimming pools, peanuts, bicycles.
> 
> Do you think we should ban them all or only those ones you don't use yourself?


You think we should legalise guns?


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You think we should legalise guns?


In the US more people die in car accidents than in non-suicide gun deaths. I'd legalise guns and get rid of cars. Guns have a purpose and there's no public communal equivalent.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You think we should legalise guns?



I think my cat has more complex thought processes than you.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2022)

So what I've taken from the posts since I asked the question is that we shouldn't have cars, unless you can find a justifiable reason enough to say you need a car, but the goalposts for car ownership being acceptable also change according to who you ask and what mood they're in.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2022)

sim667 said:


> the goalposts for car ownership being acceptable also change according to who you ask and what mood they're in.


Different people having different opinions isn't 'moving goalposts'.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

Okay - we should have speed limiters, weight and size restrictions, lifetime driving bans & stop building housing where cars are a necessity and have huge investment in rural cycle routes amongst other things.

The fact living in most parts of the country means you need to spend a small fortune just to get around is a social injustice and a sign of how Tory our rural areas are.

We won’t do any of this cos the Daily Mail runs the country.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Okay - we should have speed limiters, weight and size restrictions, lifetime driving bans & stop building housing where cars are a necessity and have huge investment in rural cycle routes amongst other things.



We already have all those things. As to whether cars are ever a necessity, I find it interesting that you now seem to be saying that they are. It's not my view but we are all entitled to our opinions.




edcraw said:


> The fact living in most parts of the country means you need to spend a small fortune just to get around is a social injustice and a sign of how Tory our rural areas are.
> 
> We won’t do any of this cos the Daily Mail runs the country.



If you think the Tories and the Daily Mail are the primary barriers to stopping people in parts of the country having to spend a small fortune to get around then you haven't actually looked at this in any kind of detail.


----------



## edcraw (May 15, 2022)

Massive Tory

Where’s this massive investment in rural cycle routes? Where’s speed limiters on cars? Weight and size restrictions need to be a lot lower and lifetime driving bans common place.


----------



## platinumsage (May 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Where’s this massive investment in rural cycle routes? Where’s speed limiters on cars? Weight and size restrictions need to be a lot lower and lifetime driving bans common place.



Here for example, although I haven't seen any stats on any reduction in car use it might have caused yet. Speed limiters are fitted to most cars, see page 217 here for example. 

Can't say I agree with reducing weight and size restrictions, seems hard to justify. Lifetime bans perhaps, but I think more shorter bans would be more effective in improving safety.


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2022)

sim667 said:


> So what I've taken from the posts since I asked the question is that we shouldn't have cars, unless you can find a justifiable reason enough to say you need a car, but the goalposts for car ownership being acceptable also change according to who you ask and what mood they're in.


If you ask a vague and ill defined question like "at what point is it ok to own a car" then are you really surprised when the answer is basically "it depends"?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Where’s this massive investment in rural cycle routes?




Here's one: https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s47555/Annex A - A Guildford to Milford Cycle Way.pdf

Not a massive Tory area at all


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2022)

No doubt massive progress has been made on that since 2018 - massive progress to match the massive investment that I'm sure has been made.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> No doubt massive progress has been made on that since 2018 - massive progress to match the massive investment that I'm sure has been made.




It's mostly completed., the only part that isn't finished is being held up by environmental campaigners no less.


----------



## edcraw (May 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> No doubt massive progress has been made on that since 2018 - massive progress to match the massive investment that I'm sure has been made.



I can confirm that last year most of it was a mud bath!

Love that trying to improve a short existing crap route slightly some time in the future is a ‘massive’ investment!


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's mostly completed., the only part that isn't finished is being held up by environmental campaigners no less.


It so happens that I know that route a bit, haven't done it for maybe 3 or 4 years but it was miles off being any good for regular commuting when I last did. So what does "mostly completed" mean?

While it looks like a "better than nothing" scheme, it follows the familiar pattern which is to try and tack on a "cycle route" to mostly pedestrian infrastructure rather than making the slightest compromise to road infrastructure. So as not to annoy motorists, you instead annoy pedestrians and nature reserve volunteer groups and so on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2022)

The paths from Thursley and Elsead across Royal Common and Rodborough Common have been laid to stop them being muddy and shitty. The paths from Godalming to Peasmarsh and down to the bridge at Shalford are in place. Bottleneck at the bridge in Shalford. Then there is the existing path in to Guildford from there that is causing problems, it is not suitable for walking or riding year round, to make it so they want to chop down a number of trees and that’s where the opposition is coming from. Doesn’t bother me with a full sus mtb, but a solid path, away from traffic and mostly flat would take so many journeys off the roads, it’s just under 5 miles from Godalming which is a distance that can easily be done by bike, but the road route is busy as hell and has a nasty couple of hills that will make you sweaty, so the greenway will be great once it is fully open. Odd that a car lover has been involved in this though, along with a defrocked Lib Dem wannabe MP…

99% of the paths are already bridleways, so open to cyclists, but in such a shocking state that it’s only mtbs that can use them.


----------



## Humberto (May 16, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The paths from Thursley and Elsead across Royal Common and Rodborough Common have been laid to stop them being muddy and shitty. The paths from Godalming to Peasmarsh and down to the bridge at Shalford are in place. Bottleneck at the bridge in Shalford. Then there is the existing path in to Guildford from there that is causing problems, it is not suitable for walking or riding year round, to make it so they want to chop down a number of trees and that’s where the opposition is coming from. Doesn’t bother me with a full sus mtb, but a solid path, away from traffic and mostly flat would take so many journeys off the roads, it’s just under 5 miles from Godalming which is a distance that can easily be done by bike, but the road route is busy as hell and has a nasty couple of hills that will make you sweaty, so the greenway will be great once it is fully open. Odd that a car lover has been involved in this though, along with a defrocked Lib Dem wannabe MP…



Sounds like the shipping forecast.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2022)

Thought I'd just put this here and do a high-five with other thread readers to get the weekend off to a good start.



MickiQ said:


> Some twat put a scratch down the side of my Audi whilst it was parked up and buggered off (considering where the marks were it might have been a cyclist though I don't know) and it cost me £350 to have it fixed so £300 sounds about right.
> I didn't go through my insurance since I would have had to find the first £125 and felt it wasn't worth losing a 'life' off my no claims discount for a couple of hundred notes.


----------



## MickiQ (May 21, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Thought I'd just put this here and do a high-five with other thread readers to get the weekend off to a good start.


It was you wasn't it?


----------



## edcraw (May 21, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Thought I'd just put this here and do a high-five with other thread readers to get the weekend off to a good start.


If people are leaving they’re possessions worth thousands just lying around in the road they’re asking for trouble to be honest. Serves them right.


----------



## T & P (May 21, 2022)

For once, edcraw , we're in agreement


----------



## edcraw (May 21, 2022)

T & P said:


> For once, edcraw , we're in agreement


Yep - you can’t leave your bike out day and night on the street and expect it’ll be safe. Car keying needs to be normalised.


----------



## maomao (May 21, 2022)

T & P said:


> For once, edcraw , we're in agreement


That doesn't look like a grand's worth of bike to me unless it's an antique.


----------



## platinumsage (May 23, 2022)

It's all kicking off with the anti-working-class trial LTNs in Oxford, which most residents opposed:

Labour city councillor Linda Smith described the trials as 'rushed', saying: "Cowley Road is gridlocked and bus journeys home from town for residents in Lye Valley are delayed by an hour. Did anyone reasonably expect any other result from the rushed LTN experiments?"
Labour city Shaista Aziz said: "Terrible and totally avoidable. LTN’s have become divisive issue, pitting people and communities against each other along class and economic lines. Transport and environment policy needs to focus on tackling inequalities and bringing people together. A better strategy is needed."









						Traffic chaos and vandalism as even pro-LTN individuals share trial doubts
					

Even some people who are pro-traffic reducing measures have doubts about the East Oxford LTN trial.




					www.oxfordmail.co.uk
				












						Controversial LTN bollards smashed down AGAIN
					

MORE roadblocks that were set up as part of a new low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in East Oxford have been smashed down as fury against the…




					www.oxfordmail.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's all kicking off with the anti-working-class trial LTNs in Oxford, which most residents opposed:
> 
> Labour city councillor Linda Smith described the trials as 'rushed', saying: "Cowley Road is gridlocked and bus journeys home from town for residents in Lye Valley are delayed by an hour. Did anyone reasonably expect any other result from the rushed LTN experiments?"
> Labour city Shaista Aziz said: "Terrible and totally avoidable. LTN’s have become divisive issue, pitting people and communities against each other along class and economic lines. Transport and environment policy needs to focus on tackling inequalities and bringing people together. A better strategy is needed."
> ...


Behavioural change doesn’t work overnight shock.

These people are pricks, and can be ignored


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2022)

Very much illustrative of the problems we have got ourselves into by building car-orientated infrastructure for several decades, and therefore appropriate for the thread.


----------



## platinumsage (May 23, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Behavioural change doesn’t work overnight shock.
> 
> These people are pricks, and can be ignored



Who? The working class? Good to know where you stand, no doubt you vote LibDem, might even be a party member.


----------



## platinumsage (May 23, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Very much illustrative of the problems we have got ourselves into by building car-orientated infrastructure for several decades, and therefore appropriate for the thread.



The relevant infrastructure of paved roads in these neighborhoods was all in place before the motor vehicle. Perhaps you think with the advent of the car they should have quickly ploughed all the roads to mud lest anyone start using them for something other than a horse.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who? The working class? Good to know where you stand, no doubt you vote LibDem, might even be a party member.


No, imagination free car drivers. 

Yes, there will be congestion at first. You don’t change behaviour overnight. Let the twats moan, they’re irrelevant.


----------



## edcraw (May 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who? The working class? Good to know where you stand, no doubt you vote LibDem, might even be a party member.



The working class 😜

Love how the Tory voting middle classes in their SUVs always want to pretend they’re only against LTNs on social equality grounds.

LTNs work & are overwhelming popular don’t be fooled by a few people having tantrums cos they’re slightly inconvenienced.


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2022)

But there were paved roads in the 1880s therefore we mustn't change anything now because of obvious logic.


----------



## sim667 (May 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> Different people having different opinions isn't 'moving goalposts'.


When you’re trying to convince other people they shouldn’t need to use cars, then yes it is


----------



## platinumsage (May 24, 2022)

Worst propaganda ever:


----------



## maomao (May 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Worst propaganda ever:



And yet even in the last bastion of entitled lazy car wankers 64% of people have a favourable attitude towards bikes.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Worst propaganda ever:



I wonder why...


----------



## alex_ (May 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> I wonder why...



I blame cyclists


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> And yet even in the last bastion of entitled lazy car wankers 64% of people have a favourable attitude towards bikes.


Funny how virtually every single other country on that list has as many if not more cars and 'entitled lazy car wankers' circulating daily through their towns and cities, and yet cyclists there are much more appreciated than those here...


----------



## platinumsage (May 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> Funny how virtually every single other country on that least has as many if not more cars and 'entitled lazy car wankers' circulating daily through their towns and cities, and yet cyclists there are much more appreciated than those here...


...and a higher traffic-related death rate than the UK.


----------



## maomao (May 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> ...and a higher traffic-related death rate than the UK.


Would surely be a reason for liking bicycles. Anyway, this isn't the pro-cycling propaganda thread, it's the anti-car propaganda thread. I'm on the walking part of my commute right now and grateful for it.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> . Anyway, this isn't the pro-cycling propaganda thread, it's the anti-car propaganda thread.


Well said. There's a reason for the attempts to divert it.


----------



## T & P (May 24, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Well said. There's a reason for the attempts to divert it.


----------



## Athos (May 24, 2022)

I'm genuinely surprised to see from that survey that the biggest bike fans are wealthy managerial types. If have thought they'd be more likely to drive the ones in the Audis.


----------



## platinumsage (May 26, 2022)

Another example of an anti-car policy backfiring.

Increase town-centre parking charges to reduce car use
Fewer people shop in town
Shops move out-of-town
People need to drive to go shopping
👏


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2022)

I wish it wasn’t true but it is true. If I were a shopkeeper, I’d be very angry with the council for charging me hefty rates and then not fulfilling their implied contract of creating the environment for my commercial success. It feels underhand.


----------



## Athos (May 26, 2022)

The stick won't work without the carrot. It'd be OK pricing cars out the town centre if public transport was sufficiently cheap, reliable, comfortable, and convenient.  But, until then, people will just take their cars somewhere else.


----------



## platinumsage (May 26, 2022)

Athos said:


> The stick won't work without the carrot. It'd be OK pricing cars out the town centre if public transport was sufficiently cheap, reliable, comfortable, and convenient.  But, until then, people will just take their cars somewhere else.



The carrot obviously needs to be in place before the stick. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for council and anti-car lobbyists to grasp.


----------



## edcraw (May 26, 2022)

This is just pointing out that we're overly reliant on cars so we're overly reliant on cars - it's a circular argument.

No amount of cheap public transport will compete with cars if we keep builidng shitty housing developments that are relient on cars. It's the shitty suburban lifestyle that most of this country aspire to that's the issue.


----------



## kabbes (May 26, 2022)

I think the point is that you can’t escape the circle by interfering at just one point. If you don’t have control of the entire system, the solution people find to your interference might be contrary to your aims


----------



## alex_ (May 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Another example of an anti-car policy backfiring.
> 
> Increase town-centre parking charges to reduce car use
> Fewer people shop in town
> ...



Is this actually an anti car policy or is it a councils have no money policy ?

Btw this and public transport cuts feel more like coalition cuts than any failed strategy.


----------



## teuchter (May 26, 2022)

Definitely the way to deal with everyone being attracted to out-of-town shopping centres with massive car parks, is to turn town centres into massive car parks too.


----------



## platinumsage (May 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Definitely the way to deal with everyone being attracted to out-of-town shopping centres with massive car parks, is to turn town centres into massive car parks too.



That’s the reverse of what is happening. Out-of town shops are being newly created as a consequence of car parks in town centres being closed or too highly priced.

Sustainable in-town shops serving both out-of-town car users and in-town walkers/cyclers are being made unviable by the pricing out of one of the two groups of customers that supported them.


----------



## Athos (May 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That’s the reverse of what is happening. Out-of town shops are being newly created as a consequence of car parks in town centres being closed or too highly priced.
> 
> Sustainable in-town shops serving both out-of-town car users and in-town walkers/cyclers are being made unviable by the pricing out of one of the two groups of customers that supported them.


Which has the perverse effect of making cars more of a necessity (to get to the out-of-town sites).  It's an unintended consequence of tinkering with one part of a complex system.  We need more investment in public transport before there's any real chance of persuading people to give up their cars. And if you stop them using their cars in one area, they'll just use them elsewhere.  Of course, that displacement might have some value - cleaner air in towns, for example - but a better solution would be for people to choose to give up cars altogether.


----------



## teuchter (May 26, 2022)

Out of town, car-optimised shopping developments are being created as a consequence of rubbish planning policy.

It's not just a simplistic choice between car-served out of town shops, and car-served town centre shops.

Why do people do bulk shopping, by car, at giant supermarkets? Is it simply because parking is difficult at town centre locations?

No, it's the result of a whole load of things and a much bigger picture, including many people not having any shops at all within easy walking distance of their homes, despite living in essentially urban areas. Why don't they? Because car dependence has been allowed to develop and persist.

Furthermore we now have some new options that are increasingly available, such as home delivery of groceries and other heavy items.

It's very narrow thinking to simply ask what's the best location for car-served large scale supermarkets. The question should be, do we need to live in a world where such things are necessary at all, or at least, whether they need to be a regular part of a very large number of people's mode of living.


----------



## platinumsage (May 27, 2022)

To return to a world where a small to medium sized town can support bustling shopping streets packed full of all the shops the residents will ever need isn't possible. For a start, there's home delivery of both groceries and Amazon tat, so even if you close all the out-of-town shopping centres and confiscate all the town's resident's cars, such a shopping paradise won't be viable unless you also encourage non-residents to travel into the town to do their shopping. The appetite for such out-of-towners to do all their non-village shopping by bussing into a town is likely to be tiny.


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> To return to a world where a small to medium sized town can support bustling shopping streets packed full of all the shops the residents will ever need isn't possible. For a start, there's home delivery of both groceries and Amazon tat, so even if you close all the out-of-town shopping centres and confiscate all the town's resident's cars, such a shopping paradise won't be viable unless you also encourage non-residents to travel into the town to do their shopping. The appetite for such out-of-towners to do all their non-village shopping by bussing into a town is likely to be tiny.


Who knows what point is supposed to be being made here.


----------



## Yossarian (May 30, 2022)

Toronto drivers have apparently stepped up their anti-cyclist activities.


----------



## Spymaster (May 30, 2022)




----------



## alex_ (May 30, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> Toronto drivers have apparently stepped up their anti-cyclist activities.
> 
> View attachment 324670



It’s a Volvo !


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2022)

alex_ said:


> It’s a Volvo !


Wasn't platinumsage recently telling us that Volvos have automatic obstacle sensing stuff that means this sort of thing can't happen?


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2022)

More 'drivers are thick selfish twats' news:









						Parked cars block cycle lane – while their owners ride static bikes in park
					

Local resident says issue highlights lack of safe cycling provision in Edinburgh




					road.cc


----------



## platinumsage (May 31, 2022)

maomao said:


> More 'drivers are thick selfish twats' news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I agree with the complainers as they're complaining that the council have created cycle lanes in which it's legal to park. It's an advisory cycle lane with a single yellow line, whereas the council could have created a mandatory lane and/or used double yellow parking/loading restrictions. No doubt we can blame the SNP, the LibDems, Labour, the Tories and the Green Party.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 3, 2022)

.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 3, 2022)

The only thing that’ll stop a bad guy with a lorry is a good guy with a lorry.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 4, 2022)

The trouble with the change in pedestrian priority is that pedestrians don’t know about it. Several times I’ve stopped to give way at junctions and the peds have just stood at the kerb looking gormless whilst the traffic has stacked up behind me, and on busy streets in London you’ll sit there all fucking day if the peds don’t give way. I reckon this bit of silliness will get changed back eventually.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> The trouble with the change in pedestrian priority is that pedestrians don’t know about it. Several times I’ve stopped to give way at junctions and the peds have just stood at the kerb looking gormless whilst the traffic has stacked up behind me and on busy streets in London you’ll sit there all fucking day if the peds don’t give way. I reckon this bit of silliness will get changed back eventually.


It's a real problem a motorbike. Stopping in the main carriageway when you want to turn left because there's some pedestrian standing there is just inviting a rear-ending.  Or someone suddenly deciding to cross because they have right of way after you've committed to the turn.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's a real problem a motorbike. Stopping in the main carriageway when you want to turn left because there's some pedestrian standing there is just inviting a rear-ending.  Or someone suddenly deciding to cross because they have right of way after you've committed to the turn.



And bear in mind, cyclists have to do this too (although they won't) so you'd have a cyclist stopped on a fast moving road giving way to pedestrians stopped at the kerb, with everyone giving each other wtf looks. It's stupid and badly thought out.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

According to the HC only pedestrians “waiting to cross" have priority, not “pedestrians waiting”.

It’s shit because this change in the HC isn’t reflected in any legislation.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> And bear in mind, cyclists have to do this too (although they won't) so you'd have a cyclist stopped on a fast moving road giving way to pedestrians stopped at the kerb, with everyone giving each other wtf looks. It's stupid and badly thought out.


If they've got any sense, they'll ignore that rule.  They'll have to get used to thinking of them as red lights.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's a real problem a motorbike. Stopping in the main carriageway when you want to turn left because there's some pedestrian standing there is just inviting a rear-ending.  Or someone suddenly deciding to cross because they have right of way after you've committed to the turn.



Stopping in the main carriageway when wanting to turn right, and having to wait for a break in cars coming the other way is the same. All roads should be made one-way to solve this.

The last thing we should do is try and make it out like the basic problem is inattentive drivers and a system of rules arranged around their convenience.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> If they've got any sense, they'll ignore that rule.  They'll have to get used to thinking of them as red lights. ..



... or pedestrian crossings.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Stopping in the main carriageway when wanting to turn right, and having to wait for a break in cars coming the other way is the same. All roads should be made one-way to solve this.
> 
> The last thing we should do is try and make it out like the basic problem is inattentive drivers and a system of rules arranged around their convenience.


The penalty for rear-ending (and other dangerous driving faults) should be much greater.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's a real problem a motorbike. Stopping in the main carriageway when you want to turn left because there's some pedestrian standing there is just inviting a rear-ending.  Or someone suddenly deciding to cross because they have right of way after you've committed to the turn.



Why would you get rear ended? Would have to be a very shit driver behind to do that. If you’re travelling at a reasonable speed when slowing down, indicating and taken the lane should be fine.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why would you get rear ended? Would have to be a very shit driver behind to do that. If you’re travelling at a reasonable speed when slowing down, indicating and taken the lane should be fine.



The thing I find most terrifying on a bike (not motorbike but I imagine it's similar) is making a right hand turn off a fast and busy A road (usually outside of urban areas). To sit stationary effectively in the middle of the road with absolutely no protection, with cars passing at speed in both directions, without being concerned, would require an unreasonable amount of trust in drivers paying attention.

When planning bike routes I'll try and avoid having to do this, and often prefer simply to pull off to the left, and then walk the bike across as if a pedestrian.

That doesn't work on the many A roads in the UK that are narrow with hedges and barely any verge. Then, you might choose to carry on past the junction until there's somewhere you can stop.

Have also had drivers ignore a right hand signal, who then are trying to overtake at the moment you want to turn right. Even getting yourself into the right hand side of the lane, in advance of the jucntion, can feel too dangerous to attempt at times.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The thing I find most terrifying on a bike (not motorbike but I imagine it's similar) is making a right hand turn off a fast and busy A road (usually outside of urban areas). To sit stationary effectively in the middle of the road with absolutely no protection, with cars passing at speed in both directions, without being concerned, would require an unreasonable amount of trust in drivers paying attention.
> 
> When planning bike routes I'll try and avoid having to do this, and often prefer simply to pull off to the left, and then walk the bike across as if a pedestrian.
> 
> ...



Yep - it’s shit. Hence taking the lane & quite funny how pissed off some drivers get.

We shouldn’t be making the Highway Code in response to shit drivers though.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why would you get rear ended? Would have to be a very shit driver behind to do that.


Because there's lots of very shit drivers!  Something should be done about that, but, in the meantime, knowing that's the case, they should do away with this rule.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We shouldn’t be making the Highway Code in response to shit drivers though.



That's exactly what it has always been a response to:



It doesn't make sense in any other context, because it provides rules that aren't actually rules.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> Because there's lots of very shit drivers!  Something should be done about that, but, in the meantime, knowing that's the case, they should do away with this rule.



We had decades of pandering to shit drivers (pedestrian guard rails, gyratories etc) and it doesn’t work. 

Nothing is being done about shit drivers though eg. regular testing, lifetime bans. So we need to do other measures. 20mph limit in all urban areas would help a lot with this sort of thing - it means traffic moves much more calmly and safely.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's exactly what it has always been a response to:
> 
> View attachment 325525
> 
> It doesn't make sense in any other context, because it provides rules that aren't actually rules.



Yep but we shouldn’t water the rules down just cos some aren’t going to pay attention to them.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yep but we shouldn’t water the rules down just cos some aren’t going to pay attention to them.



The Highway Code "rules" aren't enforceable, so should really only reflect a sort of consensus that is already in place. That's why the pedestrians at side road change has caused confusion - it's a drastic change from the status quo and therefore something that should have been implemented by actual legislation.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 20mph limit in all urban areas would help a lot with this sort of thing - it means traffic moves much more calmly and safely.


If anyone bothers to enforce it. As per my post just now in the brixton thread -









						Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton
					

it's actually the third time in 4 years, 1st was New Years Eve, drunk driver lost control not much damage done. 2nd was 2 years ago, driver claimed he swerved to miss a dog at 2.30 in the morning, narrowly missed 4 pedestrians as it hit the wall, no insurance. 3rd was 2 weeks ago, driver hit 2...




					www.urban75.net
				




Not unusual at all for me to go out to the shops and see something like that within 5 mins of my front door.

(I'm not arguing against 20mph zones - just saying they need to be enforced)


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We had decades of pandering to shit drivers (pedestrian guard rails, gyratories etc) and it doesn’t work.
> 
> Nothing is being done about shit drivers though eg. regular testing, lifetime bans. So we need to do other measures. 20mph limit in all urban areas would help a lot with this sort of thing - it means traffic moves much more calmly and safely.


Recognising that there are shit drivers isn't pandering; it's damage limitation.  This change to the HC is creating more risk.  But, yes, there should be regular testing, stiffer penalties, and a lower limit in many more urban areas.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 4, 2022)

Athos said:


> Because there's lots of very shit drivers! Something should be done about that


Banning cars would remove the problem of shit drivers.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Banning cars would remove the problem of shit drivers.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> View attachment 325557


I had a smaller version of something like that as a kid, powered by a little tray of meths.  It was great.  Anyway, that chap just needs to build a taller chimney to avoid the fumes.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 4, 2022)

It'd be a good idea to force drivers to use this sort of thing instead of cars.  It'd give the rest of us something to point and laugh at.


----------



## A380 (Jun 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The Highway Code "rules" aren't enforceable, so should really only reflect a sort of consensus that is already in place. That's why the pedestrians at side road change has caused confusion - it's a drastic change from the status quo and therefore something that should have been implemented by actual legislation.


Kind of. But Section 3 RTA1988 Careless and Inconsiderate doesn't define carless or inconsiderate. The HoC can be used to inform courts decision making on the facts of the case.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It'd be a good idea to force drivers to use this sort of thing instead of cars.  It'd give the rest of us something to point and laugh at.



Only if cyclists had to use finger bikes:


----------



## A380 (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It'd be a good idea to force drivers to use this sort of thing instead of cars.  It'd give the rest of us something to point and laugh at.


Why would anyone laugh? Thats fucking awesome engineering,


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 4, 2022)

A380 said:


> Why would anyone laugh? Thats fucking awesome engineering,


Anyone looks ridiculous being towed by such a thing - the chap in the picture is a good example of this.


----------



## A380 (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyone looks ridiculous being towed by such a thing - the chap in the picture is a good example of this.


Only if you don't have a soul.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

Presumably we should reduce the 1.5m drivers need to give cyclists when over taking cos shit drivers can’t possible be expected to do that 🙄


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Presumably we should reduce the 1.5m drivers need to give cyclists when over taking cos shit drivers can’t possible be expected to do that 🙄



Anyone who isn't able to control their emotions when driving should get an automatic ban.


----------



## maomao (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyone who isn't able to control their emotions when driving should get an automatic ban.


I agree but would extend it beyond mere anger to include any display of emotion at all, including laughter and smiling.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 4, 2022)

maomao said:


> I agree but would extend it beyond mere anger to include any display of emotion at all, including laughter and smiling.



I heard on the radio today that the Queen’s grandmother, Mary of Teck, never smiled in public as she believed royals shouldn’t show any emotion to their people. I don’t get the impression she would have been a good driver, unlike the Queen who smiles and knows how to charge around the country lanes in a Range Rover, and hasn’t killed any cyclists.


----------



## Athos (Jun 4, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Banning cars would remove the problem of shit drivers.


Yes, but won't ever happen.  Nor should it; cars enrich the lives of millions of people.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes, but won't ever happen.  Nor should it; cars enrich the lives of millions of people.


Cute


----------



## T & P (Jun 5, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Banning cars would remove the problem of shit drivers.


Banning alcohol would remove the problem of shit drinkers.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Banning alcohol would remove the problem of shit drinkers.


We're talking about cars not drinkers on this thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 5, 2022)

Important article here. Behind a paywall, but anyone remotely interested in this great national debate will obviously be keen to subscribe to the Telegraph, if they haven't already done so:









						An urbanist elite is destroying the suburban dream
					

Proposals dubbed “Superbia” will turn London’s glorious suburbia into a world of dense, carless, gardenless flats.




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Important article here. Behind a paywall, but anyone remotely interested in this great national debate will obviously be keen to subscribe to the Telegraph, if they haven't already done so:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The usual quality article from the torygraph I see - here is it if anyone really wants to read it.





__





						archive.ph
					





					archive.ph


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Important article here. Behind a paywall, but anyone remotely interested in this great national debate will obviously be keen to subscribe to the Telegraph, if they haven't already done so:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol


----------



## T & P (Jun 5, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> We're talking about cars not drinkers on this thread.


Of course we are. But anyone prepared to defend what undoubtedly is a very extreme philosophy to a given problem should be able to back it up by applying it to other areas of life that present similar challenges.

I’ve always believed very few legal habits and practices that have some drawbacks justify being banned altogether. Moderation, reduction, more sensible and restrained use, absolutely fine. We should drive less. We should fly less. We should drink less. Outright ban? Fuck that for a laugh. Because it is simply OTT and unnecessary.

So whereas I respect anyone holding an opinion to the contrary, they ought to be able to back it up, including the test of applying it to other problematic habits they might be partial to. If you support the nuclear option of banning cars because some drivers are shit, you should absofuckinglutely be equally supportive of banning alcohol for the same reason. Otherwise you’d be a massive hypocrite who is happy to turn a blind eye to those things they might enjoy themselves from time to time.

So in short, do you know how many people in this forum who regularly like your posts calling for cars to be banned would support a ban on alcohol for similar reasons? The square root of fuck all, that’s how many. I wonder why…


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2022)

God, not this tedious shit again. Shit drivers is only one of many very good reasons for getting rid of cars.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> God, not this tedious shit again. Shit drivers is only one of many very good reasons for getting rid of cars.



I think it comes from his concern for some members of this forum.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We all know that it's not an outright ban everywhere that you're scared of in the foreseeable future. Yet all you can muster an argument against is the notion of an outright ban. Meanwhile T & P's killer argument is the same as it always has been: people who argue against car dependency might sometimes have to use a car themselves.
> 
> It's quite a pantomime act really. Keep it up.


Just quoting myself from a while back here, as T&P is now employing platinumsage's favoured "outright ban" approach alongside with one of his old favourites, the alcohol analogy (already dealt with several times over).

Think I'll start a "tired arguments against car restrictions" wiki to put all these in and save everyone some time.


----------



## T & P (Jun 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> God, not this tedious shit again. Shit drivers is only one of many very good reasons for getting rid of cars.


Whichever the other reasons you have in mind that might justify a total ban on cars, I reckon we could find plenty of similar ones around alcohol.


----------



## maomao (Jun 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Whichever the other reasons you have in mind that might justify a total ban on cars, I reckon we could find plenty of similar ones around alcohol.


Waste of resources. I could easily make alcohol from fruit and veg grown in my garden with a minimum of resources.


----------



## A380 (Jun 5, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyone who isn't able to control their emotions when driving should get an automatic ban.


Why would they be safer driving a manual?


----------



## A380 (Jun 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I heard on the radio today that the Queen’s grandmother, Mary of Teck, never smiled in public as she believed royals shouldn’t show any emotion to their people. I don’t get the impression she would have been a good driver, unlike the Queen who smiles and knows how to charge around the country lanes in a Range Rover, and hasn’t killed any cyclists.



I nearly got run over by the Queen in Windsor Great Park, 1985. It’s my one interaction with any royal family memeber. 

She was driving an old Rover. TBF I was being a twat at the time.


----------



## T & P (Jun 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Just quoting myself from a while back here, as T&P is now employing platinumsage's favoured "outright ban" approach alongside with one of his old favourites, the alcohol analogy (already dealt with several times over).
> 
> Think I'll start a "tired arguments against car restrictions" wiki to put all these in and save everyone some time.


If someone posts a statement wishing for cars to be banned, and others like the post (and in some cases, multiple times over the years), how could you possibly say those liking the post are not supporting the proposal they just expressed their support for?

That’s been the most amusing thing about the anti car brigade in this forum. Credit where it’s due to farmerbarleymow , they have always kept a consistent position as far as I have seen. Nobody else seems to be able to settle on whether they’d like to see a significantly reduced car use, which is of course a very sensible proposition that even many of those evil car drivers would be on board with on principle, and a complete ban on cars.

Perhaps we should have a poll so we can put the issue to bed. What would those of you who generally see yourselves as ‘anti car’ like to happen?


Complete ban of all vehicles
Ban of all vehicles where people live (out of town A-roads and motorways only)
Ban where people live privately owned vehicles only
As above but including club cars and hire vehicles
As above plus all taxis and cabs- so just professional vehicles allowed
Ban absolutely every vehicle that’s not emergency or otherwise indispensable- so no delivery or utility vehicles either unless they’re transporting cargo simply too heavy for even the fabled cargo bikes
As above plus public transport buses and coaches. The former in particular causing a significant number of deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians
Let’s have your vote. Feel free to add any other options I have missed


----------



## edcraw (Jun 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> If someone posts a statement wishing for cars to be banned, and others like the post (and in some cases, multiple times over the years), how could you possibly say those liking the post are not supporting the proposal they just expressed their support for?
> 
> That’s been the most amusing thing about the anti car brigade in this forum. Credit where it’s due to farmerbarleymow , they have always kept a consistent position as far as I have seen. Nobody else seems to be able to settle on whether they’d like to see a significantly reduced car use, which is of course a very sensible proposition that even many of those evil car drivers would be on board with on principle, and a complete ban on cars.
> 
> ...


Will the vote be binding?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> If someone posts a statement wishing for cars to be banned, and others like the post (and in some cases, multiple times over the years), how could you possibly say those liking the post are not supporting the proposal they just expressed their support for?



Which post are we talking about here?

I trust we are not to take your vote options seriously. You've managed to come up with 7 different ones, none of which match anything anyone's seriously proposed on this thread, which is some kind of achievement I guess.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> If someone posts a statement wishing for cars to be banned, and others like the post (and in some cases, multiple times over the years), how could you possibly say those liking the post are not supporting the proposal they just expressed their support for?
> 
> That’s been the most amusing thing about the anti car brigade in this forum. Credit where it’s due to farmerbarleymow , they have always kept a consistent position as far as I have seen. Nobody else seems to be able to settle on whether they’d like to see a significantly reduced car use, which is of course a very sensible proposition that even many of those evil car drivers would be on board with on principle, and a complete ban on cars.
> 
> ...


Congrats, against some pretty heavy opposition you may have managed to type out the most stupid post on this thread so far.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 6, 2022)

A380 said:


> I nearly got run over by the Queen in Windsor Great Park, 1985. It’s my one interaction with any royal family memeber.
> 
> She was driving an old Rover. TBF I was being a twat at the time.




If it was Phil you'd have been killed


----------



## Elpenor (Jun 6, 2022)

Don’t know why I’m posting on the cesspit that is this thread but even car makers don’t won’t you to drive anymore









						Walk Or Cycle Instead Of Driving, Urges Ford Boss
					

Spearheading a “park your car” campaign Ford Europe president Stuart Rowley says the world would be a better place if more people gave up driving and walked and cycled instead.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

Seems unlikely that his thinking hasn't been influenced by this thread. Good to know that even the car companies are reading, and realising they don't want to be on the same side as some of the posters on here.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2022)

I am amazed that you can be so uncynical. They're sponsoring cycling events in the same way that Shell sponsor climate change displays in museums. The aim of their "park your car" campaign is to promote their "carbon neutral in Europe" targets - encouraging people that it's fine for the environment to own a car and use it for journeys over 3 miles.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I am amazed that you can be so uncynical. They're sponsoring cycling events in the same way that Shell sponsor climate change displays in museums. The aim of their "park your car" campaign is to promote their "carbon neutral in Europe" targets - encouraging people that it's fine for the environment to own a car and use it for journeys over 3 miles.


I think it’s more like cigarette companies launching low tar versions - they know the writing’s on the wall so want to try and get ahead of it to delay the inevitable out right ban!


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

Of course Ford is stopping short of what they should be saying, which is to use public transport instead of the car, not just for short trips. But they are at the beginning of a process of realising that they are engaged in business that one day will be seen as negatively as arms trading. So it's OK for them to take small steps to start with. And of course their customers are hyper-sensitive and frightened (look at the posters on here who start freaking out about North Korea style dictatorships if you suggest they could try going on a bus just to see what it's like - or claim that human joy is to be banned outright if speed limits are enforced). So they mustn't scare the horses.

Just recently I was talking to someone who works for BP which is now trying to get themselves established in the wind farm market.

Give it a few years and we'll see that Ford are starting to invest in car-crushing plants and walking shoes.


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

Ah... not a single anti-car poster has stated their exact position on the matter. Quelle surprise... 

When is a 'death machine' not a death machine? When I find the use of one of them for my needs convenient.

Point proven. As you were


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Ah... not a single anti-car poster has stated their exact position on the matter.


Are you the culture secretary by any chance?


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are you the culture secretary by any chance?


Instead of trying to be funny and engaging in personal abuse, it would be interesting to know if you care to answer the simple quesiton of what level of car restrtictions would you like to see implemented.

It's a very fucking simple quesiton. So either answer it, or quit the flippant remarks.

The same goes for likes merchant edcraw


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Instead of trying to be funny and engaging in personal abuse, it would be interesting to know if you care to answer the simple quesiton of what level of car restrtictions would you like to see implemented.
> 
> It's a very fucking simple quesiton. So either answer it, or quit the flippant remarks.
> 
> The same goes for likes merchant edcraw


Like


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Like


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> It's a very fucking simple quesiton.


Anyone who thinks it's a very simple question should probably have their thoughts on the matter automatically discounted.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2022)

Some top Guardian debunking here for the tyres kill people brigade:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Instead of trying to be funny and engaging in personal abuse, it would be interesting to know if you care to answer the simple quesiton of what level of car restrtictions would you like to see implemented.
> 
> It's a very fucking simple quesiton. So either answer it, or quit the flippant remarks.
> 
> The same goes for likes merchant edcraw


If only there was a massive thread where I’ve stated my position multiple times.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Some top Guardian debunking here for the tyres kill people brigade:



Most of the "debunking" points (which seem fair enough even if arguably a bit straw-man) are actually addressed in the original study, which the Guardian article is based on.









						Gaining traction, losing tread  Pollution from tire wear now 1,850 times worse than exhaust emissions  — Emissions Analytics
					

By some distance, the research Emissions Analytics published in early 2020 claiming that tire particulate wear emissions were  1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions  generated the most feedback of any subject we have tackled so far – feedback that was a mixture of surprise and scepticism




					www.emissionsanalytics.com
				




The conclusion seems to be that particulates from tyres _are_ a significant problem as far as airborne pollution is concerned, but they will do further research into this.


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Anyone who thinks it's a very simple question should probably have their thoughts on the matter automatically discounted.


How convenient.


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there was a massive thread where I’ve stated my position multiple times.


Just about every one of you here have been supportive over the years of posts calling for a ban on all cars in cities, and other times of suggestions to ban just privately owned cars. Which are wildly different propositions. And then when discussing banning just privately own cars, you lot are lost for words when anyone mentions a city full of club car vehicles doesn't solve most of the problems posed by privately owned cars.

The anti car posters in this forum are all over the fucking place when it comes to traffic management discussions. Have always been. Can't even agree on what you want to happen, and prefer to go with the wind based on the discussion of the moment. Please don't tell me it ain't so- because it is.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

There's a reason T & P isn't showing us any of these posts that supposedly call for a ban on all cars in cities.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Just about every one of you here have been supportive over the years of posts calling for a ban on all cars in cities, and other times of suggestions to ban just privately owned cars. Which are wildly different propositions. And then when discussing banning just privately own cars, you lot are lost for words when anyone mentions a city full of club car vehicles doesn't solve most of the problems posed by privately owned cars.
> 
> The anti car posters in this forum are all over the fucking place when it comes to traffic management discussions. Have always been. Can't even agree on what you want to happen, and prefer to go with the wind based on the discussion of the moment. Please don't tell me it ain't so- because it is.


I think you need to go back and do some reading.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> There's a reason T & P isn't showing us any of these posts that supposedly call for a ban on all cars in cities.



According to edcraw's post here everyone on the thread is in agreement that cars should be banned in cities, so there shouldn't be any need to show any other specific posts.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> According to edcraw's post here everyone on the thread is in agreement that cars should be banned in cities, so there shouldn't be any need to show any other specific posts.


Glad I have such power to unite everyone! When’s the ban come into affect?


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there was a massive thread where I’ve stated my position multiple times.


Even if you had made your own position clear, you’re not speaking for everyone else here, are you? Therefore your post #7290 is 
quite uncalled for as well as irrelevant to others here.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


>


I see you're arguing not for an instant ban, but for car use to tapir off.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Even if you had made your own position clear, you’re not speaking for everyone else here, are you? Therefore your post #7290 is
> quite uncalled for as well as irrelevant to others here.


Yeah but your post #6784 says the complete opposite!


----------



## maomao (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> Even if you had made your own position clear, you’re not speaking for everyone else here, are you?


So we're all meant to agree with each other?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 6, 2022)

"Tell me what you think"

"No, not like that"


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> So we're all meant to agree with each other?


No. You missed the the point completely.


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> There's a reason T & P isn't showing us any of these posts that supposedly call for a ban on all cars in cities.




Just three from a quick search. Plenty of other examples, liked by various people, also available.

And the crowning glory: look who’s just popped up:


Oh dear dear…


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

Hey T & P when are you going to show us the posts that call for a ban on all cars in cities?


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Hey T & P when are you going to show us the posts that call for a ban on all cars in cities?


You are fucking taking piss now, aren’t you?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> You are fucking taking piss now, aren’t you?


I just want you to deliver what you said you would. So far your performance seems to have been inspired by our prime minister's regard for detail.


----------



## T & P (Jun 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I just want you to deliver what you said you would. So far your performance seems to have been inspired by our prime minister's regard for detail.


There’s a little wheel on most computer mice nowadays. Roll it with your finger in an away from you direction. If using a mobile device or a computer with touchscreen, touch it at the lower end and move your finger upwards.

HTH.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2022)

T & P said:


> There’s a little wheel on most computer mice nowadays. Roll it with your finger in an away from you direction. If using a mobile device or a computer with touchscreen, touch it at the lower end and move your finger upwards.
> 
> HTH.




On another point of detail - the advice you give for a mouse wheel is incorrect because it can be configured to operate in either direction. I think I've even done a thread dealing with this issue - shame you didn't read it.

You'd understand and learn more if you read threads properly.

We know that many people in positions of influence read this thread and have been educated by it. That's how good transport policy is developed - by reading stuff written by people like me and agreeing with it. Maybe in the future you'll get it.


----------



## T & P (Jun 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> On another point of detail - the advice you give for a mouse wheel is incorrect because it can be configured to operate in either direction. I think I've even done a thread dealing with this issue - shame you didn't read it.
> 
> You'd understand and learn more if you read threads properly.
> 
> We know that many people in positions of influence read this thread and have been educated by it. That's how good transport policy is developed - by reading stuff written by people like me and agreeing with it. Maybe in the future you'll get it.


This must be a bit embarrassing even for you, right?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

T & P said:


> This must be a bit embarrassing even for you, right?


Or for you even.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2022)

It's heartening to know that the person who started the thread is now opposed to banning private car use in cities. That puts their "long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever" far out of reach.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Three people have died so far at this year’s Isle of Mann TT and depressingly they just carry on. Personally I think the race sets a terrible example and encourages reckless motorbike riders on roads.









						NI rider Morgan killed in IOM TT crash
					

Northern Ireland rider Davy Morgan is killed in a crash during the Supersport race at the Isle of Man TT.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Three people have died so far at this year’s Isle of Mann TT and depressingly they just carry on. Personally I think the race sets a terrible example and encourages reckless motorbike riders on roads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nah, the TT is an incredible thing. Would be a travesty for it to go. It's sad some riders die, but everyone knows the risks. More people die riding horses, including kids.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> Nah, the TT is an incredible thing. Would be a travesty for it to go. It's sad some riders die, but everyone knows the risks. More people die riding horses, including kids.


Well there are two things that aren't comparable. More people ride horses in the UK than motorbikes, average horse riding (human) deaths per year: 4, average motorbike deaths per year: 350. 30,000 people attend the TT and average annual deaths: 2.5. More than half the annual horse riding (human) deaths with a little over 1% of the UK motorcycling population over the course of a few days. It wouldn't happen on the mainland and the Isle of Man authorities are vampires for letting it happen there. Plus you haven't even addressed the actual content of the post you're replying to which is that the annual IoM carnage contributes to the reckless riding that causes the 350 deaths a year on UK roads. 

Personally, I'd ban horse _racing_ (or change the rules drastically) to help prevent the 200+ horse deaths a year.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2022)

Mixed feelings about the TT. I’ve been several times, it’s an incredible spectacle, all the riders know the risks and are there by choice. I don’t think comparing deaths on a closed road sporting event to daily traffic incidents is particularly helpful.

Also I’m not sure it does really influence day to day riders. I’d rather see the quite ridiculous levels of performance that modern bikes are capable of pulled back, nobody - literally nobody - has the need for them on public roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2022)

But yes, ban horse racing, it’s utterly disgusting.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Mixed feelings about the TT. I’ve been several times, it’s an incredible spectacle, all the riders know the risks and are there by choice. I don’t think comparing deaths on a closed road sporting event to daily traffic incidents is particularly helpful.
> 
> Also I’m not sure it does really influence day to day riders. I’d rather see the quite ridiculous levels of performance that modern bikes are capable of pulled back, nobody - literally nobody - has the need for them on public roads.


I don’t think it is even debatable that public displays of bravado with crowds cheering on act to reproduce a social norm that public displays of bravado are to be cheered on.  More debatable is the practical effect this has, but I would personally be surprised if it didn’t encourage young male idiots to emulate their idols on public roads.  And also, more generally, I would personally expect it to affect the way that riders perceive their risk environment while driving.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2022)

I don't really see why we have to accept motorbikes or any other vehicles that are capable of speeds far beyond the legal limits, on public roads, at all. The extra power also translates into quicker acceleration even if speed limits aren't broken. I see it more and more, drivers accelerating and braking as hard as they can inbetween traffic lights and so on. It's very initimidating to pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. Yes, I expect someone will start spouting the usual nonsense that this acceleration power allows safer overtaking - no, it just gives you a better chance of getting out of the riskier moves that you take as a result of having that acceleration and wouldn't otherwise.

Keep a distinction between racing for fun (and let people take the risks involved if they want to) and everyday driving on public roads. It's pretty clear that there are drivers who want to emulate what they see on the racetrack, on public roads. On motorbikes or in cars.

Provide publicly subsidised racetracks around the country if that's what it takes.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well there are two things that aren't comparable. More people ride horses in the UK than motorbikes, average horse riding (human) deaths per year: 4, average motorbike deaths per year: 350. 30,000 people attend the TT and average annual deaths: 2.5. More than half the annual horse riding (human) deaths with a little over 1% of the UK motorcycling population over the course of a few days. It wouldn't happen on the mainland and the Isle of Man authorities are vampires for letting it happen there. Plus you haven't even addressed the actual content of the post you're replying to which is that the annual IoM carnage contributes to the reckless riding that causes the 350 deaths a year on UK roads.
> 
> Personally, I'd ban horse _racing_ (or change the rules drastically) to help prevent the 200+ horse deaths a year.



I was addressing the implication that the TT should be banned because it caused three deaths this year.  My point was that other activities that cause more deaths aren't. That more people take part in those other activities is neither here nor there in terms of saving lives.

I've not addressed the claim that the TT causes other deaths because, absent any evidence for that proposition, it's hard to prove a negative.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> the implication that the TT should be banned because it caused three deaths this year.


But that wasn't what the post you replied to said.


----------



## T & P (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Or for you even.


Funny how you refuse to tell us what would you like to happen. It is a very simple question. Full ban of all vehicles, private cars only, or something else? Come on, you can do it!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> ... annual IoM carnage contributes to the reckless riding that causes the 350 deaths a year on UK roads.



I'd be surprised if that's the case, or at least want to see some evidence of it. I can't see why the TT would cause motorcyclists to go full-on Joey Dunlop, any more than the Monaco GP would make drivers want to emulate Lewis Hamilton. 

With regard to the IoM authorities allowing it, it's a tradition of over 100 years and one of their prime tourist attractions. Why wouldn't they? If non-competitors regularly got killed you'd have a point but everyone out there knows what they sign-up for.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> the Monaco GP would make drivers want to emulate Lewis Hamilton.


There's plenty of wankers doing exactly that as far as I can see.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> There's plenty of wankers doing exactly that as far as I can see.


Driving inappropriately because of the Monaco Grand Prix?


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> But that wasn't what the post you replied to said.


That's why I chose the word  'implication'.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Driving inappropriately because of the Monaco Grand Prix?


Because of fast car culture generally including the Monaco Grand Prix. Or do you not believe humans are capable of influencing each other through culture?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Because of fast car culture generally including the Monaco Grand Prix. Or do you not believe humans are capable of influencing each other through culture?



I think people will drive fact things fast for as long as there are fast things to drive fast. 

What I'd want to see is some kind of evidence of a correlation between organised motorsport and public road deaths, which is what you seem to be suggesting.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I don't really see why we have to accept motorbikes or any other vehicles that are capable of speeds far beyond the legal limits, on public roads, at all. The extra power also translates into quicker acceleration even if speed limits aren't broken. I see it more and more, drivers accelerating and braking as hard as they can inbetween traffic lights and so on. It's very initimidating to pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. Yes, I expect someone will start spouting the usual nonsense that this acceleration power allows safer overtaking - no, it just gives you a better chance of getting out of the riskier moves that you take as a result of having that acceleration and wouldn't otherwise.
> 
> Keep a distinction between racing for fun (and let people take the risks involved if they want to) and everyday driving on public roads. It's pretty clear that there are drivers who want to emulate what they see on the racetrack, on public roads. On motorbikes or in cars.
> 
> Provide publicly subsidised racetracks around the country if that's what it takes.


Whilst I agree with your proposal for municipal race tracks, the idea of limiting power is a bad one.  Not only would it make overtaking much less safe, it'd also make it much harder to pop a wheelie.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I think people will drive fact things fast for as long as there are fast things to drive fast.
> 
> What I'd want to see is some kind of evidence of a correlation between organised motorsport and public road deaths, which is what you seem to be suggesting.


Sure, all you need for that is a control planet with no organised motorsports.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Sure, all you need for that is a control planet with no organised motorsports.


🤷‍♂️


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> 🤷‍♂️


Well duh. I mean you're asking for a statistic that can't exist.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well duh. I mean you're asking for a statistic that can't exist.


What is your evidence for the idea that the TT contributes to (other) road deaths?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well duh. I mean you're asking for a statistic that can't exist.



And you're suggesting a correlation that can't be evidenced.

ETA> As alluded to by Athos above.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> What is your evidence for the idea that the TT contributes to (other) road deaths?


The existence of human culture.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> The existence of human culture.


That human culture exists doesn't prove your assertion.

It's just something you've made up, without any proof.

For all you know the TT might save lives by the number of fatalities disuading prospective motorcyclists.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 7, 2022)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> For all you know the TT might save lives by the number of fatalities disuading prospective motorcyclists.



Which seems intuitively more likely than the notion that people are going to watch the TT, then go out and ride like a maniac.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

a_chap said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> 
> 
> View attachment 325998


Clearly, there's no room for cyclists.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Which seems intuitively more likely than the notion that people are going to watch the TT, then go out and ride like a maniac.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2022)

I’m not going to bother getting into the ridiculous trolling about culture save to say that there is a mountain of evidence for the general idea that people normalise their behaviours through experiencing what their society praises and looks down on.  Knock yourself out if you want to read up on it.  There’s no reason to expect that the normalisation of driving behaviours would be any different, and that includes who is lionised for what in terms of driving.


----------



## Chz (Jun 7, 2022)

a_chap said:


> I'll just leave this here...
> 
> 
> View attachment 325998


I get the point, but the typical family car is more like 1800mm. Which is incidentally what a 1980 Range Rover was.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I’m not going to bother getting into the ridiculous trolling about culture save to say that there is a mountain of evidence for the general idea that people normalise their behaviours through experiencing what their society praises and looks down on.  Knock yourself out if you want to read up on it.  There’s no reason to expect that the normalisation of driving behaviours would be any different, and that includes who is lionised for what in terms of driving.


Are TT riders lionised in our culture?

Also, I don't know anyone who follows the TT without already being a motorcyclist. They already know the thrill and the danger of speeding on the roads (both of which the TT underlines).

As such, I suspect the causation is miniscule. I've certainly seen no specific evidence of it - certainly not from maomao (though I'm sure Foucault subjectivication was on the top of his tongue).


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Which seems intuitively more likely than the notion that people are going to watch the TT, then go out and ride like a maniac.


An innovative new theory that human beings don't want to emulate the objects of their admiration. Do _you]/I] have any evidence for it?_


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> An innovative new theory that human beings don't want to emulate the objects of their admiration. Do _you]/I] have any evidence for it?_



As I said, intuitive regarding this rather than evidence based. I'm not putting it out as fact, as you are. But if you're correct and it causes people to want to emulate figures of admiration, isn't it more likely to encourage people to get into organised motorsport rather than illegal behaviour? Do you think many people go around knocking others out because they're fans of Anthony Joshua?


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Do you think many people go around knocking others out because they're fans of Anthony Joshua?


I don't know who Anthony Joshua is but do I think that people who get in fights are influenced by combat sports or even claim to be using the same moves? Are you mad? Have you ever spoken to any boys or men ever?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> I don't know who Anthony Joshua is but do I think that people who get in fights are influenced by combat sports or even claim to be using the same moves?



So do you think all combative sports should be banned?

What about fencing? Does that influence knife crime?


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> So do you think all combative sports should be banned?


Not necessarily. Unlike driving, sports can play a role in straightening out young lives. Given unlimited powers I'd be tempted to get rid of the worst MMA shit though.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

He may have a point about people aping sporting heroes to an antisocial degree.  When was the last time they stopped for a red light in the Tour de France?


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> As I said, intuitive regarding this rather than evidence based. I'm not putting it out as fact, as you are. But if you're correct and it causes people to want to emulate figures of admiration, isn't it more likely to encourage people to get into organised motorsport rather than illegal behaviour? Do you think many people go around knocking others out because they're fans of Anthony Joshua?


You have heard of the idea of toxic masculinity, right?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Not necessarily. Unlike driving, sports can play a role in straightening out young lives. Given unlimited powers I'd be tempted to get rid of the worst MMA shit though.



Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now, is it all motorsports that you would ban, or just the TT?


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, we're getting somewhere. Now, is it all motorsports that you would ban, or just the TT?


I'd ban all motorsports for being fucking boring. It wouldn't affect anyone important, only dull thickos.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2022)

I can’t be the only one who can see an excluded middle between “ban this” and “it’s all fine”.  Or the only one who sees that there are paths to a better future that don’t start with banning the things that cause a problem.


----------



## T & P (Jun 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I can’t be the only one who can see an excluded middle between “ban this” and “it’s all fine”.  Or the only one who sees that there are paths to a better future that don’t start with banning the things that cause a problem.


You must be new to this thread...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'd ban all motorsports for being fucking boring. It wouldn't affect anyone important, only dull thickos.



 Finally some honesty from you!

It's nothing to do with your evidence free assertions that it contributes to bad driving or riding. You just don't like it or people who do.

You should have said that at the start.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 7, 2022)

If I had the right to ban things I don’t like, it would be scorched fucking earth.  Not much would be left, I’ll tell you that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> He may have a point about people aping sporting heroes to an antisocial degree.  When was the last time they stopped for a red light in the Tour de France?


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> View attachment 326019


Bollocks, that's the one time I wish they hadn't!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> View attachment 326019



That's pragmatism, not social responsibility.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'd ban all motorsports for being fucking boring. It wouldn't affect anyone important, only dull thickos.



Just because your interests are banned you shouldn't take it out on others.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

A sport where people regularly die obvious has a problem. Shocking that no one seems to give a shit.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A sport where people regularly die obvious has a problem. Shocking that no one seems to give a shit.


People have died on football pitches.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A sport where people regularly die obvious has a problem. Shocking that no one seems to give a shit.


It's not that people don't give a shit; it's that they believe that adults who give informed consent to risky activities ought not to be denied the opportunity to do something they love.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> People have died on football pitches.


More people die in bed.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I can’t be the only one who can see an excluded middle between “ban this” and “it’s all fine”.  Or the only one who sees that there are paths to a better future that don’t start with banning the things that cause a problem.


Don't tell T & P this - it'll spoil his latest killer argument line of attack.


----------



## T & P (Jun 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Don't tell T & P this - it'll kill his latest killer argument line of attack.


Please refrain from posting anything else in this thread until you have spotted the posts that you had asked for and were posted for you yesterday.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> A sport where people regularly die obvious has a problem. Shocking that no one seems to give a shit.



You want to ban all sports that people get killed in? 

There wouldn't be many left.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You want to ban all sports that people get killed in?
> 
> There wouldn't be many left.


Regularly.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Regularly.



Well there goes mountaineering, hiking, rock climbing, diving, and whole lot of other stuff. 

But it's for their own good, right?


----------



## bcuster (Jun 7, 2022)

How a cheap component could help kill off combustion cars
					

The humble wire harness, a cheap component that bundles cables together, has become an unlikely scourge of the auto industry. Some predict it could hasten the downfall of combustion cars.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well there goes mountaineering, hiking, rock climbing, diving, and whole lot of other stuff.
> 
> But it's for their own good, right?


I didn't even say ban -  said it obviously has a problem. What are they doing to reduce the deaths? Seems to be nothing. Pretty shocking tbh.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I didn't even say ban -  said it obviously has a problem. What are they doing to reduce the deaths? Seems to be nothing. Pretty shocking tbh.



Some sports are dangerous. What should be done about it is that everyone should be made fully aware of the risks they're taking and reasonable measures taken to ensure they don't hurt anyone else.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Some sports are dangerous. What should be done about it is that everyone should be made fully aware of the risks they're taking and reasonable measures taken to ensure they don't hurt anyone else.


What reasonable measures has the Isle of Man TT put in? 

If they'v done anything it doesn't seem to have been effective.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What reasonable measures has the Isle of Man TT put in?
> 
> If they'v done anything it doesn't seem to have been effective.
> View attachment 326031



Those are participant deaths.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Those are participant deaths.


So they shouldn't do anything to prevent these?

Can't think of any other regulated sport that would just accept this. Even MMA seems btter rgulated and that's a disgrace as well.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Those are participant deaths.











						Eleven spectators injured after motorbike crash during first lap of Isle of Man TT race
					

One spectator was seriously hurt and 10 others injured after Sheff Pack Kawasaki rider Jonathan Howarth crashed into the crowd during the final day's racing at the Isle of Man TT.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2022)

bcuster said:


> How a cheap component could help kill off combustion cars
> 
> 
> The humble wire harness, a cheap component that bundles cables together, has become an unlikely scourge of the auto industry. Some predict it could hasten the downfall of combustion cars.
> ...


Would be good if it stopped them making both combustion and electric cars for a bit.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Eleven spectators injured after motorbike crash during first lap of Isle of Man TT race
> 
> 
> One spectator was seriously hurt and 10 others injured after Sheff Pack Kawasaki rider Jonathan Howarth crashed into the crowd during the final day's racing at the Isle of Man TT.
> ...



That happens at rallying too and occasionally F1. Again, the spectators know and assume the risks.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> That happens at rallying too and occasionally F1. Again, the spectators know and assume the risks.


It’s literally a condition of the ticket sale, it’s all there on the back of them - warning, motorsport is dangerous etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So they shouldn't do anything to prevent these?
> 
> Can't think of any other regulated sport that would just accept this. Even MMA seems btter rgulated and that's a disgrace as well.



You make it as safe as you can but racing motorcycles at close to 200mph is dangerous. No getting away from that. So you either ban it, or let people make their own choices. As we’ve seen, if you go down the banning route you open a whole can of worms regarding other dangerous activities.


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So they shouldn't do anything to prevent these?


Realistically, what could they do?  It's a road circuit, which means there's walls and road furniture instead of run offs and gravel traps.  It's intrinsically extremely dangerous.  The competitors know this. Indeed, that's part of the challenge.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> Realistically, what could they do?  It's a road circuit, which means there's walls and road furniture instead of run offs and gravel traps.  It's intrinsically extremely dangerous.  The competitors know this. Indeed, that's part of the challenge.


Less powerful engines? 

Do similar races take place elsewhere?

Presumably there’s prize money as well as some people making a profit. Pretty sick tbh.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You make it as safe as you can but racing motorcycles at close to 200mph is dangerous. No getting away from that. So you either ban it, or let people make their own choices. As we’ve seen, if you go down the banning route you open a whole can of worms regarding other dangerous activities.


Same old argument as that against meaningful driving bans: 'if you don't let us do it, we'll just do it anyway'. Entitled bullshit.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Same old argument as that against meaningful driving bans: 'if you don't let us do it, we'll just do it anyway'.



Fuck me, that's some serious multi-level cobblers!


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s literally a condition of the ticket sale, it’s all there on the back of them - warning, motorsport is dangerous etc.


Says that on the back of concert tickets and all sorts. Doesn't mean they couldn't do more to protect spectators.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

If only we lived in a world where accidents never happened.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

Not really aaccidents if they keeps happening.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not really aaccidents if they keeps happening.



No. If they keep happening they're on purpose.

Like all those plane crashes that keep happening on purpose.


----------



## maomao (Jun 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> No. If they keep happening they're on purpose.
> 
> Like all those plane crashes that keep happening on purpose.


Yes, there are no safety regulations regarding aeroplanes as that would infringe on the right of informed adults to die in plane crashes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Yes, there are no safety regulations regarding aeroplanes as that would infringe on the right of informed adults to die in plane crashes.



There are plenty of safety regulations yet crashes still happen. In edcraw world that means not enough is being done. In maomao world it probably equates to "I don't like flying, let's ban it".


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 7, 2022)

We did the “let’s ban dangerous things” argument on page 153.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2022)

This guy wasn’t inspired by the Isle of Man TT to go at twice the speed limit he just simply needed to get home to his medicine quickly.









						Isle of Man TT fan who rode at twice speed limit is banned
					

Richard Thomas repeatedly broke speed limits on his BMW in the north of the Isle of Man.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## Athos (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Less powerful engines?
> 
> Do similar races take place elsewhere?
> 
> Presumably there’s prize money as well as some people making a profit. Pretty sick tbh.


There are smaller capacity classes.  But you're fundamentally missing the point; the idea is to go as fast as you can.  And everyone doing so knows that's a big risk.

Yes, there's road racing elsewhere. But the TT is the premier event, really.

Nobody does it for the prize money, which is almost trivial given the cost of competing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This guy wasn’t inspired by the Isle of Man TT to go at twice the speed limit he just simply needed to get home to his medicine quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah. Proof positive there, Ed!

Definitely the TT that inspired that one. Oh yes!  In fact, if _anyone_ gets busted for speeding on the IoM it's because of the TT


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2022)

🙄


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2022)

What paper is that in?

Might be fun to send in a complaint about the headline.


----------



## T & P (Jun 8, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2022)




----------



## kabbes (Jun 9, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 326444


Pretty normal day on the A24 there


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2022)




----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 9, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2022)

Angry people in local newspapers!



> “But to say if you get seven points you could be suspended, we think that’s totally out of order. With the best will in the world it’s so easy to get points sometimes.
> 
> “There are drivers who are on six points now who are very, very nervous. They are not bad drivers.”



🎻









						'We just want to make a living': Harrogate cabbies hit out at new rules - The Stray Ferret
					

The council says the changes are “reasonable” but cabbies argue the policy is draconian and will put good drivers out of work.




					thestrayferret.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Angry people in local newspapers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s taxi drivers though. They’re almost as big a bunch of incompetent cunts as cyclists. In this case their cuntism is magnified by the fact that they’re from Yorkshire.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Angry people in local newspapers!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


6 points makes you a bad driver by definition.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> That’s taxi drivers though. They’re almost as big a bunch of incompetent cunts as cyclists. In this case their cuntism is magnified by the fact that they’re from Yorkshire.


Can you give us a full list of types of people & the cars they drive that make them cunts as seems to be pretty all encompassing from your replies on here.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I don't really see why we have to accept motorbikes or any other vehicles that are capable of speeds far beyond the legal limits, on public roads, at all. The extra power also translates into quicker acceleration even if speed limits aren't broken. I see it more and more, drivers accelerating and braking as hard as they can inbetween traffic lights and so on. It's very initimidating to pedestrians or other vulnerable road users. Yes, I expect someone will start spouting the usual nonsense that this acceleration power allows safer overtaking - no, it just gives you a better chance of getting out of the riskier moves that you take as a result of having that acceleration and wouldn't otherwise.


If all drivers had to have someone walk in front of them with a red flag it would make the roads safer.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> If all drivers had to have someone walk in front of them with a red flag it would make the roads safer.
> 
> View attachment 326874


Good idea - just think of the jobs it would create!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2022)

Think plenty on this thread share the views of Trump’s ambassador to Denmark


----------



## maomao (Jun 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Can you give us a full list of types of people & the cars they drive that make them cunts as seems to be pretty all encompassing from your replies on here.


Start with BMW driving Londoners who work in financial services.


----------



## Elpenor (Jun 13, 2022)

This is interesting - paint your own pedestrian crossings   








						The Crosswalk Bandits of Los Angeles
					

Two shadowy collectives, fed up with cars, are taking matters into their own hands.




					slate.com


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2022)

eVeRyThInGs FiNe!!!1111!!!!11


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> eVeRyThInGs FiNe!!!1111!!!!11




Road widening program required there.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 15, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Road widening car banning program required there.


That's better.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jun 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> eVeRyThInGs FiNe!!!1111!!!!11



This is why they should put cameras on every single crossing and automatically issue fines - they'd make tons of money that could then be invested in pedestrianisation and cycling infrastructure.  And road narrowing programmes.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 15, 2022)

I'd also note, because I'm a bored pedant, that the small kids on scooters on the zebra crossing weren't foot passengers and so needn't have been accorded precedence by the drivers of motor vehicles, something that the parents should have been aware of.


----------



## maomao (Jun 15, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Road widening car banning program required there.
> 
> That's better.



Liberal



> Road widening motorist culling program
> required there.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> eVeRyThInGs FiNe!!!1111!!!!11



Ah, the freedom cars bring eh?  

I climbed onto the bonnet of a car blocking a crossing like that once and just walked over it*. Driver went _mental_  



*may have been mildly drunk


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 15, 2022)

I wonder how teuchter would have dealt with that situation, he's already explained how he motors unnecessarily around London but doesn't really know how zebra crossings are supposed to work. I guess if he sat there in his car indecisively for long enough maomao would come along and execute him, so he wouldn't really need to make any decisions.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2022)

Enough to make anyone think twice about that dodgy overtake...released at the request of the deceased's family.  Less than 4 years.



Spoiler: Sensitive content








Even worse when you read the report - he was attempting it blind approaching the top of a hill.


----------



## T & P (Jun 15, 2022)

Hollis said:


> Enough to make anyone think twice about that dodgy overtake...released at the request of the deceased's family.  Less than 4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Sensitive content



That’s just extreme incompetence and/ or recklessness. Obviously the great majority of drivers don’t behave in that way, on a regular basis at least. I can honestly say I have never once in my overtaken in remotely unsafe conditions. On the contrary- not only I require a long stretch of straight, if there is incoming traffic I won’t attempt to overtake unless they’re so far away they’re no bigger than a speck. 

I’m even more cautious on my motorbike. Even though it’s powerful to manage the type of quick 4-5 second overtake so many bikers love to do with the oncoming traffic a mere five seconds away, life’s too short for that shit.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 15, 2022)

The sentencing seems lenient -  manslaughter they'd have probably got 6-12 years.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

T & P said:


> That’s just extreme incompetence and/ or recklessness. Obviously the great majority of drivers don’t behave in that way, on a regular basis at least. I can honestly say I have never once in my overtaken in remotely unsafe conditions. On the contrary- not only I require a long stretch of straight, if there is incoming traffic I won’t attempt to overtake unless they’re so far away they’re no bigger than a speck.
> 
> I’m even more cautious on my motorbike. Even though it’s powerful to manage the type of quick 4-5 second overtake so many bikers love to do with the oncoming traffic a mere five seconds away, life’s too short for that shit.


#notalldrivers


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

The Alliance of Bad Drivers laying into the London Mayor:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The Alliance of Bad Drivers laying into the London Mayor:
> 
> View attachment 327484 View attachment 327485


They’re unhinged.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They’re unhinged.


Pretty sure most of the members are on this thread!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 16, 2022)

Their spokesman has claimed that cyclists exhale as much CO2 per mile as cars.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Their spokesman has claimed that cyclists exhale as much CO2 per mile as cars.


Why are you using the third person?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 16, 2022)

Which of you did this?


----------



## T & P (Jun 16, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Which of you did this?



Stating the obvious, innit? 

Though to be fair, #notallcyclists.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They’re unhinged.



“The alliance of British drivers worked to get Livingstons congestion charge rolled back”

What ?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Their spokesman has claimed that cyclists exhale as much CO2 per mile as cars.



Unless the cyclists dinner has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of millions of years it doesn’t matter.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

alex_ said:


> “The alliance of British drivers worked to get Livingstons congestion charge rolled back”
> 
> What ?



The only time I've ever voted for a Tory was for Boris, to kick wife-beater Livingstone out so he couldn't expand the congestion charging zone.

It worked


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 16, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Unless the cyclists dinner has been buried deep in the earth for hundreds of millions of years it doesn’t matter.



Surely a cyclist is using more calories and consequently eating more than a driver, and that food requires fossil fuels to produce and transport.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Surely a cyclist is using more calories and consequently eating more than a driver, and that food requires fossil fuels to produce and transport.


Wasn't that calculation made on the basis of the cyclist eating nothing but free range beef etc.?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> The only time I've ever voted for a Tory was for Boris, to kick wife-beater Livingstone out so he couldn't expand the congestion charging zone.
> 
> It worked



It wasn’t rolled back though was it ?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Wasn't that calculation made on the basis of the cyclist eating nothing but free range beef etc.?



This is the original claim:

"The supposed dangers of manmade global warming from excess carbon dioxide (CO2) generation is often used as an argument for junking new road construction projects and otherwise  discouraging car use. But in Europe someone has actually done the calculations!

Bicycles: 4 adults cycle 5 miles to work at an average speed of 8mph, time taken 38 mins (0.63hr).Exercise breathing rate: 6 cub metres/hour, so cyclists exhale 4 x 6 x 0.63 = 15.1 cub metres air.

Exhaled air contains 4% carbon dioxide (CO2), 1 cubic metre exhaled air contains 73.3g CO2. So the amount of CO2 exhaled by the four cyclists is 15.1 x 73.3 = 1108 g.

Car: Four adults travel by car, travelling 5 miles at average 22mph, time taken14 mins (0.23hour). At-rest adult breathing rate is 0.4 cub
metres/ hour. So four adults in car exhale 4 x 0.4 x 0.23 cubic metres air = 0.37 cub metres air. 0.37 cubic metres exhaled air, 4% CO2, contains 0.37 x 73.3 = 27g CO2. The car exhaust emits 215g CO2 per mile (modern, high mpg), so CO2 emitted is 5 x 215 =1075g. Total CO2 emitted by car and 4 seated adults is 1075 + 27 = 1102g. (from Bernard Abrams)

No difference! Those sweaty people on bicycles emit as much CO2 into the air as a car."


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

Haha


alex_ said:


> It wasn’t rolled back though was it ?


it wasn’t extended westwards but seem to remember that having more to do with Madonna through her to toys out of the pram than the ABD.



			BBC NEWS | England | London | Madonna blasts congestion charge


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No difference! Those sweaty people on bicycles emit as much CO2 into the air as a car."



And they smell worse.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> This is the original claim:
> 
> "The supposed dangers of manmade global warming from excess carbon dioxide (CO2) generation is often used as an argument for junking new road construction projects and otherwise  discouraging car use. But in Europe someone has actually done the calculations!
> 
> ...


Average speed of 8mph for the bike? Lol, no.


----------



## T & P (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Average speed of 8mph for the bike? Lol, no.


Indeed. That average speed would suggest that cyclists actually stop for traffic lights and respect regulations governing one-way streets or cycling on pavements in their journeys.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

T & P said:


> Indeed. That average speed would suggest that cyclists actually stop for traffic lights and respect regulations governing one-way streets or cycling on pavements in their journeys.


More motorists than cyclists jump red lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> More motorists than cyclists jump red lights.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂 😂😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😆😆😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😆😂 🤣  😆    🤣😂🤣😆😆😆😆😆😆😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😆😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😆😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😆😆😆😆😆😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😆😆😆😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> More motorists than cyclists jump red lights.


i don't think i've seen any motorists jump a red light (bar emergency services, of course) for quite some time, but among cyclists it is common.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think i've seen any motorists jump a red light (bar emergency services, of course) for quite some time, but among cyclists it is common.


I see it daily because I look at the traffic light not the pedestrian crossing but Google it if you don't believe me.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 16, 2022)

T & P said:


> Indeed. That average speed would suggest that cyclists actually stop for traffic lights and respect regulations governing one-way streets or cycling on pavements in their journeys.


Again, lol. I ride on the roads, and stop at all lights. The simple truth is that is city traffic I’m just way, way faster than any car.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> I see it daily because I look at the traffic light not the pedestrian crossing but Google it if you don't believe me.


so how many cars a day do you see jumping red lights? 1? 5? 10? 50? i'm talking about traffic lights, not about pedestrian crossings for the obvious reason that that's what people jumping red lights jump


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> so how many cars a day do you see jumping red lights? 1? 5? 10? 50? i'm talking about traffic lights, not about pedestrian crossings for the obvious reason that that's what people jumping red lights jump


Eh? Do you even know what a pedestrian crossing is?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> I see it daily ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Eh? Do you even know what a pedestrian crossing is?


yes. just to make it plain to you i'm talking about cars going through lights that _for them _are red, not them going through lights that _for pedestrians_ are red, whether these lights are at a pedestrian crossing or a junction


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. just to make it plain to you i'm talking about cars going through lights that _for them _are red, not them going through lights that _for pedestrians_ are red, whether these lights are at a pedestrian crossing or a junction


No shit. So am I. You don't seem to know what a pedestrian crossing is and you haven't come back with any statistics to say I'm wrong so not sure I can be arsed with this.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Again, lol. I ride on the roads, and stop at all lights. The simple truth is that is city traffic I’m just way, way faster than any car.



No one cares that you cycle faster than 8mph, the example simple chose 8mph for the bicycles and 22mph for a car, with no indication those might even be average speeds.


----------



## T & P (Jun 16, 2022)

Anyone who lives or frequents London will know that the absolute overwhelming majority of cyclists jump at least some traffic lights on a daily basis, while a sizeable majority of drivers never or very, very rarely do. It's the pinnacle of absurdity to claim otherwise.

If any fewer than 95% of London cyclists jump red lights at least once in every single journey they take, I'll eat my fucking hat. No, make that 98%.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> No shit. So am I. You don't seem to know what a pedestrian crossing is and *you haven't come back with any statistics to say I'm wrong* so not sure I can be arsed with this.



Err, it was you that made this frankly bonkers claim -



maomao said:


> More motorists than cyclists jump red lights.



- it's for you to come up with stats to prove your claim, not for others to disprove it, that's how things tend to work around here.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, it was you that made this frankly bonkers claim -
> 
> 
> 
> - it's for you to come up with stats to prove your claim, not for others to disprove it, that's how things tend to work around here.


And yet  people have clearly asserted the opposite all over the thread, in fact you are right now, and never been asked for proof.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 16, 2022)

More train drivers per vehicle go through red lights than car drivers or cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> No shit. So am I. You don't seem to know what a pedestrian crossing is and you haven't come back with any statistics to say I'm wrong so not sure I can be arsed with this.


There are as you ought to know six sorts of pedestrian crossings although here I'm only referring to the ones with traffic lights. You haven't come out with any stats so I don't think you're really in a position to be arsy about this


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, it was you that made this frankly bonkers claim -
> 
> 
> 
> - it's for you to come up with stats to prove your claim, not for others to disprove it, that's how things tend to work around here.


Maomao's not subject to the normal way things are done here


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> There are as you ought to know six sorts of pedestrian crossings although here I'm only referring to the ones with traffic lights. You haven't come out with any stats so I don't think you're really in a position to be arsy about this


Indeed. I'm not sure how motorists could jump the lights on a pedestrian crossing without lights. I'm accusing you of looking at the green and red men and not noticing that a car has gone through a red light in the seconds before the change of the pedestrian light. I am a naturally impatient fellow and so only look at the traffic light and the buggers jump them all the time. 

If you check statistics you'll find approximately 20% of motorists (ie around eight million)  have jumped a red light in the last year. Even if every one of the six million or so cyclists in the UK had done so (in fact it's somewhere between 25 and 57% depending on who you believed) it would come nowhere near this figure.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Maomao's not subject to the normal way things are done here


Thank you for at last recognising my special status.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> If you check statistics you'll find approximately 20% of motorists (ie around eight million)  have jumped a red light in the last year. Even if every one of the six million or so cyclists in the UK had done so (in fact it's somewhere between 25 and 57% depending on who you believed) it would come nowhere near this figure.



Source?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Indeed. I'm not sure how motorists could jump the lights on a pedestrian crossing without lights. I'm accusing you of looking at the green and red men and not noticing that a car has gone through a red light in the seconds before the change of the pedestrian light. I am a naturally impatient fellow and so only look at the traffic light and the buggers jump them all the time.
> 
> If you check statistics you'll find approximately 20% of motorists (ie around eight million)  have jumped a red light in the last year. Even if every one of the six million or so cyclists in the UK had done so (in fact it's somewhere between 25 and 57% depending on who you believed) it would come nowhere near this figure.


Yeh I've dealt with your shitty accusation some posts back where I confirmed I'm looking at the lights not the red/green man. Thank you for making a tardy effort to support your case with stats


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> Source?


Brown with bacon, red with chips.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> Source?



Cyclists R Us


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> it's for you to come up with stats to prove your claim, not for others to disprove it, that's how things tend to work around here.


Why haven't you asked @t&p or Spymaster for sources to back up their dodgy claims about cyclists not stopping for red lights. I'll happily provide sources when they have.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Why haven't you asked @t&p or Spymaster for sources to back up their dodgy claims about cyclists not stopping for red lights.



Track record. My posts are the epitome of fact based, reason, whilst your form sheet for dishonest nonsense is longer than a donkey's tool.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Track record. My posts are the epitome of fact based, reason, whilst your form sheet for dishonest nonsense is longer than a donkey's tool.


Your posts are _mostly_ drunken abuse ime.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Your posts are _mostly_ drunken abuse ime.



In _your_ experience, quite possibly. I tailor them to the merits of the prevailing audience.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Why haven't you asked @t&p or Spymaster for sources to back up their dodgy claims about cyclists not stopping for red lights. I'll happily provide sources when they have.



I don't follow this thread, so I've not seen their claims, but as I regularly see cyclists jumping red lights, I would conclude that if they have made such claims, they are in line with my experience.

You, however, made a very specific claim that more drivers than cyclists jump red lights, this is not my experience, very far from it, hence the reasonable request for you to back up your claim.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> In _your_ experience, quite possibly. I tailor them to the merits of the prevailing audience.


I'll take your (and everyone else's) lack of engagement on the point as a tacit admission that I'm right.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> I don't follow this thread, so I've not seen their claims,


One of them was in the post I quoted dickbrain.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> One of them was in the post I quoted dickbrain.



No, you didn't, fuckwit.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> No, you didn't, fuckwit.


Post 7455 numbskull.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Post 7455 numbskull.


You quoted T & P saying...



T & P said:


> Indeed. That average speed would suggest that cyclists actually stop for traffic lights and respect regulations governing one-way streets or cycling on pavements in their journeys.



... that doesn't equal 'claims about cyclists not stopping for red lights'.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> You quoted T & P saying...
> 
> 
> 
> ... that doesn't equal 'claims about cyclists not stopping for red lights'.


Yes it does. He's clearly being fascetious and claiming that cyclists don't stop for red lights. If you can't see that, you wouldn't pass a reading comprehension test for eleven year olds.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Yes it does. He's clearly being fascetious and claiming that cyclists don't stop for red lights. If you can't see that, you wouldn't pass a reading comprehension test for eleven year olds.



Seems as you can't even spell 'facetious', you shouldn't even be in the teaching profession.

HTH


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> Seems as you can't even spell 'facetious', you shouldn't even be in the teaching profession.
> 
> HTH


_Seeing_ as. You thick twat.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'll take your (and everyone else's) lack of engagement on the point as a tacit admission that I'm right.



You quite obviously don't know what that means, Walt.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You quite obviously don't know what that means.


Don't know what what means?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Yes it does. He's clearly being fascetious and claiming that cyclists don't stop for red lights. If you can't see that, you wouldn't pass a reading comprehension test for eleven year olds.



BTW - a lot of cyclists don't stop for red lights, that's a fact, I've observed it.

But, you made a VERY specific claim that 'more motorists than cyclists jump red lights', that is nonsense IME and why you have been asked to back up it.

Clearly you can't, so it can be filed under 'that's a tobyjug maomao fact'.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> a lot of cyclists don't stop for red lights, that's a fact, I've observed it.


A lot of motorists don't stop for red lights. That's a fact; I've observed it.









						A fifth of motorists and over a quarter of cyclists run red lights
					

The huge number of drivers and cyclists who have confessed to ignoring a red traffic light suggests a safety concern despite the threat of hefty fines.




					www.thisismoney.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Don't know what what means?



Pretty much everything


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Pretty much everything


Still got nothing to say?

* yawn *


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 16, 2022)

Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?

No? Never mind then.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> A lot of motorists don't stop for red lights. That's a fact; I've observed it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A uSwitch survey of drivers and cyclists. That's me convinced.

Top source, Walt!

All that proves is that most cyclists are liars


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> A uSwitch survey of drivers and cyclists. That's me convinced.
> 
> Top source, Walt!
> 
> All that proves is that most cyclists are liars


Even if all the motorists were honest and 100% of cyclists jumped red lights there would still be more motorists who jumped red lights than cyclists. I know you struggle with numeracy but it's not hard.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

This guy’s got a point.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Even if all the motorists were honest and 100% of cyclists jumped red lights there would still be more motorists who jumped red lights than cyclists. I know you struggle with numeracy but it's not hard.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 327552


That doesn't make sense. Jimmy Hill/itchy chin is a playground saying suggesting someone is making something up, whereas I'm pretty sure you're just too thick to understand what I've said.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> That doesn't make sense.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?
> 
> No? Never mind then.


There'd be no point. Drivers don't actually object to the safety aspect of cyclists jumping red lights, they object to the emasculation they experience every time a cyclist violates one of their red-bulbed road phalluses.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> There'd be no point.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 327554


You're just making a fool of yourself now. It's a bit pathetic really.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're just making a fool of yourself now. It's a bit pathetic really.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Maomao 1 - 0 Thick old twats Utd.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> Maomao 1 - 0 Thick old twats Utd.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> View attachment 327559


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 327560


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> There'd be no point. Drivers don't actually object to the safety aspect of cyclists jumping red lights, they object to the emasculation they experience every time a cyclist violates one of their red-bulbed road phalluses.



It's a straw man, we can excuse the deaths, pollution, speeding and general sense of danger of driving because cyclists run red lights. What aboutism at its finest.

Cyclist runs a red light it's a dead cyclist, probably an injured pedestrian. Car runs a red light it's all of the above and potentially worse.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> View attachment 327561


----------



## T & P (Jun 16, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?
> 
> No? Never mind then.


That’s irrelevant to the claim that the great majority of London cyclists don’t jump at least some red lights on a regular basis though, which is what maomao was stating.

I have myself said plenty of times I don’t mind at all cyclists jumping some red lights in certain circumstances. It can be done safely, just as some other infractions committed by drivers can be executed just as safely in the right circumstances. But as far as the actual issue of whether the majority of cyclists in London jump red lights routinely, it is blatantly absurd to claim they don’t. To state otherwise is bordering on Trumpian delusion territory, frankly.


----------



## maomao (Jun 16, 2022)

T & P said:


> That’s irrelevant to the claim that the great majority of London cyclists don’t jump at least some red lights on a regular basis though, which is what maomao was stating.
> 
> I have myself said plenty of times I don’t mind at all cyclists jumping some red lights in certain circumstances. It can be done safely, just as some other infractions committed by drivers can be executed just as safely in the right circumstances. But as far as the actual issue of whether the majority of cyclists in London jump red lights routinely, it is blatantly absurd to claim they don’t. To state otherwise is bordering on Trumpian delusion territory, frankly.


Luckily no-one said anything of the sort; it was a transparently loaded but mathematically true statement designed to trap thickos and it got three of them. 

But that's still not quite true, a significant minority jump a lot and the average human has been so conditioned to both acceptance of motor vehicle primacy and hatred towards cyclists that they willingly ignore motorists transgressions and amplify those of cyclists. And with you it's so you can get away with claiming that speeding isn't a problem when it clearly is and kills and injures far more.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 16, 2022)

maomao said:


> But that's still not quite true, a significant minority jump a lot and the average human has been so conditioned to both acceptance of motor vehicle primacy and hatred towards cyclists that they willingly ignore motorists transgressions and amplify those of cyclists. And with you it's so you can get away with claiming that speeding isn't a problem when it clearly is and kills and injures far more.


----------



## Chz (Jun 16, 2022)

Have to admit, even with the appalling drivers around here, it's rare I see one jump ahead of the light turning green. No, most of the fuckers just don't stop for a red in the first place because it was amber about 10 seconds ago. The worst sites are always outside of schools, too.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Chz said:


> it's rare I see one jump ahead of the light turning green


I've seen someone killed by a black cab driver sticking his foot down the second the light turned orange while people were still crossing. Didn't hit her very hard but her head hit the ground. 

But yes, most car drivers who jump red lights do it in the first couple of seconds of red (and usually accelerating) which is far more dangerous but less blatant than a cyclist crossing during a quiet part of the red phase.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> I've seen someone killed by a black cab driver sticking his foot down the second the light turned orange while people were still crossing. Didn't hit her very hard but her head hit the ground.
> 
> But yes, most car drivers who jump red lights do it in the first couple of seconds of red (and usually accelerating) which is far more dangerous but less blatant than a cyclist crossing during a quiet part of the red phase.


Yep - so many accelerate through on red.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2022)

Speaking of majorities, some actual stats on lawbreaking rather than what some bloke, like, reckons.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Speaking of majorities, some actual stats on lawbreaking rather than what some bloke, like, reckons.
> 
> View attachment 327599View attachment 327600



Didn't we discuss this quite a few pages back and decide that they didn't use a random sample of road locations, but rather particular places that were problematic, so the graphs don't represent what they claim to represent.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Didn't we discuss this quite a few pages back and decide that they didn't use a random sample of road locations, but rather particular places that were problematic, so the graphs don't represent what they claim to represent.


To be honest, whatever it is measuring, I am not happy at all that, in particular, professional drivers of massive HGVs are not obeying speed limits, and particularly 20mph speed limits.  And the number obeying 20mph wherever that is measured is pretty much zero.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> To be honest, whatever it is measuring, I am not happy at all that, in particular, professional drivers of massive HGVs are not obeying speed limits, and particularly 20mph speed limits.  And the number obeying 20mph wherever that is measured is pretty much zero.



The 20mph marker is in the wrong place on the Rigid Heavy Goods Vehicles graph, so it's a bit more than near-zero.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> particular places that were problematic


"Free flowing", ie places where speeding hasn't been designed out. So it's telling us that drivers only break the law where it's possible to break the law.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Didn't we discuss this quite a few pages back and decide that they didn't use a random sample of road locations, but rather particular places that were problematic, so the graphs don't represent what they claim to represent.


Is a problematic place somewhere where speedometers don't work or something? Sounds like a motorists' version of blaming NATO for Putin's invasion to me.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> "Free flowing", ie places where speeding hasn't been designed out. So it's telling us that drivers only break the law where it's possible to break the law.



Alternatively, it's telling us that drivers break the law on those sections of speed-limited road where the hazards that necessitated the speed limit aren't present.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2022)

Traffic lights are car infrastructure. Drivers that complain about cyclists going through red lights are whiny f**ks.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The 20mph marker is in the wrong place on the Rigid Heavy Goods Vehicles graph, so it's a bit more than near-zero.


Ah, well spotted.

Still, 75% of rigid HGV drivers and 85% of articulated HGVs drivers are exceeding the 20mph speed limit, which is appalling.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> hazards


I think the regular word is "people".


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Ah, well spotted.
> 
> Still, 75% of rigid HGV drivers and 85% of articulated HGVs drivers are exceeding the 20mph speed limit, which is appalling.



They only sampled speeds at 10 locations for 20mph roads, and those locations were especially sought out as being unusual ones with no traffic calming measures. Perhaps mere yards before the commencement of higher limits, who knows.

Hardly "Distribution of vehicle speeds on 20mph roads in Great Britain"


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They only sampled speeds at 10 locations for 20mph roads, and those locations were especially sought out as being unusual ones with no traffic calming measures. Perhaps mere yards before the commencement of higher limits, who knows.
> 
> Hardly "Distribution of vehicle speeds on 20mph roads in Great Britain"


Pretty good indicator of drivers' attitudes to 20mph speed limits _per se_ though. If you included roads with traffic calming measures they would appear better behaved than they are, it would be next to meaningless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?
> 
> No? Never mind then.


I wouldn't hold up cops' views like this as proof of something important when we know that they only pay lip service to investigating crimes like mugging, theft, burglary and rape.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Pretty good indicator of drivers' attitudes to 20mph speed limits _per se_ though. If you included roads with traffic calming measures they would appear better behaved than they are, it would be next to meaningless.



Depends whether you're assessing attitude to safe speed or attitude to the law.

I'd like to see some surveys of stuff like speeds through zebra crossings where there is a restricted view to either side. That will tell you a lot more about driver attitude both to the law and to the potential harm they can cause.


----------



## kabbes (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They only sampled speeds at 10 locations for 20mph roads, and those locations were especially sought out as being unusual ones with no traffic calming measures. Perhaps mere yards before the commencement of higher limits, who knows.
> 
> Hardly "Distribution of vehicle speeds on 20mph roads in Great Britain"


To be honest, I’m horrified that drivers of vehicles the size of HGVs are routinely eclipsing a 20mph limit (and not by small amounts either, in most cases) _regardless_ of where that 20mph limit is.  They reserve 20mph limits for places that urbanised, and HGV drivers in particular have no business driving faster in those places.  Even if it’s only one place that this is being measured, I think it smacks of contempt for the safety of others.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

kabbes said:


> They reserve 20mph limits for places that urbanised, and HGV drivers in particular have no business driving faster in those places.



Kind of but some areas are more urbanised than others. There are many areas where 20 limits are completely justified but also many where they aren’t. TfL has a policy of blanket 20mph limits with a stated aim to reduce the limit to 20 on ALL of its roads by 2024. Obviously there are many London roads where a 20mph limit is patently ridiculous and people will ignore it in those circumstances. If those HGV samples are taken on roads like that, they won’t be representative of what’s going on more generally. Take the samples around schools and in residential streets and you’d likely come up with close to universal compliance.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Kind of but some areas are more urbanised than others. There are many areas where 20 limits are completely justified but also many where they aren’t. TfL has a policy of blanket 20mph limits with a stated aim to reduce the limit to 20 on ALL of its roads by 2024. Obviously there are many London roads where a 20mph limit is patently ridiculous and people will ignore it in those circumstances. If those HGV samples are taken on roads like that, they won’t be representative of what’s going on more generally. Take the samples around schools and in residential streets and you’d likely come up with close to universal compliance.


_Why_ is a 20 mph limit ridiculous in any city or urban area?

“I want to go faster” is not a valid answer.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> _Why_ is a 20 mph limit ridiculous in any city or urban area?
> 
> “I want to go faster” is not a valid answer.



The limit needs to be appropriate for the risks.

You don’t get trains going 5mph over all level crossings, under bridges and in urban areas so they can stop in case someone seems likely to jump in front of them do you? 253 killed last year in such situations.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> _Why_ is a 20 mph limit ridiculous in any city or urban area?



Because all laws should be representative of the danger posed, and reflect the seriousness of the potential consequences of breaking them. You could reduce incidents of cyclists hitting pedestrians on pavements to practically zero by destroying the cycles of offenders on the spot and imprisoning them for 10 years for a first offence. Would that be reasonable?


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Because all laws should be representative of the danger posed, and reflect the seriousness of the potential consequences of breaking them. You could reduce incidents of cyclists hitting pedestrians on pavements to practically zero by destroying the cycles of offenders on the spot and imprisoning them for 10 years for a first offence. Would that be reasonable?


A pedestrian is eight more times as likely to be killed when hit at 30mph than 20mph so yes the seriousness of the potential consequences is huge. Unlike cycling on pavements which kills very very few people.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> A pedestrian is eight more times as likely to be killed when hit at 30mph than 20mph so yes the seriousness of the potential consequences is huge.



Not if there's practically no chance of hitting a pedestrian, Walt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> A pedestrian is eight more times as likely to be killed when hit at 30mph than 20mph so yes the seriousness of the potential consequences is huge. Unlike cycling on pavements which kills very very few people.


i suppose you'll give us the stats on injuries in a moment.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Not if there's practically no chance of hitting a pedestrian, Walt.


Many parts of London are inaccessible to pedestrians _because_ of the twats in cars whizzing around, Dennis.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Many parts of London are inaccessible to pedestrians _because_ of the twats in cars whizzing around, Dennis.



 Oh dear.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Oh dear.



Nothing to say again, Dennis.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Nothing to say again, Dennis.



I hear the price of fish rose again today, Walt.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

> I've seen someone killed by a black cab driver sticking his foot down



Missed this!


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I hear the price of fish rose again today, Walt.


That's just the smell of all the fanny you've been talking.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Not if there's practically no chance of hitting a pedestrian, Walt.


That relies on local knowledge etc, far safer to have a blanket limit and remove any kind of _practically no chance _type guesswork.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Missed this!
> 
> View attachment 327619


Believe what you like Dennis, I'm consistent and it's unfortunately a true story.



			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/have-you-ever-seen-a-dead-body.12970/page-2#post-502026


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> That relies on local knowledge etc, far safer to have a blanket limit and remove any kind of _practically no chance _type guesswork.



Nonsense. You can see how a piece of road looks and  often it's blindingly obvious. This is why so many councils were forced to remove thousands of speed cameras in the great camera cull a few years ago. If there's no safety reason for them (or very low speed limits) to be in place, they needn't be there.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Believe what you like Dennis, I'm consistent ...



You certainly are!


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You certainly are!
> 
> View attachment 327620


You normally start posting pictures when you've clearly lost the argument Dennis so I'll take that as another admission of defeat.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> You normally start posting pictures when you've clearly lost the argument ...



You've got no idea what the pictures are about, Walt! 

You are but a cog


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You've got no idea what the pictures are about, Walt!
> 
> You are but a cog


You're presumably trying to compare the excitement you feel reading my posts to what you felt watching match of the day as a child. I appreciate the thought but it's getting a bit embarrassing. 

And presumably the Walt is a reference to Walt Whitman whose writing mine reminds you of. Just as your gregarious nature, love of alcohol, poor housekeeping skills and threatening darker side remind me of Dennis Nilsen, hence your new nickname.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're presumably trying to compare the excitement you feel reading my posts to what you felt watching match of the day as a child. I appreciate the thought but it's getting a bit embarrassing.
> 
> And presumably the Walt is a reference to Walt Whitman whose writing mine reminds you of. Just as your gregarious nature, love of alcohol, poor housekeeping skills and threatening darker side remind me of Dennis Nilsen, hence your new nickname.



 Outstanding response!

Take a bow ...


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Outstanding response!
> 
> Take a bow ...
> 
> View attachment 327631




This is fun Del.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> View attachment 327634
> 
> This is fun Del.


that's den not del


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> View attachment 327634
> 
> This is fun Del.



Dennis.

I was going to suggest you post a few pics too. It's what this thread deserves!


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> that's den not del


I've known a Dennis known as Del. Though that may have been one of those rule-proving exceptions.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> I've known a Dennis known as Del.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> I've known a Dennis known as Del. Though that may have been one of those rule-proving exceptions.


i have known many dennises none of them known as del. but many of them known as den.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i have known many dennises none of them known as del. but many of them known as den.


Well that's put me in my place. What an absolutely marvellous use of your time, catching me out using the wrong abbreviation of a common male name. Your family must be proud.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> catching me out using the wrong abbreviation of a common male name.



Ahh, so you _did_ use the wrong name, and try to bluster your way out of it here ...



maomao said:


> I've known a Dennis known as Del.



 That is soooo you, Walt!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well that's put me in my place. What an absolutely marvellous use of your time, catching me out using the wrong abbreviation of a common male name. Your family must be proud.


What a curious thing to say. I don't suppose your family would be proud of your linking Spymaster to Dennis nilsen, fairly sure mine would be more puzzled than proud of things here, like most urbs I imagine. Do you share your posts with your family, to gauge their pride in your contributions here?


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Ahh, so you _did_ use the wrong name, and try to bluster your way out of it here ...
> 
> 
> 
> That is soooo you, Walt!


 Pickmans model has successfully made me question my own memory.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> What a curious thing to say. I don't suppose your family would be proud of your linking Spymaster to Dennis nilsen, fairly sure mine would be more puzzled than proud of things here, like most urbs I imagine. Do you share your posts with your family, to gauge their pride in your contributions here?


More often than you'd think.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. You can see how a piece of road looks and  often it's blindingly obvious. This is why so many councils were forced to remove thousands of speed cameras in the great camera cull a few years ago. If there's no safety reason for them (or very low speed limits) to be in place, they needn't be there.


Not _blindingly obvious _to everyone though, with almost half of accidents down to excess speed.









						Speeding to be recorded as a cause of many more car accidents | Auto Express
					

New police guidance for reporting will see a big rise in speeding recorded as a cause of car crashes




					www.autoexpress.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not _blindingly obvious _to everyone though, with almost half of accidents down to excess speed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They don't need to be blindingly obvious to everyone. Just to those who set the speed limits.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> .


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> They don't need to be blindingly obvious to everyone. Just to those who set the speed limits.


Which drivers ignore anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't suppose your family would be proud of your linking Spymaster to Dennis nilsen ...



Well he's obviously just pulled it out of his arse in frantic desperation and a need to respond, but I quite like it.

I've always been fascinated with Dennis, probably because his patch (Muswell Hill/NW London) is more or less my neck of the woods. I saw an interview with him once where he was asked about dismembering a body in his kitchen and how he dealt with all the blood. His response was contemptuous; "BLOOD! what blood? He'd been dead for 2 weeks. All the blood had dried in his veins", and shook his head as if to say to the interviewer 'you fucking idiot, haven't you ever chopped-up a two-week-dead corpse in your house before?'


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Which drivers ignore anyway.



All the more so if they're senseless.


----------



## A380 (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Because all laws should be representative of the danger posed, and reflect the seriousness of the potential consequences of breaking them. You could reduce incidents of cyclists hitting pedestrians on pavements to practically zero by destroying the cycles of offenders on the spot and imprisoning them for 10 years for a first offence. Would that be reasonable?


As people know I am a neutral on here being both a London cyclist and driver of a decent car.

Your proposal for cycling on the pavement seems fair, if a little wishy washy liberal, to me.


----------



## A380 (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well he's obviously just pulled it out of his arse in frantic desperation and a need to respond, but I quite like it.
> 
> I've always been fascinated with Dennis, probably because his patch (Muswell Hill/NW London) is more or less my neck of the woods. I saw an interview with him once where he was asked about dismembering a body in his kitchen and how he dealt with all the blood. His response was contemptuous; "BLOOD! what blood? He'd been dead for 2 weeks. All the blood had dried in his veins", and shook his head as if to say to the interviewer 'you fucking idiot, haven't you ever chopped-up a corpse in your house before?'


I've actually  seen the cooker and pans he used. It was chilling in it's mundanity.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

A380 said:


> Your proposal for cycling on the pavement seems fair, if a little wishy washy liberal, to me.



I have advocated corporal punishment before and the nailing of penises to saddles. This was seized upon by old Walter Mitty up there, as proof positive of a genuine proclivity for sexual mutilation


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I have advocated corporal punishment before and the nailing of penises to saddles. This was seized upon by old Walter Mitty up there, as proof positive of a genuine proclivity for sexual mutilation


Jesus. I'm starting to think the Nilsen stuff is a bit too close to the truth to be amusing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Jesus. I'm starting to think the Nilsen stuff is a bit too close to the truth to be amusing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Jesus. I'm starting to think the Nilsen stuff is a bit too close to the truth to be amusing.


Ime spy's more likely to go for a curry with someone than to make a curry from them. Kris would kick up a fuss if he tried to use her kitchen to dispose of a corpse


----------



## T & P (Jun 17, 2022)

If anyone actually needs the State to tell them what the maximum safe speed should be at all times, on all stretches of road and in all circumstances, and feel are incapable of judging it by themselves, I’d genuinely urge them to take some advance driving lessons at once, because their driving skills are lacking to an alarming degree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

T & P said:


> If anyone actually needs the State to tell them what the maximum safe speed should be at all times, on all stretches of road and in all circumstances, and feel are incapable of judging it by themselves, I’d genuinely urge them to take some advance driving lessons at once, because their driving skills are lacking to an alarming degree.


c4u


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

T & P said:


> If anyone actually needs the State to tell them what the maximum safe speed should be at all times, on all stretches of road and in all circumstances, and feel are incapable of judging it by themselves, I’d genuinely urge them to take some advance driving lessons at once, because their driving skills are lacking to an alarming degree.


If anyone feels they are the correct judge of proper speed on a given road and that they should be making those decisions on a road by road basis then I genuinely feel they shouldn't be allowed a driving license. It's not up to you.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

Unless you’re a cyclist of course, especially one who uses shared paths, because then you can take great delight in waxing lyrical about your great speed and the fact that speed limits don’t apply to you. I’m sure beesonthewhatnow’s average cycling speed is as large as his manhood.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Kris would kick up a fuss if he tried to use her kitchen to dispose of a corpse



Only if she found out 👿


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Unless you’re a cyclist of course, especially one who uses shared paths, because then you can take great delight in waxing lyrical about your great speed and the fact that speed limits don’t apply to you. I’m sure beesonthewhatnow’s average cycling speed is as large as his manhood.


This is an anti car propaganda thread. Go and whine on Facebook or something.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Ime spy's more likely to go for a curry with someone than to make a curry from them. Kris would kick up a fuss if he tried to use her kitchen to dispose of a corpse


Nilsen was popular and well-liked, a great socialiser, well known in the pubs of NW London. And is it that big a step from pissing in the sink to dismembering corpses and hiding them under the floorboards? They're both the acts of unhinged minds.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> This is an anti car propaganda thread.



That might be what it is titled but it evidently is not, as it contains not one single item of anti-car propaganda.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> If anyone feels they are the correct judge of proper speed on a given road and that they should be making those decisions on a road by road basis then I genuinely feel they shouldn't be allowed a driving license. It's not up to you.



And yet it absolutely is, Walt. You're talking pish again.

It is encumbent on all drivers to judge, and drive at, the correct speeds according to the prevailing conditions. Most of us don't need signs to tell us what those are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Nilsen was popular and well-liked, a great socialiser, well known in the pubs of NW London. And is it that big a step from pissing in the sink to dismembering corpses and hiding them under the floorboards? They're both the acts of unhinged minds.


If I thought anyone here was a serial killer it'd be you or lletsa rd2003


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

Wow, pretty surprised maomao thinks people should be driving at the speed limit at all times, and needn’t ever decide to go slower.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> If I thought anyone here was a serial killer it'd be you or lletsa rd2003



Just showing what a poor judge of character you are. I doubt rd2003 would harm a fly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> Just showing what a poor judge of character you are. I doubt rd2003 would harm a fly.


i agree, insects would be wholly safe from him


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i agree, insects would be wholly safe from him


You'd be alright then.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2022)

Over 1,500 bollards needing repairing in 5 years in Wandsworth! Road pricing now please!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Unless you’re a cyclist of course, especially one who uses shared paths, because then you can take great delight in waxing lyrical about your great speed and the fact that speed limits don’t apply to you. I’m sure beesonthewhatnow’s average cycling speed is as large as his manhood.


No shared paths, just roads. It’s a) quicker and b) pisses off drivers like you


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2022)

More bell bollards needed, IMO, if only because they upset and confuse certain people.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Over 1,500 bollards needing repairing in 5 years in Wandsworth! Road pricing now please!




No prizes for guessing how they got damaged


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> You'd be alright then.


as would you, my little cockroach friend.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2022)

You love to see it!









						Brixton news, rumours and general chat
					

There's an immense queue of kids stretching hundreds of metres down Coldharbour Lane.  It's for this: https://www.sofarsounds.com/events/40216  Queuing up from both sides of CHL. Appear to get selfies and autographs from this Aussie hip hop band (?!)




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 17, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> If I thought anyone here was a serial killer it'd be you or lletsa rd2003



I've got maomao down as more of a spree killer than a serial type. The kind who takes a gun to the office and blows away all his colleagues; then his neighbour gets interviewed on the news and says "he didn't seem the type".


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I've got maomao down as more of a spree killer than a serial type. The kind who takes a gun to the office and blows away all his colleagues; then his neighbour gets interviewed on the news and says "he didn't seem the type".


If it's the neighbour I'm off down the pub with in a minute it'll be 'yeah, he definitely wanted to kill a lot of people'


----------



## T & P (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> If anyone feels they are the correct judge of proper speed on a given road and that they should be making those decisions on a road by road basis then I genuinely feel they shouldn't be allowed a driving license. It's not up to you.


That is the very basic foundation of driving, ffs. Of course everyone should judge the appropriate speed based on the local road geography and characteristics, among other things. How could it be anything but? I gather you don’t drive at all, or are not good at it?

This is in fact further proof if any was needed of the dangerous fallacy of believing blindly in the limits set by the authorities. Single lane A roads have a blanket 50 mph in most places, but anyone who can drive and have done so on countless twisting A roads in the likes of Cornwall and plenty other places will tell you that a 50 mph is far too high for certain  stretches, bends, cambers and other spots along those roads, and 40 mph limit should be in place. So yes, it is vital that drivers read the road ahead adjust their speed, rather than assuming if the government hasn’t told them to reduce their top speed to below 40 mph, then surely a very sensible 44 on a 50 mph road couldn’t possibly be too fast.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

T & P said:


> That is the very basic foundation of driving, ffs. Of course everyone should judge the appropriate speed based on the local road geography and characteristics, among other things. How could it be anything but? I gather you don’t drive at all, or are not good at it?



I don't drive, don't want to drive and don't want to be good at it (though if I did I'd be fucking _great _at it).



T & P said:


> This is in fact further proof if any was needed of the dangerous fallacy of believing blindly in the limits set by the authorities. Single lane A roads have a blanket 50 mph in most places, but anyone who can drive and have done so on countless twisting A roads in the likes of Cornwall and plenty other places will tell you that a 50 mph is far too high for certain  stretches, bends, cambers and other spots along those roads, and 40 mph limit should be in place. So yes, it is vital that drivers read the road ahead adjust their speed, rather than assuming if the government hasn’t told them to reduce their top speed to below 40 mph, then surely a very sensible 44 on a 50 mph road couldn’t possibly be too fast.


For the hard of thinking: I don't think anyone has argued that drivers should drive _at_ the speed limit at all times and the Highway Code clearly says you should be aware of stopping distances in rain or where where visibility is reduced etc. which implicitly means reducing speed. However, the maximum should be treated as the maximum in all circumstances as I don't believe there is a situation in which it is safer to drive above the speed limit and I don't trust any individual driver to make that decision.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> I don't drive, don't want to drive and don't want to be good at it (though if I did I'd be fucking _great _at it).
> 
> 
> For the hard of thinking: I don't think anyone has argued that drivers should drive _at_ the speed limit at all times and the Highway Code clearly says you should be aware of stopping distances in rain or where where visibility is reduced etc. which implicitly means reducing speed. However, the maximum should be treated as the maximum in all circumstances as I don't believe there is a situation in which it is safer to drive above the speed limit and I don't trust any individual driver to make that decision.



You have a wonderful trust in the authorities to set the maximum safe speeds correctly, for every single road in the country. I assume your trust in the powers that be extends to all our other laws and regulations, which you no doubt adhere to vigorously at all times.


----------



## maomao (Jun 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You have a wonderful trust in the authorities to set the maximum safe speeds correctly, for every single road in the country.


I have very little trust in them to do any such thing, I just think having an upper limit of some sort is infinitely preferable to leaving it up to individual drivers given that it could never be made more dangerous by being too low.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 17, 2022)

Speaking of speeding:









						Motorbike rider who killed cyclist while speeding in London jailed for 20 months
					

A motorbike rider who killed a cyclist while speeding through London as the roads were empty in the first Covid lockdown has been jailed for 20 months.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jun 17, 2022)

maomao said:


> And presumably the Walt is a reference to Walt Whitman whose writing mine reminds you of. Just as your gregarious nature, love of alcohol, poor housekeeping skills and threatening darker side remind me of Dennis Nilsen, hence your new nickname.


Oh, I had totally the wrong idea.  I thought Dennis and Walt were these two


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Jun 18, 2022)

Looks like a motorist to me, whoever can't tell the difference shouldn't be cycling anywhere.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


>



I see you, and raise you to


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> I see you, and raise you to



False premise as no-one has claimed cyclists never jump lights. Just that it's a fairly insignificant problem in comparison to the harm caused by car drivers. Also, in three months of footage he finds eighteen cyclists jumping red lights? Cab drivers have to do twenty plus hours a week just to cover their costs; even if he worked the minimum possible over the time period, that's less than one every twelve hours.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> I see you, and raise you to





edcraw said:


> Traffic lights are car infrastructure. Drivers that complain about cyclists going through red lights are whiny f**ks.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2022)

Loving your quoting your own posts as supposed evidence of anything. Well done


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> Loving your quoting your own posts as supposed evidence of anything. Well done


Just repeating it as it’s true.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Just repeating it as it’s true.


It is as ture as anti-car Talibans stomping their feet at drivers breaking the speed limit in all circumstances also being whiny fucks.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> It is as ture as anti-car Talibans stomping their feet at drivers breaking the speed limit in all circumstances also being whiny fucks.


Whiny fuck


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> It is as ture as anti-car Talibans stomping their feet at drivers breaking the speed limit in all circumstances also being whiny fucks.







__





						The impacts of speeding and how to become a better driver with RoSPA - RoSPA
					

Speeding kills, find out how. There is only one safe and reliable way of avoiding speeding, which is to ensure that you never drive above the speed limit or too fast for the conditions. Find out how our resources can help you.




					www.rospa.com
				





> Exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions were assigned by police officers as contributing to 27% of fatal collisions in 2020, as well as 16% of collisions in which a serious injury occurred and 13% of total collisions.
> 
> In Great Britain in 2020, 202 people were killed in collisions involving someone exceeding the speed limit, with a further 1,368 people seriously injured and 2,803 slightly injured. A further 115 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.



How many people were hurt by cyclists going through red lights?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 18, 2022)

Wow, fewer people killed by speeding drivers than by trains travelling too fast for the conditions, I didn’t expect that.


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Wow, fewer people killed by speeding drivers than by trains travelling too fast for the conditions, I didn’t expect that.


The vast majority of deaths on train tracks are suicides. Additional safety features or restrictions would mostly be moving the problem elsewhere and money would probably be better spent on mental health services.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2022)

maomao said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The operating phrase of my earlier post being 'in all circumstances'. Whether some pople might foam at the mouth at the thought, it remains a fact that there_ is_ such thing as safe speeding, just as there is such thing as safe red light jumping by cyclists. It's not too much to ask that we all accept this and refrain from absolutist standpoints.


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> Whether some pople might foam at the mouth at the fact or not, there_ is_ such thing as safe speeding, just as there is such thing as safe red light jumping by cyclists. It's not too much to ask that we all accept this and refrain from absolutist standpoints.


Whether or not a particular instance of speeding can be relatively 'safe' has no bearing on what should happen to drivers who refuse to stay within the speed limit. Speeding kills loads of people and it shouldn't be for individual drivers to make those decision. Any 
speeding should lead to an instant lifetime ban. Driving while banned or uninsured should be a mandatory five year custodial sentence.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 18, 2022)

Given the stats upthread, moderate speeding is extremely safe, because apparently most drivers speed most of the time. The number of fatalities where speed is a factor divided by the number of instances of speeding must therefore be absolutely miniscule.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

😍


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤣




Yes very funny, the man was driving with his 8-year old son in the car and the brakes failed.









						Auto sadursme ar vilcienu Jelgavas pusē: zināma jauna informācija par notikušo
					

Jelgavas pusē trešdien fiksēti satraucoši kadri, kas ātri vien nonāca arī sociālo tīklu lietotāju redzeslokā. Automašīnas reģistratora uzņemtajā video redzama avārija, kur vieglā automašīna spēcīgi saduras ar kustībā esošu kravas vilcienu un nonāk grāvī. Spēkratā atradās arī astoņus gadus vecs...




					degpunkta.tv3.lv


----------



## Chz (Jun 18, 2022)

I'm suspicious of that. At the end of the article: "In turn, the car was handed over to a disposal company for destruction without delay or as soon as it reached the tow truck." We'll never know if the brakes failed.

Driving into a field in the first place would be the entirely sensible option. Choosing to bounce off a train first is the work of a maniac.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2022)

maomao said:


> The vast majority of deaths on train tracks are suicides. Additional safety features or restrictions would mostly be moving the problem elsewhere and money would probably be better spent on mental health services.



Arguing on the internet on your birthday!  

Have a day off, Walt.

Eat some cake.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes very funny, the man was driving with his 8-year old son in the car and the brakes failed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not convinced tbh


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not convinced tbh



Luckily for you, you’re not the Latvian police.


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Arguing on the internet on your birthday!
> 
> Have a day off, Walt.
> 
> Eat some cake.



I'll do what I like thanks Del.


----------



## A380 (Jun 18, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Luckily for you, you’re not the Latvian police.


Worst tribute band evah.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 18, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'll do what I like thanks Del.



Not true.


----------



## T & P (Jun 18, 2022)

Given how keen edcraw always is to accuse people in here to make light of road accident fatalities, I wonder if he/she even bothered to check the fate of the occupants of that car. Pretty fucking low either way.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

T & P said:


> Given how keen edcraw always is to accuse people in here to make light of road accident fatalities, I wonder if he/she even bothered to check the fate of the occupants of that car. Pretty fucking low either way.


Hope you haven’t run out of smelling salts - but as you know from the article you posted they both survived.

Whatever the cause not great that we have a system of transport that’s that fucking dangerous.


----------



## maomao (Jun 18, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Not true.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 19, 2022)




----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



Should clearly never ever be allowed near the driving seat of a car again in his life but we all know that won't happen.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>




I read there was a mob attacking his daughter and he tried to fend them off in person but it didn't work so he then decided to use his car to scare them away. Seems to have done the trick.


----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I read there was a mob attacking his daughter and he tried to fend them off in person but it didn't work so he then decided to use his car to scare them away. Seems to have done the trick.


Well, the person arrested was nineteen so how old could the daughter have been? You don't go away to get your car if your small child (maximum six, probably younger) is being 'attacked' by a mob. Other accounts say she got wet in a water fight which hardly deserves that.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well, the person arrested was nineteen so how old could the daughter have been? You don't go away to get your car if your small child (maximum six, probably younger) is being 'attacked' by a mob. Other accounts say she got wet in a water fight which hardly deserves that.



Doesn't look 19 to me but who knows:


----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Doesn't look 19 to me but who knows:
> 
> View attachment 327991


Well, that's what the police told the Mail. Unless they arrested one of the teenagers for getting in the way of a car. And it's clearly a water fight from the video your shot comes from. The shit about feral kids on Twitter is disgusting.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2022)

I've tried getting to the bottom of things on TikTok but I think I'm too old for it.


----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I've tried getting to the bottom of things on TikTok but I think I'm too old for it.


And yet your initial response was to try and defend the actions of a man driving a car into a crowd of children.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2022)

maomao said:


> And yet your initial response was to try and defend the actions of a man driving a car into a crowd of children.



Nope, I was simply stating what I had read somewhere, which was an improvement on the random Tweet that someone else had posted.


----------



## maomao (Jun 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nope, I was simply stating what I had read somewhere, which was an improvement on the random Tweet that someone else had posted.


Your final sentence clearly implied that you believed this account and agreed with the driver's actions.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 19, 2022)

maomao said:


> Your final sentence clearly implied that you believed this account and agreed with the driver's actions.



To you maybe. 

Anyway I'm sure we can all rely on the Metropolitan Police to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into the matter, and they have stated that enquiries with respect to this are ongoing.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I read there was a mob attacking his daughter and he tried to fend them off in person but it didn't work so he then decided to use his car to scare them away. Seems to have done the trick.


Fuck me - you really are an idiot.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2022)

👏👏👏👏👏


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 👏👏👏👏👏



Excellent work.

Lipsticks work _really_ well for this sort of thing as well. An absolute sod to get off. Was taught that by an ex girlfriend who used a wheelchair and had zero fucks to give when it came to pavement parking arseholes


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

Yeah it's all fun and games until you meet a Kenneth Noye.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah it's all fun and games until you meet a Kenneth Noye.


"But the driver might be a psychopath" isn't really much of a winning argument here.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

I do feel sorry for platinumsage and his weird view of the world.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> "But the driver might be a psychopath" isn't really much of a winning argument here.



It's not meant to be, is it?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's not meant to be, is it?


The vast majority of drivers, whilst being antisocial arseholes, aren't going to be psychopaths. So, grab your lipsticks and crack on  

Don't want your car covered in hard to remove phrases pointing out the flaws in your character? Don't park on the fucking pavement.


----------



## maomao (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's not meant to be, is it?


It's exactly the same indirect threat of violence you always do. You did it on the last page with the wanker who drive into a crowd of kids. You did it with the driver who tried to run down one of those kids on the mall.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's exactly the same indirect threat of violence you always do. You did it on the last page with the wanker who drive into a crowd of kids. You did it with the driver who tried to run down one of those kids on the mall.


It’s probably him projecting.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

I was assaulted age 10 while walking to school because I accidentally hit a pebble with my foot that bounced along the pavement and hit a car door. The driver was sitting in it and got out and pushed me over. 

It isn't just rare psychopaths who will assault someone they think is deliberately vandalizing their car. I suspect a significant minority of men will do so, and anyone wanting to take such action should be aware of and prepared for the risks which aren't insignificant.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's exactly the same indirect threat of violence you always do. You did it on the last page with the wanker who drive into a crowd of kids. You did it with the driver who tried to run down one of those kids on the mall.



Nonsense. I've already detailed on this or similar threads how I've walked over a car parked on the pavement, and happily done nothing at all when I've seen people damage my car.


----------



## maomao (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nonsense. I've already detailed on this or similar threads how I've walked over a car parked on the pavement, and happily done nothing at all when I've seen people damage my car.


Not sure what that's got to do with it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I was assaulted age 10 while walking to school because I accidentally hit a pebble with my foot that bounced along the pavement and hit a car door. The driver was sitting in it and got out and pushed me over.
> 
> It isn't just rare psychopaths who will assault someone they think is deliberately vandalizing their car. I suspect a significant minority of men will do so, and anyone wanting to take such action should be aware of and prepared for the risks which aren't insignificant.


Ban cars?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's exactly the same indirect threat of violence you always do. You did it on the last page with the wanker who drive into a crowd of kids. You did it with the driver who tried to run down one of those kids on the mall.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

We obviously have a problem with drivers and reckon we need a total and complete ban on cars until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> ... we need a total and complete ban on cars until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.



I think this could actually happen if you dedicate enough time to it on the internet, Ed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> ... we need a total and complete ban on cars until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.



I think this could actually happen if you dedicate enough time to it on the internet, Ed.


----------



## maomao (Jun 21, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 328282


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We obviously have a problem with drivers and reckon we need a total and complete ban on cars until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.



Grant Shapps? Never had you down as a fan of the Tories. Obviously I was wrong.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Grant Shapps? Never had you down as a fan of the Tories. Obviously I was wrong.


Grant Shapps? I was paraphrasing someone slightly more sensible….


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Grant Shapps? I was paraphrasing someone slightly more sensible….



You said you want a ban on cars until our country's representatives sort things out. If you meant our representatives in parliament then any such figuring out would land in the lap of Grant Shapps. But perhaps you meant the permanent representatives of the United Kingdom to NATO or some other such thing. I suspect you didn't mean much at all tbh.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

Meanwhile another example of a bus driver endangering pedestrians. Buses are of course, as detailed up thread, more dangerous for pedestrians than cars.









						Crewe bus narrowly misses kids as it smashes into row of parked cars
					

CCTV footage has emerged showing the collisions




					www.cheshire-live.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You said you want a ban on cars until our country's representatives sort things out. If you meant our representatives in parliament then any such figuring out would land in the lap of Grant Shapps. But perhaps you meant the permanent representatives of the United Kingdom to NATO or some other such thing. I suspect you didn't mean much at all tbh.


God - you really are an idiot.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> God - you really are an idiot.



At least I don't post up random vehicle incidents like you.

Oh wait...









						Llanfair school: Four children hit by bus in stable condition
					

The bus mounted a kerb, hit a group of primary school pupils, and crashed into metal fencing.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> At least I don't post up random vehicle incidents like you.
> 
> Oh wait...
> 
> ...


Cant quite remember when I said buses weren’t dangerous but ok.


----------



## bcuster (Jun 21, 2022)

$260,000 British made luxury car involved in "hit & run" accident:


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

bcuster said:


> $260,000 British made luxury car involved in "hit & run" accident:



The fence prob looked at the driver funny or something….


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

When that happens in the UK the police generally rule out the driver wandering off unintentionally with a serious head injury before tweeting about it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> When that happens in the UK the police generally rule out the driver wandering off unintentionally with a serious head injury before tweeting about it.


😂 👏👏👏👏superb!!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

🎻


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

You love to see it!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 21, 2022)

Does that prove further investment in public transport in London is unnecessary or something?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Does that prove further investment in public transport in London is unnecessary or something?


😆👏👏👏👏👏 keep it up!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2022)

The poor driver of this car must have had a brain aneurysm and forgotten how to find reverse gear…. or something 🤷


----------



## edcraw (Jun 22, 2022)

Good article here - with references to Lambeth!









						People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities—Until They Live in One
					

Removing cars from urban areas means lower carbon emissions, less air pollution, and fewer road traffic accidents. So why are residents so resistant?




					www.wired.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 23, 2022)

Backstage crew showing how it’s done 

Edit - OK, how do you get Facebook videos to post here?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The poor driver of this car must have had a brain aneurysm and forgotten how to find reverse gear…. or something 🤷




I think it's maomao staging an anti-car protest by blocking the road with a car he's just stolen - he's realised he's gone too far but doesn't know how to drive so can't really back down. Should probably stick to encouraging young people to deflate car tyres at 2am.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think it's maomao staging an anti-car protest by blocking the road with a car he's just stolen - he's realised he's gone too far but doesn't know how to drive so can't really back down. Should probably stick to encouraging young people to deflate car tyres at 2am.


👍keep it up!


----------



## maomao (Jun 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Should probably stick to encouraging young people to deflate car tyres at 2am


Where have I done this please? As you only know me from my posts on Urban I don't think anything you've ever seen me post could be described as addressed to young people.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 23, 2022)

LTNs dElAy ThE eMeRgEnCy SeRvIcEs 11!!!111!!!!

Yep - if some twunt vandalises the barrier….


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> LTNs dElAy ThE eMeRgEnCy SeRvIcEs 11!!!111!!!!
> 
> Yep - if some twunt vandalises the barrier….



It’s almost as if those people are fucking stupid cunts


----------



## edcraw (Jun 24, 2022)

Controversial 🙄 - only for the platinumsage ’s of this world.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> Where have I done this please? As you only know me from my posts on Urban I don't think anything you've ever seen me post could be described as addressed to young people.



I must have you got confused with teuchter, an easy mistake to make on this thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Controversial 🙄 - only for the platinumsage ’s of this world.




Why would think I think I'd find that controversial? I support it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why would think I think I'd find that controversial? I support it.


always got to be contrarian don’t you 😆


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> always got to be contrarian don’t you 😆



I just hold average reasonable views on such matters. I know this confuses some extremist fundamentalists who assume everyone must think like they do.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I just hold average reasonable views on such matters. I know this confuses some extremist fundamentalists who assume everyone must think like they do.


You’re just a normal man… an innocent man.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 24, 2022)

Can’t help but smile every time this happens 😀


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Can’t help but smile every time this happens 😀




What, painted cycle non-lanes get obstructed by a fossil-fuel-leaking wreck that could have seriously injured someone? Yes I'm sure it's hilarious and a much better outcome than a more visible bollard actually having the intended effect without the aforementioned consequences.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What, painted cycle non-lanes get obstructed by a fossil-fuel-leaking wreck that could have seriously injured someone? Yes I'm sure it's hilarious and a much better outcome than a more visible bollard actually having the intended effect without the aforementioned consequences.


This bollard has had the intended effect of stopping people driving on the pavement!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This bollard has had the intended effect of stopping people driving on the pavement!



No, we've done this before. It didn't prevent the car from going on the pavement, it prevented it from going off it.

It's like banning swimming in a reservoir and attempting to enforce it not by e.g. building a fence but by drowning anyone found swimming there.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's like banning swimming in a reservoir and attempting to enforce it not by e.g. building a fence but by drowning anyone found swimming there.


Would probably put a stop to it pretty quickly tbh.

It there was a normal bollard there pretty sure it would be knocked over regularly. This one’s much better value for money - plus the added benefit of being able to laugh a shit drivers 😀


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Would probably put a stop to it pretty quickly tbh.
> 
> It there was a normal bollard there pretty sure it would be knocked over regularly. This one’s much better value for money - plus the added benefit of being able to laugh a shit drivers 😀



You’d rather have cars mount pavements and endanger pedestrians so you can laugh at them, than have a solution that prevents cars mounting pavements in the first place? Presumably you’d also be in favour of slats in pavements designed to capture bike wheels and send the rider sprawling?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You’d rather have cars mount pavements and endanger pedestrians so you can laugh at them, than have a solution that prevents cars mounting pavements in the first place? Presumably you’d also be in favour of slats in pavements designed to capture bike wheels and send the rider sprawling?


🥱


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, we've done this before. It didn't prevent the car from going on the pavement, it prevented it from going off it.


I like it when he does the hits. I'm looking forward to "I'm a moderate actually" becoming part of the touring act.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I like it when he does the hits. I'm looking forward to "I'm a moderate actually" becoming part of the touring act.


Love the logic that of course drivers shouldn’t be in cycle lanes but they should be free to drive unobstructed on the pavement!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

If only they had some better kind of bollard in front of Hove station…


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2022)

Think I’ve found platinumsage on Twitter. 20mph limits lead to ‘bolder pedestrians’ 😜


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Think I’ve found platinumsage on Twitter. 20mph limits lead to ‘bolder pedestrians’ 😜
> 
> View attachment 329001


 

These people are fucking mental.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

Not sure how they plan to defund an organisation that gets most of it’s money from membership fees…


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

Just seen they’re replying to this nutter.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 26, 2022)

“Unavoidable” if you’re a shit driver presumably.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

“You’re putting yourself at risk from shit drivers like me…”


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2022)

I don’t have audio so why is the cyclist in the right-hand lane for so long when both lanes are left turn only? I presume it’s just because they’re “entitled” to be, despite Highway Code rule 137.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t have audio so why is the cyclist in the right-hand lane for so long when both lanes are left turn only? I presume it’s just because they’re “entitled” to be, despite Highway Code rule 137.


Not sure - but whatever the reason doesn’t mean the driver can undertake & close pass them does it?


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2022)

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m sure they both admitted the error of their ways in that conversation they had, and parted amicably. Am I correct?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m sure they both admitted the error of their ways in that conversation they had, and parted amicably. Am I correct?


😜


----------



## maomao (Jun 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Two wrongs don’t make a right.


You're the one hunting for faults on the cyclist's part with which to excuse the driver.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t have audio so why is the cyclist in the right-hand lane for so long when both lanes are left turn only? I presume it’s just because they’re “entitled” to be, despite Highway Code rule 137.


Hang on - why’s the driver take the right hand lane then?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> “You’re putting yourself at risk from shit drivers like me…”




“What does your camera do?”

Haha


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Hang on - why’s the driver take the right hand lane then?



The left lane looks like a bus lane.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're the one hunting for faults on the cyclist's part with which to excuse the driver.



I didn't need to hunt tbf, it's obviously weird behavior for someone who claims to care about their own safety.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The left lane looks like a bus lane.


😂 no it doesn’t. But that would mean she undertook in a bus lane!

Love how you never cease to defend shit drivers!!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

This’ll make your blood boil platinumsage !









						Drivers who kill could receive life sentences under law reform
					

Judges will be able to give life sentences to dangerous drivers who kill, in a toughening of the law.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Hollis (Jun 26, 2022)

That cyclist seems a bit of a prick... this is another clip with a copper calling him out.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This’ll make your blood boil platinumsage !
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would you think that?

Anyway it’s pretty pointless as I can’t remember the last person to get the current maximum of 14 years, so no one will actually get life unless they radically overhaul that whole area of law.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2022)

Hollis said:


> That cyclists seems a bit of a prick... this is another clip with a copper calling him out.



Yep - he is.


----------



## nick (Jun 27, 2022)

oh that undertake of a white lorry at the start of the Video (0.08) - runs chills down my spine. What a suicidal moron


----------



## edcraw (Jun 27, 2022)

nick said:


> oh that undertake of a white lorry at the start of the Video (0.08) - runs chills down my spine. What a suicidal moron


Every car he passes on the left makes me nervous just expecting a passenger door to fly open.


----------



## nick (Jun 27, 2022)

To be fair a car door that is a few lost teeth and the odd breakage.

Going under that lorry is instant hamburger time.

Interesting that you decided it was a he (as did I) - we are either both sexist, or just assume that a sense of  immortality is the greater preserve of the male


----------



## edcraw (Jun 27, 2022)

nick said:


> To be fair a car door that is a few lost teeth and the odd breakage.
> 
> Going under that lorry is instant hamburger time.
> 
> Interesting that you decided it was a he (as did I) - we are either both sexist, or just assume that a sense of  immortality is the greater preserve of the male


I know it’s a he - used to follow him on Twitter but as mentioned above he’s a bit of a prick so unfollowed a while ago.


----------



## Chz (Jun 27, 2022)

Hollis said:


> That cyclist seems a bit of a prick... this is another clip with a copper calling him out.



Holy hell!! 
That's just down the road from here (A232 - Carshalton) and I don't drive like that at 3am on an empty road. It's full of blind angles and people pulling out without looking.
I'm sure he's just done it for the clicks, but they also want to die young.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 27, 2022)

I’m glad we’re all finally in agreement. Time to end the thread here perhaps?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I’m glad we’re all finally in agreement. Time to end the thread here perhaps?


😜


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2022)

Extinctionist oil-refinery blockading seems to have fizzled out in the UK thankfully, but proponents of it will no doubt now be looking in envy at Sri Lanka:









						Non-essential petrol sales halted for two weeks in Sri Lanka
					

The country says it is saving its limited fuel supplies for vehicles used for essential services.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Extinctionist oil-refinery blockading seems to have fizzled out in the UK thankfully, but proponents of it will no doubt now be looking in envy at Sri Lanka:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good news - thanks for sharing!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good news - thanks for sharing!



It was meant facetiously but it’s nice to know how you really feel about the working class of Sri Lanka.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It was meant facetiously but it’s nice to know how you really feel about the working class of Sri Lanka.


What do you think they should do?

Surely this is a pretty big sign that maybe the folks blockading refineries had a point and we need to move away from fossil fuels pretty damn quick.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2022)

I can’t see why you think it’s “good” that Sri Lankans are suddenly deprived of fuel due to an economic crisis.

Are you going to suggest next that famine in Yemen is great because it will encourage us to reduce food miles and grow more crops locally?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I can’t see why you think it’s “good” that Sri Lankans are suddenly deprived of fuel due to an economic crisis.
> 
> Are you going to suggest next that famine in Yemen is great because it will encourage us to reduce food miles and grow more crops locally?


No - of course it’s not good. Like you I was being facetious - that’s why I said it’s a pretty big sign something is pretty fucked. You’re the one that doesn’t seem to realise that.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 28, 2022)

It’s a sign that the Sri Lankan economy is pretty fucked, yes.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s a sign that the Sri Lankan economy is pretty fucked, yes.


----------



## maomao (Jun 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It was meant facetiously but it’s nice to know how you really feel about the working class of Sri Lanka.


I would think food on the table is the pressing need of the working class in Sri Lanka right now. 80% of families can't afford to eat properly.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2022)

Good work here! The entitlement of the wanker driving round a park in his pathetically large vehicle whilst on the phone!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 29, 2022)

AI clearly understands the concept far better than Urban75:


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 29, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2022)

Seems like platinumsage & Nigel Farage are on the same page!


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 29, 2022)

If he wants things to be less Orwellian, maybe we should get rid of the massive telescreens in so many new cars.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2022)

Good podcast here on how Tesla is basically a fraud - chargers linked to diesel generators and self driving cars that don’t work. Basically a poor attempt by a car manufacturer to keep their dying business model going.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

Here you go platinumsage - good article on what people actually mean when we say “ban cars”.









						What I Mean When I Say 'Ban Cars'
					

Somehow, every discussion about reducing our automobile dependency gets turned into a "war on cars." The only option left is to reclaim the language.




					jalopnik.com


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

Fuck it - actually, let’s really just ban cars!


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Fuck it - actually, let’s really just ban cars!




Looks like careful and considerate driving to me.

Man says somethings slightly loudly. Cyclist is obliviously so distressed and endangered that they have time reach around and activate their camera's clip-recording button.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Here you go platinumsage - good article on what people actually mean when we say “ban cars”.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a good article. It's someone living next to a metro station in a in city projecting their own needs and desires on everyone else. 

Besides, teuchter made it clear in the OP that this thread was about "eliminating the private car from the planet forever", whereas what that article makes clear is that the author simply wants to gentrify his neighbourhood, and gives no consideration to anyone who might not want to live their entire lives on the NY subway.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Looks like careful and considerate driving to me.
> 
> Man says somethings slightly loudly. Cyclist is obliviously so distressed and endangered that they have time reach around and activate their camera's clip-recording button.


I’m pretty sure that you’re not so much of a twat that you do actually think it’s okay to hell “GET OUT OF THE FOOKING WAY!!” at someone using the correct lane at a roundabout but it is hard to tell sometimes.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's not a good article. It's someone living next to a metro station in a in city projecting their own needs and desires on everyone else.
> 
> Besides, teuchter made it clear in the OP that this thread was about "eliminating the private car from the planet forever", whereas what that article makes clear is that the author simply wants to gentrify his neighbourhood, and gives no consideration to anyone who might not want to live their entire lives on the NY subway.


Oh - you are actually really really stupid. Okay.


----------



## platinumsage (Jun 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I’m pretty sure that you’re not so much of a twat that you do actually think it’s okay to hell “GET OUT OF THE FOOKING WAY!!” at someone using the correct lane at a roundabout but it is hard to tell sometimes.



You want to ban cars because a driver shouted at someone?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You want to ban cars because a driver shouted at someone?


😜


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2022)

Chingford residents form barricade to stop double yellow lines | Waltham Forest Echo
					

Police have attended the scene




					walthamforestecho.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Chingford residents form barricade to stop double yellow lines | Waltham Forest Echo
> 
> 
> Police have attended the scene
> ...


Car nutters: LtNs BlOcK tEh EmErGeNcY sErViCeS!!!1!!

Also car nutters: FUCK THE EMERGENCY SERVICES!!! WE NEED ALL THE ROAD SPACE TO PARK OUR GIANT CARS!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Car nutters: LtNs BlOcK tEh EmErGeNcY sErViCeS!!!1!!
> 
> Also car nutters: FUCK THE EMERGENCY SERVICES!!! WE NEED ALL THE ROAD SPACE TO PARK OUR GIANT CARS!!!!


In this case, they seem willing to allow the emergency services through as long as they are allowed to block the pavements instead.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> In this case, they seem willing to allow the emergency services through as long as they are allowed to block the pavements instead.


I guess I could do the same for their paper thin care for people with disabilities.

Basically car culture is toxic.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 329841


Fucking  idiot builders should have moved the vehicle before they built the house.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Fucking  idiot builders should have moved the vehicle before they built the house.


Missed you Spymaster - thought you’d been staying away through embarrassment over platinumsage


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> In this case, they seem willing to allow the emergency services through as long as they are allowed to block the pavements instead.



The council could widen the road by compulsorily purchasing their tiny front yards and recouping the cost via a residents parking permit scheme. They won't of course, because it's easier for the council to just encourage people to park their cars oin neighbouring roads on the pavements.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The council could widen the road by compulsorily purchasing their tiny front yards and recouping the cost via a residents parking permit scheme. They won't of course, because it's easier for the council to just encourage people to park their cars oin neighbouring roads on the pavements.


The council should pay money to purchase extra parking for people!! Fuck me - you’re really really really thick! Exactly why the pro car lot have stopped posting here - embarrassing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Missed you Spymaster - thought you’d been staying away through embarrassment over platinumsage



Nah, but this thread’s shit without maomao


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2022)

.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Basically cat culture is toxic.




second attempt to post!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2022)

It’s the way you tell ‘em….


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2022)

London’s finest!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

Fuel price protesters using similar tactics to Inuslate Britain to highlight their concerns today.









						Fuel protests: Arrests for slow driving during motorway delays
					

Protesters who want a fuel duty cut drove slowly on major roads across the country.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




I wonder if there's any crossover between drivers protesting against fuel prices and drivers who lost the plot when Insulate Britain prevented them from driving around on cheap fuel a few months back.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

There’s a big difference between a pre-announced go-slow protest, typically employed by motor vehicle users inc taxi drivers, farmers etc, and an indefinite surprise road block which the extinctionists seem to favour.

It’s bit like the difference between probation and solitary confinement i.e. a lot.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There’s a big difference between a pre-announced go-slow protest, typically employed by motor vehicle users inc taxi drivers, farmers etc, and an indefinite surprise road block which the extinctionists seem to favour.
> 
> It’s bit like the difference between probation and solitary confinement i.e. a lot.


Yes, the Insulate Britain protesters were significantly more courageous than this lot, who can't be botered to get out of their vehicles unless it's to assault someone making some protest they disagree with. Instead they are doing what they normally do everyday - driving around moaning about taxes (and probably about cyclists who jump red lights) - just significantly slower than usual.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> London’s finest!



Professional drivers should certainly maintain a higher standard of safety and the cyclist is right to report him, but it’s hardly an argument to support calls to ban cars, is it?  I would have thought the coming automation of cars will deal with most  the bad driving incidents which seem to enrage the anti car lobby, and then what arguments do they have remaining?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Professional drivers should certainly maintain a higher standard of safety and the cyclist is right to report him, but it’s hardly an argument to support calls to ban cars, is it?  I would have thought the coming automation of cars will deal with most  the bad driving incidents which seem to enrage the anti car lobby, and then what arguments do they have remaining?


Welcome to the thread, which I see you haven't bothered to read any of.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> the coming automation of cars


It's only around five years away! I know this is true because it's been five years away for quite some time now.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, the Insulate Britain protesters were significantly more courageous than this lot, who can't be botered to get out of their vehicles unless it's to assault someone making some protest they disagree with. Instead they are doing what they normally do everyday - driving around moaning about taxes (and probably about cyclists who jump red lights) - just significantly slower than usual.



Courage isn’t sufficient for an an effective or equitable protest. Going on a flamethrower rampage against random pedestrians in front of the armed police at Downing Street might be seen as courageous, but if it’s to protest about VAT on domestic heating it’s not exactly laudable.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Welcome to the thread, which I see you haven't bothered to read any of.


Thank you for the welcome. When I read the recent part of the thread, I noticed Mr Ed’s posts seem to repetitively mention bad drivers who have lost their emotional control, with the suggestion that this should be a reason to ban car ownership.  I therefore made the helpful suggestion that self driving cars might solve the problem instead.

If you’re interested in improving the situation, I would expect you to welcome this.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's only around five years away! I know this is true because it's been five years away for quite some time now.


From what I understand, Tesla have been making great strides and I for one think computers will do a much better job of piloting heavy dangerous machines than incompetent humans do.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

Watch Elon Musk Promise Self-Driving Cars "Next Year" Every Year Since 2014
					

A new supercut video demonstrates that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been promising that Teslas will drive themselves next year — every year since 2014.




					futurism.com


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Watch Elon Musk Promise Self-Driving Cars "Next Year" Every Year Since 2014
> 
> 
> A new supercut video demonstrates that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been promising that Teslas will drive themselves next year — every year since 2014.
> ...


Well Elon is a well known twonk, so nothing would surprise me. But nevertheless, Tesla have been advancing electric car technology very rapidly.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> a much better job of piloting heavy dangerous machines than incompetent humans do


A key question is how much better will they have to be? A little bit better isn't going to cut it. A lot better might not be acceptable either. I don't think killing hundreds of people every year and maiming tens of thousands is going to be acceptable to the general public, even though many are fine with these figures when it's not the fault of robots. The panic over escooters gives you a preview, even though they're not that risky.



MrCurry said:


> very rapidly


Weird, I'd heard they had come to an unexpected stop.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

Car abolitionists generally hate self-driving cars because they have a fundamental hatred of cars and the personal freedom they enable. Reductions in casualties through self-driving tech, or pollution through electrification are meaningless to them.

On the other hand they'd be quite happy with millions of single-occupancy buses, either self-driving and pollution-free or diesel-powered and driven by untrained morons. Because buses are public transport and all bus-users are equal.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

If I ever meet one of those guys I'll ask them.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

If safe, automated cars are just around the corner, then it would make sense to implement some pragmatic safety measures for human drivers immediately (eg, 20mph limit on all roads everywhere). 

Because automated car will show up any minute now, it would only be a short time that impatient human drivers would have to tolerate these speed restrictions.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> A key question is how much better will they have to be? A little bit better isn't going to cut it. A lot better might not be acceptable either. I don't think killing hundreds of people every year and maiming tens of thousands is going to be acceptable to the general public, even though many are fine with these figures when it's not the fault of robots. The panic over escooters gives you a preview, even though they're not that risky.
> 
> 
> Weird, I'd heard they had come to an unexpected stop.


No doubt there will be bumps in the road and like any technology, getting the last few percent of the functionality will take the longest time. I cant imagine the automated systems could possibly be worse than some of the things I’ve seen on the road from brain-dead humans.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> If safe, automated cars are just around the corner, then it would make sense to implement some pragmatic safety measures for human drivers immediately (eg, 20mph limit on all roads everywhere).
> 
> Because automated car will show up any minute now, it would only be a short time that impatient human drivers would have to tolerate these speed restrictions.


I think you‘re making invalid assumptions about the speed at which self driving cars might become widely available.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> might become widely available


Five years! Promise!


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Car abolitionists generally hate self-driving cars because they have a fundamental hatred of cars and the personal freedom they enable. Reductions in casualties through self-driving tech, or pollution through electrification are meaningless to them.
> 
> On the other hand they'd be quite happy with millions of single-occupancy buses, either self-driving and pollution-free or diesel-powered and driven by untrained morons. Because buses are public transport and all bus-users are equal.


Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.

For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.
> 
> For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.


I suppose like any technology, it will evolve and improve through generations and maybe we shouldn’t be constrained by thinking of the overall road safety as being limited by cars only having available the info which can be perceived from their own viewpoint (eg. In your example “cars can’t anticipate a suddenly appearing pedestrian”).  

What I mean by that is maybe within densely populated zones (city streets) the cars could be under control of a centralised system which has sensors watching from above which would see early enough the actions of the errant pedestrian in your example and apply the brakes of cars which could come into conflict with them if they continue their path out into the road, even though from the car’s point of view they are hidden from view.

But this is no doubt a good length of time from being even planned, let alone implemented, so I’m sure you’re right in what you said above that autonomous cars as we currently understand them can never be foolproof or entirely safe. I wouldn’t betting they’ll be an absolutely huge improvement on some current drivers though.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

It's pretty simple in principle - you programme into the system that cyclists, pedestrians and indeed all other road users are liable to move in unexpected ways. Then it deals with this appropriately, primarily by drving at a speed at which it's possible to stop within the distance ahead verified to be clear at any one point. Of course, any good human driver also assumes that other road users might behave in unexpected ways, just like the Highway Code instructs them to.

You can always tell an incompetent driver from the fact that they complain about other people acting in unpredictable ways.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Dunno, plenty of people seem to think drivers are on the whole too dangerous, and that autonomous cars are god-sent and will get rid of road casualties. Ironically (deliciously so), the single biggest obstacle to self-driving cars becoming sufficiently reliable is the very people who would like them to become a reality asap, namely many of those cyclists and militant anti-car pedestrians. No computer software, current or expected in the foreesable future, can cope with the fact that cyclists don't obey the same rules as motorised traffic and basically are too unpredictable due to their tendency to do whatever the fuck they please at all times. Ditto pedestrians who seem to have forgotten, or never learned in the first place, to check for traffic before suddenly appearing on the road between two parked vehicles so no vehicle can spot them until the very last second.
> 
> For self-driving cars to become failproof, cyclists will need to start to obey the Highway Code, and pedestrians take the courtesy to look before they cross a road instead of expecting it's their inalienable right to do so without looking, or expecting their rights supersede the laws of physics. So in this country at least, don't expect to see fail-proof autonomous cars on our roads in our lifetime.


Yet again showing how utterly backwards this thinking is.

Should we have cities designed for people? No, cars must have priority, everyone else must act according to the needs of traffic. 

Mental.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

Surely automated passenger airliners will come first. The tech is already here, it's just insurance, passenger confidence and safety protocols which are in the way. 

However since automated airliners aren’t entering commercial service any time soon, I think we can forget about self-driving cars for the foreseeable.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> densely populated zones (city streets) the cars could be under control of a centralised system


These are cheaper and not science fiction.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yet again showing how utterly backwards this thinking is.
> 
> Should we have cities designed for people? No, cars must have priority, everyone else must act according to the needs of traffic.
> 
> Mental.



You might not realise it but cars are driven by people, ridden in by people, and serve to transport people.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You might not realise it but cars are driven by people, ridden in by people, and serve to transport people.


I fear it may be unwise for you to admit that people in cars can often get around without cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I fear it may be unwise for you to admit that people in cars can often get around without cars.



Why? People on bikes can get around without bikes. Pedestrians on pavements can get around without pavements. Who needs shoes?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Fuel price protesters using similar tactics to Inuslate Britain to highlight their concerns today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reckon fuel prices must be too low if people are willing to drive around pointlessly trying to protest.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Reckon fuel prices must be too low if people are willing to drive around pointlessly trying to protest.



Do you also use that logic to claim wages must be too high if people are willing to forego them by striking?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Thank you for the welcome. When I read the recent part of the thread, I noticed Mr Ed’s posts seem to repetitively mention bad drivers who have lost their emotional control, with the suggestion that this should be a reason to ban car ownership.  I therefore made the helpful suggestion that self driving cars might solve the problem instead.
> 
> If you’re interested in improving the situation, I would expect you to welcome this.


Self driving cars definitely sounds like a solution but not here yet so I suggest we ban cars in the meantime. Thanks


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Well Elon is a well known twonk, so nothing would surprise me. But nevertheless, Tesla have been advancing electric car technology very rapidly.


Seriously, listen to this. Tesla are nowhere near having self driving cars and are basically a fraudulent company.


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yet again showing how utterly backwards this thinking is.
> 
> Should we have cities designed for people? No, cars must have priority, everyone else must act according to the needs of traffic.
> 
> Mental.


It's not a question of priority at all. It's a question of accepting that all type of road users should try to adhere to a set of rules designed for safety, rather than with a sense of entitlement in mind.

Last I checked, cars are not allowed to ride in the pavement, and must adhere to travelling on the carriageway only, while pedestrians have the pavement all to themselves (or sometimes shared with cyclists) to travel safely from vehicles on the road. It is not backwards or oppressive in any way to suggest that on those occasions when a pedestrian needs to leave the pavement and cross the carriageway, they should look before doing so, instead of behaving as if drivers (or Tesla computers) are granted X-ray vision by God Almighty so pedestrians don't need to concern themselves with such trivialities as checking for incoming traffic before they suddenly materialise on the carriageway between two parked vans so nobody could see them until they merrily step onto the road.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> they suddenly materialise on the carriageway between two parked vans


You're going too fast.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Seriously, listen to this. Tesla are nowhere near having self driving cars and are basically a fraudulent company.




This is bollocks. 

Listen to what the guy says between -35.52 and -35.10; and then listen to what he says from -26.47 for aboout 20 waffly seconds.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is bollocks.
> 
> Listen to what the guy says between -35.52 and -35.10; and then listen to what he says from -26.47 for aboout 20 waffly seconds.


Glad you listened! You’ll have to break it down for me though - is this the boring company bit? That’s obviously a shit idea and a complete failure.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Glad you listened! You’ll have to break it down for me though - is this the boring company bit?



No. It's completely contradictory though.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

Another unashamed anti-car propaganda failure then. This thread really hasn't delivered.


----------



## maomao (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> pedestrians have the pavement all to themselves


Except when there's fucking cars on it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

Which of these is the most human-centric welcoming environment for people, including pedestrians?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

I'm going with the buses over the fiction.


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> You're going too fast.


They're being idiots.


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

maomao said:


> Except when there's fucking cars on it.


Which affects about 0.0001% of pavement space in the UK.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

This fella really isn’t the smartest… Reckon it’s platinumsage


----------



## maomao (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Which affects about 0.0001% of pavement space in the UK.


That's not even true in London where it's actually 'illegal*' to park on the pavement. 

*Illegal as in even if someone is arsed to give you a ticket you can normally get out of paying just by contesting it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This fella really isn’t the smartest… Reckon it’s platinumsage




Why is he not smart? Is it his accent?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why is he not smart? Is it his accent?


The fact he’s being filmed whilst using his phone and driving isn’t a great start - not really surprised you didn’t spot that tbh.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The fact he’s being filmed whilst using his phone and driving isn’t a great start - not really surprised you didn’t spot that tbh.



Why do you think he's driving? No doubt the van is propelled using a tow dolly, common in the movie industry for filming scenes in moving vehicles.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why do you think he's driving? No doubt the van is propelled using a tow dolly, common in the movie industry for filming scenes in moving vehicles.


👏👏👏 Back on top form - well done!👍


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> They're being idiots.


So what? Slow down.


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> So what? Slow down.


Or they can simply cross the road at designated places to avoid any mishaps, instead of thinking the world revolves among them.

The sooner we start to educate people away from the breathtakingly stupid and appalling concept that pedestrians should not need to exercise caution or use common sense when crossing a road because the burden of responsibility should fall squarely on the other party, the more lives will be saved.

Should trains slow down to 5 mph at every single level crossing too, lest a pedestrian wishes to exercise their wish to walk across transport highways without bothering to check for incoming traffic as so many of them already do on roads? And if not, why?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

So many shit drivers outing themselves in this thread.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

An interesting opinion for sure. The US’s jaywalking laws target people of colour. They should be abolished



edcraw said:


> So many shit drivers outing themselves in this thread.


Curious if it's some kind of false flag operation. It fits the thread either way.


----------



## maomao (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> The sooner we bring jaywalking legislation to this country, the more lives will be saved.


Doesn't work in the US where despite jaywalking laws the rate of pedestrian deaths is far higher. It just increases driver entitlement.


----------



## maomao (Jul 4, 2022)

This is what the car wankers want:









						Grieving Mother Faces 36 Months In Jail For Jaywalking After Son Is Killed By Hit-And-Run Driver
					

We need to start holding prosecutors accountable for bringing unjust charges like those just brought against an Atlanta mother -- even if they may technically be legally permissible.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Grieving mothers locked up for longer than the drunk drivers that kill their children.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 4, 2022)

We have a two-tier system in this country. Jaywalking on the railway = jail.









						Havant woman jailed for 70 days for trespassing at Bedhampton railway station
					

A WOMAN has been jailed after trespassing on a railway more than 50 times.




					www.portsmouth.co.uk


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 4, 2022)

I bet you could walk on the railway and not get the jail.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 4, 2022)

There’s absolutely no way that Level 5 self-driving is anything close to five years away.  I’m not convinced it is as close as 50 years away.  And Teslas?  Teslas are still absolutely shit at self-driving, e.g. they’ll still occasionally swerve towards oncoming traffic even on basic roads, let alone deal with anything genuinely complex.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

😂 there’s something about cars that seems to really mess some folk up!


----------



## Elpenor (Jul 4, 2022)

Are the drivers all on steroids round there?

There is a passing space in the parking bays either side just needs one of them to yield. How would they get on in the countryside where plenty of lanes are only the width of one car?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Are the drivers all on steroids round there?
> 
> There is a passing space in the parking bays either side just needs one of them to yield. How would they get on in the countryside where plenty of lanes are only the width of one car?


Macho status bollocks - so much of it about.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Should trains slow down to 5 mph at every single level crossing too, lest a pedestrian wishes to exercise their wish to walk across transport highways without bothering to check for incoming traffic as so many of them already do on roads? And if not, why?


Really tricky question.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

The first guy here commutes by car to London from Cornwall! WTF!!









						‘It feels like a tipping point’: drivers on the soaring petrol and diesel prices
					

Average costs of 191.5p a litre for petrol and 199.0p for diesel are having a serious impact, especially in poorly connected areas




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Really tricky question.


It certainly should be for the anti- car fundamentalists in here who regularly argue pedestrians can never ever possibly be at fault under any conceivable circumstance if hit by a car since they’re the vulnerable party.

Doesn’t get much more vulnerable than a pedestrian vs a 300-ton genocide machine train now, does it?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

Definitely think we should put T & P in charge of urban planning. 8ft fences along all roads and barriers at pedestrian crossings ftw!!!


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Definitely think we should put T & P in charge of urban planning. 8ft fences along all roads and barriers at pedestrian crossings ftw!!!


Surely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.

So how do you feel about pedestrians and cyclists accidentally injured or killed at level crossings? Because anyone who seriously contests that peds can’t ever be held responsible or at fault in a collision with a car regardless of circumstances simply because they are the more vulnerable party can’t possibly suggest it should be any different at level crossings. Why should a fragile ped be expected to stop at the edge of a rail crossing and look for approaching trains? 

I look forward to your (and teuchter ’s) explanation of why peds’ behaviour and burden of responsibility should be any different when crossing a set of railway tracks  and crossing a busy road.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Surely you are aware that there are hundreds if not thousands of railway level crossings in this country fully accessible to pedestrians, right? Some of them don’t even have barriers at all. Others do, but the barriers are designed to stop vehicles and any pedestrian or cyclist can simply walk through the generous gap left.
> 
> So how do you feel about pedestrians and cyclists accidentally injured or killed at level crossings? Because anyone who seriously contests that peds can’t ever be held responsible or at fault in a collision with a car regardless of circumstances simply because they are the more vulnerable party can’t possibly suggest it should be any different at level crossings. Why should a fragile ped be expected to stop at the edge of a rail crossing and look for approaching trains?
> 
> I look forward to your (and teuchter ’s) explanation of why peds’ behaviour and burden of responsibility should be any different when crossing a set of railway tracks  and crossing a busy road.


Really giving platinumsage a run for his money here 👍


----------



## T & P (Jul 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Really giving platinumsage a run for his money here 👍


I notice you are dodging the question…


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2022)

Right, I've been thinking about this conundrum that t&p has raised and I think I've got a solution. All those railways that run along in between the fronts of houses and shops and stuff, you know the kind where you just want to get from your front door to the bus stop ten metres away on the other side of the high speed railway that seems to be running just beyond your gate, or when you want to just cross over from the newsagent to the dentist on the other side, the other side of the mainline railway with heavy  trains hurtling along it, that kind of thing, where two rows of shops and other services have been built facing each other across the railway line as if there's some kind of expectation that people will want to get between them. That kind of situation where for some reason a railway line has been built between them and you have to walk two miles to the next level crossing and then back up again. Or maybe you want to walk into town but to get there you have to cross ten or twenty of these rail lines at rail line crossings or junctions to get there. Those kinds of scenarios.
Well I reckon those kind of situations, we should make them a special kind of railway, where the trains that run on them run at a slow speed, and the rail lines are kind of built into a paved surface that pedestrians and even cars can also use. And they should be driven on sight, like a bus, not following signalling systems that tell the driver the route far ahead is clear and free of obstruction. And they should have things like magnetic brakes which mean they can stop more quickly than a normal train, almost as quickly as a bus or a car can.
Maybe this is all just a crazy idea but anyway maybe we can think of a special name for these kinds of railways.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> I notice you are dodging the question…


Because it’s a stupid question. Stupid and pro-car seems to go hand in hand.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> .
> Well I reckon those kind of situations, we should make them a special kind of railway, where the trains that run on them run at a slow speed, and the rail lines are kind of built into a paved surface that pedestrians and even cars can also use. And they should be driven on sight, like a bus, not following signalling systems that tell the driver the route far ahead is clear and free of obstruction. And they should have things like magnetic brakes which mean they can stop more quickly than a normal train, almost as quickly as a bus or a car can.
> Maybe this is all just a crazy idea but anyway maybe we can think of a special name for these kinds of railways.



There‘s no safe speed for those kind of railways:

”The results show that the fatal risk of hitting pedestrians by a tram running at a speed of 50 km/h is two and a half times greater than that by a car. Research clearly proves that comparing to car impact speed, there is much higher probability of death when pedestrian is hit by a tram running at a speed of 30 km/h – almost 40% (compared to 5% when hit by car). There are even cases of deaths with a very low speed of tram (5–10 km/h).

Cities around the world reconstruct their transport infrastructure, sometimes taking experiments with new ideas, such as shared spaces or Tempo-30 zones with tram and bus traffic. Therefore, knowledge of “safe speeds” of PT vehicles is essential to avoid infrastructure errors that may result in death and serious injuries. On the other hand, light rails around the world are one of the key transport modes within the sustainable mobility, thus their speed and the ensuing from this time travel should not be low. Therefore, the speed limit values for trams in “vehicle – pedestrian” conflict areas should be reasonable, i.e., determined as a *compromise between pedestrian safety and acceptable travel time in the tram.*”









						Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of tram impact speed
					

The objective of the presented research-work was to develop a model to describe the risk of fatal accident involving tram and pedestrian. This study extends research concerning relationships between the “impact speed” and probability of pedestrian death in case of tram accident. Over 400...




					www.degruyter.com


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 5, 2022)

Let’s ban anything that moves that might hit people. Everyone should walk everywhere, barefoot of course so the particulates from their shoe soles don’t kill anyone.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

Are there actually ANY competent drivers out there?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
> 
> View attachment 330599



At that rate there will still be 20% of today’s car ownership by 2122. I suspect boat ownership will have risen accordingly by then.


----------



## T & P (Jul 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Because it’s a stupid question. Stupid and pro-car seems to go hand in hand.


Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.

So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?


----------



## T & P (Jul 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
> 
> View attachment 330599


Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.

Which brings me nicely to the other question you have consistently refused to answer. Are you against car ownership, or all private car use including hire and club car vehicles? Please answer this time.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.
> 
> So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?


Amazing that after 7,800 posts on this thread you are still struggling to understand really basic stuff, like "drivers should be ready for pedestrians to do unexpected things" does not equal "pedestrians should not have to look at all before crossing a road".

Like the goldfish in a bowl you'll return to this argument again in another 20 pages or so, having entirely forgotten what was explained to you the last time you brought it up.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Nowhere nearly as stupid that the indescribably daft and plain dangerous sentiment that as the most vulnerable user of all, a pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a road, which you seem to adhere to.
> 
> So I'll ask you again: if you believe pedestrians should not have to look at all, let alone yield to oncoming traffic on roads, why should they behave any differently on level crossings, certainly those that are not govened by barriers and which allow pedestrians to cross the tracks legally at all times?


Okay, yes, pedestrians should pay attention but also we should reduce the risk posed by cars - slow speed limits, LTNs to stop rat running, more zebra crossing, remove parking to help sight lines etc etc

Much nicer than the alternatives of prioritising traffic by stopping where pedestrians can cross with fences & footbridges which we tried for years don’t you think?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

T & P said:


> Er, no we won't. Because as car ownership decreases, car club share use will increase. The overall number of cars on towns and cities might be somewhat reduced to a moderate degree at best, but you will never, ever be rid of them.
> 
> Which brings me nicely to the other question you have consistently refused to answer. Are you against car ownership, or all private car use including hire and club car vehicles? Please answer this time.


I’m not against car ownership or cars generally just that we should stop prioritising them.

The backlash we’ve had against LTNs in Lambeth is truly pathetic and shows how entitled  & selfish tons of motorists are.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I’m not against car ownership or cars generally



Do you just make up random opinions on the spot?



edcraw said:


> We’ve tried that for cars & it hasn’t worked. Ban ➡️





edcraw said:


> we need a total and complete ban on cars





edcraw said:


> Fuck it - actually, let’s really just ban cars!





edcraw said:


> I suggest we ban cars


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Do you just make up random opinions on the spot?


🤣 difficult to tell which is more amusing - the amount of effort you’ve gone to to get those quotes together or the fact you take everything people say on message boards literally! 😜


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see car ownership decreasing across London. We’ll get there eventually!
> 
> View attachment 330599



This is one trend I’m delighted to see. More space on the roads for me.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 5, 2022)

This article is an informative read for any grown ups interested in considering the relationship between pedestrians and motorists in urban areas and for any grown ups who still think that American style "jaywalking" rules are something worth considering seriously.









						When Cities Made Monuments to Traffic Deaths
					

A century ago, cars killed pedestrians and cyclists in record numbers. As traffic deaths rise again, it’s time to remember how US cities once responded to this safety crisis.




					www.bloomberg.com
				






> For more than 90 years, there has been a tacit agreement in the US to treat the right to walk as dispensable, and to treat each death in traffic as an individual loss to be grieved privately, behind closed doors. These responses to the dangers of walking and biking have kept deaths among pedestrians and cyclists out of public view. They have promoted a tendency to attribute such deaths to individual failures for which individuals alone — reckless drivers or careless pedestrians — are responsible.
> 
> But a century ago, judges defended pedestrians’ rights in city streets. The convenience of drivers was no grounds for infringing these rights. Any motorist driving too fast to avoid injuring or killing a pedestrian was regarded as speeding. Deaths to pedestrians, and especially to children, were regarded as intolerable public losses to be publicly grieved by the whole community.
> 
> These ceremonies made public issues out of private losses, and committed whole cities to making walking safer, even at a high cost to drivers’ convenience. They also signified that pedestrian safety was not to be secured at the cost of pedestrian rights; a city had to accommodate walking at least as much as it accommodated driving. From this perspective, a pedestrian’s death was never just the fault of a careless walker or a reckless driver. It reflected the failure of a city to defend the right to walk.






> Among automotive interest groups — then sometimes known as “motordom” — this was not a price they were willing to pay. Even in city safety campaigns, motordom sometimes ridiculed the monuments to the victims of violent death in the streets. A float in Washington D.C.’s Safety Week include a mock grave for “A. J. Walker.” At a parade for Detroit’s Safety Week in May 1923, the Packard Motor Car Company entered a float bearing a sham tombstone that resembled Baltimore’s monument. Its inscription read: “Erected to the Memory of Mr. J. Walker. He Stepped from the Curb without Looking.” The Detroit Automobile Club awarded Packard a silver cup for this float.





> As efforts to restrict driving grew, motordom intensified its opposition. Two weeks before the _Post-Dispatch_ editorial that warned of “mechanical restrictions” to reduce speed, Cincinnati voters considered a ballot proposition that would have required car owners to equip their vehicles with speed governors preventing them from exceeding 25 miles per hour. About 42,000 city residents had signed petitions to get the initiative on the ballot. With the help of the auto industry, local interest groups organized a successful “Vote No” campaign.
> 
> The threat of mandatory mechanical speed limitation convinced motordom that it had to change how traffic safety was defined. Two months after the vote in Cincinnati, Fred Caley, the head of the National Motorists Association, denounced the safety monuments. A competitor to the American Automobile Association with about 350 member clubs, NMA was striving to prove itself the better national advocate for motorists’ interests. The safety monuments, Caley said in a press release, are “the most fanatical safety plan conceived within recent years.” He called them “memorials to the stupidity displayed in accident prevention.”



Some of these quotes from a hundred years ago could easily have been written by certain contributors to this thread - the ones who want to impose authoritarian regulations on pedestrians.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 5, 2022)

I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.

Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:



At least in the UK we strike a reasonable balance when it comes to such things and you can relax with your family on any typical sandy beach without being worried about getting run over.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 5, 2022)

Did you know that in other places some things are better but some things are not better?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 5, 2022)

It's nonsense anyway - there are several beaches in the UK that you're allowed to park or drive on.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 5, 2022)

I do like the admission that cars make places unpleasant and dangerous. Fits well with the thread.


----------



## maomao (Jul 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I do like the admission that cars make places unpleasant and dangerous. Fits well with the thread.


I'd always assumed his arguments are so shit because he's trying to be undercover anti-car and make the rest of them look bad (not that they need help).


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.
> 
> Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:
> 
> ...


So you’re accepting cars can be a problem!! Welcome to the war on cars!!


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's nonsense anyway - there are several beaches in the UK that you're allowed to park or drive on.


yes, I recommend Berrow Sands.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 6, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Tesla have been making great strides




I guess one way of reducing the percentage of fatal crashes is to introduce new types of crashing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2022)

This chap should be applauded for reducing congestion and pollution...

Hero of Hampshire


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This chap should be applauded for reducing congestion and pollution...
> 
> Hero of Hampshire



This is what happens when cyclists drive cars.


----------



## T & P (Jul 7, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is what happens when cyclists drive cars.


Absolutely. Riding on pavements to avoid stopping at traffic lights at junctions is the most cyclist thing ever.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2022)

The better infrastructure we provide for cyclists, the less likely it will be that they are tempted to drive a car. Isn't that a no-brainer we can all agree on?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The better infrastructure we provide for cyclists, the less likely it will be that they are tempted to drive a car. Isn't that a no-brainer we can all agree on?



Of course not. Most lycra-wearing cyclists don't use cycle facilities anyway, and enjoy driving their Audis when they're not using public roads as their personal gyms.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Of course not. Most lycra-wearing cyclists don't use cycle facilities anyway, and enjoy driving their Audis when they're not using public roads as their personal gyms.


Ok. We need to heavily restrict car use in order to discourage cyclists from driving cars.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Of course not. Most lycra-wearing cyclists don't use cycle facilities anyway, and enjoy driving their Audis when they're not using public roads as their personal gyms.


There are facebook groups where they absolutely love this kind of act if you want to tour it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Ok. We need to heavily restrict car use in order to discourage cyclists from driving cars.



No, simply make it illegal to do both - everyone should decide a mode of transport and stick with it. Lycra louts will choose Audis, the young folks doing wheelies will choose motor scooters, the hippies will choose their diesel camper vans, commuters will choose the bus in case it rains and we won’t need any cycle facilities at all.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Of course not. Most lycra-wearing cyclists don't use cycle facilities anyway, and enjoy driving their Audis when they're not using public roads as their personal gyms.


You need to stop watching Piers Morgan mate.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

Question: are all pro-car people right-wing nuts or just the ones on here?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Lycra louts


Needs a column of celebrity stories on the right of the page for this to work properly.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Question: are all pro-car people right-wing nuts or just the ones on here?



Are all pro-house people right-wing nuts on here? There's a few who want everyone to live in muddy fields with no shelter, presumbly they're the only true left-wingers.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Are all pro-house people right-wing nuts on here? There's a few who want everyone to live in muddy fields with no shelter, presumbly they're the only true left-wingers.


Must be a sad day for you with BoJo off…


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

Hilarious how a couple of people on this thread think that not wanting private ownership of cars to be banned (as has only happened in North Korea) makes someone some sort of far-right clown.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Question: are all pro-car people right-wing nuts or just the ones on here?



Yes.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> some sort of far-right clown.


Don't worry mate, I don't think you're far right.


----------



## maomao (Jul 7, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Don't worry mate, I don't think you're far right.


He's not right about anything.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Hilarious how a couple of people on this thread think that not wanting private ownership of cars to be banned (as has only happened in North Korea) makes someone some sort of far-right clown.


There’s definitely something very Brexity about you - being a huge Clarkson fan doesn’t help either.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> There’s definitely something very Brexity about you - being a huge Clarkson fan doesn’t help either.



I'm not a fan of him at all, unlike most Urbanites who have been fawning over him on the thread about his farming show, including I might add several supposed anti-car posters from this thread.

But I guess the world is black & white to you, Clarkson types vs LibDem cyclofascists like you.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not a fan of him at all, unlike most Urbanites who have been fawning over him on the thread about his farming show, including I might add several supposed anti-car posters from this thread.
> 
> But I guess the world is black & white to you, Clarkson types vs LibDem cyclofascists like you.


Apologies - definitely Brexity though.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Apologies - definitely Brexity though.



No, but now I know you're definitely a LibDem.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, but now I know you're definitely a LibDem.


See you as Nadine Dorries to Spymaster ’s Johnson tbh…


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> See you as Nadine Dorries to Spymaster ’s Johnson tbh…



I’m far too successful. Every night Bojo goes to sleep wishing he was me.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

A few more illegitimate children and he'll have caught up.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

Not enough people take the piss out of my apparent dyslexia on here for me to be Nadine Dorries


----------



## T & P (Jul 7, 2022)

Boris is a keen cyclist by the way. Just saying.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

If you’re pissing Kirstie Allsopp off you must be doing something right!!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If you’re pissing Kirstie Allsopp off you must be doing something right!!




Interesting that you think Boris Johnson was right to fly to Cornwall rather than travel by train:









						Kirstie Allsopp tells PM to 'take the train mate' amid G7 travel
					

An MP on BBC Radio 4 this morning let slip Boris Johnson's travel plans, while also speaking about a £60 million investment for Cornish towns




					www.cornwalllive.com


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Interesting that you think Boris Johnson was right to fly to Cornwall rather than travel by train:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


😜 okay Nadine


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I hope the anti-carists on this thread are counting their lucky stars they don't live in a more pro-car country than the UK, such as Denmark.
> 
> Here's a typical Danish beach, and yes, those are all cars:
> 
> ...


This is nonsense and you know it.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

T & P said:


> Boris is a keen cyclist by the way. Just saying.


You know who else was a vegetarian? Eh? Eh? Eh??!


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 7, 2022)

Helping the elderly access the internet was a mistake.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 8, 2022)

A good point at the end about the disproportionate impact on the working class:









						The pernicious creep of the 20mph zone | The Spectator
					

‘Twenty is plenty’ say the passive-aggressive road signs as you drive very slowly through 20mph zones all over Britain. The slogan is accompanied by a cartoon drawing of a snail. Then you get a frowny-frowny-frowny electronic sign and you slow from 25 to 20 to make it turn into a smiley face...




					www.spectator.co.uk


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jul 8, 2022)

No. It’s not good point as to why speed limits are a bad thing. it’s tenuous at best. 
It’s a good point as to why capitalism is a bad thing.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A good point at the end about the disproportionate impact on the working class:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


platinumsage: I’m not right wing.

Also platinumsage: Here’s an article from The Spectator.

Alright Nadine 😜


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

Also love the faux concern for Deliveroo drivers. Yeah it’s 20mph limits that makes their jobs shitty!

The pro-car lot really are right wing nutters.

The lack of self awareness is truly deafening. No wonder your fellow Piers Morgan wannabes have deserted this thread!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Those 20mph limits are just frankly awful aren’t they? I mean I don’t mind, it’s those poor little felllows on those Deliveroo scooters I feel sorry for. It’s awful, just awful.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The lack of self awareness is truly deafing.



Nothing like a good deafing.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Stop picking on Nadine.


I really hate it when people edit their posts after someone’s quoted them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 8, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 331294



Straight out of your wank bank, Ed?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2022)

Jeremy Vine speaks for us all as usual.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 8, 2022)

I was all for reducing road deaths but then I heard Vespas are less fun.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 11, 2022)

This is typical of anti-car propagandists. Cite some harm and claim total elimination of the chosen target as the best and most desirable option, and that such elimination is viable and the method to achieve it is effective (e.g. buses4all).

However when the detail is analsyed, the aim (eradication) is found to unachievable and undesirable,  and the method half-baked and unworkable. The benefits of the target are ignored, and elimination not justified by the harms caused.









						Scientists design contraceptives to limit grey squirrels
					

The project's aim is to help protect ecosystems and native red squirrel populations.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If you’re pissing Kirstie Allsopp off you must be doing something right!!



What a numpty she is.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Cite some harm and claim total elimination of the chosen target as the best and most desirable option, and that such elimination is viable and the method to achieve it is effective (e.g. buses4all).
> 
> However when the detail is analsyed, the aim (eradication) is found to unachievable and undesirable,  and the method half-baked and unworkable. The benefits of the target are ignored, and elimination not justified by the harms caused.


Sounds like the attempts throughout most of the 20th century to reduce road congestion by building more roads.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> This is typical of anti-car propagandists. Cite some harm and claim total elimination of the chosen target as the best and most desirable option, and that such elimination is viable and the method to achieve it is effective (e.g. buses4all).
> 
> However when the detail is analsyed, the aim (eradication) is found to unachievable and undesirable,  and the method half-baked and unworkable. The benefits of the target are ignored, and elimination not justified by the harms caused.
> 
> ...


Nads - you do realise you’ve posted a link about squirrels yeah?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 11, 2022)

I guess the driver might have been distracted by a grey squirrel:









						Woman dead after bus crashes into shelter at Piccadilly
					

Three people were struck by the bus, according to GMP




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jul 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I guess the driver might have been distracted by a grey squirrel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Squirel contraceptives, bus crashes - think you’ve got the wrong thread Nads.


----------



## Chz (Jul 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What a numpty she is.
> 
> View attachment 331669


I'm surprised anyone even bothered to engage with her. One of the few non-politicians to manage to be on my "utter, irredeemable cunt" list.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 11, 2022)

The stories are all f***ing nuts obviously.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 11, 2022)

Looks like this thread is having a very real effect!!









						The big idea: should cars be banned from cities?
					

Streets have been optimised for one thing: traffic. A kind of ‘urban rewilding’ could return them to the complex social ecosystems they once were




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Looks like this thread is having a very real effect!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



An article published by the Guardian and written by two people who are residents of the Netherlands does not equate to any sort of effect on transport policy in the UK.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> An article published by the Guardian and written by two people who are residents of the Netherlands does not equate to any sort of effect on transport policy in the UK.


This is just the kind of comment someone would write if they were really worried that UK transport policy was swinging towards a horrifying north korea style approach where the urban environment was designed for disgusting pedestrians instead of superior beings entombed within vast, gleaming Volvos.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 12, 2022)

Disappointed to see Rob Stewart come out against cycle lanes.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> This is just the kind of comment someone would write if they were really worried that UK transport policy was swinging towards a horrifying north korea style approach where the urban environment was designed for disgusting pedestrians instead of superior beings entombed within vast, gleaming Volvos.



Have you been to North Korea? The urban environment is designed for cars but there aren’t any. Gleaming Volvos for all would improve life for everyone, and I’m sure would be preferred by the population compared to ripping up the roads and making everyone walk around in the mud.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have you been to North Korea? The urban environment is designed for cars but there aren’t any. Gleaming Volvos for all would improve life for everyone, and I’m sure would be preferred by the population compared to ripping up the roads and making everyone walk around in the mud.


Every sensible person: We should ban cars.

platinumsage: yOuR jUsT LiKe NoRtH kOrEA.

Also platinumsage: North Korea is the perfect country it just needs a few more cars.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 12, 2022)

So many drivers regularly break the law that Lambeth has issued £22m in fines. A real indictment of how terrible so many drivers are.









						Lambeth: £22m in low-traffic fines an abuse of power, say campaigners
					

Lambeth Council made £22m fining drivers for entering controversial low-traffic neighbourhood zones.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So many drivers regularly break the law that Lambeth has issued £22m in fines. A real indictment of how terrible so many drivers are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




BuT cYcLiStS RuN rEd LiGhTs


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

Those fines were probably mostly paid by disabled people who had no choice because they were being experimented on:

"Sofia Sheakh, a disabled Lambeth resident who is 'heavily reliant' on her car, lost a High Court battle against Lambeth Council last year.

She had argued the authority had failed to consult residents properly over the introduction of LTNs, which had 'negative impacts' on those with disabilities.

But a High Court judge ruled the scheme was 'a genuine experiment'."


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 12, 2022)

Can you expand on "no choice", please?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Those fines were probably mostly paid by disabled people who had no choice because they were being experimented on:
> 
> "Sofia Sheakh, a disabled Lambeth resident who is 'heavily reliant' on her car, lost a High Court battle against Lambeth Council last year.
> 
> ...


OneLambeth spent £55k on failed legal cases with none of the donors actually mentioning anything about people with disabilities or any disability charities supporting their action. Pretty distasteful of the selfish drivers tbh. If they were smart they could have used that money a lot more effectively rather than just handing it over to lawyers.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Can you expand on "no choice", please?



No


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

No doubt all the anti-car people will vote Conservative if Nadhim Zahawi wins the leadership - anything to reduce the number of drivers must be good, right?









						Nadhim Zahawi to ban drug dealers from road
					

Drug dealers would be banned from driving for two years under a set of crime-fighting policies to be unveiled by Nadhim Zahawi today.All offenders convicted of




					www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2022)

_All offenders convicted of any “vehicle-enabled” crime would also have their licence revoked,_

Sounds good to me - get speeding drivers off the road, which should reduce the number of cars by about 80%.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> _All offenders convicted of any “vehicle-enabled” crime would also have their licence revoked,_
> 
> Sounds good to me - get speeding drivers off the road, which should reduce the number of cars by about 80%.



He's probably talking about armed robbery and suchlike. Nevertheless it's good to know what sort of Tory you would vote for.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No


Got it. Just say things, it doesn't matter.

On that road you can drive in one direction and get fined, or drive in the other direction and not get fined. I reckon that's a choice.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 12, 2022)

The pro car lot are basically our version of the NRA. (That doesn’t make you Charlton Heston platinumsage )


----------



## IC3D (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No doubt all the anti-car people will vote Conservative if Nadhim Zahawi wins the leadership - anything to reduce the number of drivers must be good, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The pro car lot are basically our version of the NRA. (That doesn’t make you Charlton Heston platinumsage )




I couldn't imagine anyone doing that in a Volvo...


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 12, 2022)

I've heard of that, it's called aphantasia.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

Tour de France disrupted by climate protesters
					

The blockade was claimed by activist group Dernière Rénovation, which had previously protested at the French Open.




					www.politico.eu


----------



## maomao (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Tour de France disrupted by climate protesters
> 
> 
> The blockade was claimed by activist group Dernière Rénovation, which had previously protested at the French Open.
> ...


Good. It's a parade of vans, cars and motorbike cameramen anyway. They shouldn't be allowed support vehicles.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 12, 2022)

They’d still rely on roads, since they’re using road bikes.

Should be muddy fields and no machinery at all:





__





						The National Cross Country Championships | English Cross Country Association
					






					www.englishcrosscountry.co.uk


----------



## kabbes (Jul 12, 2022)

They don’t even have baskets on the front of their bikes


----------



## maomao (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They’d still rely on roads, since they’re using road bikes.
> 
> Should be muddy fields and no machinery at all:
> 
> ...


There were roads before there were cars but apart from that we're in agreement.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Tour de France disrupted by climate protesters
> 
> 
> The blockade was claimed by activist group Dernière Rénovation, which had previously protested at the French Open.
> ...


I failed to see how this fit the thread until I read it.

"Italian cyclist Alberto Bettiol, who was leading the race in the Haute-Savoie region of eastern France, managed to swerve around the protesters"

Fair enough.


----------



## maomao (Jul 12, 2022)

Very good news from Wales. A third of the way to my desired speed limit for cars.









						Wales to lower default national speed limit to 20mph
					

The reductions are being trialled in eight communities but will be rolled out nationally in 2023




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Tour de France disrupted by climate protesters
> 
> 
> The blockade was claimed by activist group Dernière Rénovation, which had previously protested at the French Open.
> ...


Good to see you support climate activists. Maybe you’re not a complete prat.


----------



## tommers (Jul 13, 2022)

BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month
					

Now being sold in South Korea, the UK, and elsewhere




					www.theverge.com
				




$18 a month for heated seats!?!

Anything to make that shiny metal box more comfortable.


----------



## Chz (Jul 13, 2022)

tommers said:


> BMW starts selling heated seat subscriptions for $18 a month
> 
> 
> Now being sold in South Korea, the UK, and elsewhere
> ...


I really don't see the problem with that. So long as they offer an "unlimited" option, how is it worse than paying up front? They get to reduce the number of different configurations they make, which makes it easier to buy one off the forecourt because all of them will have heated seats and it's up to you to decide if you want it or not. Better yet, you can _change your mind_.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

Chz said:


> I really don't see the problem with that. So long as they offer an "unlimited" option, how is it worse than paying up front? They get to reduce the number of different configurations they make, which makes it easier to buy one off the forecourt because all of them will have heated seats and it's up to you to decide if you want it or not. Better yet, you can _change your mind_.



Who do you think pays the additional cost for all the cars to be manufactured with all the options? The consumer of course. Lots of cars being driven around with unused kit is wasteful and expensive.


----------



## maomao (Jul 13, 2022)

Best way to keep BMW seats warm is to set fire to the BMW.


----------



## Chz (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who do you think pays the additional cost for all the cars to be manufactured with all the options? The consumer of course. Lots of cars being driven around with unused kit is wasteful and expensive.


They save just as much money by manufacturing fewer configurations and not having unpopular ones sit around on lots for longer. Plus I don't believe for one instant that the sticker price of a BMW bears any relation to its construction cost.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who do you think pays the additional cost for all the cars to be manufactured with all the options? The consumer of course. Lots of cars being driven around with unused kit is wasteful and expensive.


Quite bizarre to be concerned about the wastefulness of some resistance wires in a seat when one of the fundamental problems of cars is that they are massive lumps of material resources that sit around unused for most of their existence - taking up space that could be put to more socially beneficial uses.

What's wasteful is kit that is unused 95% of the time, which is why we should get rid of private ownership of cars and have a much reduced pool for communal use instead.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Quite bizarre to be concerned about the wastefulness of some resistance wires in a seat when one of the fundamental problems of cars is that they are massive lumps of material resources that sit around unused for most of their existence - taking up space that could be put to more socially beneficial uses.
> 
> What's wasteful is kit that is unused 95% of the time, which is why we should get rid of private ownership of cars and have a much reduced pool for communal use instead.



Not really, cars loose value the more they're driven. If they're used 24/7 they will be scrapped well before they otherwise would have been. 

Anyway, are all the rooms in your home used at all times, or are you so wasteful as to sequest rooms for your family's exclusive use that are empty 95% of the time. Have you propsed your street has a single shared toilet for example, allowing you all to convert your bathrooms to sleeping accomodation for those in need?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not really, cars loose value the more they're driven. If they're used 24/7 they will be scrapped well before they otherwise would have been.
> 
> Anyway, are all the rooms in your home used at all times, or are you so wasteful as to sequest rooms for your family's exclusive use that are empty 95% of the time. Have you propsed your street has a single shared toilet for example, allowing you all to convert your bathrooms to sleeping accomodation for those in need?


Fuck me - you really keep outdoing yourself mad Nads.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not really, cars loose value the more they're driven. If they're used 24/7 they will be scrapped well before they otherwise would have been.
> 
> Anyway, are all the rooms in your home used at all times, or are you so wasteful as to sequest rooms for your family's exclusive use that are empty 95% of the time. Have you propsed your street has a single shared toilet for example, allowing you all to convert your bathrooms to sleeping accomodation for those in need?


The footprint of my bathroom is smaller than the space needed to park a car. About a third of the size. Not only that, but because it's in a multistorey building it's stacked above two other rooms (another bathroom and a small bedroom) that don't belong to me and on top of it is a small roof area which is essentially the only private outdoor amenity space available to my household. So I would describe the land footprint of the bathroom as being more intensively used than, as well as being smaller than, that needed to park a car.

This is fairly typical of properties on my street.

Therefore I feel perfectly comfortable suggesting that parking spaces on the public road are put over to communal use (a well proven concept), than impractical proposals such as shared public toilets which would of course be discriminatory to those with various medical needs or disabilities.

I hope this answers your question.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The footprint of my bathroom is smaller than the space needed to park a car. About a third of the size. Not only that, but because it's in a multistorey building it's stacked above two other rooms (another bathroom and a small bedroom) that don't belong to me and on top of it is a small roof area which is essentially the only private outdoor amenity space available to my household. So I would describe the land footprint of the bathroom as being more intensively used than, as well as being smaller than, that needed to park a car.
> 
> This is fairly typical of properties on my street.
> 
> ...



Land footprint is only a minor consideration. Think more about the construction and maintenance cost in terms of CO2 and other pollutants, together with the heating required etc

A small flat might be 120 cubic metres, but a person only 1.7 cubic metres. This means a family of four would leave at least 95% of their home unutilised at all times, even if they never leave it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Land footprint is only a minor consideration. Think more about the construction and maintenance cost in terms of CO2 and other pollutants, together with the heating required etc
> 
> A small flat might be 120 cubic metres, but a person only 1.7 cubic metres. This means a family of four would leave at least 95% of their home unutilised at all times, even if they never leave it.


Given that cars tend to spend much of their time carrying one or two passengers during the 5% of the time they are in motion, yet have a volume that could accomodate say 8 to 10 humans if packed to leave the minimum possible number of air pockets, we can see that the land necessary to accommodate your hypothetical house is being utilised considerably more efficiently than the land necessary to accommodate the vehicle, which includes space beyond its normal parking location.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Given that cars tend to spend much of their time carrying one or two passengers during the 5% of the time they are in motion, yet have a volume that could accomodate say 8 to 10 humans if packed to leave the minimum possible number of air pockets, we can see that the land necessary to accommodate your hypothetical house is being utilised considerably more efficiently than the land necessary to accommodate the vehicle, which includes space beyond its normal parking location.



Nah, a car is about 13m3, an average UK house about 109m3, a person 1.7m3.

I'll generously allow you that the entire car volume is wasted when not driven, 95% of the time, and the entire house volume wasted when unoccupied, say 5% of the time. When in use the non-human-containing portion of each is wasted.

A family of four with two cars, each car driven 5% of the time by one person, would leave 25.83m3 of wasted car space and 102.54m3 of wasted house space.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

BuT yOu CaNt MoVe A gIaNt DoDo By CaRgO bIkE!!1!1!!111!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> BuT yOu CaNt MoVe A gIaNt DoDo By CaRgO bIkE!!1!1!!111!




Yes, looks like a way to circumvent the provisions of Section 40A(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which only applies to trailers drawn by motor vehicles. Hopefully if such idiocy persists the law will be updated.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, looks like a way to circumvent the provisions of Section 40A(c) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which only applies to trailers drawn by motor vehicles. Hopefully if such idiocy persists the law will be updated.


What a ….!

ps. It’s actually 40A(d)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nah, a car is about 13m3, an average UK house about 109m3, a person 1.7m3.
> 
> I'll generously allow you that the entire car volume is wasted when not driven, 95% of the time, and the entire house volume wasted when unoccupied, say 5% of the time. When in use the non-human-containing portion of each is wasted.
> 
> A family of four with two cars, each car driven 5% of the time by one person, would leave 25.83m3 of wasted car space and 102.54m3 of wasted house space.


In other words, by your metrics, "car space" is 25.83/26.0 = 99.3% wasted and "house space" is 85.4% wasted.

So it's a no-brainer to get rid of car space altogether because it's as good as 100% wasted.

Or, seeing as so much house space is unused, why not let car owners use some of it to store their cars, instead of using up the public street outside. Non-car owners can their house space to store their own choice of luxury non essential items such as chairs, beds, washing machines and so forth.


----------



## maomao (Jul 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s actually 40A(d)


He thinks it's a real live dodo.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> In other words, by your metrics, "car space" is 25.83/26.0 = 99.3% wasted and "house space" is 85.4% wasted.
> 
> So it's a no-brainer to get rid of car space altogether because it's as good as 100% wasted.
> 
> Or, seeing as so much house space is unused, why not let car owners use some of it to store their cars, instead of using up the public street outside. Non-car owners can their house space to store their own choice of luxury non essential items such as chairs, beds, washing machines and so forth.



The volume of wasted house space per family is greater than the volume of wasted car space. To waste less space than owning two cars, a family of four in an average-sized house would need to downsize to a house one quarter of the size.

Anyone advocating car abolishment on space grounds alone would find much more space amenable for liberating by focusing on housing. The fact you choose to focus solely on cars means you don't actually care about space utilisation.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What a ….!
> 
> ps. It’s actually 40A(d)



I wondered how long it would take you to notice that one. Glad you've now at least read part of the Act.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> but a person only 1.7 cubic metres


Are you sure the volume of a human is 1.7 cubic metres?  This suggests the mean volume is 65 litres, which is nowhere near  your figure.  We're mostly made of water so your figure would mean a typical human would weigh ~1.7 tonnes.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Are you sure the volume of a human is 1.7 cubic metres?  This suggests the mean volume is 65 litres, which is nowhere near  your figure.  We're mostly made of water so your figure would mean a typical human would weigh ~1.7 tonnes.



You're correct of course, I was so outraged by teuchter's flawed reasoning that I plucked the 1.7m2 surface area figure from the table instead of the correct 0.0664m3 one. This minor error does however have the effect of making my point even more valid.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> even more valid


A hundred times as valid.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I wondered how long it would take you to notice that one. Glad you've now at least read part of the Act.


What a ….!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You're correct of course, I was so outraged by teuchter's flawed reasoning that I plucked the 1.7m2 surface area figure from the table instead of the correct 0.0664m3 one.


You also got in a right muddle between m3 and m2 for cars and houses when you did your nonsense calculations, which is why I included the disclaimer "by your metrics" in my reply.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 13, 2022)

Is this confusion between homes and the public realm common? Is that why so many cars end up crashing into houses?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2022)

It's definitely why some people get very upset if someone else parks in the bit of public realm adjacent to their dwelling.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

I note that no one has yet attempted their own set of calculations to prove me wrong…

 Obviously this is because I’m correct and excessive housing space is far more of a problem than excessive car space when considering the environmental impact of humans.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

Spoiler: For everyone except plantinumsage



Anyone got any idea what made crap platinumsage is on about now?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Spoiler: For everyone except plantinumsage
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone got any idea what made crap platinumsage is on about now?





Spoiler


----------



## edcraw (Jul 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Spoiler





Spoiler: Not for platypusage



hence the use of spoilers 😉


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 13, 2022)

If this is about the forthcoming  BBC documentary on climate change, transport and housing, which some will no doubt call propaganda, I’d rather wait until it airs to get the satisfaction that my argument on the topic has received widespread endorsement from serious environmentalists, so thanks for using the spoiler tags.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 14, 2022)

look at this depiction of hell! Truly disgusting 🤮


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> look at this depiction of hell! Truly disgusting 🤮



What what about the disabled plumbers who need to take their granny to hospital in a fridge whilst on the school run Eh? EH?

THINK ABOUT IT.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

There are actually people in cars. Cars aren't enemy robots. "Prioritsing people" means prioritising people in cars as well as those not in cars.

It would be lovley if all of London including the roads, useless office buildings, stupid retail outlets and ugly housing blocks were all turned into parks, but then it would be a park and not a city.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are actually people in cars. Cars aren't enemy robots. "Prioritsing people" means prioritising people in cars as well as those not in cars.
> 
> It would be lovley if all of London including the roads, useless office buildings, stupid retail outlets and ugly housing blocks were all turned into parks, but then it would be a park and not a city.


Same people moaned about closing north side of Trafalgar Sq & The Strand as Aldwych - both v successful. No understanding that things could possibly be improved and very easy to ignore.

If you think round Wellington Arch is working well you’re madder than I had you down for Nads.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are actually people in cars.


Welded in there? Unable to get out?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Welded in there? Unable to get out?



Yeah and anyone who ever does any pedestrianing is immediately banned from driving for life.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 14, 2022)

You've almost got me believing it's possible for people to shift their mode of transport. Just needs a name.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> You've almost got me believing it's possible for people to shift their mode of transport. Just needs a name.



Transtransportism?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are actually people in cars. Cars aren't enemy robots. "Prioritsing people" means prioritising people in cars as well as those not in cars.


We’ve been prioritising people in cars (at the expense of everyone else)for decades. Look what happens when we change that!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

Space-occupancy-fetishists should learn about the other determinants of utility-value.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Space-occupancy-fetishists


My favourite Elephant Six band.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


>




Yeah, randomly thinking back to when Colesgrove Farm near Cheshunt was re-wilded green space and not an unpleasant newbuild housing estate:


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 14, 2022)

Fits the thread, nice one.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2022)

Looks like everything was previously working well round there, just by Colesgrove Farm rewilded green space, in the middle of an area of typical of post war sprawling car-centric housing development.

Certainly looks like cars aren't causing any issues because who cares about people walking on pavements or trying to use bus stops and public transport anyway.

It's all fine that the new houses have been built with big garage spaces. Concepts like car free developments shouldn't be allowed to spread beyond places like communist London.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Looks like everything was previously working well round there, just by Colesgrove Farm rewilded green space, in the middle of an area of typical of post war sprawling car-centric housing development.
> 
> Certainly looks like cars aren't causing any issues because who cares about people walking on pavements or trying to use bus stops and public transport anyway.
> 
> It's all fine that the new houses have been built with big garage spaces. Concepts like car free developments shouldn't be allowed to spread beyond places like communist London.



Lots of whataboutery there.

And yes, car-free developments are often unviable outside big cities, because in such sparsely populated communities the dense public transport networks that make travel convenient in London are simply not sustainable.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2022)

Incredibly sparsely populated around there.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Incredibly sparsely populated around there.



Superimpose London's bus network and then estimate how many passengers per bus there would be


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 14, 2022)

And yes, car-free developments are often viable in big cities, because in such densely populated communities the public transport networks that make travel convenient are sustainable.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 14, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> And yes, car-free developments are often viable in big cities, because in such densely populated communities the public transport networks that make travel convenient are sustainable.



Yes, teuchter has said previously he wants to forcibly relocate the entire population to tower blocks within the M25.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, teuchter has said previously he wants to forcibly relocate the entire population to tower blocks within the M25.


That makes perfect sense - would free up large amounts of land to grow turnips to feed people.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 14, 2022)

How we do we go about changing the thread title to “Plasmashit wind up thread”?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 14, 2022)

There is perhaps a missing piece of the puzzle here.  What would all these car drivers do if, after the great banning, they couldn't use their cars to follow their favourite hobby of dogging?  They'd be devastated the poor (sexually frustated) loves.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 15, 2022)

No doubt everyone here will be voting Sunak when their ballot papers drop through their letterboxes 

Dense cities with no gardens so everyone can walk everywhere:


----------



## maomao (Jul 15, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> There is perhaps a missing piece of the puzzle here.  What would all these car drivers do if, after the great banning, they couldn't use their cars to follow their favourite hobby of dogging?  They'd be devastated the poor (sexually frustated) loves.


A small fraction of the money saved by the NHS could be used to set up public dogging shelters with condom machines, glory holes, wind down windows to wank through and hire bike docking stations. The only possible problem is that the increased fitness that comes with cycling and walking everywhere will make participants considerably more physically attractive and virile and may cause the hobby to become more widespread.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No doubt everyone here will be voting Sunak


If there's a lesson of the last few years it's that if good policy ideas are championed by otherwise bad people, that doesn't make them bad policies. It works the other way round too. We're essentially back at "Hitler was a vegetarian, you know".


----------



## edcraw (Jul 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No doubt everyone here will be voting Sunak when their ballot papers drop through their letterboxes
> 
> Dense cities with no gardens so everyone can walk everywhere:



Is it Truss or Mordaunt for you Nads?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 15, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

Really difficult to tell which of the pictures in this thread are the better way to go for cities.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 16, 2022)

I’m an excellent driver!! 🚗 😵‍💫👌


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

This shows how inefficient cars are. So much traffic made up by single occupancy cars - crazy and we really shouldn’t be encouraging it.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

What proportion of the cyclists and pedestrians had passengers?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What proportion of the cyclists and pedestrians had passengers?


Fuck me! Probably the stupidest thing you’ve said on here! 😜


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

Go on then, tell me what you mean by “efficient” in your previous post.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Go on then, tell me what you mean by “efficient” in your previous post.


I said inefficient - or maybe all of them were transporting fridges or something…


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I said inefficient - or maybe all of them were transporting fridges or something…




How are you measuring this inefficiency, i.e. what is your measure of efficiency? It's certainly not persons per vehicle, as that would make cars more efficient than cyclists, so it must be something else.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How are you measuring this inefficiency, i.e. what is your measure of efficiency? It's certainly not persons per vehicle, as that would make cars more efficient than cyclists, so it must be something else.


🥱 mad Nads at it again. Or is everyone carrying a 3 piece suite around in a metal box suddenly super efficient.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

Well I imagine a car can do lots of things more efficiently than a pedestrian or cyclist. It's generally more efficient with time over longer distances for example.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Well I imagine a car can do lots of things more efficiently than a pedestrian or cyclist. It's generally more efficient with time over longer distances for example.


Fuck me - if you think cars are an efficient way of moving individual people through west London then you really are thick.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

Box and Assendon, Henley on Thames to Otford, Sevenoaks via Holland Park, Kensington.

Train now = 5hr 57 minutes
Car now = 2hr 29 minutes


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Box and Assendon, Henley on Thames to Otford, Sevenoaks via Holland Park, Kensington.
> 
> Train now = 5hr 57 minutes
> Car now = 2hr 29 minutes


I have no idea what any of this means.

Everyone travelling in single occupancy cars through West London bridges are going on a scenic route from Kent to the Henley regatta?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I have no idea what any of this means.
> 
> Everyone travelling in single occupancy cars through West London bridges are going on a scenic route from Kent to the Henley regatta?



There are lots of conceivable time-efficient car journeys that could route through West London. You're assuming 100% of the single-occupancy car ones are people driving from Fulham to Putney or whatever.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There are lots of conceivable time-efficient car journeys that could route through West London. You're assuming 100% of the single-occupancy car ones are people driving from Fulham to Putney or whatever.


No I’m not - though you do seem to be saying we shouldn’t make any changes to our roads, no matter the benefits, in case it might inconvenience someone slightly. A real Tory attitude.

Think the visual shows we definitely shouldn’t be spending the fortune it will take to reopen Hammersmith Bridge to vehicles.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Well I imagine a car can do lots of things more efficiently than a pedestrian or cyclist.



Mine goes from 0 to 155mph far more efficiently than any ped or cyclist could manage.


----------



## Chz (Jul 16, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Mine goes from 0 to 155mph far more efficiently than any ped or cyclist could manage.


That's cheating. Your car needs petrol to do that. If aids are allowed, I can very efficiently get up to 155mph. Once.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No I’m not - though you do seem to be saying we shouldn’t make any changes to our roads, no matter the benefits, in case it might inconvenience someone slightly. A real Tory attitude.
> 
> Think the visual shows we definitely shouldn’t be spending the fortune it will take to reopen Hammersmith Bridge to vehicles.



I’ve no idea about repairs to Hammersmith Bridge. I do know for sure that you don’t really have any concept of vehicle use, efficiency, or transport policy in general. 

The fact that every car going over a bridge doesn’t have a person sitting in it other than driver is an utterly meaningless piece of trivia in the absence of detailed traffic survey data.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The fact that every car going over a bridge doesn’t have a person sitting in it other than driver is an utterly meaningless piece of trivia in the absence of detailed traffic survey data.


Love it! Truly bizarre 😜

“We want facts! No, not those facts.”


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

Maybe one day you’ll actually articulate some kind of point on here yourself, rather than reposting random tweets and images.

Today could be that day!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

It’s hardly difficult to understand that prioritising individuals travelling round in huge & heavy metal boxes through our cities may not be for the best. Even Spymaster knows that hence to lame attempt at a joke.

Not sure what point you’re ever trying to make except everything’s fine & we that shouldn’t change anything - which is obviously bollocks.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

_random tweet reposting alert_

You love to see it!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> _random tweet reposting alert_
> 
> You love to see it!




You want me to post a picture of a cafe that used to be a GP surgery or something, as if that will demonstrate some kind of point?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s hardly difficult to understand that prioritising individuals travelling round in huge & heavy metal boxes through our cities may not be for the best.



I’m not sure that scrapping buses and trains will improve the quality of life of most city-dwellers.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You want me to post a picture of a cafe that used to be a GP surgery or something, as if that will demonstrate some kind of point?


I reckon you’re either 12, high as fuck or just incredibly thick.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I’m not sure that scrapping buses and trains will improve the quality of life of most city-dwellers.


Yes - I don’t think we should encourage empty buses and trains just to travel around everywhere but luckily that doesn’t really happen.

I’m hoping it’s high as fuck but think we’re all pretty sure it’s incredibly thick.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

Tower Hamlets new manor, Lutfur Rahman, is ripping out the borough’s LTNs.

Why is it pro-car people are always such awful awful people?









						Lutfur Rahman (British politician) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> awful awful people?



Yes, you're definitely a LibDem


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, you're definitely a LibDem


?

Not sure calling someone a LibDem is the insult you think when you’re a rabid Ukipper/Tory.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Lutfur Rahman


Someone should explain induced demand in terms he understands. Switch out roads and cars for redirected funds and favours.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What proportion of the cyclists and pedestrians had passengers?


If you want to have closer look, I could sell you one of the bridges.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

I think maomao is actually Peter Hitchens:









						PETER HITCHENS: Electric vehicles? They're dangerous, polluting lumps
					

I am beginning to loathe the new smugocracy of people driving or riding electric vehicles. I cannot stand the way that they are so pleased with themselves, and expect the rest of us to love them.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think maomao is actually Peter Hitchens:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've said before, on these boards, that I have a soft spot for Hitchens but that's the best column of his I've ever seen. Little to disagree with in the other three topics covered this week either. And no that doesn't mean I agree with whatever other views of his you find objectionable.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think maomao is actually Peter Hitchens:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good to see your finally joining in with the thread & posting anti-car content!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2022)

It's not that long ago we were celebrating the fact that the reach of this thread's influence was clearly extending to Guardian and BBC journalists.

It's quite remarkable that even the Daily Mail are onboard too now.

We should all be quite proud of ourselves; even those whose assistance in promoting the thread and its message has been inadvertent.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

Why is it that no graphic designs are pro-car?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

Extremely dodgy Tower Hamlets mayor wants to rip this out. Absolutely crazy! You going to defend this platinumsage ?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Extremely dodgy Tower Hamlets mayor wants to rip this out. Absolutely crazy! You going to defend this platinumsage ?




Looks like lots of paving with a few scraggly weeds, the trees and grass in the background are not part of the scheme.

I don’t know all the details, if this reduces problems elsewhere it could be a good idea.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 17, 2022)

I live there. Literally the end of my road. It won't reduce any problems elsewhere it will just turn OBG Rd back into a shitty stinking rat run. (I also drive a car).

The scraggly weeds are hardy grasses.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 17, 2022)

Nice consultation you have there. Would be a shame if something...happened to it.

Open to non residents as well as locals. 






						Liveable Streets Bethnal Green
					

- Update: Some of the cover letters that were distributed with consultation packs in Weavers show a response deadline date of 24th July. This is an error and the deadline for responses for the Weavers consultation is 31st July as shown on the survey form and




					talk.towerhamlets.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Looks like lots of paving with a few scraggly weeds, the trees and grass in the background are not part of the scheme.
> 
> I don’t know all the details, if this reduces problems elsewhere it could be a good idea.


Here’s some other photos. Would definitely be improved by some rat running SUVs!


----------



## spitfire (Jul 17, 2022)

Mr Bubbles is indeed, a legend.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t know all the details, if this reduces problems elsewhere it could be a good idea.


Love this! Remember covering in school in the 90s induced demand but still idiots like you can’t understand it!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love this! Remember covering in school in the 90s induced demand but still idiots like you can’t understand it!



I was going to explain the nuances of demand and capacity to you here but thought better of it as you won’t understand.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I was going to explain the nuances of demand and capacity to you here but thought better of it as you won’t understand.


You haven’t got a clue, like most Daily Mail reading idiots. Luckily most non corrupt as fuck councils are actually acting to improve our roads.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You haven’t got a clue, like most Daily Mail reading idiots. Luckily most non corrupt as fuck councils are actually acting to improve our roads.



Yes, around here they’re widening some and closing off others. You know, taking a reasonable balanced view of things, depending on the circumstances.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, around here they’re widening some and closing off others. You know, taking a reasonable balanced view of things, depending on the circumstances.


So you are open to closing some roads off? Well why don’t you educate yourself before commenting on things. Minor roads in inner city London boroughs should not have traffic routed through them - it’s hardly difficult to understand.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So you are open to closing some roads off? Well why don’t you educate yourself before commenting on things. Minor roads in inner city London boroughs should not have traffic routed through them - it’s hardly difficult to understand.



Where did I say I was against closing off residential roads? I merely suggested I was not invariably in favour of it in every single circumstance.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Where did I say I was against closing off residential roads? I merely suggested I was not invariably in favour of it in every single circumstance.


Great - well why don’t you look at Old Bethnal Green Rd and have an informed opinion. Also, it’d be great to hear why most of the people opposing these schemes, like the mayor, are such terrible people.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Great - well why don’t you look at Old Bethnal Green Rd and have an informed opinion. Also, it’d ve great to hear why most of the people opposing these schemes, like the mayor, are such terrible people.



It would take at least an hour to gain an informed opinion about a particular road, and that’s only if I had easy access to all the necessary data, which is why I only do it for roads near me.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It would take at least an hour to gain an informed opinion about a particular road, and that’s only if I had easy access to all the necessary data, which is why I only do it for roads near me.


An easy short cut would be to assume the obvious - minor roads should not be for through traffic & if only awful people oppose something, it’s probably a good thing.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It would take at least an hour to gain an informed opinion about a particular road, and that’s only if I had easy access to all the necessary data, which is why I only do it for roads near me.


Ah, I had been wondering why all the uninformed opinions. I see.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Ah, I had been wondering why all the uninformed opinions. I see.



I haven’t even expressed an opinion on this particular road, so I don’t know which uninformed opinions you’re referring to.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> at least an hour


There are apparently around 790,000 roads on this island so if you could pause and do that, it'd be appreciated. I look forward to your informed opinion in around 90 years.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2022)

Love it!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2022)

I'd like to know why they are moving the cars though. If it's so that other cars can park there, or so that other cars can get past, then they should be done for dumping cars on green space. If it's to make a point about illegal parking the cars should be turned over onto the roadway, and they are free to do what they want to them thereafter as far as I am concerned.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to know why they are moving the cars though. If it's so that other cars can park there, or so that other cars can get past, then they should be done for dumping cars on green space. If it's to make a point about illegal parking the cars should be turned over onto the roadway, and they are free to do what they want to them thereafter as far as I am concerned.


Fair point - I just quite like that some cars ended up on their roofs tbh.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2022)

My favourite vigilantes are these guys who I'm pleased to see are still at it in July 2022.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 21, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2022)

More rude arrogant self-entitled anti-social drivers.

If you’re going to have parking on both sides of roads like this it needs to be an LTN.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> More rude arrogant self-entitled anti-social drivers.
> 
> If you’re going to have parking on both sides of roads like this it needs to be an LTN.




Or double yellow passing spaces.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Or double yellow passing spaces.


Probably best to just ban cars I reckon!


----------



## T & P (Jul 21, 2022)

Fuck me, cars really do live rent free in your head, don't they? The first thing you think about when you wake up, and the last thing before you fall asleep, whilst clearly taking much of your available time in between as well


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> More rude arrogant self-entitled anti-social drivers.
> 
> If you’re going to have parking on both sides of roads like this it needs to be an LTN.




I'm sure if an LTN is proposed the smug land-enclosing homeowner filming this will obviously be wiling to hand over his front garden to the public realm to help create a safe cycling route with space also for a re-wilded children's play zone. People choosing to own land adjacent to a busy route near a school would never dream of excluding the public from that land while laughing at people trying to pass by in the space available.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm sure if an LTN is proposed the smug land-enclosing homeowner filming this will obviously be wiling to hand over his front garden to the public realm to help create a safe cycling route with space also for a re-wilded children's play zone. People choosing to own land adjacent to a busy route near a school would never dream of excluding the public from that land while laughing at people trying to pass by in the space available.


Fuck me you're thick.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck me you're thick.



Yeah yeah, LTNs are all about middle-class IMBY suburban landowners increasing the value of their assets.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah yeah, LTNs are all about middle-class IMBY suburban landowners increasing the value of their assets.


Bless.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 21, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Bless.



I didn't have you down as a Christian.

God is not anti-car, far from it:


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm sure if an LTN is proposed the smug land-enclosing homeowner filming this will obviously be wiling to hand over his front garden to the public realm to help create a safe cycling route with space also for a re-wilded children's play zone. People choosing to own land adjacent to a busy route near a school would never dream of excluding the public from that land while laughing at people trying to pass by in the space available.


Surely there’s a better use of the public space currently being used to store cars before we start reclaiming private property?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 23, 2022)

So to sum up pro-bike and anti-car is met with replies of "but what if I want to drive my fridge to the pub once a month while balancing a crate of nuns on my lap" 

While pro-car is basically the same but more smugly, also talking about cyclists going through red lights for bonus points.

Would that be about where we are after 270 pages?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

Finally, even the right wing nutcases are realising the truth!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Finally, even the right wing nutcases are realising the truth!




Three of those images are Cambridge, the fourth is Cambridge Street, Harrogate. It seems that Thomas Hedley Fairfax Harwood, who is a GB News journalist, isn't even familiar with where he grew up.

As I live in Cambridge I can tell you the market is a total filthy dive full of piss, kebab grease and stinky bins. There's also a massive multi story car park 100 yards away.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

Well obviously not all the right-wing nutcases. platinumsage still needs a bit of time to catch up…


----------



## T & P (Jul 24, 2022)

.


----------



## T & P (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Finally, even the right wing nutcases are realising the truth!



Oh, so all this time you had actually only asked for ‘the very centre’ of cities to be car free?

Oh, but you should have said! Count me in.


----------



## T & P (Jul 24, 2022)

I fucking love this thread


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 24, 2022)

I'm struggling to think of any cities in the UK that don't have car-free streets in their centres.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> Oh, so all this time you had actually only asked for ‘the very centre’ of cities to be car free?
> 
> Oh, but you should have said! Count me in.


No, want most of a city to be car free.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm struggling to think of any cities in the UK that don't have car-free streets in their centres.


London


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

So


T & P said:


> Oh, so all this time you had actually only asked for ‘the very centre’ of cities to be car free?
> 
> Oh, but you should have said! Count me in.


So why do you lose your shit over LTNs?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> London





edcraw said:


> Same people moaned about closing north side of Trafalgar Sq & The Strand as Aldwych - both v successful.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

Hahaha - that’s about 200m in total.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Hahaha - that’s about 200m in total.



I'm sure you can think of some more.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm sure you can think of some more.


Kingly Street - that’s about it tbh. You’re right, most city centres have been pedestrianised but London falls far behind manly because of Tory run Westminster. Hopefully with Labour now in charge things will change.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Kingly Street - that’s about it tbh. You’re right, most city centres have been pedestrianised but London falls far behind manly because of Tory run Westminster. Hopefully with Labour now in charge things will change.



Leicester Square, Cranbourn Street, Gerrard Street, the list goes on.

Anyway I thought London was some sort of exemplar of public transport provision that the nether regions were supposed to replicate, despite their much lower population densities. However if it can't even support enough car-free street for you to remember any of them, perhaps it's got too much public transport for its own good. More walking in the capital would improve things it seems.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Leicester Square, Cranbourn Street, Gerrard Street, the list goes on.
> 
> Anyway I thought London was some sort of exemplar of public transport provision that the nether regions were supposed to replicate, despite their much lower population densities. However if it can't even support enough car-free street for you to remember any of them, perhaps it's got too much public transport for its own good. More walking in the capital would improve things it seems.


What are you on about?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What are you on about?


He’s doing that thing where he thinks he’s making an oh so clever point.


----------



## A380 (Jul 24, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm struggling to think of any cities in the UK that don't have car-free streets in their centres.


St Davids. I think that's probably it.


----------



## T & P (Jul 24, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, want most of a city to be car free.


You do, and I completely respect that even if I might disagree with it. You are one of the only two ‘anti car’ posters who have maintained a consistent viewpoint. Everyone else, including the poster I was quoting above, have been moving the goalposts about what they actually want throughout the lifetime of this thread.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> You do, and I completely respect that even if I might disagree with it. You are one of the only two ‘anti car’ posters who have maintained a consistent viewpoint. Everyone else, including the poster I was quoting above, have been moving the goalposts about what they actually want throughout the lifetime of this thread.


I really haven’t. But glad you agree central London should be car free. Where should the boundary be?


----------



## T & P (Jul 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So why do you lose your shit over LTNs?


Apart from the fact that you have moved the goalposts yet again by trying to switch the discussion to LTNs, which is irrelevant to this particular conversation, I have never objected to all LTNs, just those that imo are blatantly not fit for purpose and unnecessary.

Bottom line is that you and some of the others ITT voicing opposition to cars continue to fail to make your mind up about what you actually want to happen, all while accusing anyone who might express even the most minor of concerns about a given proposal as a Tory motorhead. I myself would be perfectly happy for parts of the very centre of London to be car free. At the same time I don’t believe some LTNs are beneficial on the whole, or that entire city-wide car bans are a good idea. If you actually think anyone who might consider a reasonable compromise allowing some car use in sone circumstances might be preferable to blanket city-wide bans is a right wing Clarksonite by default, then I’d urge you to have a word with yourself.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> Apart from the fact that you have moved the goalposts yet again by trying to switch the discussion to LTNs, which is irrelevant to this particular conversation, I have never objected to all LTNs, just those that imo are blatantly not fit for purpose and unnecessary.
> 
> Bottom line is that you and some of the others ITT voicing opposition to cars continue to fail to make your mind up about what you actually want to happen, all while accusing anyone who might express even the most minor of concerns about a given proposal as a Tory motorhead. I myself would be perfectly happy for parts of the very centre of London to be car free. At the same time I don’t believe some LTNs are beneficial on the whole, or that entire city-wide car bans are a good idea. If you actually think anyone who might consider a reasonable compromise allowing some car use in sone circumstances might be preferable to blanket city-wide bans is a right wing Clarksonite by default, then I’d urge you to have a word with yourself.


So the congestion charge zone? That would a good step.

LTNs are a very good compromise between banning cars - you should support our local one.

It’s very good that everyone’s in agreement that cars have huge downsides - which after all is the whole point of the thread.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2022)

T & P said:


> Apart from the fact that you have moved the goalposts yet again by trying to switch the discussion to LTNs, which is irrelevant to this particular conversation, I have never objected to all LTNs, just those that imo are blatantly not fit for purpose and unnecessary.
> 
> Bottom line is that you and some of the others ITT voicing opposition to cars continue to fail to make your mind up about what you actually want to happen, all while accusing anyone who might express even the most minor of concerns about a given proposal as a Tory motorhead. I myself would be perfectly happy for parts of the very centre of London to be car free. At the same time I don’t believe some LTNs are beneficial on the whole, or that entire city-wide car bans are a good idea. If you actually think anyone who might consider a reasonable compromise allowing some car use in sone circumstances might be preferable to blanket city-wide bans is a right wing Clarksonite by default, then I’d urge you to have a word with yourself.


"Reasonable compromise"


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> "Reasonable compromise"



You know, like how people generate noise when doing their day-to-day activities, and how some people are disturbed by noise, so we have a reasonable compromise where limits are placed on noise above which it might be declared a statutory nuisance and enforcement measures used.

Or how people want to modify their home, and how some people might be adversely affected by such modifications, so we have a reasonable compromise in planning law which where limits are placed on development.

With these sorts of things people can disagree about the limits of reasonableness, but the general principal is one of balancing competing interests.

Maybe the same sort of thing applies to transportation and car use. Maybe some sort of reasonable compromise is the only reasonable thing that can be done, and just as we wouldn't ban all noise or outlaw all building, we won't ban all car use, except in the fevered minds of sandal-weaving LibDem Kim Jong-un aping fantasists.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You know, like how people generate noise when doing their day-to-day activities, and how some people are disturbed by noise, so we have a reasonable compromise where limits are placed on noise above which it might be declared a statutory nuisance and enforcement measures used.
> 
> Or how people want to modify their home, and how some people might be adversely affected by such modifications, so we have a reasonable compromise in planning law which where limits are placed on development.
> 
> ...


This is why starting with an extreme position like ‘ban cars’ works. When the Tory/UKIP Clarkson wannabe Daily Mail reading scum finally realise you’ve got a point they’ll offer to compromise and think that banning cars from city centres, road pricing, LTNs etc are reasonable. 

Then we ban cars obv!


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

It seems to me broadly that the current status quo of such things generally aligns with what the majority of the population consider reasonable. If you want to change the status quo you need to go about convincing people that the current situation is actually intolerably unreasonable. 

Not sure that any car-abolitionists are doing a very good job with that so far, despite the existence of this extensive thread.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you want to change the status quo you need to go about convincing people that the current situation is actually intolerably unreasonable.


Not in North Korea.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I really haven’t. But glad you agree central London should be car free. Where should the boundary be?


The M25.  All cars banned within and streets pedestrianised.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> The M25.  All cars banned within and streets pedestrianised.


Liberal. I'm going for the exosphere.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> The M25.  All cars banned within and streets pedestrianised.



It doesn't take more than 7 hours to walk to central London from anywhere within the M25, and it's never more than a 45 mile round trip. No one needs more than 2 hours sleep after an 8 hour working day so it should be doable.

I suppose lucky people could get trains for part of the journey, but with all streets being pedestrianised there won't be any buses, so there simply won't be enough rail capacity for most people.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 25, 2022)

Another good reason to ban cars









						Tyre dust: the ‘stealth pollutant’ that’s becoming a huge threat to ocean life
					

Plastic in the depths: Scientists spent decades on the trail of a mystery toxin killing salmon en masse. A recent breakthrough revealed the culprit




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It doesn't take more than 7 hours to walk to central London from anywhere within the M25, and it's never more than a 45 mile round trip. No one needs more than 2 hours sleep after an 8 hour working day so it should be doable.
> 
> I suppose lucky people could get trains for part of the journey, but with all streets being pedestrianised there won't be any buses, so there simply won't be enough rail capacity for most people.


Have you heard of the tube?


----------



## kabbes (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Have you heard of the tube?


Have you heard of South London?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Have you heard of the tube?



I believe it’s actually a railway, which I did mention in my post.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You know, like how people generate noise when doing their day-to-day activities, and how some people are disturbed by noise, so we have a reasonable compromise where limits are placed on noise above which it might be declared a statutory nuisance and enforcement measures used.
> 
> Or how people want to modify their home, and how some people might be adversely affected by such modifications, so we have a reasonable compromise in planning law which where limits are placed on development.
> 
> ...


We should bear in mind that the term "reasonable compromise" was in this case typed by someone who wants to introduce jaywalking as an offence in the UK.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We should bear in mind that the term "reasonable compromise" was in this case typed by someone who wants to introduce jaywalking as an offence in the UK.



Typical North Korean style lies. I guess that means you’ve lost the argument, maybe ask a mod to close the thread?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I believe it’s actually a railway, which I did mention in my post.


Such a yokel.

Okay - if not the M25 let’s compromise at the north & south circular.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Such a yokel.
> 
> Okay - if not the M25 let’s compromise at the north & south circular.



Pedestrianising everything within the M25 would be fine. Most employers and residents would move out to the rest of the country, where travel by car would unrestricted. This would be fantastic for everywhere except London, which would gradually decay into a crime-ridden wasteland.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrianising everything within the M25 would be fine. Most employers and residents would move out to the rest of the country, where travel by car would unrestricted. This would be fantastic for everywhere except London, which would gradually decay into a crime-ridden wasteland.


Okay - let’s give it a go then. Personal think it’s a bit extreme and we should allow buses though.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Okay - let’s give it a go then. Personal think it’s a bit extreme and we should allow buses though.



No point in buses if no one can deliver food and supplies to businesses and other institutions such as hospitals and schools. I suppose people could use hand-carts from the home counties but if the carters are paid a living wage it would become prohibitively expensive.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No point in buses if no one can deliver food and supplies to businesses and other institutions such as hospitals and schools. I suppose people could use hand-carts from the home counties but if the carters are paid a living wage it would become prohibitively expensive.


Oh alright - you win. Just a ban on private cars then. Feel I’ve had to compromise a lot but if we’re both happy…


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Oh alright - you win. Just a ban on private cars then. Feel I’ve had to compromise a lot but if we’re both happy…



So you'd be happy to allow cars and vans to zoom about London's pedestrianised streets, provided that they're operated by corporations and not regular individuals? I don't know what kind of dystopia you're trying to advocate, but it seems a decidedly capitalist one.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you'd be happy to allow cars and vans to zoom about London's pedestrianised streets, provided that they're operated by corporations and not regular individuals? I don't know what kind of dystopia you're trying to advocate, but it seems a decidedly capitalist one.


It’s all about compromise to get something Tories like you will agree with.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

It's a shame that the concept of partially pedestrianised urban areas with limited and controlled access for certain types of vehicles has never been tried anywhere. It's a mad idea though so I suppose that's why.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's a shame that the concept of partially pedestrianised urban areas with limited and controlled access for certain types of vehicles has never been tried anywhere. It's a mad idea though so I suppose that's why.



Sure, we already have that in all our cities, but only across readily walkable distances. Apparently for London in needs to be implemented across the 1100 square miles inside the M25, so restricting access to corporations would be unreasonable, unless of course you're some sort of misanthrope.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure, we already have that in all our cities, but only across readily walkable distances. Apparently for London in needs to be implemented across the 2,600 square miles inside the M25, so restricting access to corporations would be unreasonable, unless of course you're some sort of misanthrope.


It's a shame that we couldn't make public transport vehicles one of the types of vehicles that could be granted access because that would mean we wouldn't be limited to walkable distances but again this is a completely mad idea that's never been tried anywhere in the world so we'd better just allow private cars everywhere and give up.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's a shame that we couldn't make public transport vehicles one of the types of vehicles that could be granted access because that would mean we wouldn't be limited to walkable distances but again this is a completely mad idea that's never been tried anywhere in the world so we'd better just allow private cars everywhere and give up.



It's been tried in Oxford Street but I believe lots of people are against it as buses are so dangerous to pedestrians.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's been tried in Oxford Street but I believe lots of people are against it as buses are so dangerous to pedestrians.


Yes, Oxford Street is the only place in the world the concept has been tried and some people don't like it therefore the whole thing is totally unworkable anywhere, we should give up and continue living in a car dominated dystopian nightmare.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, Oxford Street is the only place in the world the concept has been tried and some people don't like it therefore the whole thing is totally unworkable anywhere, we should give up and continue living in a car dominated dystopian nightmare.



I would have thought that London might be amenable to the addition of pedestrianized areas in much the same way as other cities have been. For example Norwich, where the centre is pedestrianised, but not the entire 36 square miles within the outer ring road.

London even has multiple urban centres, which should allow various pedestrianisation schemes to be rolled out, but, like other cities, without rendering the entire city untravelable as a blanket intra-M25 scheme would do.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I would have thought that London might be amenable to the addition of pedestrianized areas in much the same way as other cities have been. For example Norwich, where the centre is pedestrianised, but not the entire 36 square miles within the outer ring road.
> 
> London even has multiple urban centres, which should allow various pedestrianisation schemes to be rolled out, but, like other cities, without rendering the entire city untravelable as a blanket intra-M25 scheme would do.


I live in zone six of London with no car and London doesn't feel very untravelable. How is getting rid of private cars going to make it untravelable for everyone else? It'll make it easier for me.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

maomao said:


> I live in zone six of London with no car and London doesn't feel very untravelable. How is getting rid of private cars going to make it untravelable for everyone else? It'll make it easier for me.



The original proposal was to ban road vehicles, so you'd have had to walk or else compete for the train with all the other former bus and car and bicycle users. This would have reduced pedestrian road deaths to zero or thereabouts. Then someone else moved the goalposts and said it would nice to have all the roads within the M25 pedestriansed provided the pedestrians could be run over by buses, taxis, delivery drivers, and anyone driving a vehicle while working for a private company. If that's what you guys in London want then go ahead I guess, I'll get my popcorn ready. 🤷


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I would have thought that London might be amenable to the addition of pedestrianized areas in much the same way as other cities have been. For example Norwich, where the centre is pedestrianised, but not the entire 36 square miles within the outer ring road.


Maybe you should keep an eye on the Berlin campaign for a car free zone of about that size, 88 square km or 34 square miles.









						eine autofreie Berliner Innenstadt … wie geht das?
					

Unser Ziel ist eine flächengerechte, gesunde, sichere, lebenswerte sowie klima- und umweltfreundliche Nutzung der öffentlichen Straßen in Berlin. Da die Politiker*innen aus unserer Sicht dafür nicht die nötigen Maßnahmen ergreifen, müssen wir unsere Ziele direktdemokratisch per Volksentscheid...



					volksentscheid-berlin-autofrei.de


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Maybe you should keep an eye on the Berlin campaign for a car free zone of about that size, 88 square km or 34 square miles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's only around 10% of Berlin's area, whereas it would be 100% of Norwich's, so not really comparable. 

I don't think anyone objects to the central core of cities being pedestriansed, otherwise it wouldn't have already happened in virtually every UK city.

Pedestrianising an entire city, where that city is so large that it can't be reasonably walked, would require so many exemptions and additional buses and taxis as to be worse than useless.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The original proposal was to ban road vehicles


No it wasn't.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

maomao said:


> No it wasn't.



You must be using some weird definition of "pedestrianise"


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You must be using some weird definition of "pedestrianise"


I mean where pedestrians have access to the whole street but provision remains for emergency vehicles, deliveries and public transport. What needlessly pedantic definition are you using?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

maomao said:


> I mean where pedestrians have access to the whole street but provision remains for emergency vehicles, deliveries and public transport



That's not pedestrianisation, it's simply restricting certain types of vehicle. 

Pedestrianisation -

Chambers: to convert (a shopping street, etc) into an area for pedestrians only by excluding through-traffic and usually paving over the street.
Collins: to convert (a street) into an area for the use of pedestrians only, by excluding all motor vehicles 
Cambridge: to make an area into one where vehicles are not allowed to go

I don't know what the OED says but I doubt it's "to prevent privately owned cars from accessing a street"


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrianising an entire city, where that city is so large that it can't be reasonably walked, would require so many exemptions and additional buses and taxis as to be worse than useless.


As I said earlier, such a shame there are no examples of such a thing working perfectly well, anywhere. So you must be right.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's not pedestrianisation, it's simply restricting certain types of vehicle.
> 
> Pedestrianisation -
> 
> ...


Well Chambers' is almost servicable but the other two are clearly wrong. I've yet to hear of a pedestrianisation scheme that excludes ambulances and fire engines. I'm not sure that the Cambridge dictionary is a proper dictionary with full-time lexicographers etc. anyway; it's some sort of language-learning thing.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

Well, I look forward to reading an actual proposal for "pedestrianising" every road within the M25 whilst still allowing London to function. I suppose if "pedestriansing" simply means banning motor scooters or something, it might be a good idea.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I look forward to reading an actual proposal for "pedestrianising" every road within the M25


Simple. Block the roads with figures (or "men") built from straw.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I would have thought that London might be amenable to the addition of pedestrianized areas in much the same way as other cities have been. For example Norwich, where the centre is pedestrianised, but not the entire 36 square miles within the outer ring road.
> 
> London even has multiple urban centres, which should allow various pedestrianisation schemes to be rolled out, but, like other cities, without rendering the entire city untravelable as a blanket intra-M25 scheme would do.


Good point - traders do need access to Dixons.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 25, 2022)

No bad drivers in this clip. Nope… 👌


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> No bad drivers in this clip. Nope… 👌



Just the price we have to pay sadly to not live in North Korea 🤷


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Just the price we have to pay sadly to not live in North Korea 🤷


I think it’s a problem which can be fixed by simply taking away the idiots’ driving licences. Which is hopefully what will happen in this case.

The fact there are some awful drivers isn’t a justification for banning cars.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> I think it’s a problem which can be fixed by simply taking away the idiots’ driving licences. Which is hopefully what will happen in this case.
> 
> The fact there are some awful drivers isn’t a justification for banning cars.


What you posted happened with the rules as they are now. If you don’t want to change anything they you’re saying you’re okay with that happening so that we can allow unfettered access to cars in out city centres.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 25, 2022)

If there had been more traffic on that road, they wouldn’t have been able to pull off that manoeuvre.…


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> The fact there are some awful drivers isn’t a justification for banning cars.


Most drivers are awful.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> I think it’s a problem which can be fixed by simply taking away the idiots’ driving licences.


When their licences are taken away will this video disappear thanks to the historical timeline having been altered by time travelling law enforcers?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 25, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If there had been more traffic on that road, they wouldn’t have been able to pull off that manoeuvre.…


I know you’re joking but there are tons of pro car nuts that claim, with a straight face, that traffic makes roads safer and so we shouldn’t have LTNs 🤪


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2022)

The car pulling away and the reveal of it flipped over reminded me of old tv shows where helicopters would go behind a hill before exploding.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 26, 2022)

maomao said:


> Most drivers are awful.


Many might say that about anti car people. It’s all a question of perspective I suppose.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> When their licences are taken away will this video disappear thanks to the historical timeline having been altered by time travelling law enforcers?


We can but hope


----------



## maomao (Jul 26, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Many might say that about anti car people. It’s all a question of perspective I suppose.


I mean they're awful _at driving_. I assure you I'm very good at walking and have never killed anyone whilst out for a walk.


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 26, 2022)

maomao said:


> I mean they're awful _at driving_. I assure you I'm very good at walking and have never killed anyone whilst out for a walk.


There’s always that first time which might catch you out. The glint of platinum coloured hair in the sunlight…. That giveaway jangle of car keys in his pocket, and suddenly you lose it….


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

The Saudi Royal family trounces all the anti-car folks on this thread with this glossy piece of anti-car propaganda

A glass strip-city in the desert made with the diverted profits of the post-pandemic oil price shock:

"The Line's infrastructure makes it possible to travel end-to-end in 20 minutes, with no need for cars"


----------



## MrCurry (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The Saudi Royal family trounces all the anti-car folks on this thread with this glossy piece of anti-car propaganda
> 
> A glass strip-city in the desert made with the diverted profits of the post-pandemic oil price shock:
> 
> "The Line's infrastructure makes it possible to travel end-to-end in 20 minutes, with no need for cars"



They like their grand projects over there. Spunking away the oil money on everything except helping their own citizens have human rights.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> They like their grand projects over there. Spunking away the oil money on everything except helping their own citizens have human rights.


Yep - and all funded by our addiction to cars. Would really stick it to them if - you know - we banned cars…


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The Saudi Royal family trounces all the anti-car folks on this thread with this glossy piece of anti-car propaganda
> 
> A glass strip-city in the desert made with the diverted profits of the post-pandemic oil price shock:
> 
> "The Line's infrastructure makes it possible to travel end-to-end in 20 minutes, with no need for cars"



What's your opinion - do you decline to have one because it's too far from your location and therefore you do not have the will to obtain the traffic data needed to make your characteristically fully objective analysis?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's your opinion - do you decline to have one because it's too far from your location and therefore you do not have the will to obtain the traffic data needed to make your characteristically fully objective analysis?



I‘m generally against obviously unsustainable vanity projects promoted by murderous theocratic despots, no traffic data needed.

It’s no surprise that you appear interested in the idea however.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I‘m generally against obviously unsustainable vanity projects promoted by murderous theocratic despots, no traffic data needed.


But more than happy to fund them when filling up your car. 🤷


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> But more than happy to fund them when filling up your car. 🤷



If only the NIMBYs hadn't blocked domestic fracking...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I‘m generally against obviously unsustainable vanity projects promoted by murderous theocratic despots, no traffic data needed.


What's your definition of unsustainable here?


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's your definition of unsustainable here?



Locating 1 million people in a desert and relying on desalination and aircon to keep them alive.


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2022)

maomao said:


> I mean they're awful _at driving_. I assure you I'm very good at walking and have never killed anyone whilst out for a walk.


The overwhelming majority of drivers will spend their entire driving lives without causing a major accident to themselves or others. So whereas there might be an argument for many or most drivers being crap or careless about certain minor aspects of driving such as parking skills, which is about as dangerous as drinking a glass of water, most drivers are anything but awful at the aspects of driving that matter the most. If most drivers were awful, there would be 300,000 deaths a year in the UK instead of 3,000.

On the other hand the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are indescribably fucking incompetent, useless, careless and lacking even the most basic notions of self-awareness and self-preservation when out and about. It is in fact only thanks to the diligent actions of the great majority of people operating vehicles of all types that a hundred thousand peds don't get seriously hurt or killed every year.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Locating 1 million people in a desert and relying on desalination and aircon to keep them alive.


Can you be a bit more specific about why this is "unsustainable" please?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> The overwhelming majority of drivers will spend their entire driving lives without causing a major accident to themselves or others. So whereas there might be an argument for many or most drivers being crap or careless about certain minor aspects of driving such as parking skills, which is about as dangerous as drinking a glass of water, most drivers are anything but awful at the aspects of driving that matter the most. If most drivers were awful, there would be 300,000 deaths a year in the UK instead of 3,000.
> 
> On the other hand the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are indescribably fucking incompetent, useless, careless and lacking even the most basic notions of self-awareness and self-preservation when out and about. It is in fact only thanks to the diligent actions of the great majority of people operating vehicles of all types that a hundred thousand peds don't get seriously hurt or killed every year.


Thanks for once again outlining some of the background thinking and beliefs that apply when you refer to "reasonable compromise".


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Can you be a bit more specific about why this is "unsustainable" please?



It would be literally on life-support from day one, and require deleterious social, economic and environmental impacts in order to build and sustain it. Some carbon offsets and no cars does not make a settlement sustainable.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> The overwhelming majority of drivers will spend their entire driving lives without causing a major accident to themselves or others. So whereas there might be an argument for many or most drivers being crap or careless about certain minor aspects of driving such as parking skills, which is about as dangerous as drinking a glass of water, most drivers are anything but awful at the aspects of driving that matter the most. If most drivers were awful, there would be 300,000 deaths a year in the UK instead of 3,000.
> 
> On the other hand the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are indescribably fucking incompetent, useless, careless and lacking even the most basic notions of self-awareness and self-preservation when out and about. It is in fact only thanks to the diligent actions of the great majority of people operating vehicles of all types that a hundred thousand peds don't get seriously hurt or killed every year.


Yay! Only 3,000 deaths a year!! Aren’t we great.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It would be literally on life-support from day one, and require deleterious social, economic and environmental impacts in order to build and sustain it. Some carbon offsets and no cars does not make a settlement sustainable.


I requested that you were more specific, rather than more waffly.

What you have written could be said about any modern human settlement.


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yay! Only 3,000 deaths a year!! Aren’t we great.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> View attachment 334555


Yes, speed kills, that's right.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I requested that you were more specific, rather than more waffly.
> 
> What you have written could be said about any modern human settlement.



If you need a detailed explanation from an Urbanite as to why a 100-mile long concrete and glass city in the Arabian desert for the rich, housing a million people and built and governed by a despotic regime is not sustainable then I think you've bitten off more than you can chew by starting this thread.


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Yes, speed kills, that's right.


You missed the point too, I see...


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 26, 2022)

No I understand what victim blaming is.


----------



## T & P (Jul 26, 2022)

No, you continue to miss the point. The argument right now was about whether most drivers are 'awful' at driving. This is blantatly bollocks, as clearly demonstrated by the very figures you and edcraw are trying to use to change the discussion to something else.

Nobody here is blaming victims. But it undisputable bullshit that 'most drivers' are awful. If most drivers were awful, the casualty figures would be tens if not hundreds of times higher. And more to the point, only an extremely small proportion of drivers are ever involved in their lifetime in such serious accidents.

I hope that you both now understand and agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving- which is what we were discussing at this point in time. But please feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you need a detailed explanation from an Urbanite as to why a 100-mile long concrete and glass city in the Arabian desert for the rich, housing a million people and built and governed by a despotic regime is not sustainable then I think you've bitten off more than you can chew by starting this thread.


It’d be good to see what actually is more halmful - this or a million people living in suburbia. Not sure it’s that clear cut tbh.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> Nobody here is blaming victims. But it undisputable bullshit that 'most drivers' are awful. If most drivers were awful, the casualty figures would be tens if not hundreds of times higher. And more to the point, only an extremely small proportion of drivers are ever involved in their lifetime in such serious accidents.





T & P said:


> On the other hand the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are indescribably fucking incompetent, useless, careless and lacking even the most basic notions of self-awareness and self-preservation when out and about. It is in fact only thanks to the diligent actions of the great majority of people operating vehicles of all types that a hundred thousand peds don't get seriously hurt or killed every year.


Oh look - you’re talking shit. But then you’re happy with speeding, dangerous, rat-running traffic on minor urban roads.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> On the other hand the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are indescribably fucking incompetent, useless, careless and lacking even the most basic notions of self-awareness and self-preservation when out and about.





T & P said:


> Nobody here is blaming victims.


It's not scientific, but I've had a handlebar camera for my bike for about a month and have already submitted two incidents that are being followed up by the police. I only commute twice a week. So if you're asking if I "agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving" I would probably just switch out "most" for "too many".

Of course, if I keep doing it, just as others are, it'll get better over time. Maybe one to revisit in a while.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

T & P said:


> No, you continue to miss the point. The argument right now was about whether most drivers are 'awful' at driving. This is blantatly bollocks, as clearly demonstrated by the very figures you and edcraw are trying to use to change the discussion to something else.
> 
> Nobody here is blaming victims. But it undisputable bullshit that 'most drivers' are awful. If most drivers were awful, the casualty figures would be tens if not hundreds of times higher. And more to the point, only an extremely small proportion of drivers are ever involved in their lifetime in such serious accidents.
> 
> I hope that you both now understand and agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving- which is what we were discussing at this point in time. But please feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.


Ok. We can all agree that most drivers can be considered "not awful" judged against an arbitrary standard chosen by someone who wants to show that most drivers are "not awful".


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 26, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Yes, speed kills


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’d be good to see what actually is more halmful - this or a million people living in suburbia. Not sure it’s that clear cut tbh.



I’m pretty sure if Kim Jong-un built a car-free nuclear weapons factory fuelled by burning the imported corpses of Chinese dissidents you’d be in favour of it because American nuclear weapons factories have car parks and are partially powered by fossil fuels.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you need a detailed explanation from an Urbanite as to why a 100-mile long concrete and glass city in the Arabian desert for the rich, housing a million people and built and governed by a despotic regime is not sustainable then I think you've bitten off more than you can chew by starting this thread.


As expected, not willing to discuss any details or specifics.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> As expected, not willing to discuss any details or specifics.



Everything I’ve said about it has been specific and has referred to details. If you want more specifics or details, I suggest explaining why it’s such a good thing, then we can cite your support for it in future debates.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2022)

Looks like it’s just best to ignore the pro car nutters and just get on with improving things.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

From the T & P school of logic - pissing off all the right people!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

Great account here! AI generated people friendly streets!





__





						Loading…
					





					twitter.com


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Great account here! AI generated people friendly streets!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe what needed to be done is to knock car drivers out with some kind of targeted anaesthetic, and while they're unconscious, dig up all the roads and replace them with lovely forests.

Oh, and recycle their polluting cars with something useful.

They'd moan for a bit when they came to but would soon realise that nature is much better than a stupid polluting car.


----------



## T & P (Jul 27, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's not scientific, but I've had a handlebar camera for my bike for about a month and have already submitted two incidents that are being followed up by the police. I only commute twice a week. So if you're asking if I "agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving" I would probably just switch out "most" for "too many".
> 
> Of course, if I keep doing it, just as others are, it'll get better over time. Maybe one to revisit in a while.


So you’ve recoding your journeys for a month, and you’ve noticed two serious incidents. At a wild but probably broadly accurate guess, your camera has easily recorded many hundreds of cars crossing paths with you on every single journey. But let’s just say a very conservative couple of  hundred vehicles encountered on a typical 20-minute urban journey.

So you reluctantly concede that the superlative term ‘most’ is actually inaccurate when discussing how many drivers out of 36 million in this country might br awful (an admission that a few others in this thread are still refusing to admit, so credit to you there).

But you still appear to be suggesting 1 in 3,000 drivers committing a grave infraction is unacceptably high. So I just wonder, do your very strict judgement parameters apply to other traits and habits, or only those you don’t like? If even one in 3,000 people who drink alcohol in this country ever commits an alcohol-related serious offence, that would clearly be as damming an indictment of people who drink alcohol as a whole as those who drive cars, right?

Yeah, I thought so.


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> So you reluctantly concede that the superlative term ‘most’ is actually inaccurate when discussing how many drivers out of 36 million in this country might br awful



I'll retract the 'most' then. I should have said 'all'.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> Yeah, I thought so.


Do some more of that thinking.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 27, 2022)

Maybe I'm going to the wrong pubs that there's not a reportable incident every couple of hours.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

You can tell most drivers are shit because of how high insurance premiums are. 

Cycle insurance on the other hand is peanuts and often given away for free.


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You can tell most drivers are shit because of how high insurance premiums are.
> 
> Cycle insurance on the other hand is peanuts and often given away for free.


And pedestrian insurance doesn't even exist as far as I can tell.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

maomao said:


> And pedestrian insurance doesn't even exist as far as I can tell.


Oh look - platinumsage ’s beloved capitalism has shown us how to judge relative risk! 

Time to ban cars and close the thread!


----------



## T & P (Jul 27, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Maybe I'm going to the wrong pubs that there's not a reportable incident every couple of hours.


And you keep arguing the maths


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Maybe I'm going to the wrong pubs that there's not a reportable incident every couple of hours.


You need to drink more


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> many hundreds of cars crossing paths


Oh I see where you've gone wrong.


----------



## T & P (Jul 27, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'll retract the 'most' then. I should have said 'all'.




The funniest thing about this particular discussion is that ultimately it’s a completely meaningless and irrelevant argument about semantics and mathematics. And crucially, one which outcome is not a matter of opinion but a pretty solid fact.

A very small percentage of a given group can’t possibly be presented as constituting ‘most’ members if such group. If one in several thousand people who drink tea has sugar with it and the other 4,999 do not, you’d have to be fucking bonkers to suggest most people like sugar with their tea. But apparently that does not apply to the awful/ not awful driver conundrum.

Fuck me, this is borderline therapy stuff…


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> If one in five thousand people who drink tea


...exploded, is that too many? I guess it's just a minority, it's fine.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> The funniest thing about this particular discussion is that ultimately it’s a completely meaningless and irrelevant argument about semantics and mathematics. And crucially, one which outcome is not a matter of opinion but a pretty solid fact.
> 
> A very small percentage of a given group can’t possibly be presented as constituting ‘most’ members if such group. If one in several thousand people who drink tea has sugar with it and the other 4,999 do not, you’d have to be fucking bonkers to suggest most people like sugar with their tea. But apparently that does not apply to the awful/ not awful driver conundrum.
> 
> Fuck me, this is borderline therapy stuff…


Why’s there a central reservation on motorways if everyone’s such a good driver. Reckon we should get rid of air bags & seat belts as well.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

Seriously though - try cycling on shared roads and you quickly realise how shit and outright  dangerous tons of drivers are. Most don’t even realise or care.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 27, 2022)

I am 100% confident that if I had cameras on my bikes I could have footage that would get drivers points/fines on _every single ride_ _I do_.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 27, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I am 100% confident that if I had cameras on my bikes I could have footage that would get drivers points/fines on _every single ride_ _I do_.


Yep - tons of close passes every day going to work & signalling seen as optional by most drivers.

Also it’s taken for granted that most drivers speed but that’s fine apparently 🤷


----------



## maomao (Jul 27, 2022)

T & P said:


> The funniest thing about this particular discussion is that ultimately it’s a completely meaningless and irrelevant argument about semantics and mathematics. And crucially, one which outcome is not a matter of opinion but a pretty solid fact. A very small percentage of a given group can’t possibly be presented as constituting ‘most’ of a percen


Are drivers only awful if they are responsible for a fatal crash? That seems an unreasonably high bar. Almost every motorist will be in at least one (and usually several) accident at some point in their lives.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 27, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I am 100% confident that if I had cameras on my bikes I could have footage that would get drivers points/fines on _every single ride_ _I do_.


Do it. Make the roads safer.


----------



## kabbes (Jul 28, 2022)

I’ve never caused a serious accident and I’m a terrible driver.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 28, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I’ve never caused a serious accident and I’m a terrible driver.


Is that because you drove away at speed so didn't realise the consequences of your actions?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 28, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Do it. Make the roads safer.


It’s on my list. But decent cameras aren’t cheap.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2022)

All drivers are awful because consistently driving powerful, heavy vehicles safely  is something humans are not well suited to. Everyone is an awful driver. I'm an awful driver.  Don't take it personally, car people.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I am 100% confident that if I had cameras on my bikes I could have footage that would get drivers points/fines on _every single ride_ _I do_.



Illegal stuff happens all the time. Far more serious offences occur on this thread with great regularity.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Do it. Make the roads safer.


The main reason I've not done it yet is a feeling that not much would be done with whatever I send in and report. But is your experience that action is taken?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The main reason I've not done it yet is a feeling that not much would be done with whatever I send in and report. But is your experience that action is taken?


A lot depends on which police force is dealing with the report.


----------



## maomao (Jul 28, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I’ve never caused a serious accident and I’m a terrible driver.


You can apparently cause a serious accident and everything's hunky-dory as long as there were not any fatalities.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2022)

maomao said:


> You can apparently cause a serious accident and everything's hunky-dory as long as there were not any fatalities.


It's fine if there were fatalities as long as it only happens once in every few thousand journeys. So maybe just every few years. It's only a few dead or seriously injured people per driver lifetime. We need to make reasonable compromises.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The main reason I've not done it yet is a feeling that not much would be done with whatever I send in and report. But is your experience that action is taken?


I'm now two for two, so it's hard to say. I've heard that you now won't get an update beyond "action is being taken" as they're a bit overwhelmed with the amount of footage being sent in.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2022)

The reality of course is that policing drivers properly would be very expensive. We make do with taking action against a very tiny minority and hoping a deterrent effect makes the rest behave slightly less terribly.

One of the many hidden costs of private motor transport. In this case, a cost that is saved by just not doing it.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2022)

“Pedal misapplication” leading to leg, arm & skull fractures of adults & children is just one of the reasonable compromises we should put up with to allow parents to use hulking great SUVs to pick their kids up from local schools - otherwise weee just North Korea!









						Mum makes tearful apology in court after her car hits children during school run
					

Dolly Rincon-Aguilar was on the school run to pick up her two children from a primary school in south-west London when her car mounted the pavement and hit a group of children and parents




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Jul 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> “Pedal misapplication” leading to leg, arm & skull fractures of adults & children is just one of the reasonable compromises we should put up with to allow parents to use hulking great SUVs to pick their kids up from local schools - otherwise weee just North Korea!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Surprising such an insignificant accident was even reported in the press. As no-one died the driver in question is obviously not awful and it's completely reasonable to mount the pavement and drive into a group of children. Anyone complaining must be some kind of woke social justice warrior.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2022)

Have you ever read an AAIB report? When drivers make mistakes do you think lessons should be learned or they should simply be punished?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2022)

maomao said:


> Surprising such an insignificant accident was even reported in the press. As no-one died the driver in question is obviously not awful and it's completely reasonable to mount the pavement and drive into a group of children. Anyone complaining must be some kind of woke social justice warrior.


Catchment area of the school is 890m apparently. I’m presuming that’s vertical hence the SUV.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have you ever read an AAIB report? When drivers make mistakes do you think lessons should be learned or they should simply be punished?


Of course lessons should be learnt like stopping parents driving their kids short distances in hulking great SUVs. Some councils are doing this - Wandsworth under the Tories wasn’t one of those.


----------



## maomao (Jul 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have you ever read an AAIB report? When drivers make mistakes do you think lessons should be learned or they should simply be punished?


Stopping someone who can't reliably tell the difference between an accelerator and a brake from driving shouldn't be seen as a punishment.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2022)

I'll take that as a "no" then.


----------



## maomao (Jul 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'll take that as a "no" then.


Clearly. I watched a couple of episodes of Air Crash Investigation about ten years ago though if that's any help?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'll take that as a "no" then.


You think people should be free to drive short distances right outside schools in huge SUVs? 

Guess we should just move the break and the accelerator slightly apart instead.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have you ever read an AAIB report? When drivers make mistakes do you think lessons should be learned or they should simply be punished?



If an air accident investigation found that a serious incident could be caused by an accidental mis-application of a control by a pilot with a normal level of training, then action would be taken to try and make it very unlikely to happen again.

The controls would, perhaps, be redesigned, or pilot training would be altered. Aircraft might be restricted from operating in certain conditions. It's not unusual for the air industry to physically alter the design of planes as a result of accident investigations.

Neither will happen here because it simply is accepted that cars are fundamentally dangerous pieces of machinery and the changes needed to remove that danger would mean that we'd have to make significant changes to how we approach transport. Some of us do in fact want to make those changes, which is part of what this thread is all about.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2022)

Don’t think we need to do much investigation tbh - 16,000 accidents a year in the US from ‘pedal misapplication’. If we were to follow the airline industry that would mean banning cars until they were all redesigned and retraining all drivers.





__





						Sudden unintended acceleration - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> If an air accident investigation found that a serious incident could be caused by an accidental mis-application of a control by a pilot with a normal level of training, then action would be taken to try and make it very unlikely to happen again.
> 
> The controls would, perhaps, be redesigned, or pilot training would be altered. Aircraft might be restricted from operating in certain conditions. It's not unusual for the air industry to physically alter the design of planes as a result of accident investigations.
> 
> Neither will happen here because it simply is accepted that cars are fundamentally dangerous pieces of machinery and the changes needed to remove that danger would mean that we'd have to make significant changes to how we approach transport. Some of us do in fact want to make those changes, which is part of what this thread is all about.



I've long called for police road accident investigation reports to be routinely published, as a first step towards making safety recommendations in response to such incidents.

But no, the reports remain private "to respect the families of the deceased" etc, so we're left with occasional shitty tabloid articles about prosecutions of drivers, which aren't a feature  of fatal aircraft accidents.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You can tell most drivers are shit because of how high insurance premiums are.
> 
> Cycle insurance on the other hand is peanuts and often given away for free.



My car insurance has gone down by £300 this year, my cycle insurance up by £1.50


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2022)

It turns out Barack Obama also reads this thread.









						Sprawl in America "is not good for our climate” says Barack Obama
					

Former US president Barack Obama has called on architects and policymakers to tackle urban sprawl and to "create livable density" in American cities.




					www.dezeen.com
				






> the former US president linked car-dependent development to the climate crisis.
> 
> 
> "Sprawl in America is not good for our climate," he said. "And so we have to think about creating livable density that allows us to take mass transit and take bicycles."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It turns out Barack Obama also reads this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't think so, he has you on ignore


----------



## edcraw (Jul 29, 2022)

Good to see the AA have also been reading this thread. Prob quite embarrassed by our pro car nutters.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 29, 2022)

Always love how the Telegraph’s paywall gives the impression of the reader glazing over as the pub boar drones on about whatever tedious subject they’re on about this time.


----------



## T & P (Jul 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> Are drivers only awful if they are responsible for a fatal crash? That seems an unreasonably high bar. Almost every motorist will be in at least one (and usually several) accident at some point in their lives.


Well, semantics will be semantics, but I reckon if most carpenters were generally considered to be awful at their jobs, most of them would be missing half their fingers, and most timber objects would be wonky and collapse within months of being built. If most pilots were awful, there would major air crashes on a daily basis. If most dry cleaners were actually awful, it would probably mean that eight of out of ten times you took a garment to be dry cleaned, it would come back full of holes.

A lot of drivers can be inconsiderate arseholes ( and edcraw , believe it or not I I used to commute on a bicycle on and off for years, so I have no trouble believing of regular, even daily encounters with aggressive dickhead drivers).

But it’s precisely because of the distressing, reckless and potentially lethal nature of such car driver-perpetrated incidents that you arrive home or at work (justifiably) cursing the small minority of drivers who put you in a perilous situation almost every day, and automatically forget the many, many more who overtook or crossed paths on the same commute in a safe manner.

Anyway, I shall say no more about this particular semantics sub-debate as I’m sure we’re all tired if it.


----------



## T & P (Jul 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Always love how the Telegraph’s paywall gives the impression of the reader glazing over as the pub boar drones on about whatever tedious subject they’re on about this time.
> 
> View attachment 335117


Yeah, I saw that today and made me laugh out loud. What a fucking dickhead


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2022)

T & P said:


> Well, semantics will be semantics, but I reckon if most carpenters were generally considered to be awful at their jobs, most of them would be missing half their fingers, and most timber objects would be wonky and collapse within months of being built. If most pilots were awful, there would major air crashes on a daily basis. If most dry cleaners were actually awful, it would probably mean that eight of out of ten times you took a garment to be dry cleaned, it would come back full of holes.


Pretty sure the majority of people are awful carpenters, pilots & dry cleaners.

Guess we’re okay to say the majority of people are awful drivers then.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2022)

I can tell most drivers are awful as hardly any of them either don’t know or don’t care what they’re meant to do at this.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I can tell most drivers are awful as hardly any of them either don’t know or don’t care what they’re meant to do at this.
> 
> View attachment 335145



teuchter certainly doesn’t, he admitted so on this thread. That’s the problem with anti-car folks, they drive, but think that learning how to do it properly is beneath them.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> teuchter certainly doesn’t, he admitted so on this thread. That’s the problem with anti-car folks, they drive, but think that learning how to do it properly is beneath them.


There are shit load of anti car folks driving around out there then 🤣


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2022)

Gammons out in Oxford the other day.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2022)

Someone should glue them down.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Gammons out in Oxford the other day.


----------



## platinumsage (Jul 30, 2022)

It’s Oxford. The vast majority of people against the LTNs will already have done their bit by lobbying their LibDem councillor at a garden party.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2022)

Seven Dials and surrounding area in Covent Garden’s pedestrianised today and is amazing. Rest of the West End frankly awful. Prioritising a few selfish drivers at the expense of shoppers. Absolutely crazy!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2022)

From another thread, this typifies what happens in your brain when you become a driver and blank out the externalised costs of your actions.



MickiQ said:


> Costco is pre-pay at the pump (there is no kiosk) and at £1.81 for a litre of diesel it's actually worth the 20-mile round trip rather than go the 2 mile round trip to the local BP at £1.99 per litre.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Seven Dials and surrounding area in Covent Garden’s pedestrianised today and is amazing. Rest of the West End frankly awful. Prioritising a few selfish drivers at the expense of shoppers. Absolutely crazy!
> 
> View attachment 335213



That's one for the artificial grass thread, dreadful!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> From another thread, this typifies what happens in your brain when you become a driver and blank out the externalised costs of your actions.



Did you weigh up the deaths from respiratory disease caused by coal-fired power plants when considering making use of the internet to post this?


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> From another thread, this typifies what happens in your brain when you become a driver and blank out the externalised costs of your actions.


The great thing about this is not only am I saving money but I'm getting you to pay for it as well. Deffo a win-win situation. Flattered by the attention by the way.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's one for the artificial grass thread, dreadful!


Temporary carpet that’ll be used at lots of events you joyless tw*t.

Looks like it’s part of a trial LTN that can happen now your beloved Tories have been voted out of Westminster.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Temporary carpet that’ll be used at lots of events you joyless tw*t.
> 
> Looks like it’s part of a trial LTN that can happen now your beloved Tories have been voted out of Westminster.



Not sure how disliking artificial grass makes someone joyless.

Anyhow I’m glad the council appear to have read my posts on this thread recently, where I highlighted the successful pedestrianisation of Leicester Square etc, and suggested that London ought to catch up with other cities with respect to the proportion of central streets that are pedestrianised.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> the council appear to have read my posts on this thread recently, where I highlighted the successful pedestrianisation of Leicester Square etc, and suggested that London ought to catch up with other cities with respect to the proportion of central streets that are pedestrianised.



It's great and more evidence of this thread being ultra successful.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's great and more evidence of this thread being ultra successful.


Especially when the pro car nutters are now leading the way! Superb.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure how disliking artificial grass makes someone joyless.


It doesn’t - it’s everything else you post in this thread that does. 

Disliking carpet is a bit weird though.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's great and more evidence of this thread being ultra successful.



Then you can take comfort from the fact that all my other posts will now be examined by the authorities for further wisdom. I look forward to more restrictions on buses and a scheme to supply SUVs to rural pensioners.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 1, 2022)

It's time for a rewatch of this all time great video


edit: in case anyone can't play the vid, here it is on youtube


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> It's time for a rewatch of this all time great video



Reckon they’re all platinumsage.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> all my other posts will now be examined by the authorities


They will indeed.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> It's time for a rewatch of this all time great video



The comments are as full as you'd expect of people claiming that we should design roads around the needs of incompetent drivers. In fact most of our urban roads _are_ designed around the needs of incompetent drivers, with the result that it's not usually drivers who get hurt when they mess up.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2022)




----------



## David Clapson (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The comments are as full as you'd expect of people claiming that we should design roads around the needs of incompetent drivers. In fact most of our urban roads are designed around the needs of incompetent drivers, with the result that it's not usually drivers who get hurt when they mess up.
> View attachment 335556


It's clear that a huge number of drivers aren't skilled enough to give the legally required distance to cyclists when overtaking.  If this law was rigorously enforced, and if the speed limits were also rigorously enforced, this country would be transformed. It could become a cycling paradise, like Norway and all those other sophisticated countries on the Continent


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The comments are as full as you'd expect of people claiming that we should design roads around the needs of incompetent drivers. In fact most of our urban roads _are_ designed around the needs of incompetent drivers, with the result that it's not usually drivers who get hurt when they mess up.



508 drivers died in 2019, but only 470 pedestrians.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> The comments are as full as you'd expect of people claiming that we should design roads around the needs of incompetent drivers. In fact most of our urban roads _are_ designed around the needs of incompetent drivers, with the result that it's not usually drivers who get hurt when they mess up.
> 
> It's clear that a huge number of drivers aren't skilled enough to give the legally required distance to cyclists when overtaking.  If this law was rigorously enforced, and if the speed limits were also rigorously enforced, this country would be transformed. It could become a cycling paradise, like Norway and all those other sophisticated countries on the Continent



Norwegians are commencing a cyclist killing spree:

“The long-term trend shows that traffic in Norway has become safer for all road user groups. Car passenger occupants and pedestrians saw reductions of more than 72% each between 2000 and 2019. The user group that has benefited least are cyclists, who saw a 53% reduction in fatalities since 2000. More recently, starting in 2010, the number of fatalities decreased for all users, save for cyclists who saw a slight increase.”


----------



## MickiQ (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> It's time for a rewatch of this all time great video
> 
> 
> edit: in case anyone can't play the vid, here it is on youtube



That's one of those things that's really funny when it happens to someone else


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> 508 drivers died in 2019, but only 470 pedestrians.


Yeah - those pedestrians really deserved it 🙄

For a joyless tw*t you’re also pretty offensive sometimes.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> That's one of those things that's really funny when it happens to someone else


Correct. Luckily you just have not to be a shit driver for it not to happen to yourself.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - those pedestrians really deserved it 🙄
> 
> For a joyless tw*t you’re also pretty offensive sometimes.



I don’t split casualties into deserving and undeserving, unlike some rabid car-abolitionists I know.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Norwegians are commencing a cyclist killing spree:
> 
> “The long-term trend shows that traffic in Norway has become safer for all road user groups. Car passenger occupants and pedestrians saw reductions of more than 72% each between 2000 and 2019. The user group that has benefited least are cyclists, who saw a 53% reduction in fatalities since 2000. More recently, starting in 2010, the number of fatalities decreased for all users, save for cyclists who saw a slight increase.”


It might be interesting if you could drop the trolling and do a like for like comparison with Norway, taking account of rates of cycling there, traffic offences, car buying, the effects of Arctic winter, the huge investment programme in cycling infrastructure etc etc


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> It might be interesting if you could drop the trolling and do a like for like comparison with Norway, taking account of rates of cycling there, traffic offences, car buying, the effects of Arctic winter, the huge investment programme in cycling infrastructure etc etc



I’ve already done some rough calculations on that but fear many here wouldn’t like the results.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

Anyway weren’t you recently taking pride in a plan to chug around Europe in a non-Euro 4 compliant diesel camper van?


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Anyway weren’t you recently taking pride in a plan to chug around Europe in a non-Euro 4 compliant desiel camper van?


Actually it's a petrol one, compliant with the current Euro standard, converted to LPG, running on BioLPG when possible. And I'm exchanging it for a bricks and mortar dwelling. I hope the net effect on my carboon footprint will be pretty good.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 1, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Actually it's a petrol one, compliant with the current Euro standard, converted to LPG, running on BioLPG when possible. And I'm exchanging it for a bricks and mortar dwelling. I hope the net effect on my carboon footprint will be pretty good.



That would probably be debatable, unless your new dwelling will have a wood-burning stove.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That would probably be debatable, unless your new dwelling will have a wood-burning stove.


I'm going to try it without a heater, wintering in southern europe, with very very warm clothes in case of freak cold snaps


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> 508 drivers died in 2019, but only 470 pedestrians.


Please note that I took care to say "urban roads". It would be good if you could take similar care in your replies.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

MickiQ said:


> That's one of those things that's really funny when it happens to someone else


If only there had been a really easy way to avoid it happening.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2022)

20’s Plenty – the new norm | Exhibition & seminars
					






					www.transportxtra.com
				




In case any of the thread dinosaurs want to go and set up a protest outside



> The world is changing its perspective on what is an appropriate speed for motor vehicles wherever they share public spaces with people. 30km/h or 20mph is becoming the new global norm for urban and village streets shared between motors and people.
> 
> Gone are the days of designing our streets around cars and instead there is a recognition that a healthy city, town or village needs a far better balance in risk and convenience between the people inside and those outside motor vehicles. With most of the larger urban authorities having already set a 20mph limit as a norm it is increasingly the clear that what is good for residents in cities is also good for residents in towns and villages. Already thousands of parish councils have called on their county council to set a 20mph limit as a norm. Some counties have already done so.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

Cue the twats chorus of “But it’s really hard to drive my car so slowly…”


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cue the twats chorus of “But it’s really hard to drive my car so slowly…”



It's a piece of piss to drive slowly

Just not as much fun


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It's a piece of piss to drive slowly
> 
> Just not as much fun
> 
> ...


That’s what track days are for


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That’s what track days are for



Don't you care about squirrels and other small wildlife? Should be a mandatory 5mph limit for track days, there's no justifiable reason to go faster as you're not driving a sick child to hospital or whatever but simply twatting about for your own amusement.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Don't you care about squirrels and other small wildlife?


Not really, no


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not really, no



Yes but I do and I want to restrict your driving because I am always right, and your wants and needs are irrelevant.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

I think you’re making one of those points that only works in your head again.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

Obviously very important people in their stupidly large cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Obviously very important people in their stupidly large cars.




Seems like the driver got out of the way safely in time so that the children could navigate the junction in peace without their moronic father screaming blue murder about another road user.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Seems like the driver got out of the way safely in time so that the children could navigate the junction in peace without their moronic father screaming blue murder about another road user.


Yeah - you’re a tw*t.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - you’re a tw*t.



I've already concluded that you have neither passed a driving test nor a cycling proficiency course, and are consequently clueless about both. I just hope you can manage to pedestrianate yourself about the place without coming a cropper on a regular basis.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

Seriously - if you don’t think the wank panzer should have waited a few seconds you’re a complete bellend.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Seriously - if you don’t think the wank panzer should have waited a few seconds you’re a complete bellend.



No, most cyclists prefer to be safely overtaken and have a clear road behind them than navigate a junction with a car waiting behind them.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, most cyclists prefer to be safely overtaken and have a clear road behind them than navigate a junction with a car waiting behind them.


That wasn’t safely overtaken - that was cutting up on a junction. Please hand your licence in.

So many shit drivers out there like you that don’t even realise it. It’s fucking kids you twat.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2022)

Had this same manoeuvre been filmed from a car dashcam with exactly the same point of view I wonder what kind of road rage incident we might have seen unfold thereafter.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

Yeah lots of drivers unreasonably object to being safely overtaken. I blame driving tests these days.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 335739View attachment 335740



As I suspected.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I suspected.


Weird apology but better than nothing I suppose.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Weird apology but better than nothing I suppose.



I meant as I suspect you’ve never passed a driving test or a cycling proficiency course, but if that counts as an apology be my guest


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 2, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Had this same manoeuvre been filmed from a car dashcam with exactly the same point of view I wonder what kind of road rage incident we might have seen unfold thereafter.
> 
> View attachment 335741


We need a link


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I meant as I suspect you’ve never passed a driving test or a cycling proficiency course, but if that counts as an apology be my guest


It’s even fucking highlighted for you and you still dispute it. Love how you’re just proving the point.

You could just go “yeah, the dick in the stupidly large car was in the wrong but #notalldrivers✌️“ but for some reason you think you have to defend people blatantly in the wrong. You are 12 aren’t you?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s even fucking highlighted for you and you still dispute it. Love how you’re just proving the point.
> 
> You could just go “yeah, the dick in the stupidly large car was in the wrong but #notalldrivers✌️“ but for some reason you think you have to defend people blatantly in the wrong. You are 12 aren’t you?



If you can find a police officer who works traffic and thinks that the SUV should have stopped behind that girl standing by the kerb with her bike, let me know.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you can find a police officer who works traffic and thinks that the SUV should have stopped behind that girl standing by the kerb with her bike, let me know.


Even if this wasn’t spelt out in the Highway Code as above there’s just the simple fact that only a dick wouldn’t have waited behind them all for the few seconds it would have taken instead of barging through. I’d give it a rest for a bit before you show yourself to be even more of a tw*t. Quit while you’re behind.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 2, 2022)

Sometimes I wonder whether you’ve ever been on a road, perhaps you’re a bot?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2022)

Spymaster said:


>



Yeah - dangerous crap. (see not hard platinumsage)

London’s finest seems to have suspiciously slow reactions there though 🙄


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

Spymaster said:


>



I mean, yes, he’s obviously an utter bellend 

He has neatly highlighted an important point though - dangerously stupid riding on a bike will almost always only endanger the cyclist. Stupidly dangerous driving in a car can have horrendous consequences for everyone involved…


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2022)

Spymaster said:


>



The folks that like to post this kind of _red mist at cyclists_ stuff - have a little look at what else they post or retweet and it's nearly always rather predictable.



			https://twitter.com/KRTN_Will


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you can find a police officer who works traffic and thinks that the SUV should have stopped behind that girl standing by the kerb with her bike, let me know.


Fairly sure any traffic officer would have given the rather obvious verdict. Your desperation to argue literally anything in the defence of obviously bad driving is just, well, _weird_ now.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2022)




----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He has neatly highlighted an important point though - *dangerously stupid riding on a bike will almost always only endanger the cyclist.* Stupidly dangerous driving in a car can have horrendous consequences for everyone involved…


And if traffic laws in this country didn’t grant  a de facto legal immunity to cyclists for most  non-intentional reckless behaviour even when they caused damage to property, you would have a point.

But as it is, that taxi driver and indeed any car owner who sees a dickhead cyclist crash against their vehicle, has virtually fuck all chance to get the cyclist to pay for the cost of any repair. So there are consequences, however insignificant there might seem to you.

Not to mention the fact that since in this country car drivers are de facto considered guilty until proven innocent in collisions with cyclists or peds, not only would a driver in such situation never see a penny’s compensation for any damage to the bodywork even when undoubtedly, 100 fucking per cent it at fault, but unless there was any dashcam footage or numerous witnesses available, the driver can as likely as not expect a letter from an ambulance chasing solicitor before long, because why be honest about being the guilty party in a collision when you have a fair chance to lie and milk the system, and the hell if someone loses their job or their driving insurance shoots up.

So yes, cyclists behaving like dickheads and causing accidents can have major repercussions to the perfectly innocent other party. But death machines etc…


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2022)

When we get all obsessed about going on about pedestrians getting life changing injuries it's so easy to forget about the bigger tragedies like how someone's car might get a scratch on it that will have absolutely devastating consequences for its owner's vanity.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> And if traffic laws in this country didn’t grant  a de facto legal immunity to cyclists for most  non-intentional reckless behaviour even when they caused damage to property, you would have a point.
> 
> But as it is, that taxi driver and indeed any car owner who sees a dickhead cyclist crash against their vehicle, has virtually fuck all chance to get the cyclist to pay for the cost of any repair. So there are consequences, however insignificant there might seem to you.
> 
> ...


Oh no! A scratch! Life is over!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> And if traffic laws in this country didn’t grant  a de facto legal immunity to cyclists for most  non-intentional reckless behaviour even when they caused damage to property, you would have a point.
> 
> But as it is, that taxi driver and indeed any car owner who sees a dickhead cyclist crash against their vehicle, has virtually fuck all chance to get the cyclist to pay for the cost of any repair. So there are consequences, however insignificant there might seem to you.
> 
> ...


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

Found one of T&P’s Twitter accounts!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fairly sure any traffic officer would have given the rather obvious verdict. Your desperation to argue literally anything in the defence of obviously bad driving is just, well, _weird_ now.



If I thought anyone here would actually listen I’d take the time to explain my reasoning, but it won’t be worth the effort because none of you actually care about improving driving standards, either your own or anyone else’s.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If I thought anyone here would actually listen I’d take the time to explain my reasoning, but it won’t be worth the effort because none of you actually care about improving driving standards, either your own or anyone else’s.


“I would explain it to you but you wouldn’t understand.” 🤪


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Seems like











						Surrendering your driving licence
					

When you have to give up your driving licence - age, medical condition, standards of fitness, declaration of voluntary surrender




					www.gov.uk


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh no! A scratch! Life is over!


I knew that was the typical response you were likely to give 

You are aware, for instance, that there is such a thing as car leasing, and that at the end of the lease one has to pay for damage to the bodywork including scratches? You knew that, right?


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 335768


The only gammon in here is you, you twat


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> I knew that was the typical response you were likely to give
> 
> You are aware, for instance, that there is such a thing as car leasing, and that at the end of the lease one has to pay for damage to the bodywork including scratches? You knew that, right?


Oh the humanity!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> I knew that was the typical response you were likely to give
> 
> You are aware, for instance, that there is such a thing as car leasing, and that at the end of the lease one has to pay for damage to the bodywork including scratches? You knew that, right?


A tragedy almost Shakespearean in nature.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A tragedy almost Shakespearean in nature.


Let me get this straight. Your hatred of cars is such, you actually think someone who causes a three-figure amount of damage through gross negiglence and reckless behaviour shouldn't have to be made to pay it, if the damage happens to be inflicted on a car? You must be fairly well off if you think having to fork out several hundred Pounds for something that isn't your fault is a trivial matter.

You know, I expected this kind of fundamentalist-level hatred bullshit from the likes of teuchter and edcraw, but not from you...


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

If you leave stuff just lying around on the road it's going to get damaged.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> Let me get this straight.


Doesn't look like you have managed. Have another attempt.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If you leave stuff just lying around on the road it's going to get damaged.



Apparently this is an implicit threat of violence and says a lot about you, according to someone on this thread.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> Let me get this straight. Your hatred of cars is such, you actually think someone who causes a three-figure amount of damage through gross negiglence and reckless behaviour shouldn't have to be made to pay it, if the damage happens to be inflicted on a car? You must be fairly well off if you think having to fork out several hundred Pounds for something that isn't your fault is a trivial matter.
> 
> You know, I expected this kind of fundamentalist-level hatred bullshit from the likes of teuchter and edcraw, but not from you...


3 figure sum!!!

But no problem with twat’s in SUVs endangering kids lives as they’re in a bit of a rush?

Might want to check your priorities mate.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Apparently this is an implicit threat of violence


It definitely is. Though by saying that I guess it's now explicit. I'll keep an eye out for the polis.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> Let me get this straight. Your hatred of cars is such, you actually think someone who causes a three-figure amount of damage through gross negiglence and reckless behaviour shouldn't have to be made to pay it, if the damage happens to be inflicted on a car? You must be fairly well off if you think having to fork out several hundred Pounds for something that isn't your fault is a trivial matter.
> 
> You know, I expected this kind of fundamentalist-level hatred bullshit from the likes of teuchter and edcraw, but not from you...


I think the idea that cars are somehow sacred objects that can’t have a single scratch or mark of daily wear on them is a great example of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It definitely is. Though by saying that I guess it's now explicit. I'll keep an eye out for the polis.



I wonder what targets you have in mind. Cars, delivery vans, ambulances, children's lemonade stands, cats?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

People who deliberately misunderstand things on forums.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think the idea that cars are somehow sacred objects that can’t have a single scratch or mark of daily wear on them is a great example of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone.


Yep - shitty status symbols for shitty people.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think the idea that cars are somehow sacred objects that can’t have a single scratch or mark of daily wear on them is a great example of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone.



I'm sure when you bought your car you went out of your way to find one which was badly scratched and scraped, so you could save money by not paying a premium for vanity?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm sure when you bought your car you went out of your way to find one which was badly scratched and scraped, so you could save money by not paying a premium for vanity?


You’ve clearly not seen my car


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You’ve clearly not seen my car



Not when you bought it no, although it's no surprise that you've had many collisions with stationary objects since then.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

If you’re buying a new car you’re an idiot.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If you’re buying a new car you’re an idiot.



Really no concept of anything outside your bubble have you?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Really no concept of anything outside your bubble have you?


Okay - what’s the point in buying a new car except just to throw away some money from the off?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

Actually if you need a car a bubble car is a fine choice.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Okay - what’s the point in buying a new car except just to throw away some money from the off?



You crossed out new, which I took to mean buying any car at all.

OK, even if you think only idiots buy new cars, how do you think used cars appear for sale?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You crossed out new, which I took to mean buying any car at all.
> 
> OK, even if you think only idiots buy new cars, how do you think used cars appear for sale?


Rentals, people leasing & idiots buying new cars. Next.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think the idea that cars are somehow sacred objects that can’t have a single scratch or mark of daily wear on them is a great example of how far down the rabbit hole we’ve gone.


That's a good point for another discussion, but the bottom line is that in many cases a car doesn’t belong to the person driving it it, yet they are liable to pay the lessor or legal owner for any damage to the bodywork. And if the damaged is caused by a third party acting like a fucking dickhead, then that third party should fucking pay for the repair, not the person in charge of the car.

And yes, edcraw , any dent or scratch however small will cost a three-figure amount to fix. What fucking universe do you live in?


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If you leave stuff just lying around on the road it's going to get damaged.


The same will undboutedly apply to stuff lying around on pavements, of course...


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

Looks like it, aye. I'm taking from the picture showing damaged bikes that those bikes were indeed damaged.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> The same will undboutedly apply to stuff lying around on pavements, of course...


Yep - you’d be an idiot to leave a bike chained up there for more than a few hours & certainly not overnight.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> And yes, edcraw , any dent or scratch however small will cost a three-figure amount to fix. What fucking universe do you live in?


Yep - I’m saying that’s small beer, after all a tank of petrol is 3 figures, and certainly compared to the live of a child which you seem to be saying is comparable.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> The same will undboutedly apply to stuff lying around on pavements, of course...



There's one of those bike rack things at the bottom of our road. I've trained the dog to use it as a urinal.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not when you bought it no, although it's no surprise that you've had many collisions with stationary objects since then.


As far as I’m aware I’ve never hit anything  and yes it had various scratches all over it when it came into my possession. Who cares?

Fresh scrapes and dents still occasionally appear though, usually in car parks or when I’ve left it outside in the badlands of north Birmingham  C’est la vie, it always starts and moves me from a to b when required, which is all it ever needs to do.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> That's a good point for another discussion, but the bottom line is that in many cases a car doesn’t belong to the person driving it it, yet they are liable to pay the lessor or legal owner for any damage to the bodywork. And if the damaged is caused by a third party acting like a fucking dickhead, then that third party should fucking pay for the repair, not the person in charge of the car.
> 
> And yes, edcraw , any dent or scratch however small will cost a three-figure amount to fix. What fucking universe do you live in?











						Minor Damage Insurance
					

Help protect your lease vehicle from minor damage, such as small scratches, scuffs and dents with SMART Insurance and Tyre and Alloy Insurance. Get a quote now.




					www.nationwidevehiclecontracts.co.uk
				




Pay for some insurance. The vehicle is about a million times more likely to be damaged by another motor vehicle or a pigeon or something than a reckless cyclist.

If you don't like the real cost of running a private vehicle, lobby your MP and others for a less car dependent society. Post on threads like this one.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Pay for some insurance.



That’s a good one. I suppose you think pedestrians should just get life insurance instead of expecting their families to try and bring the perpetrators of any fatal accident to justice.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Minor Damage Insurance
> 
> 
> Help protect your lease vehicle from minor damage, such as small scratches, scuffs and dents with SMART Insurance and Tyre and Alloy Insurance. Get a quote now.
> ...


The cyclist could, and indeed should, get some insurance as well, which would be the fairest thing all around.

The cost of running a vehicle has fuck all to do with being forced to pay for something that was somebody else's fault due to negiglence. If a pair of adults are playing drunken street baseball right outside your house (houses of course costing much more to buy or rent, as well as to mantain than cars), and one of them puts one of your windows through with the ball, would you take the same attitude as that you suggest car drivers should adopt? The cunting fuck you would.

 And I wonder if you and a few others here would be so flippant about 'minor costs' and trival damage if someone went and scratched a big cock, or wrote 'all cyclists are cunts' on the frame of your new 1.5k bike. Just as a scratch, right?

Do as I say, not as I do. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2022)

Interesting that you think that smashing a house window through is minor cosmetic damage on a par with a scuff on some car paintwork.

Also interesting that you think that drunken baseball players would stick around and offer to pay for damage!

Sometimes I wonder whether some people on this thread live in the real world or not.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> drunken street baseball


They should get drunken street baseball insurance first.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> The cyclist could, and indeed should, get some insurance as well, which would be the fairest thing all around.
> 
> The cost of running a vehicle has fuck all to do with being forced to pay for something that was somebody else's fault due to negiglence. If a pair of adults are playing drunken street baseball right outside your house (houses of course costing much more to buy or rent, as well as to mantain than cars), and one of them puts one of your windows through with the ball, would you take the same attitude as that you suggest car drivers should adopt? The cunting fuck you would.
> 
> ...


cYcLiStS sHoUlD hAvE tO hAvE iNsUrAnCe, LiCeNsE pLaTeS aNd PaY rOaD tAx!!111!!!!!11 🤪


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

Thoughts and prays with this van driver. 🙏 One can only hope the cyclists didn’t scratch his paint work!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

I don’t know about Irish roads but if that is a cycle lane it doesn’t look like one (note how the previous one was wider, red and had bike symbols). Seems like a case of shit cycle facilities being worse than none. The cyclist could have realised this and not attempted to move up the inside of the van there - he’s a lycra warrior so must have known it was ill-advised but relied on his entitlement to protect him.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t know about Irish roads but if that is a cycle lane it doesn’t look like one (note how the previous one was wider, red and had bike symbols). Seems like a case of shite cycle facilities being worse than none. The cyclist could have realised this and not attempted to move up the inside of the van there - he’s a lycra warrior so must have known it was ill-advised but relied on his entitlement to protect him.


Seriously - hand in your license, you an obvious danger. 

You’d think van drivers would be a bit more careful in case they cause three figure sums of damage!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’d think van drivers would be a bit more careful in case they cause three figure sums of damage!



People make mistakes. This is why we have road markings and stuff, but they can only do so much, especially if they’re badly designed. It’s also why we have cycling proficiency courses, perhaps the guy in the video should sign up for one.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> People make mistakes. This is why we have road markings and stuff, but they can only do so much, especially if they’re badly designed. It’s also why we have cycling proficiency courses, perhaps the guy in the video should sign up for one.


Yep - too many shit drivers. Guess we either have segregated cycle routes or we ban cars. Decisions decisions…


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yep - too many shit drivers. Guess we either have segregated cycle routes or we ban cars. Decisions decisions…



As you know, we’re both in favour of segregated cycle routes, and both against banning cars, so i’m not sure this is quite the argumentative point you think it is.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> cYcLiStS sHoUlD hAvE tO hAvE iNsUrAnCe, LiCeNsE pLaTeS aNd PaY rOaD tAx!!111!!!!!11 🤪


You do realise that childish upper case/ lower  case childish thing you keep doing makes look as bright as Donald Trump with a hangover, right?

Apart from that, you conveniently fail to address the issue at hand. Can you kindly state now what would you feel should happen if a couple of drunken adults happened to be hitting a ball with a bat right outside your gaff and eventually one of them broke your window? Would you want them to pay for it on principle, or shrug your shoulders and think ‘I pay thousands a year on rent/ mortgage payments, so I shouldn’t moan about having to pay a few hundred quid for damage that wasn’t my fault and was caused by completely avoidable reckless behaviour by others’?

Please state your position on that before you engage me on anything else.


----------



## T & P (Aug 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Interesting that you think that smashing a house window through is minor cosmetic damage on a par with a scuff on some car paintwork.
> 
> Also interesting that you think that drunken baseball players would stick around and offer to pay for damage!
> 
> Sometimes I wonder whether some people on this thread live in the real world or not.


Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.

But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.

Person A is leasing a car that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless cyclist acting in an undeniably unacceptable manner crashes into the car, and causes damage to the bodywork that will costly several hundred quid to set right. 

Person B is renting a home that they’ve kept in perfect condition, and one day a reckless fool kicking a ball around where they shouldn’t  breaks a window, which will costly several hundred quid to set right. 

Would you please clarify now why person A should be viewed any differently to person B?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yep - too many shit drivers. Guess we either have segregated cycle routes or we ban cars. Decisions decisions…


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.
> 
> But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.
> 
> ...


Don't see any particular reason why they should be viewed differently. Why do you ask?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2022)

T & P said:


> Interesting that you’re so willing to play dumb when it suits you.
> 
> But since you are, let’s bite and put it in very simple terms.
> 
> ...


Cars != Houses


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

T&P really giving Platinumsage a run for their money for weirdest poster of the thread. 

Compulsory insurance for ALL street baseball players!!??!!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Love this guy!!



(Looking forward to platinumsage ’s imaginative defence of these drivers)


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2022)

CyclingMikey is great. Note how he only tackles people who actually break the law, and doesn’t rant screechily at drivers who safely execute legal manoeuvres.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> CyclingMikey is great. Note how he only tackles people who actually break the law, and doesn’t rant screechily at drivers who safely execute legal manoeuvres.


Such a contrarian - love it! 👏👏


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Stupid cyclist screeching as this driver safely executed a legal manoeuvre. Hope the lorry didn’t get scratched.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Such a contrarian - love it! 👏👏



I'm the only person on this thread who is entirely consistent.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 4, 2022)

As consistent as a hobgoblin.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2022)




----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars != Houses


Aaaannnd you keep missing the point.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> T&P really giving Platinumsage a run for their money for weirdest poster of the thread.
> 
> Compulsory insurance for ALL street baseball players!!??!!


You're not fooling anyone with your attempts at doging the questions put to you.

The hypocrisy and bitterness consistently displayed by you and the other anti-car Talibans in here is fantastically amusing. And the more you continue to dodge questions, the more cringeworthily embarrassing it gets. So please, continue doing so


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 4, 2022)

T & P said:


> Talibans


Students?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Three types of posters in this thread - those that see the danger caused by cars and want to do something about it, those that see the danger caused by cars and are fine with it and Spymaster who just posts photos of his mum.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Three types of posters in this thread - those that see the danger caused by cars and want to do something about it, those that see the danger caused by cars and are fine with it and Spymaster who just posts photos of his mum.



 My mum's dead, Ed


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> My mum's dead, Ed


Old photos I guess then.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Drivers just can’t be trusted to have nice things.









						LA's Half-a-Billion-Dollar Bridge Shut Down After Just 2 Weeks
					

Street racing and other hooliganism has plagued the 6th Street Viaduct since the day it opened. Now the city is scrambling to add speed bumps and barriers.




					jalopnik.com


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 4, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 336004


She was such a beautiful lady. RIP 🪦


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Erm - starting to think cars might be a bit of a problem…


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2022)

Sounds like suicide from the reports, not sure it’s relevant to this thread. The hundreds of pedestrians killed by trains should apparently be disregarded according to some posters, “because they would have found another way to do it” and it’s solved by mental health treatment not safety measures relating to that mode of transport. Not sure I agree but there we go.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sounds like suicide from the reports, not sure it’s relevant to this thread. The hundreds of pedestrians killed by trains should apparently be disregarded according to some posters, “because they would have found another way to do it” and it’s solved by mental health treatment not safety measures relating to that mode of transport. Not sure I agree but there we go.


Yeah - you’re definitely in the realise the danger of cars but don’t give a shit category.

I’m sure you’re not pro gun but if you were in the US you prob would be.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Guess we just have to live with this 🤷


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 336053


A beautiful angel taken from us too soon 😢


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Guess we just have to live with this 🤷



What, foetuses being included in death counts as if they were people? No we don't.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What, foetuses being included in death counts as if they were people? No we don't.


Yeah - only 4 dead this time. Not worth giving a shit about.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 336054


Oh - not looking so good there. Must’ve been a horrid way to go.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2022)

Anti-car people will be pleased to learn our forthcoming Chancellor has previously authored a book all about cars and traffic planning:





__





						Gridlock Nation eBook : Kwarteng, Kwasi: Amazon.co.uk: Books
					

Gridlock Nation eBook : Kwarteng, Kwasi: Amazon.co.uk: Books



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Anti-car people will be pleased to learn our forthcoming Chancellor has previously authored a book all about cars and traffic planning:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you still going to use your vote for Truss then?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 336098


Oh dear - the illness obviously progressed quickly. Must have been awful for you - no wonder you turned to drink.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Thread on how speed limiters have been around for a century but car companies have actively campaigned against them. Blood on their hands.



(Please no more pics of your dead mother Spymaster - too emotional for me x)


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 336160


She loved a good ride 😉


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Thread on how speed limiters have been around for a century but car companies have actively campaigned against them. Blood on their hands.
> 
> 
> 
> (Please no more pics of your dead mother Spymaster - too emotional for me x)




It has always struck me as odd how “this car can go from 0-100 in 0.2 seconds” has been such a selling point.

It’s cool but there’s few places where you’ll get to even two thirds of that speed on a regular basis


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> It has always struck me as odd how “this car can go from 0-100 in 0.2 seconds” has been such a selling point.
> 
> It’s cool but there’s few places where you’ll get to even two thirds of that speed on a regular basis


Yes - it’s indicative of how people see cars as a status symbol rather than just a means of transport. Some people have very sad little lives.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> She was such a beautiful lady. RIP 🪦





edcraw said:


> A beautiful angel taken from us too soon 😢





edcraw said:


> Oh - not looking so good there. Must’ve been a horrid way to go.





edcraw said:


> Oh dear - the illness obviously progressed quickly. Must have been awful for you - no wonder you turned to drink.





edcraw said:


> She loved a good ride 😉




Fuck sakes, can you stop this please, it’s grotesque and bang out of order.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Fuck sakes, can you stop this please, it’s grotesque and bang out of order.


Oh sorry - please do tell me where the being too much of a dick line is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Oh sorry - please do tell me where the being too much of a dick line is.



You, with your shit replies to spy’s pictures. Horrible.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Oh sorry - please do tell me where the being too much of a dick line is.


 It’s wherever the poster(s) accusing you of being a dick say it is.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 336181



Wow!

I'm posting silly pictures, and your response is an all-out attack on my dead mum, complete with rotting corpses.

Seriously?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Wow!
> 
> I'm posting silly pictures, and your response is an all-out attack on my dead mum, complete with rotting corpses.
> 
> Seriously?


Well if you’re going to insist on posting pictures of her all the time 🤷


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well if you’re going to insist on posting pictures of her all the time 🤷




Disgraceful. Have a fucking word with yourself.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

Well this sounds like a great idea!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

On drugs, uninsured, using a phone, speeding - kills a cyclists - fine for him to drive again in less than three years.









						Drug driver killed cyclist on key city road seconds after using his phone
					

A drug driver left a cyclist with fatal head injuries after ploughed into him just seconds after using his phone.




					www.dailyecho.co.uk
				




Meanwhile this is what the transport secretary is focusing on. 









						We must protect cyclists - but we have to crack down on dangerous riders
					






					www.mailplus.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 6, 2022)

Think you’ve shat the bed, Ed.

No one’s interested now that they realise you’re a bit deranged ☹️


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Think you’ve shat the bed, Ed.
> 
> No one’s interested now that they realise you’re a bit deranged ☹️


Not sure you were very interested in deaths caused by cunts driving beforehand mate.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Oh sorry - please do tell me where the being too much of a dick line is.


You've crossed it and have now been warned. Don't do it again, please. Spymaster also gets a warning for inappropriate content. 
Take any discussion about this to the feedback forum as this thread has been disrupted enough.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 6, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

editor said:


> You've crossed it and have now been warned. Don't do it again, please. Spymaster also gets a warning for inappropriate content.
> Take any discussion about this to the feedback forum as this thread has been disrupted enough.


Fair enough - look forward to spy stopping posting his trolling pics. Oh…


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2022)

So has anyone read Kwasi Kwarteng's book on traffic congestion in the UK yet? Soon he'll be Chancellor so will presumably set about implementing his ideas, perhaps via Nadine Doris as transport secretary.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So has anyone read Kwasi Kwarteng's book on traffic congestion in the UK yet? Soon he'll be Chancellor so will presumably set about implementing his ideas, perhaps via Nadine Doris as transport secretary.


No - have you?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No - have you?



Of course not, I’ve got better things to do. But also I’m not an anti-car propagandist and so don’t need to prepare myself to fight what’s coming.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Of course not, I’ve got better things to do. But also I’m not an anti-car propagandist and so don’t need to prepare myself to fight what’s coming.


Some one called Kwasi on Goodreads likes it!

Someone else points out it doesn’t mention bikes though.



Doesn’t sound worth it really also unsure what qualifies him to talk about this.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Fair enough - look forward to spy stopping posting his trolling pics.



Yeah, but I’d a shame because I had some good ones lined-up. 

Anyway, every time I post a question mark on this thread from now on, everyone is going to picture you bumming a goat.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, but I’d a shame because I had some good ones lined-up.
> 
> Anyway, every time I post a question mark on this thread from now on, everyone is going to picture you bumming a goat.


Maybe you should just stop posting here if nothing you add will be on topic?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 6, 2022)

Pardon?


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Pardon?


You're banned from this thread for a fortnight. And before you complain, you were due another warning after your 'bumming a goat' comment but that would have tipped you into a temporary board wide ban. I suggest you stop pissing about for a while as another warning will still see you banned for some time.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

Probably better listening to someone like Peter Walker on these things than someone that rates their own books on Goodreads. Certainly seems to have a point here.



He also seems to have a few more readers for his book.









						How Cycling Can Save the World
					

Peter Walker--reporter at the Guardian and curator of its popular bike blog--shows how the future of humanity depends on the bicycle.   C...



					www.goodreads.com


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> On drugs, uninsured, using a phone, speeding - kills a cyclists - fine for him to drive again in less than three years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Feel this got a bit lost. How can anyone justify this?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Aug 7, 2022)

I have just had a grown man crying at me because I was going a bit slow across the golf club carpark - 15kmph which is ok, it's a sunday, we are not in a rush to cross the carpark. But he was. And he beeped his little Audi horn. So I put my bike down and wandered over to his car door. And he got very distressed and shouted that he was entited to beep his horn because I was riding slowly. He got out of his Audi.  Like a child. Shouting. I didnt even say anything. 
So there you have it. Audi baby man. 

And given he is leaving it in a carpark for a few hours while he plays another small dick exercise. I was thinking I would go decorate his car. Maybe a little dick on the bonnet. Or write Angry man, and he will get angry.  

Maybe a smiley  - that will cheer him up.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Fuck me - if you think cars are an efficient way of moving individual people through west London then you really are thick.


I used to live and work in west London. Get the tube to Heathrow every day. Sometimes well meaning colleagues would offer me a lift home. Along the M4 which was utterly pointless as it took more time than public transport. Just sit in traffic listening to crapitalFM. Not my idea of a good life.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> And given he is leaving it in a carpark for a few hours while he plays another small dick exercise. I was thinking I would go decorate his car. Maybe a little dick on the bonnet. Or write Angry man, and he will get angry.
> 
> Maybe a smiley  - that will cheer him up.


Please keep us updated.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

Observed on a brief trip to the English countryside where we know everyone really wants to support better bus services and better access to bus services.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

Since cars are getting bigger the size of parking spaces looks like it’s going to be increased. How about manufacturers just build to the size of parking spaces. Such a bizarre way of looking at things.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 336369
> 
> Observed on a brief trip to the English countryside where we know everyone really wants to support better bus services and better access to bus services.



No doubt there was such little demand for buses due to the sparse population that they decided to replace occasional gas-guzzling creak-wagons with a lean efficient volunteer-owned-SUV on-demand service.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Since cars are getting bigger the size of parking spaces looks like it’s going to be increased. How about manufacturers just build to the size of parking spaces. Such a bizarre way of looking at things.



Why do they make doors taller now than in the 13th century, instead of just restricting the height of adults by ensuring children are perpetually malnourished?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No doubt there was such little demand for buses due to the sparse population that they decided to replace occasional gas-guzzling creak-wagons with a lean efficient volunteer-owned-SUV on-demand service.


I also noted that the volunteer driven SUVs were all down at a nearby village, adding to the sense of quaint tranquility everyone loves about the traditional English village and its village green.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I also noted that the volunteer driven SUVs were all down at a nearby village, adding to the sense of quaint tranquility everyone loves about the traditional English village and its village green.



Oh if only the yokel locals all worked the fields and hitched rides about the place on the haywains, what a delightfully quaint scene that would make when you zoom through on your tourist trip.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why do they make doors taller now than in the 13th century, instead of just restricting the height of adults by ensuring children are perpetually malnourished?




Malnutrition started properly in the industrial revolution. Smaller doors were mostly due to keeping the place warm.

Average heights dipped from (iirc) late 1700 to mid 1900s due to the working class being shafted and removed from the commons.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why do they make doors taller now than in the 13th century, instead of just restricting the height of adults by ensuring children are perpetually malnourished?


Where the consultation to allow bigger cars on our roads? Why do we just except this blindly. Think it has very little to do with people getting bigger anyway


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh if only the yokel locals all worked the fields and hitched rides about the place on the haywains, what a delightfully quaint scene that would make when you zoom through on your tourist trip.


Love how you Tories always love to talk about social justice only when it’s things that effect your middle class lifestyles.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Malnutrition started properly in the industrial revolution. Smaller doors were mostly due to keeping the place warm.
> 
> Average heights dipped from (iirc) late 1700 to mid 1900s due to the working class being shafted and removed from the commons.



Sure but there was decent malnutrition in the 13th and 14th centuries when those little doors were built in extant historical buildings.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Where the consultation to allow bigger cars on our roads? Why do we just except this blindly. Think it has very little to do with people getting bigger anyway



Where was the consultation to allow idiots on the internet? Not fair!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love how you Tories always love to talk about social justice only when it’s things that effect your middle class lifestyles.



I'm not the one galavanting around villages bemoaning the way locals do things.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh if only the yokel locals all worked the fields and hitched rides about the place on the haywains, what a delightfully quaint scene that would make when you zoom through on your tourist trip.


How silly of me not to notice that most of these vehicles belonged to impoverished locals, carrying out various agricultural tasks, perhaps selling and purchasing goods, on a Saturday lunchtime in a village containing no services other than a nice looking gastropub.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Where was the consultation to allow idiots on the internet? Not fair!


Thought we might have a temp stop to the pro car trolls but no.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Since cars are getting bigger the size of parking spaces looks like it’s going to be increased. How about manufacturers just build to the size of parking spaces. Such a bizarre way of looking at things.
> 
> View attachment 336375


I'm in favour of increasing parking space sizes, whilst keeping the number of parking spaces the same. This will be a good way of illustrating to motorists the consequences of their purchasing decisions. It will be a shame that some residential streets will lose a few parking spaces but at least it will reduce scratching and parking rage. Unfortunately, an increase in width might mean that parking will have to be removed from one or both sides of some streets, to maintain safety and reduce the risk of scratching, parking rage and congestion. But we do have to accept that times change.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> How silly of me not to notice that most of these vehicles belonged to impoverished locals, carrying out various agricultural tasks, perhaps selling and purchasing goods, on a Saturday lunchtime in a village containing no services other than a nice looking gastropub.



A shame you think they should close the pub because it's too far for a sufficient number of out-of-village customers to conveniently get to. Did you tell them that when you went through on your jolly? 



teuchter said:


> I'm in favour of increasing parking space sizes, whilst keeping the number of parking spaces the same. This will be a good way of illustrating to motorists the consequences of their purchasing decisions. It will be a shame that some residential streets will lose a few parking spaces but at least it will reduce scratching and parking rage. Unfortunately, an increase in width might mean that parking will have to be removed from one or both sides of some streets, to maintain safety and reduce the risk of scratching, parking rage and congestion. But we do have to accept that times change.



Glad to know you're in favour if encouraging the ownership of large cars. They're more comfortable, safe and efficient than those nasty old tin boxes that most anti-car people seem to think represent some sort of Golden Age in car design.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Please keep us updated.


I made a quick risk analysis of the situation as to probable outcomes and the police view of such activity I decided against it. I’m going slow all today. Running anywhere is not on my agenda.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A shame you think they should close the pub because it's too far for a sufficient number of out-of-village customers to conveniently get to.


Interesting that you consider the primary purpose of rural pubs to be to serve the desires of out-of-village customers. Of course, this is also what the free market wants in a car-dependent society, because it's better business if you can target wealthy people with private transport from other places.

An older model of a village having a range of services accessible to its own residents and those within easy travelling distance is one you are no doubt glad to see the back of. Much better for 1 in 20 villages to have a pub or a shop, all the others to have nothing, and build lots of fast roads between them all.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A shame you think they should close the pub because it's too far for a sufficient number of out-of-village customers to conveniently get to. Did you tell them that when you went through on your jolly?
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know you're in favour if encouraging the ownership of large cars. They're more comfortable, safe and efficient than those nasty old tin boxes that most anti-car people seem





teuchter said:


> I'm in favour of increasing parking space sizes, whilst keeping the number of parking spaces the same. This will be a good way of illustrating to motorists the consequences of their purchasing decisions. It will be a shame that some residential streets will lose a few parking spaces but at least it will reduce scratching and parking rage. Unfortunately, an increase in width might mean that parking will have to be removed from one or both sides of some streets, to maintain safety and reduce the risk of scratching, parking rage and congestion. But we do have to accept that times change.


So many streets should already have parking removed on one side. However very difficult for councils to do this - hence actions like LTNs that they can do without needing a majority vote.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Interesting that you consider the primary purpose of rural pubs to be to serve the desires of out-of-village customers. Of course, this is also what the free market wants in a car-dependent society, because it's better business if you can target wealthy people with private transport from other places.
> 
> An older model of a village having a range of services accessible to its own residents and those within easy travelling distance is one you are no doubt glad to see the back of. Much better for 1 in 20 villages to have a pub or a shop, all the others to have nothing, and build lots of fast roads between them all.



Unlike 1890 or whatever, most village dwellers don't want to spend every evening drinking ale, nor do they want to spend half the day trotting around a set of tiny shops conversating tediously with the shopkeepers about the new parson.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Unlike 1890 or whatever, most village dwellers don't want to spend every evening drinking ale, nor do they want to spend half the day trotting around a set of tiny shops conversating tediously with the shopkeepers about the new parson.


They want the benefits of living in a city whilst living in the countryside and they want to take public space to enable this and we’ve just let them. Very selfish. Very Tory.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> They want the benefits of living in a city whilst living in the countryside and they want to take public space to enable this and we’ve just let them. Very selfish. Very Tory.



The only people that appear to be objecting about parking in this village are day-tripping tourists because it spoils their view. Villagers, and customers of village businesses, appear to be happy with the use of public space in the village for parking.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The only people that appear to be objecting about parking in this village are day-tripping tourists because it spoils their view. Villagers, and customers of village businesses, appear to be happy with the use of public space in the village for parking.


You’re just making things up now. Anyway - who drives to a pub? Bit depressing.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Villagers, and customers of village businesses, *appear to be happy* with the use of public space in the village for parking.


I see. Yes, of course. It's plain to see.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I see. Yes, of course. It's plain to see.



Did you speak to any villagers there, or were you the sort of tourist who just occupies space without interacting with the local residents?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re just making things up now. Anyway - who drives to a pub? Bit depressing.



If everyone was forced to travel to village gastropubs by walking across muddy fields, many would close. Bit depressing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 336369
> 
> Observed on a brief trip to the English countryside where we know everyone really wants to support better bus services and better access to bus services.




I am surprised you don’t have a private plate on your motor.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If everyone was forced to travel to village gastropubs by walking across muddy fields, many would close. Bit depressing.


Gastropub? I thought these SUVs all belonged to salt of the earth country folk.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Did you speak to any villagers there, or were you the sort of tourist who just occupies space without interacting with the local residents?


Yes, so no.

Had we been passing through by car I believe the interaction would not have occurred.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, so no.
> 
> Had we been passing through by car I believe the interaction would not have occurred.



Were you regaled by tales of woe over the lack of road space due to their local pub having enough customers to stay in business?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Were you regaled by tales of woe over the lack of road space due to their local pub having enough customers to stay in business?




They were shitting it that he was on yet another mission to gentrify and force out the locals, like what he done in Brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Were you regaled by tales of woe over the lack of road space due to their local pub having enough customers to stay in business?


Not as far as I recall - but what I can be sure of is that they expressed no opposition to my views on transport policy either on a national or more local scale.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Not as far as I recall - but what I can be sure of is that they expressed no opposition to my views on transport policy either on a national or more local scale.



Fair enough. But you should know they have also expressed no opposition to my proposed SUV subsidies and national road improvement program.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 7, 2022)

The commonwealth games here in B’ham really has done a fantastic job at showing the car centric arguments to be absolute shite.

Roads are closed all over the place, parking removed, more areas of the city pedestrianised, free public transport for all games staff.

The result? People have en mass left their cars at home. And as a result it has never, ever, been so easy to move around the city, and in over 30 years of living here I’ve never seen the city so busy, vibrant and _alive_.

Fuck. Cars.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Fair enough. But you should know they have also expressed no opposition to my proposed SUV subsidies and national road improvement program.


Noted that these proposals are now on record as your stated aims.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 7, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 7, 2022)

Literally just two posts earlier, but yeah, worth repeating


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The commonwealth games here in B’ham really has done a fantastic job at showing the car centric arguments to be absolute shite.
> 
> Roads are closed all over the place, parking removed, more areas of the city pedestrianised, free public transport for all games staff.
> 
> ...



As you were a keen motorist last week, is yours now listed on Autotrader?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Literally just two posts earlier, but yeah, worth repeating



 My eyes glazed over from platinum sage posts.

In recompense:


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The commonwealth games here in B’ham really has done a fantastic job at showing the car centric arguments to be absolute shite.
> 
> Roads are closed all over the place, parking removed, more areas of the city pedestrianised, free public transport for all games staff.
> 
> ...



This is being shown everywhere and progressive councils are implementing measures to benefit all.

As with all progressive policy the Dail Mail etc will rail against them and entitled folk that have been indulged too long will moan and fight them tooth and nail. It’s exhausting but worth it.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

Here’s a great example of what you can do if you don’t have to allow drivers to park wherever they want.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

Study shows households that give up their cars are happier!





__





						Loading…
					





					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> My eyes glazed over from platinum sage posts.
> 
> In recompense:



Various replies like this, demonstrating how many drivers think it's simply unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for children to be beside the road:


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Study shows households that give up their cars are happier!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Because they wanted to give them up, no shit.

How about households in North Korea who had their car confiscated? How happy are they?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Because they wanted to give them up, no shit.
> 
> How about households in North Korea who had their car confiscated? How happy are they?



It shouldn’t really be that surprising - cars are expensive and travelling by different modes - bus, train etc - is a much better experience than just seeing boring A-Roads and Motorways.

As someone mentioned above, car owners seem to drive everywhere even when public transport is a quicker alternative.

You don’t need to reply to every single post you know, particularly when it’s adding nothing and just seems like trolling. Also, don’t get this obsession you have with North Korea - are you trying to make a joke?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It shouldn’t really be that surprising - cars are expensive and travelling by different modes - bus, train etc - is a much better experience than just seeing boring A-Roads and Motorways.
> 
> As someone mentioned above, car owners seem to drive everywhere even when public transport is a quicker alternative.
> 
> You don’t need to reply to every single post you know, particularly when it’s adding nothing and just seems like trolling. Also, don’t get this obsession you have with North Korea - are you trying to make a joke?



Not entirely sure that many North Koreans have even owned cars let alone had them seized.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It shouldn’t really be that surprising - cars are expensive and travelling by different modes - bus, train etc - is a much better experience than just seeing boring A-Roads and Motorways.
> 
> As someone mentioned above, car owners seem to drive everywhere even when public transport is a quicker alternative.



If everyone thought travelling by other modes was both less expensive and a better experience, then everyone would travel by other modes. But they don’t and they never will.



edcraw said:


> You don’t need to reply to every single post you know, particularly when it’s adding nothing and just seems like trolling.



I only make apposite and substantive posts, unlike everyone else on this thread.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I only make apposite and substantive posts, unlike everyone else on this thread.


You really don’t. I don’t get why you continue to insist on trolling this thread. Every other thread on these forums I post on people don’t do this. It’s just pointless. I’m sure there are arguments against what people post on here but with your (trying to be witty?) one sentence replies you’re not making them.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You really don’t. I don’t get why you continue to insist on trolling this thread. Every other thread on these forums I post on people don’t do this. It’s just pointless. I’m sure there are arguments against what people post on here but with your (trying to be witty?) one sentence replies you’re not making them.



Perhaps you should get back to posting tweeted videos of accidents or whatever.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 7, 2022)

Please stop. It’s really pointless.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If everyone thought travelling by other modes was both less expensive and a better experience, then everyone would travel by other modes. But they don’t and they never will.



If people thought doing a thing was better than another thing they were already doing then obviously they would just do that thing. Therefore the thing they are doing already is always better and the best and they will never change their mind even if you make it easier for them to do the alternative thing and you can see that lots of other people are happier doing the alternative thing. And that's that, and everyone shut up now and let's not upset the apple cart.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Humans are, of course, well known for making entirely rational decisions.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

It’d be good to know the reasons behind why rural roads are so dangerous. It sounds like having 60mph limit on most roads encourages drivers to go too fast. Also I’m guessing drink driving rates are higher.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

Twisty, undulating, single carriageway, poor sight lines (hedges etc), 60mph limits.

Total mystery


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’d be good to know the reasons behind why rural roads are so dangerous. It sounds like having 60mph limit on most roads encourages drivers to go too fast. Also I’m guessing drink driving rates are higher.
> 
> View attachment 336474


There are far more blind corners on rural roads than motorways and the roads are narrower for a start


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Twisty, undulating, single carriageway, poor sight lines (hedges etc), 60mph limits.
> 
> Total mystery


It's like edcraw has never been outside london


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As you were a keen motorist last week, is yours now listed on Autotrader?


I was a what? News to me


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I was a what? News to me



I thought you went for a jaunt across the country in your frankly dangerous old car, instead of catching the train? If after returning to Birmingham and seeing it closed for a major sporting event you've now sold that car, then I take my comment back.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Twisty, undulating, single carriageway, poor sight lines (hedges etc), 60mph limits.
> 
> Total mystery


Yeah - sort of what I mentioned. What can we do about it then? Real case for lowering the speed limit on those sort of roads.

A friend in rural Suffolk cycled everywhere for decades but gave up a few years ago as it had got too dangerous. Struggles to run a car. This is what happens when we just let cars dominate everywhere!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

There should be a 10mph limit on any road that doesn't have a proper footpath along at least one side. This would get thousands of drivers lobbying for the construction of footpaths and all sorts of short pedestrian journeys in rural areas would become viable and safer.


----------



## prunus (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’d be good to know the reasons behind why rural roads are so dangerous. It sounds like having 60mph limit on most roads encourages drivers to go too fast. Also I’m guessing drink driving rates are higher.
> 
> View attachment 336474



Main reason is that they're mostly miles from anywhere, so takes ages for medical assistance to arrive, plus sparsely populated/few passing cars, so if you eg go off the side and get knocked unconscious, no-one will even know to call 999.  Rapid medical response is key to reducing fatalities.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I thought you went for a jaunt across the country in your frankly dangerous old car, instead of catching the train? If after returning to Birmingham and seeing it closed for a major sporting event you've now sold that car, then I take my comment back.


“Keen”


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

The state of this article. So much aggression out there from drivers partly fuelled by the Mail itself.









						Police spark backlash after warning motorists to treat cyclists better
					

Hampshire police have sparked backlash after they released a video warning drivers to treat cyclists better. Twitter users said the police 'unprofessional' in how they responded.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The state of this article. So much aggression out there from drivers partly fuelled by the Mail itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


“Drivers angry at being asked to obey the rules of the road”


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Drivers angry at being asked to obey the rules of the road”


Exactly - so many think they’re doing nothing wrong or justify it by cyclists behaviour. And we just indulge these people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Exactly - so many think they’re doing nothing wrong or justify it by cyclists behaviour. And we just indulge these people.


cyclists' behaviour frequently does leave a great deal to be desired. try asking them to obey the rules of the road or indeed the laws of the land when you see them cycling on the footpath (namely the highways act 1835 s.72 (as amended by s. 85(1) of the local government act 1888)) and you'll soon see what calm individuals they are.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

“But cyclists…”

SO FUCKING WHAT


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> cyclists' behaviour frequently does leave a great deal to be desired. i don't drive btw.


What point are you making? What does cyclists behaviour have to do with dangerous drivers?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> cyclists' behaviour frequently does leave a great deal to be desired.


I left the margarine out of the fridge yesterday, for instance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I left the margarine out of the fridge yesterday, for instance.


that's worse than anything i've seen on the roads in a long time


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What point are you making? What does cyclists behaviour have to do with dangerous drivers?


we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.


Almost as if they're not equally dangerous.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.


That’s not true though. How many killer cyclists have not gone to jail?

It’s just bizarre how seemingly normal people are happy to make excuses for dangerous drivers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> That’s not true though. How many killer cyclists have not gone to jail?


your very claim demonstrates the difference, that you expect dangerous drivers to be arrested and prosecuted but cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions. and the reason that this matters is that as things move towards a non-carbon based economy, as society reorients to a more sustainable future, cycling will form an increasingly core part of transport and safety ought to be designed into how we move forwards.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> your very claim demonstrates the difference, that you expect dangerous drivers to be arrested and prosecuted but cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions.


My wife was annoyed about the margarine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> My wife was annoyed about the margarine.


and rightly so. i'm annoyed about the margarine.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> your very claim demonstrates the difference, that you expect dangerous drivers to be arrested and prosecuted but cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions.


You don’t expect dangerous drivers that kill to be arrested and prosecuted? I expect cyclists that kill etc to go to prison - I also think justifying dangerous driving is very irresponsible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You don’t expect dangerous drivers that kill to be arrested and prosecuted?


i never said or suggested anything of the sort, i was addressing the underlying notions behind your last post


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> but cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions.


Yeah when you're on a bike you can do what you want and face no consequences.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i never said or suggested anything of the sort, i was addressing the underlying notions behind your last post


I still don’t see what dangerous cyclists have to do with dangerous driving.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yeah when you're on a bike you can do what you want and face no consequences.
> 
> View attachment 336505


that's a typically stupid post of yours. i say: cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions
you say: cyclists can do what they want and face no consequences. utterly fuckwitted. utterly typical of you


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> that's a typically stupid post of yours. i say: cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions
> you say: cyclists can do what they want and face no consequences. utterly fuckwitted. utterly typical of you


You still haven’t explained what relevance cyclist behaviour has in the first place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You still haven’t explained what relevance cyclist behaviour has in the first place.


if you were to read my posts you might be surprised.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> if you were to read my posts you might be surprised.


Well all I can read from them is you justifying dangerous driving around cyclists by some cyclists also being dangerous.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> if you were to read my posts you might be surprised.


"But worrabout cyclists" is not a surprising thing to read online.

Edit: Testing something.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You still haven’t explained what relevance cyclist behaviour has in the first place.


Pickman's model thinks that cycling needs to become a more core part of transport...but

He thinks that forcing cyclists to have insurance is a good idea.

He thinks that we indulge dangerous cyclists more than we indulge dangerous drivers.

I think he's not spent much time thinking or reading up about transport policy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well all I can read from them is you justifying dangerous driving around cyclists by some cyclists also being dangerous.


8495


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Pickman's model thinks that cycling needs to become a more core part of transport...but
> 
> He thinks that forcing cyclists to have insurance is a good idea.
> 
> ...


Yep - attitude not based on facts. Government has looked at registration & insurance for cyclists and deemed that the negatives out weigh and positives so what would the point be. Just seems to come from a hating cyclists point of view.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> 8495


You’ve added that after people have already quoted it?

It still doesn’t have anything to do with an article about dangerous driving unless you are trying to justify it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’ve added that after people have already quoted it?


Well spotted!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.


I'm quoting this post in full before he tries to change it too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm quoting this post in full before he tries to change it too.


i wouldn't dream of changing it, it's true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’ve added that after people have already quoted it?
> 
> It still doesn’t have anything to do with an article about dangerous driving unless you are trying to justify it.


no, i added it immediately after i posted. i didn't add it in the light of any reply.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i added it immediately after i posted. i didn't add it in the light of any reply.


But you can’t expect people that have obviously already read your posts as they’ve quoted them to go back and read them in case you’ve added something!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> But you can’t expect people that have obviously already read your posts as they’ve quoted them to go back and read them in case you’ve added something!


i will be sure to take that into account as we proceed.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Still don’t understand what this has got to do with dangerous driving.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i wouldn't dream of changing it, it's true.


No it's not, and it's an assertion you are unable to support with any kind of evidence.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> your very claim demonstrates the difference, that you expect dangerous drivers to be arrested and prosecuted but cyclists so rarely face the consequences of their actions. and the reason that this matters is that as things move towards a non-carbon based economy, as society reorients to a more sustainable future, cycling will form an increasingly core part of transport and safety ought to be designed into how we move forwards.


This twitter thread highlights the issues with how we deal with deadly driving at the moment, and the obvious limits of drivers being trained, taxed and insured.



Training and insurance doesn't stop those who ignore the requirement because enforcement and sanctions are weak.  


This image clearly illustrates the relative danger from other vehicle types and perhaps where we should focus effort in reducing road danger -


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> No it's not, and it's an assertion you are unable to support with any kind of evidence.


we indulge dangerous cycling by giving it few consequences. i've been run into on the pavement of holloway road by someone cycling on the pavement. when i remonstrated with her she said she wasn't on the road (but on a crowded pavement) because she had no brakes. nothing happened to her, no cop talked to her, no one arrested her, off she went as free as bird to carry on acting without any fear of consequences. that's one example. there are many, many more.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 8, 2022)

A cyclist that fucks around generally finds they end up injuring themselves or paying to replace an expensive bike.

A motorist that fucks around massively hurts someone else usually.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

something something, pavement cycling, mutter mutter, training and insurance...


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

Ha.  I'm sure they all swerved to miss the dangerous cyclist -


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> we indulge dangerous cycling by giving it few consequences. i've been run into on the pavement of holloway road by someone cycling on the pavement. when i remonstrated with her she said she wasn't on the road (but on a crowded pavement) because she had no brakes. nothing happened to her, no cop talked to her, no one arrested her, off she went as free as bird to carry on acting without any fear of consequences. that's one example. there are many, many more.


That's a personal anecdote, not evidence that backs up your assertion.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Also, had a cop been present, she could have been issued with a £50 fixed penalty notice.

I'm surprised Pickman's model so seldom finds himself put at risk by motorists who do stuff they are not supposed to, but face zero consequences because no cop was present. Because it happens to me all the time as a pedestrian. It happens every single time I step outside my front door and multiple cars go past at speeds way over the 20mph limit. Every time a motorist fails to slow down or stop to let me cross the opening of a side road on my way to the shops, which is most times I walk to the shops. These are actions that are in effect free of consequence for the driver, but literally put my life at risk. 

I too am sometimes annoyed with cyclists on the pavement, and sometimes they put me at some risk, but only quite rarely at serious risk, and on a typical walk it's not something that happens at all whilst some kind of bad motorist behaviour is almost guaranteed.

Maybe car drivers and cyclists are somehow completely different on the Holloway Road compared to south London.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, had a cop been present, she could have been issued with a £50 fixed penalty notice.
> 
> I'm surprised Pickman's model so seldom finds himself put at risk by motorists who do stuff they are not supposed to, but face zero consequences because no cop was present. Because it happens to me all the time as a pedestrian. It happens every single time I step outside my front door and multiple cars go past at speeds way over the 20mph limit. Every time a motorist fails to slow down or stop to let me cross the opening of a side road on my way to the shops, which is most times I walk to the shops. These are actions that are in effect free of consequence for the driver, but literally put my life at risk.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> That's a personal anecdote, not evidence that backs up your assertion.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2021
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 336512
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It'd be interesting if that included 20mph roads rather than remaining silent on the matter


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 336512
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It'd be interesting if that included 20mph roads rather than remaining silent on the matter


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Cycling on the pavement – a real risk or just a nuisance? | London Road Safety Council
					






					londonroadsafetycouncil.org.uk
				






> When we look at the casualty data for pedestrians as a whole, over a three-year period there were 197 fatalities, 2,305 pedestrians seriously injured and a further 13,519 slightly injured. Of those, just 0.5% of the serious injuries and 0.4% slight injuries were a result of a collision with a bicycle on a pavement.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

It's hard to say what's worse though, something that's admittedly a bit annoying or something that's killing dozens every year.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's hard to say what's worse though, something that's admittedly a bit annoying or something that's killing dozens every year.


i don't know why the confusion, no one here's taking a different attitude. i'm just always surprised that all the cyclists go 'oh no nothing to see here with cycling'. i'd have expected after so many years of discussing this one of you - just one - might have had the wit to say, do you know, you've got a point. cyclists on the pavement, cyclists going through red lights, cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, they are dangerous and anti-social. thus disarming the critique. never happened. not once. it's all cyclists kill very few people, like that's er a killer metric. it's a bit annoying. when you're walking down the canal and under a bridge and a cyclist comes full pelt at you it's more than a bit annoying.

e2a: and with the number of delivery cycles it happens more and more frequently, near misses and indeed hits. no driver's ever going to say there aren't a ton of shit drivers on the roads. i don't know why any of you never say there are a ton of shit cyclists on the roads and pavements.

anyway, it's been almost fun


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have expected after so many years of discussing this one of you - just one - might have had the wit to say, do you know, you've got a point. cyclists on the pavement, cyclists going through red lights, cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, they are dangerous and anti-social. thus disarming the critique. never happened. not once.





teuchter said:


> And yeah, there should be rules for cyclists to obey. But they should be proportionate to the risk they represent. *Cyclists should not be tearing around on pavements* any more than cars should be tearing around on residential streets. All this tiresome stuff about "everyone being subject to the same scrutiny, restrictions and regulations" - no one promoting increased restrictions on motor vehicles is trying to say that other road users shouldn't be subject to any restrictions whatsoever - they should be subject to proportionate ones.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

And here



> To be clear - I don't defend cyclists running red lights at pedestrian crossings. Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter there were three points i made, on pavements, through red lights, wrong way up one-way streets. everyone knows 2/3 ain't bad. but one out of three? not even close. no cigar.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

As you say, 2/3 aint bad.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> And here


soz just read it with more attention - i see you qualify your position, red lights at pedestrian crossings. the problem isn't only at pedestrian crossings, but at junctions too. not some red lights, all red lights.
e2a for clarity by pedestrian crossings, i mean those ones where there's a button which actually changes the lights. where there's a set rotation at a junction the position should be no different. we all know no means no. but cyclists (and indeed car drivers) should know red means stop.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> teuchter there were three points i made, on pavements, through red lights, wrong way up one-way streets. everyone knows 2/3 ain't bad. but one out of three? not even close. no cigar.


No one is defending shit cyclists.

You responded to a stupid Daily Mail article that highlighted people responding to the police tackling dangerous drivers by say “but what about cyclists” by saying “but what about cyclists”. The only reason could be to defend and down play dangerous drivers. Bizarre.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

What bad cyclist ignorers fail to realise is that millions of elderly and frail people choose to drive rather than take their life in their hands and subject their easily-broken bodies to the dangers of wanton cyclists on pavements and pedestrian crossings. Therefore a crackdown on such behaviour will result in a great reduction in the number of vehicles on the roads as Gertrude realises she can now happily stroll to Sainsbury’s without risking her life and limb, and can get rid of her Honda Jazz.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

I just want a bit more inventiveness when it comes to distractions, really. Rather than react to shit driving with "but cyclists", maybe something else, just for a change? What about wobbly wheels on supermarket trollies? They're annoying and just as relevant.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> What bad cyclist ignorers fail to realise is that millions of elderly and frail people choose to drive rather than take their life in their hands and subject their easily-broken bodies to the dangers of wanton cyclists on pavements and pedestrian crossings. Therefore a crackdown on such behaviour will result in a great reduction in the number of vehicles on the roads as Gertrude realises she can now happily stroll to Sainsbury’s without risking her life and limb, and can get rid of her Honda Jazz.


Any evidence for this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No one is defending shit cyclists.
> 
> You responded to a stupid Daily Mail article that highlighted people responding to the police tackling dangerous drivers by say “but what about cyclists” by saying “but what about cyclists”. The only reason could be to defend and down play dangerous drivers. Bizarre


no, i didn't respond to a stupid daily mail article. that's in post 8484. i responded to your 8486. and i've said (8533) no one here's saying dangerous driving isn't worse than dangerous cycling. so where have i actually defended dangerous drivers?

anyway it's been a quiet day at work and i'm grateful to you for providing some entertainment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I just want a bit more inventiveness when it comes to distractions, really. Rather than react to shit driving with "but cyclists", maybe something else, just for a change? What about wobbly wheels on supermarket trollies? They're annoying and just as relevant.


yeh but here you have to make do with what you can find. but i like the way you're thinking.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I just want a bit more inventiveness when it comes to distractions, really. Rather than react to shit driving with "but cyclists", maybe something else, just for a change? What about wobbly wheels on supermarket trollies? They're annoying and just as relevant.



What about the failure of police to enforce the requirement for dogs to be on leads on roads that are designated in that respect by the local highways authority under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

I know there are on average about five deaths on the road a day but have you ever had an itch on your back you can't quite reach?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Ha.  I'm sure they all swerved to miss the dangerous cyclist -



You might see crashed cars on the pavement quite regularly but you know what you don't see these days, white dog poo that's what


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Any evidence for this?



Pulling crap out of his arse is evidence?


We’ve made it much easier for elderly and vulnerable to travel by car and no other way over the last 50 years so now few can convince of doing it any other way.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 336513



and of course the worst offenders for speeding - motorbikes


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> You might see crashed cars on the pavement quite regularly but you know what you don't see these days, white dog poo that's what


i've seen that two or three times recently


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> you've got a point. cyclists on the pavement, cyclists going through red lights, cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, they are dangerous and anti-social. thus disarming the critique. never happened. not once. it's all cyclists kill very few people, like that's er a killer metric. it's a bit annoying. when you're walking down the canal and under a bridge and a cyclist comes full pelt at you it's more than a bit annoying.


because, as you've already been shown in various ways....the reality is that as dangers go, those are very low risks.
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets is in many cases  legal Two-way cycling in one-way streets
going through a red light is not a significant cause of pedestrian injuries, and nor is cyclists one the pavement.

A decade of pedestrian injuries on the pavement and just 2% involved cycles.  You're 10 times more likely to be hit by a bus.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> soz just read it with more attention - i see you qualify your position, red lights at pedestrian crossings. the problem isn't only at pedestrian crossings, but at junctions too. not some red lights, all red lights.
> e2a for clarity by pedestrian crossings, i mean those ones where there's a button which actually changes the lights. where there's a set rotation at a junction the position should be no different. we all know no means no. but cyclists (and indeed car drivers) should know red means stop.


In the post which I have quoted for you, I say

*Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.*

If you want to read that and decide that it's still not really clear whether maybe I think it's fine for cyclists to go charging through red lights at junctions where there are certain types of pedestrian crossing then that's your problem.

Anyway, you are furiously trying to distract from what you originally said. You talk about "disarming critique" but the "critique" here is not simply someone saying that cyclists shouldn't be on pavements or cyclists shouldn't be going through red lights. The "critique" from you was the following idiotic statement:



Pickman's model said:


> we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.



And you've entirely failed to provide anything to back it up with.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> In the post which I have quoted for you, I say
> 
> *Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.*
> 
> ...


By no means. We all see dangerous cyclists every day. We see there are no consequences, and why should there be when the police refuse to investigate vast swathes of crime beyond the bare minimum if that. Very occasionally you'll see cops pull over a cyclist when they have one of their periodic action days, if they still do them. Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress. The indulgence is clear in the lack of consequences for the danger and alarm they pose.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress.


Please can you rewrite this sentence in comprehensible english.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> because, as you've already been shown in various ways....the reality is that as dangers go, those are very low risks.
> Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets is in many cases  legal Two-way cycling in one-way streets
> going through a red light is not a significant cause of pedestrian injuries, and nor is cyclists one the pavement.
> 
> ...



Given the proportion of cyclist-caused injuries that are serious, there was obviously massive under-reporting of cyclist-caused injuries compared to other types.

Anyway those figures are hopelessly out of date, especially given the huge increase in cycling in London since 2007.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> the metric used deaths rather than annoyance,


so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.

...right....


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Given the proportion of cyclist-caused injuries that are serious, there was obviously massive under-reporting of cyclist-caused injuries compared to other types.
> 
> Anyway those figures are hopelessly out of date, especially given the huge increase in cycling in London since 2007.


Your basis for the first comment is what?  the proportion of serious to slight for cyclists is 0.3, for cars its 0.25 so not that different 

on the second, this is more recent data, though not specific to London


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Please can you rewrite this sentence in comprehensible english.


Yes. I will try to use short words so you get the message


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.
> 
> ...right....


That’s not what I said. It's about what posters here use as a measure. Obviously. Maybe if you read the thread you'll understand.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.
> 
> ...right....



Hey, it works for the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill and all those efforts to make protest illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 8, 2022)

Good work activists!








						'Tyre extinguishers' claim to have disarmed 85 SUVs across Leeds overnight by deflating tyres
					

A group of so-called 'tyre extinguishers' claim to have deflated the tyres on 85 SUVs across Leeds overnight.




					www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> That’s not what I said. It's about what posters here use as a measure. Obviously. Maybe if you read the thread you'll understand.


Let's ignore fatalities and serious injuries and use "annoyance, alarm and distress" as the measure.

Do you claim that behaviour that causes similar levels of annoyance, alarm and distress is indulged far far more when it is perpetrated by cyclists than when it is perpetrated by drivers?

You say that you would like the police to take more action against cyclists on pavements. Can you give an example of some kind of behaviour from drivers, which creates a similar level of annoyance, alarm and distress to pedestrians, which is policed more actively?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> By no means. We all see dangerous cyclists every day. We see there are no consequences, and why should there be when the police refuse to investigate vast swathes of crime beyond the bare minimum if that. Very occasionally you'll see cops pull over a cyclist when they have one of their periodic action days, if they still do them. Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress. The indulgence is clear in the lack of consequences for the danger and alarm they pose.


Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?

Christ almighty.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?
> 
> Christ almighty.



Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"


Or “Sure, there are people being raped & murdered but what about all the people dropping litter yeah!!!”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"


In a perfect world - one with a police force that had infinite resources - you’d have a point.

But it isn’t, and you don’t.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?
> 
> Christ almighty.


yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists. which is rather rather different from the one you're trying to make it out to be. and who do you think is indulged more, someone who very rarely enters the criminal justice process or someone who passes through it far more frequently - the dangerous cyclist or the dangerous driver? and on that note off to brave the traffic in central london


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> who is indulged more


I've never been bought cake.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists.


And we're still waiting for you to provide any kind of justification for the idea that it's dangerous cyclists who are indulged more.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists. which is rather rather different from the one you're trying to make it out to be. and who do you think is indulged more, someone who very rarely enters the criminal justice process or someone who passes through it far more frequently - the dangerous cyclist or the dangerous driver? and on that note off to brave the traffic in central london


Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.


----------



## T & P (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.


Erm, the same could be said of the definition of "dangerous'" as applied to drivers by people in this thread.

Just as there is such a thing as a cyclist jumping a red light in a non-dangerous way, there is also such a thing as drivers breaking the speed limit in a non-dangerous way. But it seems ony the former group gets granted that possibility around here...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> And we're still waiting for you to provide any kind of justification for the idea that it's dangerous cyclists who are indulged more.


I've provided it several times. It's the simple fact that people who drive dangerously routinely end up in court. They get penalty points on their licence. They get fines. They get sent on courses to improve their driving.  People who cycle dangerously almost never face any consequences beyond the odd insult. Now I think I've indulged you quite sufficiently on this point


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.


Yeh like the cyclists on grays Inn Road who used the pavement outside the old rntne, the ear nose and throat hospital doubtless weren't dangerous, despite the fact many of the hospital users were deaf or hearing impaired and might not hear them coming or any bell ringing as they left. The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog. When I cross the road I expect to watch out for vehicles, it'd be daft not to. People shouldn't have to put up with stupid selfish twats cycling on the pavement, often paying no attention to where they're headed, like the cyclists I've seen recently staring at mobile phone screen while meandering down the pavement. It's an entitled attitude of 'only I matter' you'd damn in any other group in society


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh like the cyclists on grays Inn Road who used the pavement outside the old rntne, the ear nose and throat hospital doubtless weren't dangerous, despite the fact many of the hospital users were deaf or hearing impaired and might not hear them coming or any bell ringing as they left. The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog. When I cross the road I expect to watch out for vehicles, it'd be daft not to. People shouldn't have to put up with stupid selfish twats cycling on the pavement, often paying no attention to where they're headed, like the cyclists I've seen recently staring at mobile phone screen while meandering down the pavement. It's an entitled attitude of 'only I matter' you'd damn in any other group in society


Yes - but what has it got to do with this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes - but what has it got to do with this thread?


It's only a reply to beesonthewhatnow, don't worry


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It's the simple fact that people who drive dangerously routinely end up in court.


That's not a fact. It's an untrue statement.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> It's only a reply to beesonthewhatnow, don't worry


You started this here - still don’t understand what the relevance was except proving my point.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog.


The word "nearly" gets quite the workout in these discussions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That's not a fact. It's an untrue statement.


Ah. You think I mean every dangerous driver ends up in court, which would indeed be an untrue statement. Many of them sadly get away with it. But it is a fact its routine, it regularly happens, that people charged with dangerous driving end up in court. Or frequently they're dealt with by the police in other ways as I outlined. But it's a rare day indeed when a cyclist appears before the beak. E2a or for that matter interacts in any way with the criminal justice sector


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You started this here - still don’t understand what the relevance was except proving my point.
> 
> View attachment 336573


No, you've made that abundantly clear


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> The word "nearly" gets quite the workout in these discussions.


Not to mention almost. Like when dangerous drivers nearly cause a collision or almost have an accident


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah. You think I mean every dangerous driver ends up in court, which would indeed be an untrue statement. Many of them sadly get away with it. But it is a fact its routine, it regularly happens, that people charged with dangerous driving end up in court. Or frequently they're dealt with by the police in other ways as I outlined. But it's a rare day indeed when a cyclist appears before the beak. E2a or for that matter interacts in any way with the criminal justice sector


No, I don't think you mean every driver. You said routinely, which suggests that if you drive dangerously, you can probably expect to end up in court. As a matter of routine. 

We know what percentage of drivers routinely break the speed limit. It was posted up thread. We know how many drivers there are in the UK. You can I'm sure find some figures for number of driving offences that end up in court each year. We can look at the numbers and consider what proportion of routinely speeding drivers end up in court. Feel free to provide these numbers if they support your case.

Then we can consider what they were in court for, and what the potential consequences of their behaviour was. And then we can compare it with the potential consequences of the various cycling offences you mention are.

And we can look at the numbers, and see if it's true, that for behaviour that's similarly dangerous, those who engage in it on a bicycle are "indulged" while those who do it while driving are grotesquely over persecuted in comparison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> No, I don't think you mean every driver. You said routinely, which suggests that if you drive dangerously, you can probably expect to end up in court. As a matter of routine.
> 
> We know what percentage of drivers routinely break the speed limit. It was posted up thread. We know how many drivers there are in the UK. You can I'm sure find some figures for number of driving offences that end up in court each year. We can look at the numbers and consider what proportion of routinely speeding drivers end up in court. Feel free to provide these numbers if they support your case.
> 
> ...


So now you think that breaking the speed limit merits a charge of dangerous driving.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> But it is a fact its routine, it regularly happens, that people charged with dangerous driving end up in court. Or frequently they're dealt with by the police in other ways as I outlined. But it's a rare day indeed when a cyclist appears before the beak. E2a or for that matter interacts in any way with the criminal justice sector


It doesn't even seem to be the case that drivers who kill or seriously injure people actually get convicted of dangerous driving - as this thread I posted earlier demonstrates.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

and they go on and on and on


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 8, 2022)

Go on, why don't you post all the posts on that Twitter account.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Go on, why don't you post all the posts on that Twitter account.


I think he’s making the point quite well just that you like to ignore facts and just make stuff up.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> So now you think that breaking the speed limit merits a charge of dangerous driving.


I don't think it would be outlandish to suggest that speeding in a car that weighs several tonnes results in a level of danger that's comparable (or greater than) to that which results from, say, a bicycle being ridden on the pavement.

Do you disagree?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Go on, why don't you post all the posts on that Twitter account.


because there are so many I don't have the time, and these are just a sample, and I'm still only part way through 2019.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Aug 9, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 9, 2022)

Still, people get annoyed by the odd cyclist on a pavement, so it’s all pretty much the same, yeah?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 9, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Still, people get annoyed by the odd cyclist on a pavement, so it’s all pretty much the same, yeah?



Imagine if every single car on the road could be nicked with impunity.









						Police failed to catch a bike thief in 87% of affected neighbourhoods in past three years
					

A total of 20,900 neighbourhoods where there had been at least one bike theft since June 2019 had seen all cases closed without a suspect being identified or charged, a Telegraph investigation found




					road.cc


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 9, 2022)

Anyone who kills someone while driving a car while speeding, uninsured or unfit to drive because of drink or drugs should never receive anything but a hefty prison sentence - they're clearly a danger to the community.



teuchter said:


> View attachment 336369
> 
> Observed on a brief trip to the English countryside where we know everyone really wants to support better bus services and better access to bus services.


I congratulated a traffic warden for putting a ticket on one of those the other day - it was parked blocking the pavement for pedestrians.  Might see if I can get a saturday job as a traffic warden - I'd enjoy that.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Anyone who kills someone while driving a car while speeding, uninsured or unfit to drive because of drink or drugs should never receive anything but a hefty prison sentence - they're clearly a danger to the community.


For sure + life time driving ban. Depressing that this is far from what any political party would ever suggest though. Also, suspect it wouldn’t actually stop people from doing it.

That’s why we need measures to reduce traffic to make our streets safer despite the wails of the talk radio mob.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2022)

Cities in the Phillipines looking to introduce a requirement (like some areas of Japan) to prove you have somewhere to park it before being able to buy a car.









						Bill says 'parking space first' before car purchase, registration
					

The Nation's Leading Newspaper




					mb.com.ph


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> For sure + life time driving ban. Depressing that this is far from what any political party would ever suggest though. Also, suspect it wouldn’t actually stop people from doing it.
> 
> That’s why we need measures to reduce traffic to make our streets safer despite the wails of the talk radio mob.



What we need is enforcement and people fucking behaving.

Hate to do the personal anecdote thing but after a few days in Brussels its amazing how many crossings there were on every street and how few drivers gleefully sped across them. For a capital city as well the traffic was fairly free flowing. Plenty of cars but not a huge level of gridlock from what I could see. This was also true of bikes and scooters btw, pretty fucking well behaved riders of both of them and not to many light jumpers or pavement speeders.


----------



## T & P (Aug 9, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> What we need is enforcement and people fucking behaving.
> 
> Hate to do the personal anecdote thing but after a few days in Brussels its amazing how many crossings there were on every street and how few drivers gleefully sped across them. For a capital city as well the traffic was fairly free flowing. Plenty of cars but not a huge level of gridlock from what I could see. This was also true of bikes and scooters btw, pretty fucking well behaved riders of both of them and not to many light jumpers or pavement speeders.


i don’t think anyone here, including those forever tagged as ‘pro-car’, would ever disagree with that.

Problem in the UK is the marked tribalism, open hostility towards other road users, and a very poor observance of traffic rules. I haven’t been to Brussels but on every German city I’ve visited, as well the likes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, very few seem to behave like an antisocial dick, let alone in a reckless way.

Most cars drive slowly and considerably. Most pedestrians don’t jaywalk if illegal. Most cyclists and e-scooterists stop at lights even if the road is deserted. Undoubtedly there will be road casualties of all types there as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most cities in Germany, Holland or Denmark post lower injuries and deaths per head compared with London. At the very least it makes for a more pleasant travelling experience.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2022)

T & P said:


> i don’t think anyone here, including those forever tagged as ‘pro-car’, would ever disagree with that.
> 
> Problem in the UK is the marked tribalism, open hostility towards other road users, and a very poor observance of traffic rules. I haven’t been to Brussels but on every German city I’ve visited, as well the likes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, very few seem to behave like an antisocial dick, let alone in a reckless way.
> 
> Most cars drive slowly and considerably. Most pedestrians don’t jaywalk if illegal. Most cyclists and e-scooterists stop at lights even if the road is deserted. Undoubtedly there will be road casualties of all types there as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most cities in Germany, Holland or Denmark post lower injuries and deaths per head compared with London. At the very least it makes for a more pleasant travelling experience.


So... what are they doing right in German, Dutch and Danish cities and how can we emulate it in the UK?

Interested in your opinion as someone who's argued against things like 20mph speed limits, low traffic neighbourhoods and increased roadspace for cycling.


----------



## T & P (Aug 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So... what are they doing right in German, Dutch and Danish cities and how can we emulate it in the UK?
> 
> Interested in your opinion as someone who's argued against things like 20mph speed limits, low traffic neighbourhoods and increased roadspace for cycling.


I’ve argued about *some* localised 20 mph limits and LTNs, not all of them. Never have said otherwise.

Anyone not even prepared to concede the possibility that it is possible to firmly suppose any given initiative but recognise in some specific cases it might not be fit for purpose or even prove counterproductive is wading into fundamentalist close minded territory. As if the suggestion for instance that if most LTNs work but even just one of them could  be causing more problems than solving them must be automatically dismissed without consideration and the proponent branded as a cyclist hating petrolhead. Which is exactly what has happened in this thread, repeatedly. You’re with us 100%, or against us. 

That is a perfect example of the bitter tribalism prevalent in traffic discussions in this country.  No surrender, do not concede an inch to the enemy.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2022)

T & P said:


> I’ve argued about *some* localised 20 mph limits and LTNs, not all of them. Never have said otherwise.
> 
> Anyone not even prepared to concede the possibility that it is possible to firmly suppose any given initiative but recognise in some specific cases it might not be fit for purpose or even prove counterproductive is wading into fundamentalist close minded territory. As if the suggestion for instance that if most LTNs work but even just one of them could  be causing more problems than solving them must be automatically dismissed without consideration and the proponent branded as a cyclist hating petrolhead. Which is exactly what has happened in this thread, repeatedly. You’re with us 100%, or against us.
> 
> That is a perfect example of the bitter tribalism prevalent in traffic discussions in this country.  No surrender, do not concede an inch to the enemy.


Ok. That's your response to my second paragraph. But what about the first?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So... what are they doing right in German, Dutch and Danish cities and how can we emulate it in the UK?


Don’t know the specifics but I think it’s where cars are made to feel like guests that driving is of a better standard. For example Clapham road now with single lane for traffic, 20mph limit and wide bus & cycle lanes the traffic moves a lot more freely and at a better pace. When you have 2 wide lanes and 30mph traffic would cut in and out, undertake, accelerate quickly etc.

Upper Tulse Hill used to have traffic tearing down it day and night at high speeds. Now it’s in an LTN most vehicles obey thev 20mph and pedestrians feel safer crossing side roads & cyclists are t in fear of aggressive drivers.

Also, you give cyclists good quality, continuous bike lanes thu use them rather than the road and most will go at a sensible space.

Same with pedestrians - continuous pavements with clear priority at side roads over traffic turning.

The issues seem to come when we prioritise vehicles over everyone else. The depressing think is how much some people will go to oppose these sort of things.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

This just seems to happen everyday and not even a thought of changing it.









						Driver spared jail after causing grandad's death in Glasgow
					

Peter Dunnachie's car struck biker Iain Wyatt on a roundabout near Baillieston in May 2020.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

Noted that both Pickman's model and T & P have gone silent since being asked for some specifics on what they actually want, in response to their moanings about the injustice faced by drivers in comparison to other road users.


----------



## T & P (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Noted that both Pickman's model and T & P have gone silent since being asked for some specifics on what they actually want, in response to their moanings about the injustice faced by drivers in comparison to other road users.


Oh, I'm sorry, I was still trying to process your 'acknowledment' of my answer to the second pararaph in your post 8,616. You don't try to contest it in any way, so am I to assume you agree then with my riposte that I don't in fact argue against the principle of 20 mph speed restrictions or LTNs, and that you and others on the anti car side behave in a fundamentalist manner towards anyone who might disagree about even one single measure? For a moment there it almost felt like a de facto apology, which would be a first in these boards' history. As you can imagine, that gave me quite a shock.

As to what we can learn from those Continental cities, well, drivers driving carefully and with consideration, pedestrians looking before crossing a road and crossing only when it is sensible to do so, and cyclists not jumping nearly 100% of all red traffic lights they encounter, would be great first step towards everyone stop hating everybody else.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> I don't in fact argue against the principle of 20 mph speed restrictions or LTNs, and that you and others on the anti car side behave in a fundamentalist manner towards anyone who might disagree about even one single measure?


It's fascinating that there are so many people who are not against something in principle, not at all, but we can't have that principle applied here, not in this particular way, not now that it happens to inconvenience them a little.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> As to what we can learn from those Continental cities, well, drivers driving carefully and with consideration, pedestrians looking before crossing a road and crossing only when it is sensible to do so, and cyclists not jumping nearly 100% of all red traffic lights they encounter, would be great first step towards everyone stop hating everybody else.



That's the easy bit - stating what nearly everyone would ideally want as an outcome. The question was about how to achieve it though, specifically with reference to what we might be able to learn from those other countries and how they achieve it.


----------



## T & P (Aug 11, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's fascinating that there are so many people who are not against something in principle, not at all, but we can't have that principle applied here, not in this particular way, not now that it happens to inconvenience them a little.


Is fascinating that you keep missing the point or my posts and misrepresenting them.


----------



## T & P (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That's the easy bit - stating what nearly everyone would ideally want as an outcome. The question was about how to achieve it though, specifically with reference to what we might be able to learn from those other countries and how they achieve it.


Well, not sure if anyone has an answer for it, not when the sentiments in this country are so ingrained. Doesn't negate the fact IMO that conditions are better for everyone in those cities as a result of acting a like dick being generally frown upon by even members of the same type of road user, rather than being defended as it happens here.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Is fascinating that you keep missing the point or my posts and misrepresenting them.


Could be I'm wrong and you're the lone exception, of course.


----------



## T & P (Aug 11, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Could be I'm wrong and you're the lone exception, of course.


It could also be that you're not very flexible in your opinions and beliefs or prepared to give any consideration to any differing views.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

No, it's not that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Oh, I'm sorry, I was still trying to process your 'acknowledment' of my answer to the second pararaph in your post 8,616. You don't try to contest it in any way, so am I to assume you agree then with my riposte that I don't in fact argue against the principle of 20 mph speed restrictions or LTNs, and that you and others on the anti car side behave in a fundamentalist manner towards anyone who might disagree about even one single measure? For a moment there it almost felt like a de facto apology, which would be a first in these boards' history. As you can imagine, that gave me quite a shock.
> 
> As to what we can learn from those Continental cities, well, drivers driving carefully and with consideration, pedestrians looking before crossing a road and crossing only when it is sensible to do so, and cyclists not jumping nearly 100% of all red traffic lights they encounter, would be great first step towards everyone stop hating everybody else.


Want that to happen? Build the infrastructure that facilitates it.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Well, not sure if anyone has an answer for it, not when the sentiments in this country are so ingrained. Doesn't negate the fact IMO that conditions are better for everyone in those cities as a result of acting a like dick being generally frown upon by even members of the same type of road user, rather than being defended as it happens here.



So the common factor here is some nebulous sense of European comradeliness rather than well thought out planning? that makes total sense.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Well, not sure if anyone has an answer for it, not when the sentiments in this country are so ingrained. Doesn't negate the fact IMO that conditions are better for everyone in those cities as a result of acting a like dick being generally frown upon by even members of the same type of road user, rather than being defended as it happens here.


I see, so your position is that it's entirely down to cultural differences and nothing to do with physical planning and infrastructure?

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you can't really provide any evidence that UK pedestrians and cyclists, given similar conditions, behave with less consideration for other road users, than pedestrians and cyclists in these other countries. That's just your contention, based on some holidays and stuff.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

Those I've met are nice enough but I didn't think the Dutch were generally regarded as overly polite.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 11, 2022)

I think the main difference is years of under enforcement. I’m not sure if it’s the same on the continent but here aside from speed traps there’s few forces making sure people behave on the roads and if they do it seldom sticks or the offenders can ignore the fines or the courts just wave them through or lose them in backlog.


Hell the absolute martyred outrage of people saying “how dare the police waste time on speed cameras” is quite incredible. Know the rules and don’t speed and don’t moan if you get caught.

The uk has a lot of rules for just about everything but all to often, from roads to the environment there’s noone checking they are obeyed or the money to check people are doing what they should.


----------



## T & P (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I see, so your position is that it's entirely down to cultural differences and nothing to do with physical planning and infrastructure?
> 
> Also correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you can't really provide any evidence that UK pedestrians and cyclists, given similar conditions, behave with less consideration for other road users, than pedestrians and cyclists in these other countries. That's just your contention, based on some holidays and stuff.


Funny how anecdotal evidence in this thread is either accepted or not accepted depending on whether the proponent is anti car or otherwise...

But yes, in this particular case, my anecdotal evidence would be very hard to argue against as unreliable, because at the end of the day, if one goes to a given country six times, spending on average three days there, and on every single day of every single visit he observes that practically all pedestrians check carefully before crossing the road and even respect the green man/red man light system even on empty streets, or that most cyclists stop at traffic lights, then yes: it is absolutely reliable evidence. You can shout 'anecdotal personal experience' until you go blue in the face, but deep down you know it is so. Unless you are suggesting I am lying.

The lengths some people in this thread go to actually try to dispute the most obvious and undeniable of facts if they don't happen to fit their narrative is truly fucking priceless  If Donald Trump is hiring for his 2024 election campaign team, you are pretty much guaranteed a job.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Funny how anecdotal evidence in this thread is either accepted or not accepted depending on whether the proponent is anti car or otherwise...
> 
> But yes, in this particular case, my anecdotal evidence would be very hard to argue against as unreliable, because at the end of the day, if one goes to a given country six times, spending on average three days there, and on every single day of every single visit he observes that practically all pedestrians check carefully before crossing the road and even respect the green man/red man light system even on empty streets, or that most cyclists stop at traffic lights, then yes: it is absolutely reliable evidence. You can shout 'anecdotal personal experience' until you go blue in the face, but deep down you know it is so. Unless you are suggesting I am lying.
> 
> The lengths some people in this thread go to actually try to dispute the most obvious and undeniable of facts if they don't happen to fit their narrative is truly fucking priceless  If Donald Trump is hiring for his 2024 election campaign team, you are pretty much guaranteed a job.



Thanks for confirming that my guess was right and you can only offer anecdotal evidence for pedestrian/cyclist behaviour. Of course, that anecdotal evidence doesn't really address the question of behaviour under similar conditions.

But again you have avoided answering the first paragraph in my post.


----------



## Cid (Aug 11, 2022)

T & P said:


> Funny how anecdotal evidence in this thread is either accepted or not accepted depending on whether the proponent is anti car or otherwise...
> 
> But yes, in this particular case, my anecdotal evidence would be very hard to argue against as unreliable, because at the end of the day, if one goes to a given country six times, spending on average three days there, and on every single day of every single visit he observes that practically all pedestrians check carefully before crossing the road and even respect the green man/red man light system even on empty streets, or that most cyclists stop at traffic lights, then yes: it is absolutely reliable evidence. You can shout 'anecdotal personal experience' until you go blue in the face, but deep down you know it is so. Unless you are suggesting I am lying.
> 
> The lengths some people in this thread go to actually try to dispute the most obvious and undeniable of facts if they don't happen to fit their narrative is truly fucking priceless  If Donald Trump is hiring for his 2024 election campaign team, you are pretty much guaranteed a job.



Do you often see pedestrians just blithely strolling across the street here without checking?  I suppose it wasn't unusual in central London.

I'm out on my bike most days, and honestly pretty rare to see cyclists jump lights these days. Maybe partly as this is Sheffield and traffic tends to be faster moving. I do sometimes see people on pavements etc, but more just kids fucking about than commuters/cyclists.

However every time I go out (by which I mean proper two hour ride rather than 10 minutes to work, 4ish times a week) a driver will break the law/highway code. Usually in a way that puts me or other vehicles at direct risk. Overtaking on blind corners, overtaking too close, overtaking with oncoming traffic and no adequate space, speeding, jumping lights etc etc. In the city and out of it. It's just a regular feature of being on the roads in the UK. It's difficult to create an environment of mutual respect in those circumstances. It's difficult to expect cyclists to respect the letter of the law when every other road user couldn't give a fuck, and specifically couldn't give a fuck in a way that puts cyclists (and pedestrians, and - where I ride - wildlife, farm animals etc) at direct risk.

If you want an environment that makes cyclists nice people, you have to get more of them on the road (because accountability). To do that you need safe cycling infrastructure, you need speed limits, you need to minimise mixing of large vehicles and cyclists. To the point where people feel safe sending an 8 year old off to school without a helmet (although I'm still dubious about minimal helmet wearing). Otherwise we're all going to be aggy bastards who act like you're trying to kill us, because that's the safest assumption.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> Do you often see pedestrians just blithely strolling across the street here without checking?  I suppose it wasn't unusual in central London.


As a motorcyclist, almost on every single journey. Sometimes one can spot them in advance, but other times they will literally materialise on the middle of the road squeezing past a van or lorry without ever bothering to look right for any two wheeled traffic travelling quite legally in the middle of the road. I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar, whether when riding kerbside or in the middle of the road. 

There’s absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about expecting pedestrians to at the very least look properly if they have unwisely decided to cross a busy road crammed with stationary cars, vans and lorries.

Of course there is a duty of care falling onto two wheelers too, and in fact if cyclists and bikers were as fucking careless as most pedestrians are, collisions and injuries would be twentyfold what they are now. But the bottom line is that it takes two to tango regardless of burden of responsibility based on vulnerability. If only because at the end of the day, not being in breach of the Highway Code doesn’t really matter if you still end up seriously injured or worse.

Perhaps it’s because I have regularly been all kinds of road user over the years, from ped to cyclist to biker to car driver. But I never cease to be amazed at the appalling lack of situational awareness and complete lack of the most basic notion of self-preservation a very significant proportion of pedestrians in this country demonstrate. It’s almost as if they’re actually unaware of the existence of bicycles and motorbikes, despite having lived among them for their entire lives.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> As a motorcyclist, almost on every single journey. Sometimes one can spot them in advance, but other times they will literally materialise on the middle of the road squeezing past a van or lorry without ever bothering to look right for any two wheeled traffic travelling quite legally in the middle of the road. I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar, whether when riding kerbside or in the middle of the road.
> 
> There’s absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about expecting pedestrians to at the very least look properly if they have unwisely decided to cross a busy road crammed with stationary cars, vans and lorries.
> 
> ...


So we need infrastructure.

I’m sure you also appreciate how bad motorcyclists can be towards cyclists. Speeding down bus lanes whilst narrowly overtaking, constantly stopping illegally in ASLs, accelerating aggressively away from lights etc etc


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> As a motorcyclist, almost on every single journey. Sometimes one can spot them in advance, but other times they will literally materialise on the middle of the road squeezing past a van or lorry without ever bothering to look right for any two wheeled traffic travelling quite legally in the middle of the road. I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar, whether when riding kerbside or in the middle of the road.
> 
> There’s absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about expecting pedestrians to at the very least look properly if they have unwisely decided to cross a busy road crammed with stationary cars, vans and lorries.
> 
> ...



So... your objection here is that you'd like to filter more quickly and pay less attention? It's not just them 'not being in breach of the highway code', it _specifically_ tells you to keep your speed low and look for emerging pedestrians when filtering. I honestly never found that much of an issue in 15 years of cycling through central London, including a year as a courier. Because I'd either make sure I had decent visibility, or be going slow enough to emergency stop in a very short distance. What annoyed me was pedestrians walking into fast moving cycle lanes, but that's an infrastructure problem (as is jaywalking). You get two options here; 1. introduce wide jaywalking laws, the US option, or 2. design better infrastructure, the places where it's nice to be something other than a driver option.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar,


"Routinely" is overstating it, when it happens I'm not going fast enough for it to be a problem.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> As a motorcyclist, almost on every single journey. Sometimes one can spot them in advance, but other times they will literally materialise on the middle of the road squeezing past a van or lorry without ever bothering to look right for any two wheeled traffic travelling quite legally in the middle of the road. I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar, whether when riding kerbside or in the middle of the road.


That explains a lot.

look back at the extreme and routine speeding by motorcyclists, and the high number of injuries they cause in the data posted back up thread.

Slow the fuck down.

I don't share T&Ps experience of Europe - my own experience as a pedestrian, cyclist and driving is that it's much the same as here when you're not protected by infrastructure.  French driving (speed, tailgating) is generally terrifiying.  Cycling there it's great until it isn't - I've ridden some big mountains and it's lovely.  People cheering you on, passing good and wide.  Until it gets a little busier on the road and someone might have to slow down for moment when suddenly you're being close passed or overtaken on a blind bend just as much as in the UK.  There are loads of videos of dangerous Dutch driving around cyclists away from infrastructure.

There is different enforcement. The French don't fuck about painting their speed cameras yellow.  They're small, grey and hidden.  And there are often completely covert speed traps as well.  
The Swiss have really significant fines for speeding - multiples of income (plus at a certain level above automatic bans and vehicles seized).  Germany has various speed enforcement measures and is really strict on drug and alcohol driving.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> motorcyclists, and the high number of injuries they cause in the data posted back up thread.


Which post please?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> As a motorcyclist, almost on every single journey. Sometimes one can spot them in advance, but other times they will literally materialise on the middle of the road squeezing past a van or lorry without ever bothering to look right for any two wheeled traffic travelling quite legally in the middle of the road. I am sure plenty of regular commuting cyclists routinely experience similar, whether when riding kerbside or in the middle of the road.
> 
> There’s absolutely nothing wrong or unreasonable about expecting pedestrians to at the very least look properly if they have unwisely decided to cross a busy road crammed with stationary cars, vans and lorries.
> 
> ...


We know all this - you've written many versions of this particular rant throughout the thread, just like the ones about cyclists.

We know you think pedestrians and cyclists behave badly.

But you keep ignoring the question of what you want to happen, in order to emulate what you claim is significantly better behaviour in these other places you mention.

Prove you're not a tribalist by making some actual suggestions how to improve things instead of ranting about road users that aren't you.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Which post please?


Motorbike speeds on 20mph roads.








						Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
					

A cyclist that fucks around generally finds they end up injuring themselves or paying to replace an expensive bike.  A motorist that fucks around massively hurts someone else usually.




					www.urban75.net
				




Motorcyclists are disproprotiationaly dangerous to other road users - second only to HGVs - per mile they travel.


Nearly a quarter of motorcyclist fatal/serious have _no other vehicle involved_.  they're quite capable of just wiping themselves out, and leaving society to clear up the mess.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> That explains a lot.
> 
> look back at the extreme and routine speeding by motorcyclists, and the high number of injuries they cause in the data posted back up thread.
> 
> Slow the fuck down.


Erm... I go very slow- the very reason why I don't slam into a zombie lemming once a week on average. That is irrelevant to the fact that it's the pedestrian who is acting reckelessly and unjustifiably.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We know all this - you've written many versions of this particular rant throughout the thread, just like the ones about cyclists.
> 
> We know you think pedestrians and cyclists behave badly.
> 
> ...


Better cycling infrastructe, when balanced and reasonable, can only be a good thing and I would welcome it.

Regarding pedestrians, since no infrastructure in the world (other than erecting West Bank-style walls between every pavement and the adjacent road, which I'm sure most people would object to) is going to stop a significant proportion of them behaving irresponsibly, what I would like to see is regular campaigns by the government urging pedestrians to check before crossing, in particular in congested road situations. And to not emerge onto a road from behind buses and other large vehicles. And to look out for cycles and bikes. Coupled with the introduction of jaywalking legislation in the immediate vicinity of traffic light-regulated crossings, and warnings followed by fines for repeat offences for anyone who ignores the red man crossing light.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2022)

In Germany jaywalking is illegal in some circumstances, but also socially unacceptable.  This makes Germany safer for pedestrians.

Fatalities -

UK
Total: 1752
Pedestrians 470
Cyclists: 100

Germany
Total: 3046
Pedestrians 417
Cyclists 445

Note that the UK is a remarkably safe place for cyclists compared to Germany. Anyone serious about reducing road deaths will focus not on more cycle lanes but on ensuring pedestrians are more careful, perhaps by introducing some appropriate legislation.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> In Germany jaywalking is illegal in some circumstances, but also socially unacceptable.  This makes Germany safer for pedestrians.
> 
> Fatalities -
> 
> ...


You do realise that without adjusting for population size and distance travelled (ie exposure) using each mode of transport those figures are utterly meaningless.

In the UK we’ve largely made walking and cycling “safe” by making it unpleasant enough that few people do it much.

Motorbikes aren’t safer than cars because they kill fewer pedestrians, they’re more dangerous because they kill more pedestrians per mile travelled .

The Netherlands has very high numbers of death by >65s cycling compared to anywhere else. Because they have mass cycling by >65s (many of whom die if natural causes, while still cycling).


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> You do realise that without adjusting for population size and distance travelled (ie exposure) using each mode of transport those figures are utterly meaningless.
> 
> In the UK we’ve largely made walking and cycling “safe” by making it unpleasant enough that few people do it much.
> 
> ...



You can adjust for anything to make a point. Per mile, per journey, per occupant mile, adjusted for age, type of road, time of day, etc etc

Such adjustments don’t magically convert the number of deaths from something that is “utterly meaningless” to some sort of special truth that will win you an argument.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 12, 2022)

Jaywalking, lol

Get to fuck with that bullshit.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> Better cycling infrastructe, when balanced and reasonable, can only be a good thing and I would welcome it.
> 
> Regarding pedestrians, since no infrastructure in the world (other than erecting West Bank-style walls between every pavement and the adjacent road, which I'm sure most people would object to) is going to stop a significant proportion of them behaving irresponsibly, what I would like to see is regular campaigns by the government urging pedestrians to check before crossing, in particular in congested road situations. And to not emerge onto a road from behind buses and other large vehicles. And to look out for cycles and bikes. Coupled with the introduction of jaywalking legislation in the immediate vicinity of traffic light-regulated crossings, and warnings followed by fines for repeat offences for anyone who ignores the red man crossing light.



Or you could just not ride too fast in congested traffic.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Such adjustments don’t magically convert the number of deaths from something that is “utterly meaningless” to some sort of special truth that will win you an argument.


They don't do it magically, that's right.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2022)

Looking forward to someone adjusting Germany’s number of cycling deaths which is 445% higher than UK’s, to something fewer than the UK’s, and then winning an argument over it, without using magic.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Jaywalking, lol
> 
> Get to fuck with that bullshit.




Not wrong that pedestrians need to be aware of surroundings but jaywalking can fuck off then fuck off a bit more.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2022)

Note that in Germany it’s basically not enforced, but has engendered a culture of pedestrians obeying crossing signals. Obviously a good thing.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> Or you could just not ride too fast in congested traffic.


Driving at 15 mph is too fast??


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Note that in Germany it’s basically not enforced, but has engendered a culture of pedestrians obeying crossing signals. Obviously a good thing.




Ah like pavement cycling here


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> Driving at 15 mph is too fast??


If there’s a pedestrian in the way, yes.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> Driving at 15 mph is too fast??



You understand that 'too fast' is a relative thing right? 'too fast' effectively means 'can't properly react to hazards in the road'. So yes. It is too fast. It's not as if pedestrians are the only hazards in congested traffic in any case.

Also how many miles of heavily congested traffic with a high probability of pedestrians and low visibility are you actually covering? 2 miles where you're going 10mph instead of 15mph is going to add a whole 4 minutes to your commute.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If there’s a pedestrian in the way, yes.


But that's the point. There are no pedestrians on the way, or even visible. If they took the basic precaution of *looking* before appearing in the middle of the road behind a tall vehicle, then there would not be a problem at all.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> Driving at 15 mph is too fast??


Just very very unlikely 
Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> You understand that 'too fast' is a relative thing right? 'too fast' effectively means 'can't properly react to hazards in the road'. So yes. It is too fast. It's not as if pedestrians are the only hazards in congested traffic in any case.
> 
> Also how many miles of heavily congested traffic with a high probability of pedestrians and low visibility are you actually covering? 2 miles where you're going 10mph instead of 15mph is going to add a whole 4 minutes to your commute.


Or the other solution is, allow two-wheeled vehicles to bypass congested traffic, which is one of the major points of the very existence of bikes, at a safe but reasonable speed, rather than virtually going at 2 mph because some people are too fucking reckless and/or entitled to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> some people are too fucking reckless and/or entitled to take any responsibility whatsoever for their actions.




Yep. 


'They' certainly are.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Just very very unlikely
> Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
> Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


Certainly not by me, and plenty of other bikers (though there are always some idiots of course), when travelling in the middle of the road in congested traffic conditions. We don't know in which circumstances those collisions took place, but only a complete cunt (not long for the world anyway) would travel at speed in the middle of the road with stationary traffic.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 12, 2022)

Maybe just give up the motorbike, I don't think it's for you.


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Maybe just give up the motorbike, I don't think it's for you.


I could start walking everywhere and become an entitled zombie lemming, I guess...


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> They don't do it magically, that's right.


I mean you can prove anything with _facts_ can’t you.  I prefer to rely on ignorance and blind prejudice.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> I could start walking everywhere and become an entitled zombie lemming, I guess...


Go for it. Really show us other pedestrians up. We'll be dead impressed, I promise.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2022)

Bloody entitled pedestrians. Those fuckers have had it far too easy for far too long!


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

Just as an example, my longest commute in London:

Downhills Park Tottenham
Finsbury Park
Camden - Regents park
Paddington - Hyde Park
Notting Hill - Shepherd's bush
Acton Park

13.5 miles, right through central London. Usually around 50 minutes. On a fixie. Where is the problem there? It would have been _nice_ for it to have been faster, but I'm still getting there quicker than any other mode of transport save the entitled arseholes on powered bikes. Never once felt at risk of hitting a pedestrian.

Ime the pedestrians in the road thing only really gets bad when you're around the very centre - Oxford circus, Covent Garden, UCL/Kings, bits of the city at certain times. This was mildly annoying as a courier because that was your main area... But even then, riding like a tit, 8 hours a day I managed not to be overly bothered by it. There are other areas (Kentish town road, obviously the central bits of Camden, around King's cross), but it's not that bad.

Really what a fucking stupid jumping off point for traffic law reform. This parochial, entitled, short-sighted 'why can't I go a bit faster while the planet burns'. Fucking hell.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> Just as an example, my longest commute in London:
> 
> Downhills Park Tottenham
> Finsbury Park
> ...


Presumably most of the pedestrian thing is when they’re trying to cross the road when traffic’s at a stand still. What are they meant to do - only use crossings! Fuck that.

Motorbike’s overtaking queueing traffic just need to be more careful and certainly not go at 15mph.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Presumably most of the pedestrian thing is when they’re trying to cross the road when traffic’s at a stand still. What are they meant to do - only use crossings! Fuck that.
> 
> Motorbike’s overtaking queueing traffic just need to be more careful and certainly not go at 15mph.



Yeah, crowded pavements, not great provision of crossing points, not always very visible etc. I mean providing extra crossing points _without_ the jaywalking would probably also work. But 100% the same people would just switch their moaning to there being too many sets of lights etc.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Motorcyclists are disproprotiationaly dangerous to other road users - second only to HGVs - per mile they travel.
> View attachment 337108
> 
> Road accidents and safety statistics



Can you point me to the source please? I've been trawling the government site but can't find it

edit: AFAICS the chart is illustrating the deaths of 14 pedestrians. All 14 were heartbreaking tragedies but in the context of road deaths in a country of 60+ million people, 14 isn't usually a big enough number to permit meaningful analysis of trends


----------



## T & P (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> Just as an example, my longest commute in London:
> 
> Downhills Park Tottenham
> Finsbury Park
> ...


It’s not a question of wanting to go faster, for fuck’s sake- it’s mostly about not wanting to hit a pedestrian, or ending under the wheels of an oncoming bus trying to avoid hitting one for that matter, in probably the single most easily avoidable of all scenarios that might lead to a ped being hit by traffic: if crossing a congested or busy road, look both ways before proceeding.

And you say you never once feel at risk of hitting a pedestrian. That’s quite interesting in itself, not least because plenty of drivers and bikers will undoubtedly share that sentiment. But apart from that, perhaps you are one of the very few extremely cautious cyclists in existence who genuinely take all necessary precautions. But most London cyclists will travel at speeds in certain conditions that are every bit as dangerous as that you see as reckless on my part. In particular when riding on streets with a heavy pedestrian presence on the pavement but with a light traffic presence on the tarmac. Such as Shaftesbury Avenue at 6 pm. The pavement is rammed with plenty of peds walking close to the kerb, but there are no cars ahead. Most cyclists will be travelling at at least 12-15 mph, which it is a bit of piss for any cyclist younger than 80. Bottom line is this: even if a cyclist is taking the primary position, if any of those peds walking on the edge of the kerb suddenly decides to step onto the road and start crossing it, any cyclist close enough to them will hit them. Absolutely undeniable.

Ditto any of the countless thousands of streets that have a kerbside cycle lane or a bus lane, regardless of whether the pavement is crammed with pedestrians or not. if there is even just one pedestrian walking ahead near the kerb, there is absolutely no doubt that if they suddenly decided to step onto the road without checking, stupid as that would be, any cyclist going past them at anything faster than walking pace would crash into them if the ped stepped onto the road a couple of seconds before you were due to cycle past them.

Do the overwhelming majority of cyclists slow down to 5-6 mph (or even slow down at all) in the immediate vicinity of any pedestrians walking on the pavement to their left? Do they fuck.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 12, 2022)

Cid said:


> 13.5 miles, right through central London. Usually around 50 minutes. On a fixie. Where is the problem there? It would have been _nice_ for it to have been faster, but I'm still getting there quicker than any other mode of transport save the entitled arseholes on powered bikes. Never once felt at risk of hitting a pedestrian.



Not sure this proves anything -  most cyclists and drivers, including bad ones, never hit pedestrians. However pedestrians do get hit, often by people like you who “never once felt at risk of hitting a pedestrian.”


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 12, 2022)

Theres definitely been at least one point I could have hit a pedestrian while cycling, she was chatting to someone at the bakers then blithely walked out into the road facing backwards at a decent clip. I'm a decently cautious cyclist and hate road cycling but it was still fairly close. Road was a fairly quite one, with slow but constant traffic.

She had the self awareness to look a bit ashamed about it at least.


----------



## Cid (Aug 12, 2022)

T & P said:


> It’s not a question of wanting to go faster, for fuck’s sake- it’s mostly about not wanting to hit a pedestrian, or ending under the wheels of an oncoming bus trying to avoid hitting one for that matter, in probably the single most easily avoidable of all scenarios that might lead to a ped being hit by traffic: if crossing a congested or busy road, look both ways before proceeding.
> 
> And you say you never once feel at risk of hitting a pedestrian. That’s quite interesting in itself, not least because plenty of drivers and bikers will undoubtedly share that sentiment. But apart from that, perhaps you are one of the very few extremely cautious cyclists in existence who genuinely take all necessary precautions. But most London cyclists will travel at speeds in certain conditions that are every bit as dangerous as that you see as reckless on my part. In particular when riding on streets with a heavy pedestrian presence on the pavement but with a light traffic presence on the tarmac. Such as Shaftesbury Avenue at 6 pm. The pavement is rammed with plenty of peds walking close to the kerb, but there are no cars ahead. Most cyclists will be travelling at at least 12-15 mph, which it is a bit of piss for any cyclist younger than 80. Bottom line is this: even if a cyclist is taking the primary position, if any of those peds walking on the edge of the kerb suddenly decides to step onto the road and start crossing it, any cyclist close enough to them will hit them. Absolutely undeniable.
> 
> ...





platinumsage said:


> Not sure this proves anything -  most cyclists and drivers, including bad ones, never hit pedestrians. However pedestrians do get hit, often by people like you who “never once felt at risk of hitting a pedestrian.”



What I think neither of you grasp is that when we communicate we generally over simplify. It's a chronic problem with urban. People will _always_ take the pedantic reading of your posts.

When I say I've never felt at risk of hitting a pedestrian, it's not because I'm blithely cycling past them, or never see them do things I might regard as daft. It's because I know my stopping distances, I know how to pay attention to the road, I know how to observe. You probably have a point with regards to my 18 year old self, but I'm not going to endorse him as an exemplar of how to use roads.

T&P. Think a little. Your system weight is what? 300kg minimum? You probably hit 20mph barely thinking about it. A cyclist? Maybe 100kg. Much better vision too. Going 20mph in London will feel fast. Then it's just physics. Quite apart from anything else I'm not arguing that every cyclist is wonderful. I'm saying _the way you ride is dangerous_. Doesn't exclude other people from riding dangerously does it? And er... accident statistics.

And yeah, kerbside cycle lanes are shit, I don't use them. As I said, we need safely segregated cycle lanes with reduced motor vehicle traffic, which I'm sure you'd be happy with.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> Can you point me to the source please? I've been trawling the government site but can't find it
> 
> edit: AFAICS the chart is illustrating the deaths of 14 pedestrians. All 14 were heartbreaking tragedies but in the context of road deaths in a country of 60+ million people, 14 isn't usually a big enough number to permit meaningful analysis of trends


No. If you’re trying to argue against this data do it yourself.

All the evidence seems to clearly show motorcyclists routinely and dangerously break traffic laws causing disproportionate death and  serious injury to themselves and others. I see no reason why motorbikes (and cars for that matter) shouldn’t have mandatory speed limiters. They’re required for electric cycles. If you’re arguing against that you’re arguing you should be allowed to speed and we can clearly see the impact of that.

Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

As far as I can see there’s no legitimate reason to use a motorbike rather than an electric assist cycle within London.  The trip lengths  are manageable, there’s no difference in weatherproofing and (if you ride safely within speed limits) there’s no time penalty. But you reduce emissions, noise, and the temptation to dangerously break the law.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 12, 2022)

Cheerio then. I think you'd do better in Daily Mail comments. Your rant about motorcyclists 'leaving a mess for society to clean up' is pure gold.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 13, 2022)

They might leave a mess but I understand they're a good source of donated organs.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> They might leave a mess but I understand they're a good source of donated organs.


They're generally referred to as donorcycles by A&E staff


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2022)

Cid said:


> T&P. Think a little. Your system weight is what? 300kg minimum? You probably hit 20mph barely thinking about it. A cyclist? Maybe 100kg. Much better vision too. Going 20mph in London will feel fast. Then it's just physics.











						Kinetic Energy Calculator
					

If you know the mass and velocity of an object, use the kinetic energy calculator to find it's energy in movement.




					www.omnicalculator.com


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2022)

🤣


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2022)

All the anti LTN protestors come across so terribly. This is Tulse Hill lost them loads of people that might have supported them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 13, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> They're generally referred to as donorcycles by A&E staff


There is a definite tendency towards faster noisier motorbikes.


Given the rise of ebikes I can only assume there is a market for quieter not as macho versions that’s been neglected for a long time. Maybe with an electric engine.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> There is a definite tendency towards faster noisier motorbikes.
> 
> 
> Given the rise of ebikes I can only assume there is a market for quieter not as macho versions that’s been neglected for a long time. Maybe with an electric engine.


So much noise pollution from motorbikes. I’m sure tons are above the legal limits. Very anti-social.


----------



## Cid (Aug 13, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> There is a definite tendency towards faster noisier motorbikes.
> 
> 
> Given the rise of ebikes I can only assume there is a market for quieter not as macho versions that’s been neglected for a long time. Maybe with an electric engine.



It's a little odd... e.g China electric scooters (I mean moped/bike type) are probably the main form of transport. I'm not sure of the licensing requirements at the moment; when I was there you didn't need one, but seems like various municipalities are further restricting the types you can ride unlicensed (this, tbh, is probably no bad thing - people got in accidents all the time). I suppose here it's because there's such an abundance of used petrol vehicles, and they're so cheap to run in any case.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤣



Having seen images of the protest, not very many boos.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 13, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> There is a definite tendency towards faster noisier motorbikes.
> 
> 
> Given the rise of ebikes I can only assume there is a market for quieter not as macho versions that’s been neglected for a long time. Maybe with an electric engine.


The noise is because the owners buy an exhaust without a silencer or a cat. It's illegal but the law isn't enforced. The dickheads just want to make noise. It's the first thing they buy when they get a bike. They should be put in the stocks.

Bikes haven't got a great deal faster lately. They've been about as fast as they can be for the last 20 years, i.e. 0 - 100mph in less than six seconds and a top speed of nearly 190mph. You can't really go faster than that without reinventing tyres and enclosing the bike in a tube, like a missile. 

I think the noise is even worse for the general public than the risk of being run over. In some parts of Germany they're dealing with it by banning motorbikes. In this country there's been talk of doing something, perhaps with noise cameras, for decades. But nothing is done. Enforcement is too labour intensive. A bobby on the beat can seize any vehicle if it's being driven antisocially, which would surely cover every twat who makes a racket. There's no need to measure the noise level or check the exhaust to see if it's an original part. But I've never heard of this being done to a biker, not even once, ever. Maybe plod won't do it because they'd have to wait with the bike for n hours until a tow truck arrives. 

I don't think the noisy show off type of biker is going to want an electric bike. Sales of new petrol-powered bikes will become illegal in the UK in 2035. I think a lot of people will keep using them for many decades after that.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 13, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> The noise is because the owners buy an exhaust without a silencer or a cat. It's illegal but the law isn't enforced. The dickheads just want to make noise. It's the first thing they buy when they get a bike. They should be put in the stocks.
> 
> Bikes haven't got a great deal faster lately. They've been about as fast as they can be for the last 20 years, i.e. 0 - 100mph in less than six seconds and a top speed of nearly 190mph. You can't really go faster than that without reinventing tyres and enclosing the bike in a tube, like a missile.
> 
> ...



I'm just so used to hearing motorbikes engines bouncing off the walls I likely just don't notice the quiet ones. 

As you say the people with those sort of bikes are not going to want to change it, part of the thrill is being loud for them.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2022)

🤣


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

Its just crazy that we gave all our streets over to cars no questions asked and we just allow them to take then piss.

Then drivers have the balls to whine whenever we look to add some minor restrictions.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 14, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

I highlight the


edcraw said:


> Its just crazy that we gave all our streets over to cars no questions asked and we just allow them to take then piss.
> 
> Then drivers have the balls to whine whenever we look to add some minor restrictions.
> 
> View attachment 337486


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I highlight the
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 337516


Not sure what that graph shows as no title so don’t know what it has to do with my point.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what that graph shows as no title so don’t know what it has to do with my point.



It shows, as you well know, that as the Golf as became 18cm wider over the years due to structural safety improvements, the number of annual road deaths has plummeted.

But 18cm of width is obviously more outrageous to you than thousands of deaths.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> View attachment 337514


It's clear to everyone in that last image that the problem is that the cyclist is uninsured, and should be forced to have numberplates.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It shows, as you well know, that as the Golf as became 18cm wider over the years due to structural safety improvements, the number of annual road deaths has plummeted.
> 
> But 18cm of width is obviously more outrageous to you than thousands of deaths.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It shows, as you well know, that as the Golf as became 18cm wider over the years due to structural safety improvements, the number of annual road deaths has plummeted.
> 
> But 18cm of width is obviously more outrageous to you than thousands of deaths.


Not sure what this has to giving over more and more space with no consultation at the detriment to our cities.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> View attachment 337529View attachment 337528



I'm not reading something from 1990


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what this has to giving over more and more space with no consultation at the detriment to our cities.



Try reading it again then.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not reading something from 1990


Bad memories of turning 50?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 14, 2022)

Car fans: we aren't directly running you over. Cars are safe

Also car fans:


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Bad memories of turning 50?



10 actually, grandad.

Find something from 2010 onward that demonstrates improved side-impact protection in cars has not saved lives, or has led to an increase in pedestrian deaths or whatever, and I'll take a look.

Otherwise I'll continue to maintain that car-width moaners don't have any sort of point and don't actually care about road deaths.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage knowingly posts fallacious arguments for his own entertainment. Sometimes they can appear plausible to those who don't spend much time thinking about this stuff, and in those cases it's worth responding. In fact it's quite a good way of letting people see how various arguments don't stand up. It's all part of this thread working as intended. I think recently platinumsage has got bored and moved to posting just quite obviously silly arguments. When they are nonsensical enough that everyone can see what they are, there's no particular benefit of responding - they can stand as kind of parody posts. Again, fits fine with the aims of the thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Car fans: we aren't directly running you over. Cars are safe
> 
> Also car fans:
> 
> View attachment 337540



Note how they cunningly switch from 3.5 million deaths globally to 50% of deaths in OECD countries. Most air pollution deaths globally are caused by cooking and heating.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> platinumsage knowingly posts fallacious arguments for his own entertainment. Sometimes they can appear plausible to those who don't spend much time thinking about this stuff, and in those cases it's worth responding. In fact it's quite a good way of letting people see how various arguments don't stand up. It's all part of this thread working as intended. I think recently platinumsage has got bored and moved to posting just quite obviously silly arguments. When they are nonsensical enough that everyone can see what they are, there's no particular benefit of responding - they can stand as kind of parody posts. Again, fits fine with the aims of the thread.



So do you think it's a good thing cars are 18cm wider given the lives saved, or not?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

From the US. But no let's go back to 1970s Golfs because they're 18cm narrower:


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Try reading it again then.


Don’t think you’re getting my point. We gave over our cities to cars no questions asked and they continue to take the piss but getting bigger& bigger and sat navs routing more traffic onto minor roads.

We should have to just put up with it. Rather then drivers moaning about “the war on cars” they should be thankful they got away with so much for son long.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Don’t think you’re getting my point. We gave over our cities to cars no questions asked and they continue to take the piss but getting bigger& bigger and sat navs routing more traffic onto minor roads.
> 
> We should have to just put up with it. Rather then drivers moaning about “the war on cars” they should be thankful they got away with so much for son long.



I don't see how an 18cm increase in width with a concomitant massive improvement in safety is at all relevant to your point.

One might almost think you're posting fallacious arguments for your own entertainment.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don't see how an 18cm increase in width with a concomitant massive improvement in safety is at all relevant to your point.
> 
> One might almost think you're posting fallacious arguments for your own entertainment.


This is just a Golf. Have you not seen the rise of the wankpanzers? Have you not seen the residential streets with parking on both sides constantly getting snarled up when 2 cars happen to meet - after all that’s a total of nearly 3/4s of a metre.

Why should we just let cars continue their dominance uninterrupted?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This is just a Golf. Have you not seen the rise of the wankpanzers? Have you not seen the residential streets with parking on both sides constantly getting snarled up when 2 cars happen to meet - after all that’s a total of nearly 3/4s of a metre.
> 
> Why should we just let cars continue their dominance uninterrupted?



I'm pretty sure that obstructive parking isn't caused by an 18cm increase in car width, it's caused by drivers and councils making bad decisions.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm pretty sure that obstructive parking isn't caused by an 18cm increase in car width, it's caused by drivers and councils making bad decisions.


Residential roads to only have parking on one side of there isn’t space for 2 cars to pass. Totally agree - very bold! Exactly the thing I’m talking about but just imagine the opposition from whiny motorists.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Residential roads to only have parking on one side of there isn’t space for 2 cars to pass. Totally agree - very bold! Exactly the thing I’m talking about but just imagine the opposition from whiny motorists.



Right, glad we've established that parking problems in residential streets won't be best solved by replacing impact-protected cars with 18cm narrower tin cans from the 1970s, and that the costs in thousands of lives would probably be too high a price to pay for not being bothered to paint double yellow lines.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So do you think it's a good thing cars are 18cm wider given the lives saved, or not?


Everyone knows that the optimum ratio of lives saved per unit car width is achieved when the car width is zero. It's just maths.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right, glad we've established that parking problems in residential streets won't be best solved by replacing impact-protected cars with 18cm narrower tin cans from the 1970s, and that the costs in thousands of lives would probably be too high a price to pay for not being bothered to paint double yellow lines.


I’m making a point that we shouldn’t listen to motorists whiny when we’re trying to deal with the problems they’ve created. Not sure what point you’re making.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Everyone knows that the optimum ratio of lives saved per unit car width is achieved when the car width is zero. It's just maths.



We've already established that buses are more dangerous to pedestrians than cars. With zero car width, there'd be a massive increase in bus and pedestrian traffic, with devastating consequences.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> We've already established that buses are more dangerous to pedestrians than cars. With zero car width, there'd be a massive increase in bus and pedestrian traffic, with devastating consequences.


I note that on your other thread where you are complaining about an increase in aggressive, large dogs, you only seem to be interested in the safety of children and others that they might attack.

Nothing about the consequences for a dog if, say, a small child accidentally topples a large vase in the vicinity of a dog. It's obvious that a larger dog is much less vulnerable to injury in this scenario. 

Your advocacy for smaller dogs displays a contemptious disregard for the safety of dogs, which increases the larger they get. Don't you think that's a disgusting attitude to take?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I note that on your other thread where you are complaining about an increase in aggressive, large dogs, you only seem to be interested in the safety of children and others that they might attack.
> 
> Nothing about the consequences for a dog if, say, a small child accidentally topples a large vase in the vicinity of a dog. It's obvious that a larger dog is much less vulnerable to injury in this scenario.
> 
> Your advocacy for smaller dogs displays a contemptious disregard for the safety of dogs, which increases the larger they get. Don't you think that's a disgusting attitude to take?



Are you trying to equate dogs with cars containing people? How the mighty have fallen.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Are you trying to equate dogs with cars containing people? How the mighty have fallen.


Dogs are often used to protect people. The larger and better at fighting they are, the more effective they are at protecting their owners' hard working families. And yet you want to remove this protection by banning them and taking away people's freedom which is something that would happen in North Korea.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Dogs are often used to protect people. The larger and better at fighting they are, the more effective they are at protecting their owners' hard working families. And yet you want to remove this protection by banning them and taking away people's freedom which is something that would happen in North Korea.



How many lives are saved by fighting-dogs every year, that wouldn’t be saved by ordinary dogs? How many people are killed each year by side-impact protection on cars?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

Anyway I would have thought a fighting dog advocate would have known that North Korea has a similar attitude to dogs as they do to cars:









						Kim Jong Un orders pet dogs to be confiscated in North Korean capital
					

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ordered pet dogs to be confiscated in the country’s capital, saying the pooches represent Western “decadence’’ — but their owners fear Fido is really headed for someone’s dinner table.




					www.eurogroupforanimals.org


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How many lives are saved by fighting-dogs every year, that wouldn’t be saved by ordinary dogs? How many people are killed each year by side-impact protection on cars?


How many lives could be saved in side impact collisions by mandatory speed limiters set at a given speed? Please express your answer in deaths per 1mph of speed limit above zero.

Then calculate a ratio of this number to the number of deaths per cm subtracted from a 2022 car width.

Show all workings and sources. Then we can do an entirely objective cost benefit calculation that everyone can agree on.

While you are working on the above I will produce a measure for available road width benefit, in units of something "like hundred people having a nicer life per cm3 of bloated murder machine eliminated".


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

All the statements of fact I've made in response to edcraw's Golf-width-outrage are self-evident and therefore need no supporting sources or calculations.

However, feel free to take the time to produce your own analysis which no doubt will be dismissed out-of-hand as being deeply flawed.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

This thread is very good at showing that those against cars are very reasonable & sensible people… and then you have one or two others.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don't see how an 18cm increase in width with a concomitant massive improvement in safety is at all relevant to your point.
> 
> One might almost think you're posting fallacious arguments for your own entertainment.


72cm on a typical London street with 2 parking spaces and 2 live lanes.
Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 14, 2022)

I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains.


Well as you’ve alluded to before its prob one of the reasons for bigger cars. People drive more meaning they get less exercise so bigger cars and they drive more and get bigger meaning bigger cars and they drive more and get bigger etc etc. Its a vicious circle.

We need to stop this by restricting cars so we alllow people to walk and cycle more stopping ever increasing obesity and breaking this cycle. Quite simple really.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I‘m surprised no one has yet mentioned the dramatic increase in obesity since the 70s, all that pavement space being taken up with no associated safety gains.


Also, surely we should be increasing pavement sizes if people are getting bigger!


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Also, surely we should be increasing pavement sizes if people are getting bigger!



And steal space from cyclists?? Are you for serious??


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

Man moves house and drives more thanks to clean air zone:









						Man 'forced to move home' and stop cycling by Bath Clean Air Zone
					

'I went from driving nine miles a week to now probably driving 25 miles a week'




					www.somersetlive.co.uk


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2022)

_Soon, Ian found that paying the daily fee was "draining" his finances. "It was like a heavy weight on my mind every week," he said.

"I didn’t drive the van very much and when I did I would normally take it camping and park it for a few days," he said._

Man makes bad choices, lies to newspaper.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 15, 2022)

"But it wasn’t compliant with the Clean Air Zone, so every single time I left my house I was fined £9 - which I thought was a bit communist really”

_😂_

platinumsage what is it with you pro car nutters obsession with communist regimes.

Very weird economics that it’s cheaper for him to move house, buy an additional car and drive each day into Bath rather than pay £9 once or twice a week. Almost like he’s talking bullshit. But yeah, we should just allow old polluting vehicles everywhere invade there’s an example someone might be slightly worse off.

Hope the communist council of Bath puts a stop to this free city centre parking he seems to enjoy.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2022)

> every single time I left my house I was fined £9 - which I thought was a bit communist really.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Man moves house and drives more thanks to clean air zone:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


“Man is twat”


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Man is twat”



Judean People's Front alert!

"They could have put some time and effort into improving the buses and the cycle paths," he said.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Judean People's Front alert!
> 
> "They could have put some time and effort into improving the buses and the cycle paths," he said.


They always say that.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

Working class postie wants improved cycle lanes and buses, yet middle-class motorist armchair lycra fetishists take the piss. 🤷


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Judean People's Front alert!
> 
> "They could have put some time and effort into improving the buses and the cycle paths," he said.


“I’m a cyclist myself, but…”


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “I’m a cyclist myself, but…”



Says the avid motorist who prefers gas guzzling trips down the M5 to taking the train. You’re lucky you don’t have to pay a surcharge for each car journey you make.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> middle-class motorist armchair lycra


I don't own an armchair, so that's actually zero out of four.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Says the avid motorist who prefers gas guzzling trips down the M5 to taking the train. You’re lucky you don’t have to pay a surcharge for each car journey you make.


lol, try harder.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2022)

Here's an illustration of how owning a car makes anyone an idiot.

On the one hand an self entitled Welsh resident who thinks they own the public street outside their home, and can stop other people parking there.

On the other hand a self entitled tourist (origin unstated) who wants to drive everywhere and park everywhere.

Both of them screaming at each other, throwing traffic cones around and so on. A small child could have got hurt, and no SUV crumple zone would have helped. Both of them should be banned from driving for life.









						'Screaming' tourist leaves North Wales seaside town local 'shaking and angry'
					

A heated on-street confrontation in Penmaenmawr has highlighted the problems some locals endure at the height of the tourism season




					www.dailypost.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 15, 2022)

When you touristically jaunt about the country in a motorcar, depositing said car at the side of roads such as the A87, on land that you assume but are not certain forms part of the highway, you would presumably delight in provoking such a response from a local farmer. I’m not sure that you’re so very different from the persons in the video as you like to make out.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2022)

> they often have to park some distance from their homes and that things can get “very annoying”


End of days.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2022)

Luckily the police seem to be realising that everything isn’t fine.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 16, 2022)

They could start by releasing all their detailed collision investigation reports to the public, instead of brushing them under the carpet.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 16, 2022)

I don't go there often but when I do, especially at rush hour, Epping station remains my go to example of hostile infrastructure.

Its busy as hell and no point does there appear to have been attempts to accommodate foot traffic. There's no actual crossing anywhere on the road, the traffic reaches from the station road down the road opposite and it's just very very nasty. There's a dog leg path up past the car park but the vast majority of pedestrians hike up and cross and walk direct to Epping because that path goes nowhere.

Bike rack chucked in for after thoughts but more than anything there's simply no room. Straight out and into a bus or into traffic


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> I don't go there often but when I do, especially at rush hour, Epping station remains my go to example of hostile infrastructure.
> 
> Its busy as hell and no point does there appear to have been attempts to accommodate foot traffic. There's no actual crossing anywhere on the road, the traffic reaches from the station road down the road opposite and it's just very very nasty. There's a dog leg path up past the car park but the vast majority of pedestrians hike up and cross and walk direct to Epping because that path goes nowhere.
> 
> Bike rack chucked in for after thoughts but more than anything there's simply no room. Straight out and into a bus or into traffic


God that is awful! Just bizarre how traffic planners give no thought to pedestrians. It seems to be changing some places but not enough.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

Drivers: 20mph limits are too low you it’s impossible to drive at that speed 

Also drivers: cyclists should have to stick to 20mph limits!!









						Cyclists may have to get number plates
					






					www.mailplus.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

It’s just the usual Tory response: “we should have less regulation (except for people that aren’t us).”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2022)

Obviously it won’t happen.

Still, it’s nice to think that if it did all the drivers would obviously be happy for me to ride smack in the middle of the lane _everywhere_, and not let them pass, because we’re now being treated the same as other road users, yeah?

Careful what you wish for dickheads


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Drivers: 20mph limits are too low you it’s impossible to drive at that speed
> 
> Also drivers: cyclists should have to stick to 20mph limits!!
> 
> ...



Why do you keep linking to the Mail+ rather than the regular non-paywalled Daily Mail website? I assume it’s because you’re a subscriber.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

Always wonder what age they want registration for tf to start at and will kids younger than that not be able to cycle. 

Just bizarre that their enough people like platinumsage that politicians think this will win them votes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2022)

I look forward to the government appointed inspectors visiting every shed in the country to make sure all the bikes are suitably tagged  

The whole idea is so obviously flawed and unworkable, yet dickheads still call for it.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why do you keep linking to the Mail+ rather than the regular non-paywalled Daily Mail website? I assume it’s because you’re a subscriber.



Ed is Paul Dacre


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

Oh, well this is awkward:


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 17, 2022)

Nonsense, most bikes in my city are required to display a registration number. It's entirely uncontroversial:

"A member of the University _in statu pupillari_ shall not keep, or cause to be kept for his or her use, a bicycle within the Precincts of the University, unless it bears a distinguishing mark in accordance with instructions to be issued from time to time by the Proctors."


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 17, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I look forward to the government appointed inspectors visiting every shed in the country to make sure all the bikes are suitably tagged



I note that this proposal comes entirely from the mouth of Grant Shapps. I refer you to this post:









						Tory Leadership contest 2022
					

Who the fuck is he ? 🤣  I googled him, and still nope? And I watch pmq's every week .




					www.urban75.net


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I note that this proposal comes entirely from the mouth of Grant Shapps. I refer you to this post:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you voted yet?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nonsense, most bikes in my city are required to display a registration number. It's entirely uncontroversial:
> 
> "A member of the University _in statu pupillari_ shall not keep, or cause to be kept for his or her use, a bicycle within the Precincts of the University, unless it bears a distinguishing mark in accordance with instructions to be issued from time to time by the Proctors."



Last time I checked private property isn’t the same as countries.


----------



## Cid (Aug 17, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nonsense, most bikes in my city are required to display a registration number. It's entirely uncontroversial:
> 
> "A member of the University _in statu pupillari_ shall not keep, or cause to be kept for his or her use, a bicycle within the Precincts of the University, unless it bears a distinguishing mark in accordance with instructions to be issued from time to time by the Proctors."



Most bike owners in Cambridge are University of Cambridge undergrads?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2022)

Looks like we're not joining North Korea and Cambridge Uni after all.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Looks like we're not joining North Korea and Cambridge Uni after all.



Perhaps Michael Green or one of his other identities gave the first interview.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2022)

Maybe there will be more bad news on the cost of living next week and we'll get a hastily-retracted promise on jaywalking.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Maybe there will be more bad news on the cost of living next week and we'll get a hastily-retracted promise on jaywalking.


----------



## prunus (Aug 17, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> View attachment 338092



Were once or still are.


----------



## Chz (Aug 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Looks like we're not joining North Korea and Cambridge Uni after all.



Perhaps someone from the Treasury had a word about the money black hole such a proposal would be. Practical limitations aside (and there are plenty!), it would cost millions and generate next to no income - there needs to be some sort of benefit attached to that and there isn't any.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 18, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 18, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


>


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 18, 2022)

Canada’s new ‘luxury tax’ targets supercars, yachts and private jets
					

As of September, Canada’s new ‘luxury tax’ will apply to privately owned high-value vehicles, aircraft and vessels.




					www.euronews.com
				





Here  an information gift so this tiresome thread  can continue


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 18, 2022)

Still, reg plates for cyclists, eh?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Still, reg plates for cyclists, eh?



I bet that pedestrian wasn't insured. It was lucky for everyone that the car crashed rather than the pedestrian tripping over - he could have scuffed one of those parked cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 19, 2022)

Let's ban trees, windows, hills and elevator ceiling panels shall we?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 19, 2022)

Bikes: ENFORCE THE LAW, LIMIT THESE RECKLESS FOOLS.

Cars:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Let's ban trees, windows, hills and elevator ceiling panels shall we?


We basically have already. I'm surprised you're not familiar with the relevant legislation in each of those cases.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2022)

There probably are rules that cover throwing panes of glass at people or pushing big rocks down hills at people.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2022)

One of the problems though is that so many people go on about the dangers of massive rocks careering down hillsides but fail to actively condemn marbles falling off tabletops - so disappointing that this kind of tribalism prevents a sensible discussion.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2022)

Sure it was a big rockslide that nearly killed someone but did you see the pebble that went through the red light?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 19, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> There probably are rules that cover throwing panes of glass at people or pushing big rocks down hills at people.



Not as many as are contained herein:

www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/wilkinson/contents.html


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 19, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Sure it was a big rockslide that nearly killed someone but did you see the pebble that went through the red light?



Ban both of them, problem solved.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2022)

No wonder the roads are so bad if one guy called Wilkinson is committing enough offences to fill two huge books.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> We basically have already. I'm surprised you're not familiar with the relevant legislation in each of those cases.


I wonder how long he’s been planning that post. Ages I reckon.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2022)

Not long enough to include a point.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 21, 2022)

Why are soooo many drivers such awful people?









						Tractor gets stuck after 50 drivers park on double yellow line at beauty spot
					

The farmer tried to bale his way out of the mayhem and squeeze past the endless row of cars while transporting hay across Llangollen but instead go stuck in the hedges




					www.mirror.co.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 21, 2022)

4 people stabbed, one Tasered and 7 arrested in huge knife fight
					

Police rushed four people to hospital for stab injuries following a fight on Josephine Avenue, Brixton




					www.mylondon.news
				



Four people stabbed, one Tasered and seven arrested in huge knife fight in a row about parking.​


----------



## edcraw (Aug 21, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> 4 people stabbed, one Tasered and 7 arrested in huge knife fight
> 
> 
> Police rushed four people to hospital for stab injuries following a fight on Josephine Avenue, Brixton
> ...


Got to be the LTNs fault.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Got to be the LTNs fault.



I blame nato expansion


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Got to be the LTNs fault.


Of course. Even though Josephine  Avenue appears to have had an increase in traffic, which I seem to remember the onesies being outraged about as it’s had a *100% increase!!!! *(But is still at the boundary of Lambeths traffic volumes for a healthy route).


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 22, 2022)

Car reportedly travelling at 120mph. Limit is 40











						Horror crash on A40 leaves one woman dead, three others injured
					

A local said he heard an ‘almighty bang’




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Aug 22, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Car reportedly travelling at 120mph. Limit is 40
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s just absolute crap that we don’t limit car speeds. Seriously, the only reason seems to be “what if you need to accelerate to 100mph to avoid a crash”. Where the fuck are the Daily Mail front pages of this? 

Cue goat picture from an unbanned Spy…


----------



## Chz (Aug 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s just absolute crap that we don’t limit car speeds. Seriously, the only reason seems to be “what if you need to accelerate to 100mph to avoid a crash”. Where the fuck are the Daily Mail front pages of this?
> 
> Cue goat picture from an unbanned Spy…


What do you limit them to? 70 is going to generate a lot of hate the next time you're in France. 81 (the French autoroute limit) is going to get you flashed at in Germany. 100 seems like an upper limit that most people will never pass, if just for the fuel consumption, but it's not going to help in a 30 zone much.

Don't give some GPS varying speed limit bollocks, there are enough cases of block boxes buggering up completely and no-one wants to be limited to 30 on the M40.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 23, 2022)

Something less than 120mph.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2022)

Chz said:


> Don't give some GPS varying speed limit bollocks, there are enough cases of block boxes buggering up completely and no-one wants to be limited to 30 on the M40.


Obviously the inconvenience of occasionally being limited to 30 where there's not a limit outweighs the inconvenience of being maimed and killed.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 23, 2022)

Chz said:


> Don't give some GPS varying speed limit bollocks, there are enough cases of block boxes buggering up completely and no-one wants to be limited to 30 on the M40.



This is exactly what will be implemented once the latest speed limiters thing fails.

Alex


----------



## edcraw (Aug 23, 2022)

Chz said:


> What do you limit them to? 70 is going to generate a lot of hate the next time you're in France. 81 (the French autoroute limit) is going to get you flashed at in Germany. 100 seems like an upper limit that most people will never pass, if just for the fuel consumption, but it's not going to help in a 30 zone much.
> 
> Don't give some GPS varying speed limit bollocks, there are enough cases of block boxes buggering up completely and no-one wants to be limited to 30 on the M40.


So the downside of stopping cars travelling at 120mph and crashing off roads killing people is a slight inconvenience if it goes slightly wrong on a motorway?

Of course gps speed limits are the way to go but also a generous maximum default of 75mph.


----------



## Chz (Aug 23, 2022)

> This is exactly what will be implemented once the latest speed limiters thing fails



Like fuck it will.

People do not regularly, or even rarely drive 120. Errors in black boxes are far more common, by at least an order of magnitude. If not two, based on the number of complaints submitted to consumer watchdogs. There may well be a good technology to apply speed limits based on the road you're on, but consumer GPS isn't it because the reliability and accuracy isn't there in all conditions. GPS guided munitions fly off and hit things out of their CEP regularly and there are a good many more cars than there are missiles. 30 on the motorway at night isn't an inconvenience - it's dangerous. You're condemning drivers who have never gone over 75 in their lives to hazardous conditions. It would never fly without some new tech being developed.

75 (120 kph) maximum is good if it's a Europe-wide directive. I'd be all in favour. But motorways are the safest place to drive and it does nothing to solve the problem of extreme speed in urban areas.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2022)

Are you talking about current insurance black boxes? How often do they fail on motorways?


----------



## Chz (Aug 23, 2022)

They don't regulate speed - they just monitor it (possibly for exactly this reason? I don't know). And it hasn't gone all that well for a surprisingly large number of people. I have to admit that I actually thought it was better than it is.
My own GPS frequently can't tell whether I'm on a motorway, autoroute, or whatever or on the service road next to it. Under ideal conditions, GPS is accurate to 3-5m but you'll frequently find that the system can't get enough satellites for proper resolution (due to buildings, geography, harsh weather...) and then the accuracy declines.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 23, 2022)

Chz said:


> 30 on the motorway at night isn't an inconvenience - it's dangerous. You're condemning drivers who have never gone over 75 in their lives to hazardous conditions. It would never fly without some new tech being developed.



These seem really easy tech problems to solve. A speed limiter isn't going to jam the brakes on from 70 to 30 when you go under a bridge, it's going to cut the throttle. At 70 it takes many hundreds of metres to drop to 50 if you don't apply the brakes - your car would barely have lost a couple of mph before you were bak reading 70.   




Chz said:


> People do not regularly, or even rarely drive 120
> My own GPS frequently can't tell whether I'm on a motorway, autoroute, or whatever or on the service road next to it



But they frequently drive well over 40mph upwards on the 20mph road I live on (there was one of those speed indicators a while back and it frequently went blank which meant >45.  Someone went past at what must have been 60/70 the other day.

So there are places where the gps data is going to need a bit of extra logic added - based on where you've just been is there any way you could have joined the service road or not? 

Dealing with the edge cases seems worth the effort


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 23, 2022)

I’ve driven that stretch where the crash at night and there people who race on the A40 and the A406, the usual thing of cars undertaking / changing lanes in a dangerous fashion. Frankly it scared me that such aggressive driving was effectively a lethal weapon and I just drove at my speed, held my line in the lane I was in and hoped they’d not rear end me


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2022)

Park Royal residents warned of speeding before deadly car crash
					

A woman died when the car she was in crashed off the road on to Tube lines at Park Royal station.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> Ms Moore, who lives in Baronet House overlooking Park Royal station, said she had previously been trying to raise the alarm along with other residents about speeding vehicles.
> She said: "For about six months now we have been complaining to anybody and everybody about the antisocial behaviour of these rally drivers.
> "I personally have seen them miss a woman with a buggy by inches. We've got videos and pictures galore."





> "We've been raising this with the council over and over and over again.
> "This is exactly why we're trying to tackle this problem because we knew one day this was going to happen."



This is kind of how it is on my street too - everyone knows there's speeding, there are regular crashes, it's constantly brought up with councillors and so on.

The council have no money left in the budget to make changes to the road. The police will do a community roadwatch now and again where anyone caught speeding gets a warning letter and that's it. 

This I'm sure is the case on lots of streets all over London and the UK.

Of course, to police this all properly needs money.

But why don't cyclists pay road tax eh?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2022)

T & P said:


> what I would like to see is regular campaigns by the government urging pedestrians to check before crossing, in particular in congested road situations.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> the need for autonomous braking and pedestrian detection, which is now fitted to all new European SUVs.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 24, 2022)

This is getting massive coverage. The images of a wrecked car in a tube station are going to be remembered for eons. The story will go on and on into next year because there'll be an inquest and probably a trial. I wonder if it might lead to more enforcement, or anything to limit the sale of supercharged Range Rovers? Probably not. There's no money in either of those things. The 24 year old Iraq-born driver will be hounded.  He's easy to find - his Dad's jewellers is on Edgware Road


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 24, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> I’ve driven that stretch where the crash at night and there people who race on the A40 and the A406, the usual thing of cars undertaking / changing lanes in a dangerous fashion. Frankly it scared me that such aggressive driving was effectively a lethal weapon and I just drove at my speed, held my line in the lane I was in and hoped they’d not rear end me


There's also a constant roar of illegal motorcycle exhausts all weekend. Even a mile away it sounds like Brands Hatch. The huge stress and misery for so many residents in their own homes, caused by a handful of selfish idiots....it's bizarre that it happens.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2022)

David Clapson said:


> This is getting massive coverage. The images of a wrecked car in a tube station are going to be remembered for eons. The story will go on and on into next year because there'll be an inquest and probably a trial. I wonder if it might lead to more enforcement, or anything to limit the sale of supercharged Range Rovers? Probably not. There's no money in either of those things. The 24 year old Iraq-born driver will be hounded.  He's easy to find - his Dad's jewellers is on Edgware Road


I wonder if there’s a case for suing the car manufacturer. Surely they should bear some responsibility.


----------



## Chz (Aug 24, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> I’ve driven that stretch where the crash at night and there people who race on the A40 and the A406, the usual thing of cars undertaking / changing lanes in a dangerous fashion. Frankly it scared me that such aggressive driving was effectively a lethal weapon and I just drove at my speed, held my line in the lane I was in and hoped they’d not rear end me


Have to agree, it's a scary stretch of road. I know they've left it as it's a major artery in/out of central London, but it could stand some sort of traffic calming measures.

I can admit to being young and stupid and driving 120 in the past, but always on a motorway. Even 22 year-old me had the sense not to go stupid fast on city streets. The car was built as an autobahn-cruiser anyhow, it wasn't a comfortable thing to speed in town.


----------



## Elpenor (Aug 24, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 339346


you’d think it had been hit by a tube train at full speed looking at the picture


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2022)

Relying on individuals "not to go stupid fast" clearly doesn't work.

The point about location-aware speed limiters is not that they can or should be implemented in full right now. The technology is available to provide feedback to drivers that they are going over the limit. That's what's currently being rolled out via the EU-initiated rules. Over time, hopefully we can move progressively towards systems that actually stop people going over speed limits rather than just "reminding" them. I don't see any reason why that can't be done. In any case, it's something that will have to be worked out before any kind of genuinely self driving cars can appear.

All of this process could have been started many years earlier, were it not for resistance from drivers.

And there's no good reason not to limit all vehicles to something like 70mph. If top speed limiters can work on HGVs they can work on cars. If it would mean you can't quite get to the speed limit on some other countries' motorways - so what?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2022)

Took me a while to realise these car finance figures from a car dealers employees were per MONTH!!!

and bizarrely they seem proud to be fleeced this much. But remember any policies to change car dependency are anti working people.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Aug 28, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2022)

New York City is forcing some cars to slow down
					

"Intelligent speed assistance" can slow a car down to the speed limit.




					www.axios.com


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> New York City is forcing some cars to slow down
> 
> 
> "Intelligent speed assistance" can slow a car down to the speed limit.
> ...


Good news. This has obviously go to happen & the people arguing against this will be seen as in the same way as those that argued against seat belts.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2022)

Boris Sprinkler said:


>



Would be great for someone to do this at the south end of Chelsea bridge in london where there are frequently a load of stupid sports cars parked along the bike lane while their owners hang about on the pavement. I reckon they have enough money to not care if they get fined but maybe holding up a queue of impatient drivers across the bridge while cyclists are ushered round the obstruction would create an interesting situation.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Would be great for someone to do this at the south end of Chelsea bridge in london



PM edcraw, I think he lives in London. You can hold the signs and he can do the megaphoning.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> PM edcraw, I think he lives in London. You can hold the signs and he can do the megaphoning.


You're not volunteering yourself which I can only take to mean that you condone the actions of the sports car owners and have contempt for the highway code.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You're not volunteering yourself which I can only take to mean that you condone the actions of the sports car owners and have contempt for the highway code.



I don't live near Chelsea bridge or London, and I don't have time to travel the country as a peripatetic traffic protestor. I'd do it in my city but there's no need because motorists behave nicely when there is an obstruction in a cycle lane.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'd do it in my city


Good.

Was just a trick question to check whether this thread had successfully convinced you to fight for the right thing and it's great to see you transformed into someone ready to stand up against selfish motorists in locations reasonably convenient to you.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 29, 2022)

Just up the road from me. It's a nasty road this one.









						“Hundreds of pins” strewn across Essex cycle lane in bank holiday sabotage
					

This latest incident on the Epping New Road comes just three months after two cyclists were allegedly assaulted by a tack-throwing motorist while riding in the same bike lane




					road.cc


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Good.
> 
> Was just a trick question to check whether this thread had successfully convinced you to fight for the right thing and it's great to see you transformed into someone ready to stand up against selfish motorists in locations reasonably convenient to you.



You seem to think I'm a selfish-motorist supporter, but I'm just a normal motorist like you and beesonthewhatnow. 

I only post on this thread to highlight the banning of private car ownership is a silly idea, of the sort espoused by conversationalists solely to gain attention to themselves.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 29, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Just up the road from me. It's a nasty road this one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was probably someone inspired by teuchter or maomao's direct action posts on this thread, where they advocated puncturing tyres as a form of protest.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It was probably someone inspired by teuchter or maomao's direct action posts on this thread, where they advocated puncturing tyres as a form of protest.


What do you think they were protesting about?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2022)

Anyway, I enjoyed seeing this at nthe otting hill carnival yesterday.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What do you think they were protesting about?



People using roads for their intended purpose I expect.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What do you think they were protesting about?



The approximately 5mm width bike lane.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 29, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> People using roads for their intended purpose I expect.


Rather different from climate change then.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 30, 2022)




----------



## stavros (Aug 30, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


>



But, but, but there are too many cars at the American school to cycle there safely!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 30, 2022)

Siri: what is a pavement?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 31, 2022)

Remember everything is just fine as it is.



> Here in the UK, 24,530 people were killed or seriously injured on roads in 2020/21, which costs the country around £36bn a year, or around 20% of the current NHS budget











						The age of 'the car is king’ is over. The sooner we accept that, the better | John Vidal
					

The world is moving away from road vehicles through ride-sharing and cheap public transport. The benefits are incalculable, says environment writer John Vidal




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 31, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Remember everything is just fine as it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah but a cyclist once came up behind me on the pavement and bruised my hand as I was pointing to a bag of kittens at the time so whose the real villain here?


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 31, 2022)

Back on topic, it’s good to see the BBC is cracking down on unashamed anti-car propaganda:









						Jeremy Vine breached impartiality rules over LTNs, says BBC
					

Broadcaster warns staff against expressing support for contentious cyclist-friendly scheme




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 31, 2022)

Not impartial doesn't mean wrong.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 31, 2022)

When is an LTN not an LTN.

Edit: when it's a city centre traffic filter apparently









						Traffic filters | Oxfordshire County Council
					

What traffic filters are and how they will work.




					www.oxfordshire.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Back on topic, it’s good to see the BBC is cracking down on unashamed anti-car propaganda:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's great that this thread is spreading propaganda so effectively that even the BBC is having to respond.


----------



## platinumsage (Aug 31, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> When is an LTN not an LTN.
> 
> Edit: when it's a city centre traffic filter apparently
> 
> ...



See also: when is a bus lane not a bus lane - when it's a bridleway apparently.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 31, 2022)

He’s got a point. What kind of people have a spare grand sitting around to chuck at a vague attempt to stop them having to drive a slightly less convenient route?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 31, 2022)

Predictably selfish speeding drivers moaning about the police putting potentially fake locations on a GPS app.









						Surrey police accused of using ‘phantom’ traffic units on Waze app
					

Force says tactic is ‘easy way to get drivers to slow down’ after budget cuts reduced traffic policing numbers




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 31, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> When is an LTN not an LTN.
> 
> Edit: when it's a city centre traffic filter apparently
> 
> ...


to give them a little bit of leeway, this isn't meant to be a 'low traffic neighbourhood' scheme - it's a "circulation plan" that accompanies a number of LTNs that have been put in place.  However, when you add on all the other exemptions for residents it's hard to see this having much impact at all - this feels like 'if you live in Oxford, just carry on as before'


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2022)

Idyllic Wandsworth here right next to a school. This is what happens when council do sweet fa about traffic.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Idyllic Wandsworth here right next to a school. This is what happens when council do sweet fa about traffic.



If all those cars were banned it would be a much more pleasant environment.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 7, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> If all those cars were banned it would be a much more pleasant environment.


But what if I need to get my pregnant wife to the hospital at speed? Or haul a fridge?


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 7, 2022)

Stop hauling fridges when your wife is in labour ffs.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 7, 2022)

All people have to do is convince a majority of elected representatives on the local highways authority, shouldn’t be too hard if the proposed change so obviously provides a net benefit.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> All people have to do is convince a majority of elected representatives on the local highways authority, shouldn’t be too hard if the proposed change so obviously provides a net benefit.


Well the council changed to Labour earlier this year and the local councillor, Jo Rigby, who’s video it is has been very strong on LTNs has been made chair of the transport committee so 🤞

Weird that anyone would think that’s the best the area an manage which you seem to imply 🤪


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 11, 2022)

I'm sure many on this thread will be happy to see the police finally taking proportionate action against the wielder of a death machine:


----------



## edcraw (Sep 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm sure many on this thread will be happy to see the police finally taking proportionate action against the wielder of a death machine:
> 
> View attachment 342216


Fuck off - you really are a twat.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 12, 2022)

Anyone know anything about the fatal collision by the Post Office on the afternoon of Saturday 3rd September?


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Anyone know anything about the fatal collision by the Post Office on the afternoon of Saturday 3rd September?
> 
> View attachment 342412











						Man on e-scooter dies after being hit by a car in South London
					

No one has been arrested after the man died in the crash




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2022)

Remember: if you in any way defend car use, it's as good as admitting you're one of the most massive Royalists in the UK and absolutely in line with the royal family and an apologist for everything bad any of them ever do, including in the future.









						Queen Elizabeth II: A life in Land Rovers
					

The iconic cars were "part of the royal family's DNA" according to motoring journalist Quentin Willson.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Remember: if you in any way defend car use, it's as good as admitting you're one of the most massive Royalists in the UK and absolutely in line with the royal family and an apologist for everything bad any of them ever do, including in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi. If you're a republican you're endorsing Audi drivers and the promotion of Audis to the populace,  and everyone knows Audi drivers cause far more harm to vulnerable road users per mile than JLR drivers. In fact, anti-royal sentiment is basically worse than anti-cycle sentiment when it comes to road safety.









						New PM To Lose Iconic British-made Jaguar & Be Driven Around In German Audi - Public News Time
					

THE new Prime Minister is set to lose their iconic British-made Jaguar — and instead be chauffeured around in a German Audi. - Public News Time - November 19,



					publicnewstime.com


----------



## edcraw (Sep 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi. If you're a republican you're endorsing Audi drivers and the promotion of Audis to the populace,  and everyone knows Audi drivers cause far more harm to vulnerable road users per mile than JLR drivers. In fact, anti-royal sentiment is basically worse then anti-cycle sentiment when it comes to road safety.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This myth about Audi drivers is just one put about by other drivers to make themselves feel better about their terrible driving.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> While mourning her late majesty of blessed and glorious memory, it might be worth noting that an elected head of state in the UK would be driven about in a massive Audi.



This would not be the case if I were elected head of state in which case the entire transportation budget would be redirected to converting the royal train into a touring re-education facility which would continue the work of this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> This would not be the case if I were elected head of state in which case the entire transportation budget would be redirected to converting the royal train into a touring re-education facility which would continue the work of this thread.


You'd be the first resident of any such mobile re-education camp


----------



## edcraw (Sep 14, 2022)

Bloody car lanes causing all this bike lane congestion. Rip ‘em out!


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This myth about Audi drivers is just one put about by other drivers to make themselves feel better about their terrible driving.


I'm not sure where I heard "four zeros on the badge, one behind the wheel" but it stuck.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 15, 2022)

Doesn’t seem like this nice polite van driver is quite up on his Highway Code. I suspect he’d appreciate regular retesting to help him improve as a driver.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 15, 2022)

Why do cyclists end up hating most drivers? Because most of them are exactly like this twat.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 16, 2022)

This is a good idea - but instead of a boring old speed bump that raises automatically for selfish speeding twats, turn it into a stinger to stop them in their tracks.


----------



## a_chap (Sep 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why do cyclists end up hating most drivers? Because most of them are exactly like this twat.



Most, maybe. But not all.

I was riding home last night and, going through Leamington Spa, I was approaching traffic lights (on red) at some road works. The lights turned green as I approached and as I wasn't hanging about I took the primary position to prevent some guy behind who I could hear accelerating to try to pass me.

After another junction and a good few hundred yards down the road (I _really_ wasn't hanging around) a vehicle pulls alongside me, the driver winds the window down and he shouts "Sorry mate, I misjudged that" before accelerating away.

Made me very happy 😍


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 16, 2022)

a_chap said:


> Most, maybe. But not all.
> 
> I was riding home last night and, going through Leamington Spa, I was approaching traffic lights (on red) at some road works. The lights turned green as I approached and as I wasn't hanging about I took the primary position to prevent some guy behind who I could hear accelerating to try to pass me.
> 
> ...



I hope you called him a cunt?


----------



## Cid (Sep 16, 2022)

This was a friend of a friend... Met him a few months ago at a barbecue. Trolls on this thread need to remember how real this shit is.

Cyclist dies after being hit by car in Sheffield crash


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 16, 2022)

Sorry to hear about your friend Cid


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 17, 2022)

Mostly anti-SUV chat


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 19, 2022)




----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 19, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Sep 19, 2022)

Not many women posting anti-car propaganda on this thread I've noticed...









						The feminist case for cars
					

Women have the most to lose from the green war on motorists.




					www.spiked-online.com


----------



## teuchter (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not many women posting anti-car propaganda on this thread I've noticed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The author of that article seems to have an impressive record on getting things right.









						Russia does not want a war in Ukraine
					

Putin is just responding to NATO’s sabre-rattling on Russia’s borders.




					www.spiked-online.com
				






> So why would Russia even think of invading? And if it did, would it be a full invasion to take Kiev and bring all of Ukraine back into Russia’s strategic fold, or an occupation of just the mainly Russian-speaking Donbass? Or is Russia just sabre-rattling in the hope of somehow forcing the Kiev government and / or its Western backers to the negotiating table? There has been no clarity whatsoever on this score.
> 
> 
> Quite simply, an invasion, and a winter invasion at that, makes no sense. The last thing Russia wants or needs is more territory. It can be argued that there was a strategic imperative for Moscow to annex Crimea – to secure its warm-water base at Sevastopol and its hinterland, which it saw as possibly falling into NATO hands. There is no such imperative to take the Donbass; it would be an unstable drain on Russia’s resources for the foreseeable future. Russia’s prime need is for a stable border region.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not many women posting anti-car propaganda on this thread I've noticed...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think once you’re quoting Spiked you’ve lost by default.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think once you’re quoting Spiked you’ve lost by default.


This.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 19, 2022)

Reckon platinumsage is a Jordan Peterson fan.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 19, 2022)

I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.



The substance of the article is bullshit. I read it, however the clue was that it was posted at spiked.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.


I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.



Nicely mansplained.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Sep 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I read it as well and it’s as worthwhile as everything else published on Spiked. If you’d actually wanted to discuss the content you might have said something about it rather than just posting a link. But arguing cars are feminist because they allow women to pick the kids up from school and look after their elderly relatives isn’t the strong feminist argument you obviously think it is.



It flies contrary to literally every article I've read on this matter;



			https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Gender-inclusive-transport-systems-V3.pdf
		




> To decarbonise transport and democratise the right to safe mobility, our transport systems
> must be inclusive and sustainable. This paper discusses four key structural factors that
> create gender disparities in transport systems and must be addressed to decarbonise
> transport in a just and inclusive way: access to economic resources and free time, car-centric
> ...





			https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/transport-innovation-sustainable-development-gender.pdf
		




> Moreover, the research showed that the “mobility of care” (Sánchez de Madariaga, 2009, 2013), a concept
> developed by Inés Sánchez de Madariaga referring to the trips related to household and caregiving
> activities, is one of the main reasons to travel for women. Women surveyed spent, on average, 42% of
> their total commuting time on a typical week on the mobility of care. Additionally, the study confirmed
> ...






			https://womenmobilize.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/A_Sourcebook_Social-Issues-in-TransportGIZ_SUTP_SB7a_Gender_Responsive_Urban_Mobility_Nov18-min.pdf
		



> Generally, when compared to men, women show different
> travel patterns, characterized as mobility of care*. Women tend
> to take more and shorter trips, at more varied times. They
> use public transport and walk more than men and tend to
> ...





> As income-generating (productive) trips are more valued
> than care-based (reproductive) trips, men usually get access
> to motorized transport – both mass and individual – before
> women, underpinning a gender imbalance. Thus, the
> ...





> For example, 2*8% of women walk to work compared to 14% of
> men; only 7% of women commute by car as compared to 20%
> of men; and 10% of women use transport provided by the
> workplace as compared to 20% of men* (World Bank. 1997).
> ...


----------



## edcraw (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nicely mansplained.


Eh? Think you need to look at the meaning of that word.

Spiked is funded by Charles Koch by the way hence publishing rubbish like that.









						How US billionaires are fuelling the hard-right cause in Britain | George Monbiot
					

Funding from the Charles Koch Foundation suggests a hidden agenda at Spiked, says the Guardian columnist George Monbiot




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## teuchter (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.


There was no substance to the argument. Nothing that hasn't already been posted on this thread and fully debunked.


----------



## platinumsage (Sep 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> There was no substance to the argument. Nothing that hasn't already been posted on this thread and fully debunked.



Could you point me to your previously posted analysis of the ratio of male to female car-abolitionists on this thread, compared to the gender ratio of those who have professed a more nuanced position?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I deliberately chose an article from such a publisher to see if everyone would studiously ignore the substance of the argument, which of course they did, as I predicted.


Credibility of sources is something they teach to GCSE level kids.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Could you point me to your previously posted analysis of the ratio of male to female car-abolitionists on this thread, compared to the gender ratio of those who have professed a more nuanced position?


I don't believe the Spiked article referred to this thread at all, let alone gender ratios of its contributors.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Credibility of sources is something they teach to GCSE level kids.


Be fair, O levels were only introduced in 1951.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 22, 2022)

Everything’s just fine with us allowing cars absolutely everywhere.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Sep 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Everything’s just fine with us allowing cars absolutely everywhere.



They should remove any car parked on a pavement and take it to the crusher.  Maybe then return the resultant cube of crushed car to the edge of the road where it previously was as a lesson to selfish drivers.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 4, 2022)

Anyone know when the consultation for this was?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 5, 2022)

A report on vehicle taxation reform

Summary:





__





						Loading…
					





					bettertransport.org.uk
				




Full report:





__





						Loading…
					





					bettertransport.org.uk


----------



## Chz (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> A report on vehicle taxation reform
> 
> Summary:
> 
> ...


Why don't they just scrap the VED entirely and move it into fuel duty? Same effect, almost. Arguably better in that it rewards more efficient cars.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2022)

Chz said:


> Why don't they just scrap the VED entirely and move it into fuel duty? Same effect, almost. Arguably better in that it rewards more efficient cars.


Because it's largely about dealing with how to tax the increasing number of electric cars.

And putting it all under fuel duty taxes how much people drive but is indiscriminate about where they drive.


----------



## Chz (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Because it's largely about dealing with how to tax the increasing number of electric cars.
> 
> And putting it all under fuel duty taxes how much people drive but is indiscriminate about where they drive.


I suppose it's a better question of why they didn't do it before, since it's only now that it's not such a great idea.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2022)

Chz said:


> I suppose it's a better question of why they didn't do it before, since it's only now that it's not such a great idea.


One of the arguments against has always been that it's unfair to rural areas, where people generally drive further, and have fewer transport alternatives. That objection applied pre EVs.

I've always thought road pricing is a good option because you can take that kind of thing into account. Of course, motorists don't like this either, claiming privacy concerns as the main reason.


----------



## nick (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Because it's largely about dealing with how to tax the increasing number of electric cars.
> 
> And putting it all under fuel duty taxes how much people drive but is indiscriminate about where they drive.


The sensible thing would be to do the same as they did with Diesel (red for industrial / low taxed) .
You could have red electricity, for the home and business, that is taxed at a lower rate than the stuff used for cars.
simples


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 7, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

Funny how speed is a really important factor for cyclists when they're cycling past cars, like they're so happy that they've chosen a mode of transport that enables them to complete their journey at a faster pace then anyone else.

But whenever cars go fast it's suddenly the most ridiculous thing, these drivers just trying to shave a few minutes off their journeys, what twats!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Funny how speed is a really important factor for cyclists when they're cycling past cars, like they're so happy that they've chosen a mode of transport that enables them to complete their journey at a faster pace then anyone else.
> 
> But whenever cars go fast it's suddenly the most ridiculous thing, these drivers just trying to shave a few minutes off their journeys, what twats!


Eh? You’re defending drivers breaking speed limits.

Thought you’d given these threads a rest for a while after you sickening behaviour in the Chris Kaba thread.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Funny how speed is a really important factor for cyclists when they're cycling past cars, like they're so happy that they've chosen a mode of transport that enables them to complete their journey at a faster pace then anyone else.


Tbf when cyclists are passing you slowly enough that you can see that they're happy about it they're normally doing about 10mph. I long ago resolved never to do more than 20 on my bike.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Eh? You’re defending drivers breaking speed limits.



Go on, where did I say that?



> Thought you’d given these threads a rest for a while after you sickening behaviour in the Chris Kaba thread.



Go on, which of my posts in that thread was "sickening"?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Tbf when cyclists are passing you slowly enough that you can see that they're happy about it they're normally doing about 10mph. I long ago resolved never to do more than 20 on my bike.



Oh I never waste time looking at cyclists' facial expressions when I'm driving, I only know the details because they keep posting about it online.

Also they post stuff like "This driver overtook me but I caught up to them at a red traffic light! What a twat!" but they never say "I overtook this car at a red traffic light but they overtook me when it turned green. I'm such a twat!" which just reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Go on, where did I say that?


People only moan about drivers breaking speed limits.


platinumsage said:


> Go on, which of my posts in that thread was "sickening"?


When you kept saying he caused the shooting by failing to stop despite it being pointed out to you many times that it looked likely he was never asked to stop. Have some humility.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "I overtook this car at a red traffic light but they overtook me when it turned green. I'm such a twat!" which just reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality.


Drivers always say this because they think they're in a race. The cyclist will still get to their destination faster than if they hadn't jumped the light, the relative position of the driver is irrelevant.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> People only moan about drivers breaking speed limits.
> 
> When you kept saying he caused the shooting by failing to stop despite it being pointed out to you many times that it looked likely he was never asked to stop. Have some humility.



Nonsense. I said that IF the BBC report was correct and he was being chased by the police, THEN it was likely he committed the crime of failing to stop, failing to stop being a necessary component of a chase. 

I didn't say or imply he "caused the the shooting". The fact you so deliberately interpreted my posts as meaning what you wanted them to mean, rather than what the words actually meant, just demonstrates that every single reply of yours to mine on this thread should be disregarded.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Drivers always say this because they think they're in a race. The cyclist will still get to their destination faster than if they hadn't jumped the light, the relative position of the driver is irrelevant.



I wasn't talking about red-light jumping but cyclists catching up at a red light to cars that had previously overtaken them. Apparently this "proves" that the drivers were twats for overtaking them earlier.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I wasn't talking about red-light jumping but cyclists catching up at a red light to cars that had previously overtaken them. Apparently this "proves" that the drivers were twats for overtaking them earlier.


Okay, how do you overtake someone at a red light without jumping it then? Cause that's what you said.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> Okay, how do you overtake someone at a red light without jumping it then? Cause that's what you said.



Imagine a queue of stationary cars at a red light. They are all at the light, queuing. If a cyclist overtakes some of these cars, they are overtaking cars at the red light. 

I guess you're so used to seeing cyclists jumping red lights  that you can't envisage them overtaking a queue of cars at a red light and then stopping at the stop line.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nonsense. I said that IF the BBC report was correct and he was being chased by the police, THEN it was likely he committed the crime of failing to stop, failing to stop being a necessary component of a chase.
> 
> I didn't say or imply he "caused the the shooting". The fact you so deliberately interpreted my posts as meaning what you wanted them to mean, rather than what the words actually meant, just demonstrates that every single reply of yours to mine on this thread should be disregarded.


No - you took the story of a chase hook, line & sinker and shouted down anyone pointing out it may not have been true.

Pro-car culture, anti-cyclist, anti-climate action, a shill for the Met & one of the most disagreeable posters on here.


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If a cyclist overtakes some of these cars, they are overtaking cars at the red light.


I wouldn't call that overtaking, that's just filtering to the front.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

maomao said:


> I wouldn't call that overtaking, that's just filtering to the front.



Call it what you want. Here's an example. Driver overtaking = twat. Cyclist overtaking = genius:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 7, 2022)

Oh look, the threads resident slice of gammon is back.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh look, the threads resident slice of gammon is back.


GB News has a lot to answer for…


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

Only on the most abject corners of the internet do those simply not wanting private ownership of vehicles to be made a criminal offence get characterized as right-wing.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Only on the most abject corners of the internet do those simply not wanting private ownership of vehicles to be made a criminal offence get characterized as right-wing.


I listed above the many right wing takes of seen you post on her. There’s probably tons more on threads I’m blissfully unaware of.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I listed above the many right wing takes of seen you post on her.



Except they aren't. I refer you to this post:



platinumsage said:


> The fact you so deliberately interpreted my posts as meaning what you wanted them to mean, rather than what the words actually meant, just demonstrates that every single reply of yours to mine on this thread should be disregarded.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Imagine a queue of stationary cars at a red light. They are all at the light, queuing. If a cyclist overtakes some of these cars, they are overtaking cars at the red light.
> 
> I guess you're so used to seeing cyclists jumping red lights  that you can't envisage them overtaking a queue of cars at a red light and then stopping at the stop line.


The whole point of cycling is that you don’t get held up by traffic.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> The whole point of cycling is that you don’t get held up by traffic.



Yes, lovely. One of the points of driving is that it's faster than cycling when not being held up by traffic.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, lovely. One of the points of driving is that it's faster than cycling when not being held up by traffic.


But that’s all the time in London.

Also you are not supporting Putin or the Saudis and destroying the planet.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

Yes I'm sure anyone who ever drives is complicit in mass genocide and worse than Hitler.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes I'm sure anyone who ever drives is complicit in mass genocide and worse than Hitler.


Hope you enjoyed the conference?

Which one’s you here?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2022)

Each wind-up post that platinumsage makes, the thread is brought to the top of new posts and to the attention of another 100 UK transport policy makers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes I'm sure anyone who ever drives is complicit in mass genocide and worse than Hitler.


Yep, all because they can’t be on the bus or the train with the losers and they’re too lazy to cycle.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yep, all because they can’t be on the bus or the train with the losers and they’re too lazy to cycle.



If those are the reasons people drive, why do you think cycling infrastructure and public transport improvements will reduce car use?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Each wind-up post that platinumsage makes, the thread is brought to the top of new posts and to the attention of another 100 UK transport policy makers.



There aren't 100 UK transport policy makers.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 7, 2022)

Yawn.

I feel the need to add someone to my ignore list.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If those are the reasons people drive, why do you think cycling infrastructure and public transport improvements will reduce car use?


Cycling infrastructure makes it easier to cycle - you no longer have to take a longer route to avoid aggressive twats on bad roads for example. 
Public transport improvements mean that a driver might get two seats to themselves - not having to share with the great unwashed...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, lovely. One of the points of driving is that it's faster than cycling *when not being held up by traffic.*


Keep going, you’re so very, very close.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

Does car culture make people twats or are twats just attracted to car culture?


----------



## maomao (Oct 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Does car culture make people twats or are twats just attracted to car culture?


Both, it's a vicious circle.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 7, 2022)

platinumsage ‘s idea of heaven!


----------



## edcraw (Oct 8, 2022)

WATCH: A6 driver sinks car into freshly poured concrete after ignoring road closure signs
					

A driver who ignored road closure signs on the A6 was left red-faced after he drove his Peugeot into freshly poured concrete.




					www.lep.co.uk


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 9, 2022)

Banning male drivers would make everyone safer









						Male drivers three times more likely to be in road collisions with pedestrians
					

In 18-month period 4,363 men in Great Britain were in crashes that injured or killed pedestrians compared with 1,473 women




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 10, 2022)

I like this, though they got it the wrong way round - it should be a camera disguised as a birdbox








						'Police had said they are perfectly legal': Birdbox disguised as a speed camera spotted on Meanwood Road
					

A birdbox that has been designed to look like a speed camera to slow down drivers on a busy Leeds road has been having the desired effect.




					www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 10, 2022)

Yep. It’s time cameras were hidden with no warning signs, rather than the current stupid situation where they’re easily spotted.

That said, drivers still get caught by a MASSIVE YELLOW BOX ON A STICK, which kinda shows how mind fuckingly stupid a lot of them are.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2022)

I though there was some kind of stupid thing that said you can't put up fake speed cameras because it infringes on driver's human rights not to be tricked into driving safely, or something.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 11, 2022)

Those apps which tell roadhogs where to slow down need to be banned too


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I though there was some kind of stupid thing that said you can't put up fake speed cameras because it infringes on driver's human rights not to be tricked into driving safely, or something.



From what I can see its discouraged as it might "distract drivers and lead to civil action"

If a static yellow box besides the road causes you to crash you might want to reconsider if you should be driving.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Those apps which tell roadhogs where to slow down need to be banned too



Yes definitely a good idea to ban people from disseminating information about where others might be issued a fine by the police. In fact it's probably best to go the whole hog and jail anyone who tells anyone else where a police officer is located.

Your idea has even greater merit because speed camera locations are sites with a high frequency of accidents. Definitely don't want people to be aware of those locations so they can slow down more than they otherwise might have done.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes definitely a good idea to ban people from disseminating information about where others might be issued a fine by the police. In fact it's probably best to go the whole hog and jail anyone who tells anyone else where a police officer is located.
> 
> Your idea has even greater merit because speed camera locations are sites with a high frequency of accidents. Definitely don't want people to be aware of those locations so they can slow down more than they otherwise might have done.


Nonsense. They're not to tell drivers where to slow down, they're to tell drivers when they can safely speed. Driving at the speed limit should be the norm.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> Nonsense. They're not to tell drivers where to slow down, they're to tell drivers when they can safely speed. Driving at the speed limit should be the norm.



It doesn't matter what they are for, what matters is the effect they actually have. Currently, their locations being publicly available via apps or by the fact they are visible, has the effect of reducing speeds at those specific sites, which were previously prone to collisions.

Sure, you could argue that by making it illegal to inform people of the locations, and by camouflaging the cameras, people might always travel within the limit just in case they get a fine from a hidden camera. However I suspect the actual effect would be a reduction in speeds generally to some degree, but an increase in speeds at the current camera locations. It's not clear this would be a good thing overall.

Obviously if you only care about fining drivers and not reducing accidents, then you'd be in favour of Orang Utan's proposal to make it illegal to divulge camera locations, regardless of what effect it would actually have on road safety.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

Have invisible cameras generally, at undisclosed and perhaps  constantly changing locations, to deter speeding in general.

Supplement these with visible ones at incident hotspots to create the maximum possible deterrence locally.

Then everyone's happy, right?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Have invisible cameras generally, at undisclosed and perhaps  constantly changing locations, to deter speeding in general.
> 
> Supplement these with visible ones at incident hotspots to create the maximum possible deterrence locally.
> 
> Then everyone's happy, right?



That's not the situation we currently have though. Despite that, some people want to make it illegal to share the existing incident-hotspot camera locations.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Have invisible cameras generally, at undisclosed and perhaps  constantly changing locations, to deter speeding in general.
> 
> Supplement these with visible ones at incident hotspots to create the maximum possible deterrence locally.
> 
> Then everyone's happy, right?


And average speed cameras. And insurance companies who put cameras in cars to be legally obliged to hand over details of any instance of speeding. 

My train was cancelled this morning and there was a twat at the bus stop who was whining about having a temp ban for speeding. I told him I'd ban him permanently. I thought he might get angry but he just started at the beginning of the story again as if I couldn't have heard it properly.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's not the situation we currently have though. Despite that, some people want to make it illegal to share the existing incident-hotspot camera locations.


I'm not sure their effect would be reduced. People would get fines and bans which would slow them down for longer.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes definitely a good idea to ban people from disseminating information about where others might be issued a fine by the police. In fact it's probably best to go the whole hog and jail anyone who tells anyone else where a police officer is located.
> 
> Your idea has even greater merit because speed camera locations are sites with a high frequency of accidents. Definitely don't want people to be aware of those locations so they can slow down more than they otherwise might have done.


Jesus fucking Christ you’re thick as mince


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 11, 2022)

If only there was a way for drivers to avoid fines from cameras wherever they might be hidden.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there was a way for drivers to avoid fines from cameras wherever they might be hidden.



You disagree with the contention that drivers slow down more for cameras that they know are there?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You disagree with the contention that drivers slow down more for cameras that they know are there?


Drivers slow down for cameras they know are there then speed up again. We need something better. Hide cameras in random places. Move them every day. Put four in a row just a hundred yards apart. Make drivers so damn paranoid they might lose their license that they just obey the fucking speed limits.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You disagree with the contention that drivers slow down more for cameras that they know are there?


Are you denying that the purpose of said apps is to allow drivers to speed with impunity?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That's not the situation we currently have though. Despite that, some people want to make it illegal to share the existing incident-hotspot camera locations.


You seem to be ignoring the difference between a visible camera (a driver sees it on approach) and a camera identified in advance on a map (a driver can choose to reroute their death machine to avoid any speed cameras and transfer their killing potential to sites with no deterrence).


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

.


beesonthewhatnow said:


> Drivers slow down for cameras they know are there then speed up again. We need something better. Hide cameras in random places. Move them every day. Put four in a row just a hundred yards apart. Make drivers so damn paranoid they might lose their license that they just obey the fucking speed limits.



Yes we need something better, but we don’t have it. What we have is cameras located in accident black spots which cause drivers to slow down at that location by virtue of drivers being aware of them. Simply making that system slightly less effective by banning public dissemination of camera locations via navigation apps won’t be effective in reducing accidents.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> Are you denying that the purpose of said apps is to allow drivers to speed with impunity?



Its to allow them to avoid fines by not speeding at certain accident black spots. But the purpose is irrelevant, as I said it’s the effect that matters.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Its to allow them to avoid fines by not speeding at certain accident black spots. But the purpose is irrelevant, as I said it’s the effect that matters.


So without the app how would they avoid fines?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> So without the app how would they avoid fines?



They’d get fined more. You may hope this has some long-term effect of reducing casualties but that’s very uncertain. What is certain is that these additional fines would only have arisen through people speeding at accident black-spots that they otherwise wouldn’t have sped through. The safety implications of that should be immediately obvious.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They’d get fined more. You may hope this has some long-term effect of reducing casualties but that’s very uncertain. What is certain is that these additional fines would only have arisen through people speeding at accident black-spots that they otherwise wouldn’t have sped through. The safety implications of that should be immediately obvious.


As usual that doesn't answer my question but if your claimed reduction in accidents due to these apps is genuine you should be able to prove it. Otherwise it's just more of your stinky twattery.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> As usual that doesn't answer my question but if your claimed reduction in accidents due to these apps is genuine you should be able to prove it. Otherwise it's just more of your stinky twattery.



The question was ought these apps be banned. I suggest to support such a ban you'd need evidence that it would reduce accidents, rather than have the apparently obvious effect of increasing them.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The question was ought these apps be banned. I suggest to support such a ban you'd need evidence that it would reduce accidents, rather than have the apparently obvious effect of increasing them.


Obvious to you apparently but you have no data to prove it. As far as I can tell they encourage speeding and are likely to cause accidents and make accidents more serious. I'm not convinced that a) every danger spot has a speed camera b) every speed camera is at a danger spot or c) speed related accidents only happen at known danger spots, all of which would have to be true to have the effect you're claiming as 'obvious'.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Its to allow them to avoid fines by not speeding


If only there was a way to do this without an app. Perhaps they could fit cars with some sort of speed indicator, and give the driver a way of controlling it.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> Obvious to you apparently but you have no data to prove it. As far as I can tell they encourage speeding and are likely to cause accidents and make accidents more serious. I'm not convinced that a) every danger spot has a speed camera b) every speed camera is at a danger spot or c) speed related accidents only happen at known danger spots, all of which would have to be true to have the effect you're claiming as 'obvious'.



Well, you have no data to prove any of that either.

All that is certain is that a driver who uses the app to ensure they pass a speed camera at a danger spot within the speed limit hasn’t exceeded the speed limit at that danger spot.

That’s sufficient reason not to ban the app until some evidence of actual harm is forthcoming.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there was a way to do this without an app. Perhaps they could fit cars with some sort of speed indicator, and give the driver a way of controlling it.



Yeah you know that doesn’t work very well don’t you.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That’s sufficient reason not to ban the app unless evidence of actual harm is forthcoming.


It's designed to help drivers break the law. Accidents related to speed do not occur only at 'blackspots'. That's proof enough.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah you know that doesn’t work very well don’t you.


Because you can’t trust drivers to obey the law?. 51% of cars speed in a 30, 48% on a motorway. 87% in a 20.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because you can’t trust drivers to obey the law?. 51% of cars speed in a 30, 48% on a motorway. 87% in a 20.



Yes exactly.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's designed to help drivers break the law. Accidents related to speed do not occur only at 'blackspots'. That's proof enough.



As I keep saying, it doesn’t matter what it’s designed to do, but what effect it actually has.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I keep saying, it doesn’t matter what it’s designed to do, but what effect it actually has.


You've presumed one effect and taken no account of any others.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah you know that doesn’t work very well don’t you.


Because drivers know they can get away with it.

So, hide the cameras. Put them anywhere and everywhere. Ban the apps. Make drivers know that literally _anywhere_ they are, they risk fines/points.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because drivers know they can get away with it.
> 
> So, hide the cameras. Put them anywhere and everywhere. Ban the apps. Make drivers know that literally _anywhere_ they are, they risk fines/points.



Sounds like a plan. Unlike banning the apps for non-hidden cameras at blackspots, which would be silly.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

maomao said:


> You've presumed one effect and taken no account of any others.



One effect is obvious, the others are speculation.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> One effect is obvious, the others are speculation.


It's obvious that legitimising and encouraging speeding makes roads more dangerous.

It's obvious that apps designed to be used while driving distract drivers and cause accidents.

It's not at all obvious that an app that tells drivers what they can see anyway would have any significant effect at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 11, 2022)

You’re seriously suggesting that a driver using an app to highlight speed camera locations won’t make any attempt to keep to the speed limit at those locations? I know you like to show that I am always wrong about everything, but that’s a bit of a stretch isn‘t it?

A vague wave at “legitimising and encouraging speeding” is pretty useless with no evidence to back it up.

FWIW my Volvo has built-in audible speed camera alerts turned on by default, I had to disable them myself but they still show on the map.


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You’re seriously suggesting that a driver using an app to highlight speed camera locations won’t make any attempt to keep to the speed limit at those locations?


Where did I suggest that?

And I'm not sure what in-car audio alerts have to do with it. In car audio affects drivers' attention too.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 11, 2022)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

Just wondering if T & P 's day job is manning Ford UK's twitter account?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

London’s finest 🥴


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

If he's genuinely that surprised and disturbed by a taxi changing direction in London, and he's not just hamming it up for the camera, he should probably get out more.


----------



## Duncan2 (Oct 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> London’s finest 🥴



Wonder if there are any statistics available anywhere detailing the numbers of cars going for scrap each year before and after vehicle emissions became part of the MOT test.Also of whether these tests are becoming progressively more stringent.Anecdotally I hear of more and more people being told that what they had thought were useful vehicles with years of use left in them are effectively so much scrap iron due to inefficient engines


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If he's genuinely that surprised and disturbed by a taxi changing direction in London, and he's not just hamming it up for the camera, he should probably get out more.


Yeah - we should all just shut up and accept shit dangerous drivers as a fact of life 🙄


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If he's genuinely that surprised and disturbed by a taxi changing direction in London, and he's not just hamming it up for the camera, he should probably get out more.


Come on, that was really shit driving. Really, really shit.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Come on, that was really shit driving. Really, really shit.



I didn't say it wasn't 

It is pretty typical of taxis in London, but perhaps this cyclist isn't very experienced in London traffic.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

Even is something is commonplace — arguable _especially_ if it is commonplace — it should be called out if it puts lives at risk. And this kind of cutting up manoeuvre definitely falls into that category.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

He's already bizarrely annoyed at the taxi for overtaking him, and then despite the left signal he somehow ends up in the gutter tootling his silly horn. Not the ideal actions of someone experienced with London traffic who has set themselves up as an educator of other road users.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2022)

Looks like the driver failed to give way to a pedestrian waiting to cross the side road, too.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

What kind of psycho do you have to be to overtake a cyclist and then _immediately_ cut them up to turn left?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> What kind of psycho do you have to be to overtake a cyclist and then _immediately_ cut them up to turn left?



Yes he's probably a genuine psychopath. Incidents of misjudgement like this are so rare because normal people would never commit such a gross breach of social norms.


----------



## nogojones (Oct 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> London’s finest 🥴



I fully support that taxi driver wanting to get away from that god awful backing music the bike rider was playing.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes he's probably a genuine psychopath. Incidents of misjudgement like this are so rare because normal people would never commit such a gross breach of social norms.


I’m not a cyclist, and I find the deluge of cyclists where I live an enormous annoyance. I still would never intentionally cut one up like this, though. I don’t drive to endanger people. I don’t want to be responsible for serious injury and death. If you drive like that, it is psychotic.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I’m not a cyclist, and I find the deluge of cyclists where I live an enormous annoyance. I still would never intentionally cut one up like this, though. I don’t drive to endanger people. I don’t want to be responsible for serious injury and death. If you drive like that, it is psychotic.



You don't know it was intentional. More likely the driver was like "ooh I better turn here, mirror, will I hit that cyclist I just overtook, no plenty of space, signal".  

Obviously people might disagree on the "plenty of space" but in order to have a collision here the cyclist would have to deliberately engineer it.

It's a momentary error of judgement the like of which I'm sure you have never made on the road at all.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You don't know it was intentional. More likely the driver was like "ooh I better turn here, mirror, will I hit that cyclist I just overtook, no plenty of space, signal".
> 
> Obviously people might disagree on the "plenty of space" but in order to have a collision here the cyclist would have to deliberately engineer it.
> 
> It's a momentary error of judgement the like of which I'm sure you have never made on the road at all.


Honestly, no. I would never make that kind of mistake for many reasons. For a start, if I’m unsure of where I’m going, I will be driving much more cautiously because I know my attention is divided. So I wouldn’t be overtaking like that, not knowing if I was about to turn left. Secondly, I would be very aware of the vulnerable road user on my inside. If I had made the mistake of overtaking them then realising I needed to turn, I would not make that their problem and take the chance with their life that it was probably okay. I would swallow my pride, allow them back past and then turn behind them. To be driving in this way in the first place implies such a callous disregard for others safety that I think they should have their taxi licence revoked.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Honestly, no. I would never make that kind of mistake for many reasons. For a start, if I’m unsure of where I’m going, I will be driving much more cautiously because I know my attention is divided. So I wouldn’t be overtaking like that, not knowing if I was about to turn left. Secondly, I would be very aware of the vulnerable road user on my inside. If I had made the mistake of overtaking them then realising I needed to turn, I would not make that their problem and take the chance with their life that it was probably okay. I would swallow my pride, allow them back past and then turn behind them. To be driving in this way in the first place implies such a callous disregard for others safety that I think they should have their taxi licence revoked.



Sure, but you're not a London taxi driver so your errors of judgement are probably quite different but no less serious. Obviously you don't think they are so serious because everyone knows they are a better-than-average driver.

I've watched it again and I just don't see it as being as risky as you think. The cyclist would have had to accelerate to move inside the van and risk a collision, and if the cyclist was reckless enough to do that, the driver could easily have seen them doing so and stopped turning. This is literally the least-worst left-turn cut-up video of a cyclist I've ever seen.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

At the very least, the taxi driver was making a big assumption that his entryway to that left turn would be clean and clear. There’s no way he could have been completely sure of that — there are too many lines of sight to maintain attention to and the speed is too great. If he’d had to brake suddenly — for example if there had been a pedestrian blocking his path — the cyclist would have been straight into him.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> He's already bizarrely annoyed at the taxi for overtaking him, and then despite the left signal he somehow ends up in the gutter tootling his silly horn. Not the ideal actions of someone experienced with London traffic who has set themselves up as an educator of other road users.
> 
> View attachment 346832View attachment 346833View attachment 346834


It’s a fish eye lens you bell end - even if the cabbie wasn’t turning left it was a pointless overtake as he slowed down straightaway hence the initial frustration.

The fact you excuse dangerous driving for absolutely no benefit shows what an idiot you are. Are there any threads on here where you actually ever make anything close to a valid point?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Thanks



No problem



edcraw said:


> It’s a fish eye lens you bell end - even if the cabbie wasn’t turning left it was a pointless overtake as he slowed down straightaway hence the initial frustration.



If you watch carefully, you will see the cyclist braked briefly initially, but then came off the brakes before braking again later. This is perhaps why it was a lot less dramatic an incident than you seem to think.



edcraw said:


> The fact you excuse this shows what an idiot you are. Are there any threads on here where you actually ever make anything close to a valid point?



I only ever make valid points. 🤷


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> At the very least, the taxi driver was making a big assumption that his entryway to that left turn would be clean and clear. There’s no way he could have been completely sure of that — there are too many lines of sight to maintain attention to and the speed is too great. If he’d had to brake suddenly — for example if there had been a pedestrian blocking his path — the cyclist would have been straight into him.



The cyclist had plenty of time to stop and wouldn't have been "straight into him" unless cycling recklessly.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> ooh I better turn here


THE KNOWLEDGE


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> THE KNOWLEDGE



Maybe he suddenly fancied a pasty.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The cyclist had plenty of time to stop and wouldn't have been "straight into him" unless cycling recklessly.


That’s clearly nonsense.  The cyclist is travelling along a main thoroughfare — I don’t know at what speed, but 20mph seems a reasonable guess.  If somebody turns across you and brakes suddenly, you need time to react and then there is stopping distance having braked.  The gap that the driver leaves is nowhere near enough for that.  It was reckless driving.  What’s worse, it is clearly something that the taxi driver does routinely, as there is no hesitation about overtaking that cyclist and then cutting him up.  It should be a priori justification for removing his taxi licence.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

kabbes said:


> That’s clearly nonsense.  The cyclist is travelling along a main thoroughfare — I don’t know at what speed, but 20mph seems a reasonable guess.  If somebody turns across you and brakes suddenly, you need time to react and then there is stopping distance having braked.  The gap that the driver leaves is nowhere near enough for that.  It was reckless driving.  What’s worse, it is clearly something that the taxi driver does routinely, as there is no hesitation about overtaking that cyclist and then cutting him up.  It should be a priori justification for removing his taxi licence.



You might not think the gap was enough but by analysing the cyclists speed and braking compared to the position that the taxi would have been in if it had stopped blocking the way ahead, it's clear that the cyclist could have stopped in time.

I'm not claiming that the taxi's move was ideal, but it was within the typical range of non-serious errors of judgement that everyone using the roads makes every so often.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

You always have to drive assuming you don’t have perfect judgement. You should always leave margin for error. You can’t assume you have perfect knowledge.  If you think that manoeuvre was a mistake, but you forgive the mistake, that’s one thing. I disagree that it is forgivable, but so be it. If you were to think it wasn’t a mistake at all, however, I think that would also make you a person that shouldn’t be driving.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

If I was cycling and encountered that, I'd be like "whoopsie never mind". I certainly wouldn't think it worth tootling my tootle horn and posting it on Twitter. I'm also not quite sure why the cyclist dived for the kerb instead of going around the right of the taxi as soon as it started slowing and signalling. I've got a feeling he thought it was a juicy incident in the making and so made a bit of a mouthful of it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If I was cycling and encountered that, I'd be like "whoopsie never mind". I certainly wouldn't think it worth tootling my tootle horn and posting it on Twitter. I'm also not quite sure why the cyclist dived for the kerb instead of going around the right of the taxi as soon as it started slowing and signalling. I've got a feeling he thought it was a juicy incident in the making and so made a bit of a mouthful of it.


He highlighted some bad driving that did not have any serious consequences for him but which could have done in slightly different circumstances. The thing the taxi did (combining an overtake and a left turn) is specifically mentioned in the highway code as something you should not do. Jeremy Vine used his visibility to let a large number of people look at the video and discuss it.

He has got what he wanted out of the "juicy incident". You have responded to it with statements that others can then pick apart and criticise. He wins. It works the same way this thread does.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

Everyone does things that the highway code says not to do. For example you'll have noticed the cyclist close-passes a pedestrian who was standing in the road facing away and who could easily have taken a step backwards. The code states that cyclists should "take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell"



This isn't whatabouttery but highlighting that everyone makes mistakes all the time. The outrage from this Twitter user might be better be channeled into an acceptance of that fact and planning their road use accordingly.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2022)

The purpose of the tweet is to generate discussion and consideration of road user behaviour. If you want to highlight something the cyclist has done, fine. That's a further indication that the tweet is generating discussion. Jeremy Vine gets what he set out to achieve. And in the process you further the aims of this thread too.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The purpose of the tweet is to generate discussion and consideration of road user behaviour.



If that were actually the case it would be titled something like "An interesting moment I captured earlier" rather than "WHAT FRESH HELL".


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If that were actually the case it would titled something like "An interesting moment I captured earlier" rather than "WHAT FRESH HELL".


I suspect you’ve never been left hooked by a shit driver when on a bike.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

Bloody horse not expecting a speeding HGV!!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


>



Your hero no doubt 🤪


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


>



I've removed the photo of John Worboys, serial rapist and taxi driver because he did hurt a lot of people, you never know whose reading and I think I made my point already.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

maomao said:


> View attachment 346903



I think you meant that for this thread: https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/post-your-ugly-mug-part-7-all-new-all-fresh-mug-action-for-your-delectation.274873/


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think you meant that for this thread: https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/post-your-ugly-mug-part-7-all-new-all-fresh-mug-action-for-your-delectation.274873/


That's not a very nice thing to say. It's an exact equivalent of  you using Vine being a tosser as ammunition in an argument about a taxi driver driving like a cunt.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

maomao said:


> That's not a very nice thing to say. It's an exact equivalent of  you using Vine being a tosser as ammunition in an argument about a taxi driver driving like a cunt.



I dont know who that bloke in the picture is.

Vine may or may not be a tosser. Likewise the taxi driver, who knows? Everyone seems keen to reckon everyone else is cunt these days, maybe everyone should cut each other some slack a bit more.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I dont know who that bloke in the picture is.
> 
> Vine may or may not be a tosser. Likewise the taxi driver, who knows? Everyone seems keen to reckon everyone else is cunt these days, maybe everyone should cut each other some slack a bit more.


But you’ve demonstrated multiple times you are one.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The cyclist had plenty of time to stop and wouldn't have been "straight into him" unless cycling recklessly.



You're a fucking idiot.

Onto ignore you go.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I dont know who that bloke in the picture is.
> 
> Vine may or may not be a tosser. Likewise the taxi driver, who knows? Everyone seems keen to reckon everyone else is cunt these days, maybe everyone should cut each other some slack a bit more.


John Worboys

If you don't want abuse, don't make a hobby of defending the indefensible.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

OK, I get it. Everyone who makes an error of judgement on the road is a cunt, so basically everyone is a cunt and can fuck off and there’s nothing else to learn about road safety.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> OK, I get it. Everyone who makes an error of judgement on the road is a cunt, so basically everyone is a cunt and can fuck off and there’s nothing else to learn about road safety.


You're the one who started the ad hominem. Other people were complaining about the driving.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're the one who started the ad hominem. Other people were complaining about the driving.



Ad hominem where? I just don’t think this is a big deal. In the real world drivers and cyclists makes these mistakes all the time. As I said it’s the least worst such incident I’ve ever seen. But apparently the taxi driver is a cunt who should be banned etc. Vine is shocked and outraged and curdles a Twitter storm, and is clearly making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Ad hominem where? I just don’t think this is a big deal. In the real world drivers and cyclists makes these mistakes all the time. As I said it’s the least worst such incident I’ve ever seen. But apparently the taxi driver is a cunt who should be banned etc. Vine is shocked and outraged and curdles a Twitter storm, and is clearly making a mountain out of a molehill.


What makes you think it was a mistake?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 12, 2022)

If it was a mistake, it was one triggered by having an utterly reckless attitude towards the lives of others. There are some types of mistake that are unacceptable for a professional to make. There are mistakes I could make at work that could see me in jail, ffs. I wouldn’t be allowed to just say, “everybody makes mistakes lol”. A taxi driver who drives with that approach to risk should not be a taxi driver any more.


----------



## maomao (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Ad hominem where? I just don’t think this is a big deal. In the real world drivers and cyclists makes these mistakes all the time. As I said it’s the least worst such incident I’ve ever seen. But apparently the taxi driver is a cunt who should be banned etc. Vine is shocked and outraged and curdles a Twitter storm, and is clearly making a mountain out of a molehill.


The post I replied to. It was terrible driving, you'd lost the argument and you brought Vine's personality into it. Condeming dangerous behaviour in public is healthy and normal. Spending hours on the internet defending every example of poor driving you see is weird and a bit creepy.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 12, 2022)

I didn’t bring Vine’s personality into it, I brought his actions as evidenced in the video into it, the releasing of the brakes, the horn, the dive to the left, the gesture, the failure to notice the indicator etc.

Like it or not, taxi drivers and other professionals driving in London drive like this, mistakes or otherwise, all the time. This was an incorrect move from the taxi driver but from analysing the details Vine wasn’t at increased risk. As I said it’s the least worst example of such a manoeuvre I can imagine,


----------



## teuchter (Oct 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If that were actually the case it would be titled something like "An interesting moment I captured earlier" rather than "WHAT FRESH HELL".


Please refer to the thread title.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

Disappointing that no one else can acknowledge this is a particularly mild incident in terms of all the left hook incidents posted online. Everyone on the road has to be a massive outrageous cunt who needs banning for life.



teuchter said:


> Please refer to the thread title.



Propaganda works with extremes, not least-worst examples and mundanities.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

I’m not yet at the point of thinking the taxi driver should be banned from driving. Merely that they shouldn’t be professionally on the road for a large number of hours per day. They don’t meet the standards of a professional, trusted to be responsible on behalf of the public.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Disappointing that no one else can acknowledge this is a particularly mild incident in terms of all the left hook incidents posted online.



“Stop moaning, you didn’t get killed, so it’s fine”


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Stop moaning, you didn’t get killed, so it’s fine”



So it's appropriate to rage against a cyclist going through a red light?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Disappointing that no one else can acknowledge this is a particularly mild incident in terms of all the left hook incidents posted online. Everyone on the road has to be a massive outrageous cunt who needs banning for life.
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda works with extremes, not least-worst examples and mundanities.


You’re right it’s at the milder side of these but tbh it’s the mudanity of it & the thought we should just accept this dangerous driving that makes it a perfect example. How are kids meant to cycle anywhere if they’re just meant to put up with that sort of thing?

Fact is we shouldn’t just have to put up with it and we don’t hence all the measures (cycle lanes, LTNs etc) that people campaign for and are being put in despite to protests of cabbie organisations and gammon faced Jeremy Clarkson wannabes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So it's appropriate to rage against a cyclist going through a red light?


Find me one example - just one - where a cyclist going through a red light has killed a driver.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So it's appropriate to rage against a cyclist going through a red light?


I’m certainly in favour of having a red light-breaking cyclist having their licence to carry passengers for money removed from them.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Find me one example - just one - where a cyclist going through a red light has killed a driver.



Cyclists going through red lights have killed people, not sure it matters whether those people have been drivers or not.

But according to you, everyone who makes some mild mistake the extreme version of which has killed people, is a massive cunt.



kabbes said:


> I’m certainly in favour of having a red light-breaking cyclist having their licence to carry passengers for money removed from them.



Yeah I'm sure you asked for your HGV license to be revoked that one time you forgot to signal while driving your car.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re right it’s at the milder side of these but tbh it’s the mudanity of it & the thought we should just accept this dangerous driving that makes it a perfect example. How are kids meant to cycle anywhere if they’re just meant to put up with that sort of thing?
> 
> Fact is we shouldn’t just have to put up with it and we don’t hence all the measures (cycle lanes, LTNs etc) that people campaign for and are being put in despite to protests of cabbie organisations and gammon faced Jeremy Clarkson wannabes.



We will always have to put up with people making mistakes and errors of judgement. Even if you ban all the worse-than-average drivers and have mandatory annual re-training or whatever.

I've always said I'm in favour of off-road cycle lanes etc. Not sure how Jeremy Vine is helping the cause.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah I'm sure you asked for your HGV license to be revoked that one time you forgot to signal while driving your car.


Who ‘forgets’ to signal? Should be absolutely automatic. Again you’re excusing & downplaying shit driving.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> We will always have to put up with people making mistakes and errors of judgement. Even if you ban all the worse-than-average drivers and have mandatory annual re-training or whatever.


That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything though - you can never get rid of all risk but you can drastically reduce it.



platinumsage said:


> I've always said I'm in favour of off-road cycle lanes etc.


and the video is a great example of why they’re so needed.



platinumsage said:


> Not sure how Jeremy Vine is helping the cause.


He’s pointing out the dangers that people like you think we should just put up with. How is it not helping “the cause”?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah I'm sure you asked for your HGV license to be revoked that one time you forgot to signal while driving your car.


Don’t know what you’re suggesting here. Aside from the obvious fact that I don’t have an HGV licence, there is a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between that left hook and a failure to signal. The latter can potentially be dangerous, but the intent to turn is indicated by a lot more than a signal — for example, by slowing down, rather than accelerating to first overtake a cyclist.  And if the HGV driver slows right down and then slowly starts to turn but has not checked his or her mirrors during the manoeuvre to ensure there is nothing coming up the inside, that is a problem regardless of signal.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Don’t know what you’re suggesting here. Aside from the obvious fact that I don’t have an HGV licence, there is a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between that left hook and a failure to signal. The latter can potentially be dangerous, but the intent to turn is indicated by a lot more than a signal — for example, by slowing down, rather than accelerating to first overtake a cyclist.  And if the HGV driver slows right down and then slowly starts to turn but has not checked his or her mirrors during the manoeuvre to ensure there is nothing coming up the inside, that is a problem regardless of signal.



You said you were in favour of "red light-breaking cyclist having their licence to carry passengers for money removed from them" which is about as relevant as you having your HGV licence revoked for failing to signal.

There isn't really a huge qualitative gulf in recklessness between a cyclist going through a red light and a car driver failing to signal.

Returning to the twitter clip it wasn't a left hook as there was no collision. The taxi driver slowed, displayed brake lights, and signaled left. The cyclist didn't even feel the need to brake during most of the incident, just slowing briefly before releasing the brakes and getting on the horn. They had plenty of opportunity to pass the taxi on the right but for some reason chose not to. For most people this wouldn't even have been an incident but dashcams and helmet cams can have strange effects on people's actions - just watch some camera users on mini-roundabouts cutting the circle to try and claim they weren't given way to so they can upload it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Cyclists going through red lights have killed people,


*citation needed


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> *citation needed











						Cyclist Ermir Loka who jumped red light and killed Peter McCombie in east London jailed for two years
					

Peter McCombie's family said in a statement: "The shock of losing him so abruptly, so suddenly, so unnecessarily, is something that will haunt us for a very long time to come."




					news.sky.com


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

This poor driver has mistakenly close passed a cyclist while accidentally leaning on their horn. Oh well - what ya gonna do? 🤷


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> London’s finest 🥴




Never mind the last two pages of rowing - what I want to know is how the hell he filmed that? I have discounted the possibility of a drone!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 13, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Never mind the last two pages of rowing - what I want to know is how the hell he filmed that? I have discounted the possibility of a drone!


360 camera on the top of his Helmet. The software edits out the stick holding it and you can change the angle and view in post production.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Who ‘forgets’ to signal? Should be absolutely automatic. Again you’re excusing & downplaying shit driving.



I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 13, 2022)

What a lot of nonsense. Signalling in that situation poses no hazard. Taking the junction too fast creates the hazard. Signal, take the junction slowly, and then even if they initially think you're taking the side road, there's plenty of time for them to realise you're not, and for you to stop if necessary.

What are the alternatives?
a) don't signal at all, and the pedestrian assumes you're taking the right fork, and starts crossing
b) signal left and then approach at high speed, in the hope that that this will make it clear to the pedestrian that you are heading this way and they will be mowed down if they attempt to cross?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What a lot of nonsense. Signalling in that situation poses no hazard. Taking the junction too fast creates the hazard. Signal, take the junction slowly, and then even if they initially think you're taking the side road, there's plenty of time for them to realise you're not, and for you to stop if necessary.
> 
> What are the alternatives?
> a) don't signal at all, and the pedestrian assumes you're taking the right fork, and starts crossing
> b) signal left and then approach at high speed, in the hope that that this will make it clear to the pedestrian that you are heading this way and they will be mowed down if they attempt to cross?



Good that you've done 114 words of thinking already, and not just signaled automatically. A shame though that you're relying on the pedestrian quickly realising you're ploughing on past them. If they see you signalling left and slowing, they could dart across the road in front of you at any moment. There could easily be no time for them to realise their mistake before it's too late.

Other options include not signalling, but slowing down more than usual and positioning your vehicle so it's clear you aren't zooming off to the right.  Or perhaps signalling well in advance but then having seen the pedestrian look at you, cancel the signal early. 

The fact you can't see a hazard in automatically signalling left all the way through this junction is worrying. Perhaps you'd benefit from a driving ban and an extended re-test.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

Why are you making the person crossing the road less sympathetic by labelling them a pedo?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 13, 2022)

Jesus fucking christ. _Show me on the doll where the bicycle touched you_


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing.


_At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning._


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:
> 
> View attachment 346969


Well, we can add “all of this” to the things you’re desperately wrong about.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> _At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning._



Not sure it's a good idea to instigate a pedestrian to run across that junction in an unknown direction into other traffic on the basis of your misinterpreted signal.

Anyway pretend there's a car and a bicycle both waiting to emerge if you like. The more you slow down and the more you signal left the more likely they are to assume you're taking the 90 degree turn and pull into your path.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, we can add “all of this” to the things you’re desperately wrong about.



A shame the Highway Code disagrees with you then, isn't it

"*103* Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, *having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time*"

Nothing about signalling automatically. Perhaps you should hand in your licence too.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

So now there's a car on the pavement signalling right, presumably having knocked down the pedo, and a cyclist playing a recorder while waiting. Any other elements you want to throw into the mix?

I think maybe it's time to give up both MS Paint and the Volvo.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t know if you are licensed to drive but this needs calling out. Signalling should absolutely not be automatic because it always needs careful consideration - a signal in the wrong situation could cause an accident. For example a fork in the road with an additional side turning on the left. Signal to take the left fork and a pedestrian waiting to cross it may think you’re taking the left turn and start crossing. Their decision will be affected by other factors such as your speed: take the fork too fast to make the turn and they’ll assume you‘re taking the fork. However signal left and take the fork more slowly than an average driver and they may assume you’re taking the left turn. Lots to think about and certainly not “automatic”:
> 
> View attachment 346969


WTF!!?? You cracked out MS Paint for this?!

You’re turning left - you signal left.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure it's a good idea to instigate a pedestrian to run across that junction in an unknown direction into other traffic on the basis of your misinterpreted signal.
> 
> Anyway pretend there's a car and a bicycle both waiting to emerge if you like. The more you slow down and the more you signal left the more likely they are to assume you're taking the 90 degree turn and pull into your path.
> 
> View attachment 346974


“The more you signal”?!?! What the hell are you on about?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

What happens if you're signalling left and then some moving goalposts are waiting to cross, WHAT THEN?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> WTF!!?? You cracked out MS Paint for this?!
> 
> You’re turning left - you signal left.



Not if it might be misleading though, and certainly not automatically like you claimed.

"*103* Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, *having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time*"


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> “The more you signal”?!?! What the hell are you on about?



I'm pretty sure you neither drive nor cycle, and least I hope you don't do either. Maybe stick to topics on which you have some awareness, and try not to walk out on the streets without a safety chaperone to help you.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

A car waiting to emerge from a junction should never assume that the existence of a signal necessarily makes them safe to emerge from that junction. Doubly so on a complex junction like that one. If the driver turns right because they have assumed the other driver will turn left and left again, that is 100% the fault of the driver coming out the side road.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> A car waiting to emerge from a junction should never assume that the existence of a signal necessarily makes them safe to emerge from that junction. Doubly so on a complex junction like that one. If the driver turns right because they have assumed the other driver will turn left and left again, that is 100% the fault of the driver coming out the side road.



How is that relevant? Do you always assume other road users will be careful not to misinterpret your signals? Do you not care if an accident results from such a misinterpretation as long you can point your finger at the other party for being at fault?

And you’ll find insurance companies and the police won’t always put 100% of the blame on the other party in such circumstances. I mean it’s even in the Highway Code that you shouldn’t give misleading signals.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How is that relevant? Do you always assume other road users will be careful not to misinterpret your signals? Do you not care if an accident results from such a misinterpretation as long you can point your finger at the other party for being at fault?
> 
> And you’ll find insurance companies and the police won’t always put 100% of the blame on the other party in such circumstances. I mean it’s even in the Highway Code that you shouldn’t give misleading signals.


I never emerge from a junction just because I see somebody signalling to turn, I tell you that for nothing. 

The point is that somebody planning to turn left should signal left, and not try to double-guess what a third-party emerging from another side road might assume.  I am amazed that this needs saying.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How is that relevant?


You definitely need to signal before doing a u-turn.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not if it might be misleading though, and certainly not automatically like you claimed.
> 
> "*103* Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians, of your intended actions. You should always: give clear signals in plenty of time, *having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time*"


How is it misleading to signal left if you’re turning left?

In your example you should be signalling well in advance in both cases.

If you don’t think so you’re obviously a shot driver.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm pretty sure you neither drive nor cycle, and least I hope you don't do either. Maybe stick to topics on which you have some awareness, and try not to walk out on the streets without a safety chaperone to help you.


How can you signal more? You mean length of time? Both cases you need to signal well in advance of the junction.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I never emerge from a junction just because I see somebody signalling to turn, I tell you that for nothing.
> 
> The point is that somebody planning to turn left should signal left, and not try to double-guess what a third-party emerging from another side road might assume.  I am amazed that this needs saying.



In the example I gave the car is going straight ahead, past those waiting on the left. Signalling left would signal an intention to turn left before passing them.

If you signal left all the way through that junction, you’re relying on those people not misinterpreting your signal. That is foolhardy and contrary to the Highway Code.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> In the example I gave the car is going straight ahead, past those waiting on the left. Signalling left would signal an intention to turn left before passing them.
> 
> If you signal left all the way through that junction, you’re relying on those people not misinterpreting your signal. That is foolhardy and contrary to the Highway Code.


What are you talking about?  You said that the car was going to take the left fork. It’s turning left. Are you suggesting that taking the left fork is not turning left?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> What are you talking about?  You said that the car was going to take the left fork. It’s turning left. Are you suggesting that taking the left fork is not turning left?



Sure it has taken that left fork, but then is going straight ahead. Going straight ahead past a left turn while signalling left is not a good idea.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

Please hand in your license platinumsage if you don’t think you should signal left when turning left!!!


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure it has taken that left fork, but then is going straight ahead. Going straight ahead past a left turn while signalling left is not a good idea.


So you don't signal. What happens next?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure it has taken that left fork, but then is going straight ahead. Going straight ahead past a left turn while signalling left is not a good idea.


Ok, so stop the signal the moment you turn if that’s what is bothering you. What’s that got to do with the assumptions being made by a car coming out of a side road?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Ok, so stop the signal the moment you turn if that’s what is bothering you. What’s that got to do with the assumptions being made by a car coming out of a side road?



You said lots of things about what a car coming out of a side road shouldn’t assume, but people do assume, so you need to take that into account.

There’s no meaningful time in this example to signal while taking the left fork and then cancel the signal before passing the left turn. One option would be to signal left for the fork well in advance but then cancel it in while you’re slowing to take the fork, so it is unambiguously cancelled by the time you pass the left turn.

Whatever you do it definitely warrants thinking time, and not just an automatic signal throughout that entire length of road. Advanced driving courses teach people to identify who would benefit from a signal and why they would do so before flicking that indicator stalk.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

Does anyone know platinumsage in person? Think we should send someone to check on him.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> One option would be to signal left for the fork well in advance but then cancel it in while you’re slowing to take the fork, so it is unambiguously cancelled by the time you pass the left turn.


The solution in this scenario where you absolutely cannot signal left is to signal left.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I've always said I'm in favour of off-road cycle lanes etc.


If we ban cars all the roads would become cycles lanes - an obvious solution.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

Perhaps the anti-car propagandists might consider employing the services of a motorist if they are to be successful, as this thread at the moment is simply serving to highlight the utter lack of understanding of anything to do with cars. It’s a bit like having Jeremy Vine campaign for full communism.

I’ll happily propagandise for the banning of private cars in exchange for a new Volvo. Maybe I should start a gofundme and you can all chip in.


----------



## maomao (Oct 13, 2022)

There's no benefit to not signalling, or waiting to signal in that example. It's nuts. A good driver would slow down and stop signalling as soon as they're over the white line but you wouldn't not signal. 

When I did driving lessons my teacher told me I would be marked down for signalling when there were no road users around and I shouldn't signal for pedestrians. He was a shit teacher though.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps the anti-car propagandists might consider employing the services of a motorist if they are to be successful, as this thread at the moment is simply serving to highlight the utter lack of understanding of anything to do with cars. It’s a bit like having Jeremy Vine campaign for full communism.
> 
> I’ll happily propagandise for the banning of private cars in exchange for a new Volvo. Maybe I should start a gofundme and you can all chip in.


I think you’ll find we’re probably all drivers actually. And it seems one’s with a hell of a lot more understanding of safe driving than someone that thinks signalling left when turning left might be confusing 🤪


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

I think most people on here live in cities which they rarely leave, especially London. This means enjoying public transport and where car ownership means a 2005 Toyota that you use for quarterly trips to dispose of appliance packaging at the dump and to take your kids on holiday to Surrey once a year. This is why beesonthatwhatever isn't familiar with the Highway Code, teuchter doesn't know how a zebra crossing works, maomao wants to kill and ban everyone forever and edcraw can only resort to reposting third-rate twitter footage.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 13, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I never emerge from a junction just because I see somebody signalling to turn, I tell you that for nothing.


Obviously, because people change their mind, they make mistakes with their satnav etc. Bringing this up as a point is nuts. No idea.


----------



## maomao (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think most people on here live in cities which they rarely leave, especially London.


I work outside London in a place with an unreliable train and a bus that takes an hour (plus a twenty minute walk) and it's fine. I don't have to get stressed driving anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Obviously, because people change their mind, they make mistakes with their satnav etc. Bringing this up as a point is nuts. No idea.



It was literally the opposite position I brought up as a point -  giving a signal without thinking that someone might foolishly use it to emerge from a junction into your path. So glad to see you agree this is worth thinking about.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

On my way home this evening I saw tons of thoughtful motorists who didn’t signal while making turns in case these might be misunderstood. Very kind of them!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

maomao said:


> I work outside London in a place with an unreliable train and a bus that takes an hour (plus a twenty minute walk) and it's fine. I don't have to get stressed driving anyway.



As my gran used to say, good for you dear. 

As a general point because I know nothing your personal life, I get through each week without drinking alcohol. It doesn’t mean I want it banned for everyone else due to the harm it causes - I recognise that other people see value in it that I don’t.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> On my way home this evening I saw tons of thoughtful motorists who didn’t signal while making turns in case these might be misunderstood. Very kind of them!



You sure they weren’t faulty Belisha beacons? I can never tell with you.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

Pop quiz - you’re driving in the left lane here and taking the road to the left. Do you:

a) signal left
b) not signal
c) signal right
d) stop and consult an online forum


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Pop quiz - you’re driving in the left lane here and taking the road to the left. Do you:
> 
> a) signal left
> b) not signal
> ...



Probably signal left although I can’t see all the road markings when zooming into your crappy picture. There doesn’t seem to be multiple left turnings which might cause confusion.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Probably signal left although I can’t see all the road markings when zooming into your crappy picture. There doesn’t seem to be multiple left turnings which might cause confusion.


Correct! Because you’re turning left! There’s a clear left turn arrow on the markings even from Google’s crappy picture.

Please can you tell literally every other driver!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It was literally the opposite position I brought up as a point -  giving a signal without thinking that someone might foolishly use it to emerge from a junction into your path. So glad to see you agree this is worth thinking about.


It’s not. There is no situation where you don’t signal there, someone else could be behind you. You’re a dangerous driver if you behave like this.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> It’s not. There is no situation where you don’t signal there, someone else could be behind you. You’re a dangerous driver if you behave like this.



They’re either behind you or they’re not, which is it?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They’re either behind you or they’re not, which is it?


Since when are you taught to check if anyone’s behind you before you signal?

Reckon you must be a teuchter sock puppet account to big up this thread. No one can actually be this clueless.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 13, 2022)

Oh there's a car behind me, better signal left and confuse those children so they run across the road.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2022)

can someone who's not platinumsage please explain wtf he's on about?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh there's a car behind me, better signal left and confuse those children so they run across the road.


Are you turning left in this bizarre situation?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> can someone who's not platinumsage please explain wtf he's on about?


Signal left when you’re turning left except when you’re only turning a bit left - I think that’s it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 14, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> can someone who's not platinumsage please explain wtf he's on about?


Over the course of time in this thread he’s backed himself into a corner where he absolutely cannot admit a car is at fault, ever. Even in a situation as blindly clear as the video that sparked this particular meltdown, the driver must be defended at all costs.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Over the course of time in this thread he’s backed himself into a corner where he absolutely cannot admit a car is at fault, ever. Even in a situation as blindly clear as the video that sparked this particular meltdown, the driver must be defended at all costs.



I made it quite clear the taxi driver was wrong to make that move.

The actual situation is that a bunch of people on this thread are so desperate to prove everything I say is wrong that they keep splurging forth an endless stream of demonstrable nonsense.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

Reckon platinumsage is a copper.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Reckon platinumsage is a copper.



Would explain a lot tbh


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

Yep, third-rate Twitter clips and ad hominem slurs.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Over the course of time in this thread he’s backed himself into a corner where he absolutely cannot admit a car is at fault, ever. Even in a situation as blindly clear as the video that sparked this particular meltdown, the driver must be defended at all costs.


Reminds me of detective boy, who was the same about cops as this chap is about cars and driving


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yep, third-rate Twitter clips and ad hominem slurs.


What’s wrong with a bit of ad hominem, you daft ninny? I can will also build a straw man to burn speeding motorists in while invoking the spirit of Godwin.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> third-rate Twitter clips and ad hominem slurs.


You should use this as your tag line


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They’re either behind you or they’re not, which is it?


Could be a cyclist behind you who’s filtering on the left - you’ve not signaled so it’s safe to do so.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage taking a little too long to work out if they should indicate here.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

Great to know that the minority of people arguing on this thread who have actually managed to obtain a driving licence are shit drivers.

1. edcraw says signalling should be "automatic"
2. I reply citing the Highway Code says you shouldn't give a signal that could be misleading
3. I additionally reply stating that advanced driving courses teach that you should only signal if you can identify someone who would benefit and why
4. Everyone ignores these responses and continue to insist that signalling should be automatic and cannot be misleading.
5. I don't know why I bother, you're all shit road users who should stay at home and post about cats or the Tories or whatever, just not anything to do with roads.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

The thing is drivers have always demonstrated their inability to identify anyone who might benefit from a clear indication of where the fuck they’re


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

How can indicating which direction you’re steering in be misleading unless you’re using flags badly or summat?


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yep, third-rate Twitter clips and ad hominem slurs.



That wasn't an ad hominem.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> How can indicating which direction you’re steering in be misleading unless you’re using flags badly or summat?



Say you're changing lanes on a motorway, from the middle lane to the inside lane, but you're approaching an exit slip-road on the left. Do you signal to move into the left-hand lane?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

.


platinumsage said:


> Great to know that the minority of people arguing on this thread who have actually managed to obtain a driving licence are shit drivers.
> 
> 1. edcraw says signalling should be "automatic"
> 2. I reply citing the Highway Code says you shouldn't give a signal that could be misleading
> ...


Are you a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> .
> 
> Are you a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists?



I passed their test but I let my membership lapse, so no.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Great to know that the minority of people arguing on this thread who have actually managed to obtain a driving licence are shit drivers.
> 
> 1. edcraw says signalling should be "automatic"
> 2. I reply citing the Highway Code says you shouldn't give a signal that could be misleading
> ...


Mate - you the one not listening. You said someone could forget to signal and I said that’s obviously shit driving. You just keep coming on here making excuses for poor driving.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Say you're changing lanes on a motorway, from the middle lane to the inside lane, but you're approaching an exit slip-road on the left. Do you signal to move into the left-hand lane?


Yes, of course.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes, of course.



No, not necessarily.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Say you're changing lanes on a motorway, from the middle lane to the inside lane, but you're approaching an exit slip-road on the left. Do you signal to move into the left-hand lane?


I dunno, I would never cycle in a motorway. I would imagine it would be quite hard signalling when you need both hands on the bars while concentrating on not dying.
 But why wouldn’t you if you were driving. You use indicators to indicate


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> .
> 
> Are you a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists?


Every IAM member I have ever met has been a complete platinumsage.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, not necessarily.


You’re a liability - how does anyone behind you know what you’re going to do if you’re not signalling.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

maomao said:


> Every IAM member I have ever met has been a complete platinumsage.


So true!


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

The RoSPA gold lot are worse though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I passed their test but I let my membership lapse, so no.


Please can you post a copy of your test certificate before continuing this discussion.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re a liability - how does anyone behind you know what you’re going to do if you’re not signalling.



If you've just overtaken a lorry and are going faster than them, how would they benefit from a signal? If there are no other vehicles gaining on you from behind or anything in front, what would be the point in signalling - can you tell me that? 

If you do signal that lorry may think you're taking the slip road. There may also be vehicles on the slip road that want to change lane. Not very helpful if you signal you're approaching them when you're not.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you do signal that lorry may think you're taking the slip road.


and?

Fucking signal you loser.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> and?
> 
> Fucking signal you loser.



Post your driving licence and I might bother engaging with you.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

maomao said:


> The RoSPA gold lot are worse though.



I think that's mauvais


----------



## mauvais (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I think that's mauvais


IAM 4 lyf.

Not much lyf left if you're the average IAM member though.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Post your driving licence and I might bother engaging with you.


I’m happily married mate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Post your driving licence and I might bother engaging with you.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 347210



He was right about the fog lights.


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

If you're aware that the signal might be misinterpreted how about waiting to change lane rather than changing lane without signalling? It seems like an awfully contrived excuse and I suspect if you did it the other vehicles would still not know whether you were going to take the slip road or not.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

maomao said:


> If you're aware that the signal might be misinterpreted how about waiting to change lane rather than changing lane without signalling? It seems like an awfully contrived excuse and I suspect if you did it the other vehicles would still not know whether you were going to take the slip road or not.



Who is the signal benefiting? Why would an ambiguous signal be better than no signal?


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who is the signal benefiting? Why would an ambiguous signal be better than no signal?


No signal is also ambiguous. The highway code says you should signal your intentions to other drivers not that you should decide whether they need to know or not.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

maomao said:


> No signal is also ambiguous. The highway code says you should signal your intentions to other drivers not that you should decide whether they need to know or not.



The Highway Code literally says stuff like "give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time" and "make sure your signals will not confuse others"


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The Highway Code literally says stuff like "give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time" and "make sure your signals will not confuse others"


Love how you’ve put so much thought in to being a shit driver - had presumed most did it by accident so fair play 👏


----------



## maomao (Oct 14, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> The Highway Code literally says stuff like "give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time" and "make sure your signals will not confuse others"


It also says you should wait till it's safe before returning to the inside lane. Not signalling doesn't remove any ambiguity.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 14, 2022)

maomao said:


> It also says you should wait till it's safe before returning to the inside lane. Not signalling doesn't remove any ambiguity.



Pretty sure it doesn't say "signal automatically regardless of anything without thinking about it" though.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

Having been inspired to watch multiple Alan Partridge clips on youtube, it is his voice which is in my head as I read the latest contributions to this thread.


----------



## bcuster (Oct 19, 2022)

Parking lot fire destroys 73 vehicles at Texas pumpkin patch, leaving a graveyard of burnt cars
					

A large grass fire engulfed the Robinson Family Farm, a pumpkin patch in Temple, Texas, destroying 73 cars, before firefighters came to the rescue.




					www.usatoday.com


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2022)

Love this!


----------



## bcuster (Oct 20, 2022)

30 Drivers Left On Side Of The 405 Freeway With Flat Tires - AutoSpies Auto News
					

30 Drivers Left On Side Of The 405 Freeway With Flat Tires




					www.autospies.com


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 20, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love this!




They appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement. Still I suppose it was a nice social event for them to discuss their organic box deliveries etc


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement. Still I suppose it was a nice social event for them to discuss their organic box deliveries etc


What a twatty sociopath you are.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement. *Still I suppose it was a nice social event for them to discuss their organic box deliveries etc*




Are you  Suella braverman?


----------



## maomao (Oct 21, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Are you  Suella braverman?


More likely Kwarteng. He seems to have had a lot of spare time recently.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 21, 2022)

You obviously don't know enough people from Oxford.

Why do you think "they appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement."?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You obviously don't know enough people from Oxford.
> 
> Why do you think "they appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement."?


What do you think of the twatishness of drivers that residents have to stand in the road to get them to obey simple traffic rules?


----------



## maomao (Oct 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You obviously don't know enough people from Oxford.
> 
> Why do you think "they appear to be blocking access to cyclists, hence one riding on the pavement."?


They clearly haven't blocked him as he managed to get past easily.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What do you think of the twatishness of drivers that residents have to stand in the road to get them to obey simple traffic rules?



I don't know anything about it, tell me more.

I simply commented on what I can see in the Twitter video, which is a bunch of people blocking the road and causing a cyclist to go on the pavement. There's a stationary white BMW but I don't know who that belongs to or why it's parked there. There's apparently space for a removable bollard between two planting containers and some non-compliant 'no motor vehicles' signs.

I'd suggest if the problem is motor vehicles driving through a closure point, that the residents lobby the highways authority to actually implement the closure point properly. We have such closures in Cambridge and there have never been any problems because drivers can't negotiate the steel and concrete and so don't bother trying.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don't know anything about it, tell me more.
> 
> I simply commented on what I can see in the Twitter video, which is a bunch of people blocking the road and causing a cyclist to go on the pavement. There's a stationary white BMW but I don't know who that belongs to or why it's parked there. There's apparently space for a removable bollard between two planting containers and some non-compliant 'no motor vehicles' signs.
> 
> I'd suggest if the problem is motor vehicles driving through a closure point, that the residents lobby the highways authority to actually implement the closure point properly. We have such closures in Cambridge and there have never been any problems because drivers can't negotiate the steel and concrete and so don't bother trying.


Twatty drivers are twats and can’t obey simple traffic rules so people have to block roads to get them to do so while the council looks to install expensive infrastructure because so many twatty drivers are twats.

The cyclist didn’t seem to mind much and was probably thankful that they were stopping twatty drivers driving through the road closure.

Who are you voting for this month?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Twatty drivers are twats and can’t obey simple traffic rules so people have to. Lock roads to get them to do so while the council looks to install expensive infrastructure because so many twatty drivers are twats.
> 
> The cyclist didn’t seem to mix much and was probably thankful that they were stopping twatty drivers driving through the road closure.
> 
> You are you voting for this month?



None of what you said makes any sense.


----------



## nick (Oct 21, 2022)

you missed a trick - shouldn't you have led with something about bloody cyclists always riding on the pavement?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 21, 2022)

nick said:


> you missed a trick - shouldn't you have led with something about bloody cyclists always riding on the pavement?



I'm sure most cyclists don't ride on pavements except in rare cases such as this where some people have made the carriageway impassable.

Even the XR gluers made explicit room for bikes when they blocked roads around here.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2022)

Cry me a river.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Cry me a river.



There _must_ be a way of avoiding the fines, surely? Anyone got any ideas?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

Lollipop lady feels the need to wear a body cam because of so many terrible drivers 😮‍💨.

Not only do we need to have someone in hi-viz with a huge sign to try and get drivers to obey basic traffic rules we also need to film them now.









						Staffordshire council bans lollipop lady's bodycam
					

Parents of pupils at the Cannock school appeal for the body-worn camera's use to be reinstated.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not only do we need to have someone in hi-viz with a huge sign to try and get drivers to obey basic traffic rules we also need to film them now.



That doesn't work:


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That doesn't work:



You’re finally getting it 👏

Welcome to the war on cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re finally getting it 👏
> 
> Welcome to the war on cars.



Any decent motorist loves to see bad drivers taken out by their own stupidity.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Any decent motorist loves to see bad drivers taken out by their own stupidity.


You just don’t seem to car much about them taking others out 🙄


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You just don’t seem to car much about them taking others out 🙄



On the contrary, a ford is a great place to take yourself out safely.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> On the contrary, a ford is a great place to take yourself out safely.


When the dangerous driving involves others you always make excuses for and side with the driver.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> When the dangerous driving involves others you always make excuses for and side with the driver.



I never side with anyone, I just provide some analysis of the situation to the benefit of all road users. Probably the worst thread to do that on but hey ho.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

🤣


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤣




Yeah that's definitely not dangerous at all.

The city I live in removed all the rising bollards because injuring children and spreading oil all over the road might not be the best way of doing things.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah that's definitely not dangerous at all.
> 
> The city I live in removed all the rising bollards because injuring children and spreading oil all over the road might not be the best way of doing things.


If only there was a simple way to stop it happening!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If only there was a simple way to stop it happening!



I can think of one way with a 100% success rate, in fact I've already detailed it above.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I can think of one way with a 100% success rate, in fact I've already detailed it above.


Ban cars!!! 🥳


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I can think of one way with a 100% success rate, in fact I've already detailed it above.


Was it banning cars from transit routes?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

Nope:









						Call for bollards inquiry
					

A SENIOR councillor has called for independent experts to investigate after a Metroshuttle bus fell victim to Manchester's notorious rising bollards. Town hall officers have launched their own probe into the crash on St Mary's Gate which resulted in six passengers being taken to hospital with...




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nope:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Carry out an investigation while replacing the bollard - prob a good idea. Shame they’re needed in the first place because there are so many twatty drivers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤣



That’s extra great because it’s quite clear the car knows it shouldn’t be there and is accelerating quickly to try and sneak in behind the bus.

Hopefully their car is ruined and it cost them a lot of money. Fuck them.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That’s extra great because it’s quite clear the car knows it shouldn’t be there and is accelerating quickly to try and sneak in behind the bus.
> 
> Hopefully their car is ruined and it cost them a lot of money. Fuck them.



Pedestrian with pushchair almost hit ✅
Passengers in car injured ✅

But yeah, fuck the driver lol.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian with pushchair almost hit ✅
> Passengers in car injured ✅
> 
> But yeah, fuck the driver lol.


All of which is the fault of…?


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pedestrian with pushchair almost hit ✅
> Passengers in car injured ✅
> 
> But yeah, fuck the driver lol.


Pedestrian with pushchair almost hit by speeding car and that's the bollard's fault?

Also do you have proof of injuries? I'm fine with light bruising or the odd broken bone.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> All of which is the fault of…?



Right, so you're happy to injure innocent people as long as you can blame the driver. Twat.

What do you think the best option to deal with a driver speeding on the motorway is?

1. Ban and/or fine them
2. Chuck a boulder at their car from a bridge and watch them crash


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

Really coming out of the woodwork now


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right, so you're happy to injure innocent people as long as you can blame the driver. Twat.
> 
> What do you think the best option to deal with a driver speeding on the motorway is?
> 
> ...


You're fine with 1800 dead a year in the UK because of perceived convenience.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right, so you're happy to injure innocent people as long as you can blame the driver. Twat.
> 
> What do you think the best option to deal with a driver speeding on the motorway is?
> 
> ...


You really, _really_, need to google the phrase “false equivalence”


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You really, _really_, need to google the phrase “false equivalence”


Indeed. By his logic we should ban traffic lights so that drivers don't cause accidents speeding up on an orange.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> You're fine with 1800 dead a year in the UK because of perceived convenience.



Whatabouttery. 



beesonthewhatnow said:


> You really, _really_, need to google the phrase “false equivalence”



Go on then, without making an equivalence to anything at all, explain how the rising bollard situation depicted in that video presents an acceptable risk to those involved compared to the other methods of control.

If you really just want to claim that the risks are aceptable because it's the driver's fault and you enjoy watching the collision, then say so.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage had totally lost it!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You really, _really_, need to google the phrase “false equivalence”



Are you going to answer the question?


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Are you going to answer the question?


The question is not a reasonable one because it ignores the risks that were initially mitigated by the presence of the bollard.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> The question is not a reasonable one because it ignores the risks that were initially mitigated by the presence of the bollard.



Surely dropping boulders on all speeding cars would reduce speeding far more effectively than bans and fines, with a consequent reduction in the number of innocent victims.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Surely dropping boulders on all speeding cars would reduce speeding far more effectively than bans and fines, with a consequent reduction in the number of innocent victims.


The consequences would affect drivers who were obeying the law (however unlikely this sounds). If you want to take speeding drivers to a deserted gully or something and drop boulders on their heads I'm all for it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

These third rate Twitter clips really do the trick!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> The consequences would affect drivers who were obeying the law (however unlikely this sounds). If you want to take speeding drivers to a deserted gully or something and drop boulders on their heads I'm all for it.



So you don't want law-abiding drivers to be affected, but you do want passengers and pedestrians to be injured in rising bollard crashes. Great logic!


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you don't want law-abiding drivers to be affected, but you do want passengers and pedestrians to be injured in rising bollard crashes. Great logic!


I disagree that the bollards endanger pedestrians. 

I've also had this happen to colleagues several times in the past and while it has always been a horrendously expensive error I never encountered an injury. I suppose it's possible but I doubt the severity.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you don't want law-abiding drivers to be affected, but you do want passengers and pedestrians to be injured in rising bollard crashes. Great logic!


Have you done an analysis of how many pedestrians have been protected by these rising bollards compared to those injured as a result of them?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

Everything is fine!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> I disagree that the bollards endanger pedestrians.
> 
> I've also had this happen to colleagues several times in the past and while it has always been a horrendously expensive error I never encountered an injury. I suppose it's possible but I doubt the severity.



OK so you didn't watch the video of the car bouncing towards the pushchair and you didn't read the article about the six bus passengers taken to hospital. I guess you're just basing your arguments on whatever is floating around in your head.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> OK so you didn't watch the video of the car bouncing towards the pushchair and you didn't read the article about the six bus passengers taken to hospital. I guess you're just basing your arguments on whatever is floating around in your head.


It looked closer than it was because of the angle and the buggy pusher was far too far out in the road in the first place. 

And a broken elbow twelve years ago? I'm fairly confident automatic bollards have mitigated more risk than that in twelve years.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

Also when Googling 'six passengers taken to hospital' the main article that keeps coming up is about a bus driver driving into a wall. Should we ban walls now because thick drivers can't help but drive into them?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> Also when Googling 'six passengers taken to hospital' the main article that keeps coming up is about a bus driver driving into a wall. Should we ban walls now because thick drivers can't help but drive into them?



So you didn't' read the thread:









						Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
					

Lollipop lady feels the need to wear a body cam because of so many terrible drivers 😮‍💨.  Not only do we need to have someone in hi-viz with a huge sign to try and get drivers to obey basic traffic rules we also need to film them now...




					www.urban75.net
				




Here's another article about the same event:









						Six hurt as bus hits bollards
					

SIX people were taken to hospital after Manchester's infamous rising bollards shot up undera Metroshuttle bus. An investigation has now been launched because the bollards - which have trapped a number of cars in the past - are specifically designed to let the buses pass unharmed. The victims...




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
				




But I guess stupidly-standing pushchair users and bus passengers are just collateral damage in your quest to enjoy drivers getting their comeuppance.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2022)

By this reasoning, platinumsage 's obtuse idiocy here is caused by all of us reading what they post.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nope:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I did. It's an article about some minor injuries and a broken elbow twelve years ago. That's what I said.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> By this reasoning, platinumsage 's obtuse idiocy here is caused by all of us reading what they post.


Tbh I think it's the replying rather than the reading that does it.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> Tbh I think it's the replying rather than the reading that does it.



No, that's by normal reasoning. I'm using the kind of _special_ reasoning that blames bollards for shitty driving


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> No, that's by normal reasoning. I'm using the kind of _special_ reasoning that blames bollards for shitty driving



No one here has blamed bollards for shitty driving.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No one here has blamed bollards for shitty driving.


Nothing you post here appears to be posted in good faith so who can even tell.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Nothing you post here appears to be posted in good faith so who can even tell.



Right, let's not actually discuss the safety of rising bollards vs other methods, but just talk about blame and posting intentions instead. Pretty sure your posts aren't aimed at improving road safety or mitigating the negative externalties of private car use are they?


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right, let's not actually discuss the safety of rising bollards vs other methods, but just talk about blame and posting intentions instead. Pretty sure your posts aren't aimed at improving road safety or mitigating the negative externalties of private car use are they?


Thanks for the example of what I said.

And no, I for one am not trying to improve road safety by posting here. Nor do I cook breakfast by posting in the food threads, stop the war in Ukraine by posting in the war threads, or record music by posting in the music threads.

To be fair though, and I think this has been noted before, this is an explicitly _anti-car propaganda _thread and your postings here support that cause really effectively whether you mean them to or not (I'm guessing not, but there you go)


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Thanks for the example of what I said.
> 
> And no, I for one am not trying to improve road safety by posting here. Nor do I cook breakfast by posting in the food threads, stop the war in Ukraine by posting in the war threads, or record music by posting in the music threads.



Thanks for confirming your intentions, not sure why you were wittering on about bollards and shitty driving but whatever.



mojo pixy said:


> To be fair though, and I think this has been noted before, this is an explicitly _anti-car propaganda _thread and your postings here support that cause really effectively whether you mean them to or not (I'm guessing not, but there you go)



I am well aware of what this thread purports to be, but sadly it has failed miserably despite my best efforts. If propaganda is to be successful, it needs to target some group other than its own vapid cheerleaders.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thanks for confirming your intentions, not sure why you were wittering on about bollards and shitty driving but whatever.


Thanks for confirming you don't bother to read your own posts. I can't say I blame you.


platinumsage said:


> I am well aware of what this thread purports to be, but sadly it has failed miserably despite my best efforts. If propaganda is to be successful, it needs to target some group other than its own vapid cheerleaders.


Any _success_ of a thread like this would be in increasing negative feelings towards cars. Your contributions in that aim are much appreciated I'm sure.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Right, let's not actually discuss the safety of rising bollards vs other methods, but just talk about blame and posting intentions instead. Pretty sure your posts aren't aimed at improving road safety or mitigating the negative externalties of private car use are they?


If you want to actually discuss it you’ll also want to discuss how they’ve improved safety in the areas they’ve stopped traffic from going - but you’re not, because as mentioned, you’re never posting in good faith.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If you want to actually discuss it you’ll also want to discuss how they’ve improved safety in the areas they’ve stopped traffic from going - but you’re not, because as mentioned, you’re never posting in good faith.



I asked whether they were the best method to achieve that objective. But unsurprisingly the usual suspect threw their toys out of their prams and fought a strawman of me defending the drivers who collide with them, which I didn't do at all.

Do you think they are the best method to achieve their objective?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I asked whether they were the best method to achieve that objective. But unsurprisingly the usual suspect threw their toys out of their prams and fought a strawman of me defending the drivers who collide with them, which I didn't do at all.
> 
> Do you think they are the best method to achieve their objective?


No you didn’t - you just said they were dangerous.

Banning cars is probably the best method tbh - we’ll get there one day!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No you didn’t - you just said they were dangerous.



Another one who doesn't read the thread!



edcraw said:


> Banning cars is probably the best method tbh - we’ll get there one day!



As I said, e.g. buses and delivery vans can also collide with them.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I said, e.g. buses and delivery vans can also collide with them.


They mostly wouldn't be needed without private cars on the road.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 22, 2022)

maomao said:


> They mostly wouldn't be needed without private cars on the road.



How else will you stop the hordes of taxis? Oh wait you can remove their licenses.


----------



## maomao (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How else will you stop the hordes of taxis? Oh wait you can remove their licenses.


If you ban cars and end up with 'hordes' of taxis it's gone wrong somewhere.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2022)

platinumsage will prob say something about Hampstead being full of the tofu eating wokeirati but personally I think this is great!


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> platinumsage will prob say something about Hampstead being full of the tofu eating wokeirati but personally I think this is great!




On this very thread I've previously advocated more pedestrianized streets in London, and noted the current lack of them compared to other cities. However I'm sure it's more fun to argue against some weird image of me you have in your head, rather than actually read my posts.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> On this very thread I've previously advocated more pedestrianized streets in London, and noted the current lack of them compared to other cities. However I'm sure it's more fun to argue against some weird image of me you have in your head, rather than actually read my posts.
> 
> 
> View attachment 348526


Not sure it was worth cracking out MS Paint for that especially as it makes no sense - haven’t seen you arguing for an of these on here and if you were I wouldn’t be attacking them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2022)

Car drivers being cunts part 3,498:


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 26, 2022)

Bloody electric hire scooters, people just dump them anywhere, blocking the pavements, won’t someone think of the disabled etc etc


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2022)

The campaign to get pavement parking clearly banned nationwide does not seem to be getting anywhere fast, so far.






						Managing pavement parking
					

Proposed options to tackle pavement parking at a local authority or national level.




					www.gov.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The campaign to get pavement parking clearly banned nationwide does not seem to be getting anywhere fast, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s such a no brainier, should have been done years ago. But, as ever, drivers freak out at the prospect of not being able to park directly outside their house.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2022)

How depressing is this!


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Car drivers being cunts part 3,498:



Definitely had people do this deliberately to me when out running, there was a choice to either avoid the puddle or to slow down and not splash a pedestrian. Also been knocked down by drivers twice, fortunately for me both cars were going at a slow speed though ending up on someone’s bonnet wasn’t much fun.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

Difficult to say which ones better here…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

Phone use seems to be in the increase, I see so many daily - just crazy. Such selfish behaviour.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 27, 2022)

I reckon if I had a 360 degree camera I could catch around 20 drivers on every single ride. And I’m really not exaggerating.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2022)

Parked cars on public roads should be treated as litter


----------



## kabbes (Oct 27, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Parked cars on public roads should be treated as litter


That’s going to need one big litter-picker-upper


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Parked cars on public roads should be treated as litter



So should people in parks, they ought to be rounded up and destroyed. And don't get me started on stationary trains in train stations.


----------



## maomao (Oct 27, 2022)

kabbes said:


> That’s going to need one big litter-picker-upper


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So should people in parks, they ought to be rounded up and destroyed. And don't get me started on stationary trains in train stations.


People in parks are supposed to be there as are trains in station. People leaving their private property lying around on the street shouldn’t complain if it gets a bit battered or goes missing.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So should people in parks, they ought to be rounded up and destroyed. And don't get me started on stationary trains in train stations.


You've forgotten about children in school playgrounds, or sick kittens in animal hospitals.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You've forgotten about children in school playgrounds, or sick kittens in animal hospitals.



Yes, everything in its proper place should be taken down, apparently.



Orang Utan said:


> People in parks are supposed to be there as are trains in station. People leaving their private property lying around on the street shouldn’t complain if it gets a bit battered or goes missing.



Cars are supposed to be on highways, as hand carts were in the olden days. It's established in common law that a conveyance stopped on a highway does not constitute an obstruction unless free passage is actually obstructed, and parking is not an offence in statute law unless specific criteria are met. So in this case leaving "private property" on a highway is not the same as littering.

If you want to change the law to render cars on roads litter, and consequently have them swept away, feel free to write to your MP.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> parking is not an offence in statue law


A car wouldn't make a very appealing statue.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> A car wouldn't make a very appealing statue.



Good to know at least one person reads all the words in my posts on this godforsaken thread.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Good to know at least one person reads all the words in my posts on this godforsaken thread.


Don't worry, I didn't - I just spotted that bit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, everything in its proper place should be taken down, apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn’t say owt about the law, divclart.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> I didn’t say owt about the law, divclart.



Well, the law is relevant if you assert that someone leaving their car on the road "shouldn’t complain if it gets a bit battered or goes missing".


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Well, the law is relevant if you assert that someone leaving their car on the road "shouldn’t complain if it gets a bit battered or goes missing".


Not at all. This is not the thread for legal quibbling. Refamiliarise yourself with the thread title


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Not at all. This is not the thread for legal quibbling. Refamiliarise yourself with the thread title



As I keep saying, I’m well aware of the thread title, but it seems no one else knows what propaganda means.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2022)

Once again the world marches out of step with platinumsage . Except he is not marching because he is sitting in a volvo with industry leading automatic hazard detection systems.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Once again the world marches out of step with platinumsage . Except he is not marching because he is sitting in a volvo with industry leading automatic hazard detection systems.



If you think this thread represents the world I suggest speaking to some verified motorists and their families. You might also try showing them some examples from this thread of what you suppose to be propaganda, and see how influenced they are with respect to your stated long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

🤪


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 27, 2022)

Their tears are salty and delicious


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 27, 2022)

That’s actual propaganda, you guys should learn a thing or two.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> That’s actual propaganda, you guys should learn a thing or two.


Really good point @platypusrage - our information is neither biased or misleading.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

For the sake of completeness and to avoid any possible confusion we’re also not a committee of Roman Catholic cardinals.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

This is truly shocking and prob not very fitting for this thread. But as a society we seem to be happy to ignore or make excuses for these accidents or worse, treat them as outliers that we can’t do anything about. Truth is it’s a choice we’re making not to tackle this seriously.









						Head-on crash video highlights 'fatal' impatience
					

Brian Hunt's family hope the video of the collision that killed him will highlight dangerous driving.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2022)

Try and do something to make our neighbourhoods safer & nicer and get called woke, middle class, the Taliban… or part of some global conspiracy 😮‍💨


----------



## maomao (Oct 28, 2022)

This is a cone telling people not to park outside of the marked parking bays in a school carpark because parking there obstructs access for emergency vehicles (and coaches to take kids on school trips). In case you can't tell it's been repeatedly run over by people who insist on parking there anyway. There is alternative parking about 200 yards away.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you think this thread represents the world I suggest speaking to some verified motorists and their families. You might also try showing them some examples from this thread of what you suppose to be propaganda, and see how influenced they are with respect to your stated long term agenda of eliminating the private car from the planet forever.


What are "verified motorists"?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤪


I've asked for a link the research cited in this report from the journalist. I have not yet received it.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What are "verified motorists"?



People who actually drive regularly, rather than simply attempt to drive occasionally or claim to drive without actually doing so such as you, edcraw and beesonthewhatnow.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I've asked for a link the research cited in this report from the journalist. I have not yet received it.


Journalist is doing a lot of heavy listing there!

This is one of her great insights. “Hopefully” 🤪


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 28, 2022)

Japan seem to do ok with parking, I know that most car-abolitionists on this thread have already praised Tokyo for it's car policies. Maybe London could learn a thing or two.









						The Art of Parking, Tokyo Style
					

Space truly is at a premium in Tokyo, one result of which is that car parking spaces can be extraordinarily expensive, often costing more per month than a small apartment. Even those people fortuna…




					japangasm.wordpress.com


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Japan seem to do ok with parking, I know that most car-abolitionists on this thread have already praised Tokyo for it's car policies. Maybe London could learn a thing or two.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes it could; I have already said this. 

Get cars off the public street and make it their owners' problem working out where to put it. They would need to apply for planning permission before building any additional car storage structures, or paved parking areas, of course, and that planning permission should be refused where appropriate.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> People who actually drive regularly, rather than simply attempt to drive occasionally or claim to drive without actually doing so such as you, edcraw and beesonthewhatnow.


Please can you clarify why it is important for me to speak to this category of special and precious people?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Please can you clarify why it is important for me to speak to this category of special and precious people?



Propagandise without knowing your target audience if you want to, but don’t expect it to be effective. And these people are your target audience because they’re the ones making the change you seek politically impossible.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> planning permission should be refused where appropriate


Refused in all cases hopefully.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 28, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Refused in all cases hopefully.



Are you a paid-up member of the anti-growth coalition?


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Phone use seems to be in the increase, I see so many daily - just crazy. Such selfish behaviour.



Going for my morning walk daily before work, I've noticed this. But, what really shocked me this week, was that after all the campaigns about phones distracting those at the wheel, I went past a Tesla and the driver was staring at a fucking ipad of a screen, apparently this is 'a thing'


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2022)

Car being used as weapon. Again.

Let's see how this is treated in court - and whether it's considered as equivalent to trying to kill someone with a different kind of weapon like a gun or a knife.

Perhaps the driver just suffered a moment of understandable rage whilst weilding a lethal weapon - something that could happen to any of us.









						Shocking moment woman trying to break up hunt is flattened by a car that speeds off
					

This is the terrifying moment a woman who was trying to sabotage a hunt was knocked over by a car that then drove off, leaving her injured on the ground.




					www.lbc.co.uk


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2022)

I don’t understand how that isn’t single-blow GBH on the below scale









						Varying degrees of assault in the UK | Lawtons
					

There are several different types of assault under UK law. Our experts break down the varying degrees and levels of punishment for each one.




					www.lawtonslaw.co.uk
				








> What acts and injuries are deemed as GBH?​If violence is inflicted with a weapon or the equivalent of a weapon, then the act is likely to be classified as inflicting grievous bodily harm intentionally (section 18).
> 
> Weapon equivalents are objects, items or parts of the body that are not themselves weapons but can be a weapon when used intentionally


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Car being used as weapon. Again.
> 
> Let's see how this is treated in court - and whether it's considered as equivalent to trying to kill someone with a different kind of weapon like a gun or a knife.
> 
> ...



A terrible incident and the driver should be duly punished.

I’m not sure what it has to do with the existence of cars though. People used to drive at and run down and kill other people by horse, or horse and cart. In fact I’d say the chances of surviving such a hit are lower than those of surviving a hit by a car, as the latter are at least designed to take pedestrian safety into account to some degree.

“Samuel Lee, of the Parish of St. James Clarkenwell, was indicted for that he on 22th. of March last [1686], did assault the Body of  Thomas Powel on the King's highway, riding over him with his Horse, beating him down and bruising him on his head, on which bruise, March the 25th. he dyed: It appeared that the deceas'd Powel walking in a Footpath, meeting the Prisoner as he was riding at a [Text unreadable in original.] was by the force of his horse beat to the Ground, and bruised by the hinder Feet of the said horse; after which time, till the day of his death, he never spake word; and the Chirurgeons deposed that they did verily believe the wounds he received by the horse, occasioned his death; the Prisoner's defence was, that it was late at Night and he could not see him; but the Prosecutor objecting he was out of the horse road which was looked upon as a great aggravation to his crime, only he pretended: he was over ruled by his horse which was very head-strong; he was thereupon brought in Guilty of Manslaughter.”



			Browse - Central Criminal Court


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A terrible incident and the driver should be duly punished.
> 
> I’m not sure what it has to do with the existence of cars though. People used to drive at and run down and kill other people by horse, or horse and cart. In fact I’d say the chances of surviving such a hit are lower than those of surviving a hit by a car, as the latter are at least designed to take pedestrian safety into account to some degree.
> 
> ...


Well thank goodness for bicycles then.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A terrible incident and the driver should be duly punished.
> 
> I’m not sure what it has to do with the existence of cars though. People used to drive at and run down and kill other people by horse, or horse and cart. In fact I’d say the chances of surviving such a hit are lower than those of surviving a hit by a car, as the latter are at least designed to take pedestrian safety into account to some degree.
> 
> ...


This is like the argument against banning guns - “Well you could kill someone with a cricket bat!” 🙄


----------



## MrCurry (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This is like the argument against banning guns - “Well you could kill someone with a cricket bat!” 🙄


No it isn’t. It’s like arguing that hammers should be banned because someone killed a person with one.

The argument has no merit.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> No it isn’t. It’s like arguing that hammers should be banned because someone killed a person with one.
> 
> The argument has no merit.


How is @platinumsage’s argument like that?

Okay do you mean someone’s imaginary argument you’ve just made up?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

What is an acceptable number of road deaths?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> People who actually drive regularly, rather than simply attempt to drive occasionally or claim to drive without actually doing so such as you, edcraw and beesonthewhatnow.


How do you think I got large PA systems to venues for nearly 20 years you fucking clown


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How do you think I got large PA systems to venues for nearly 20 years you fucking clown


I mean he is an idiot - “verified drivers” 😆

I’ve been driving for 25 years - reckon it’s a ploy to get me to post my license so he can stalk me. Certainly seems to have a weird obsession for us all on this thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> How do you think I got large PA systems to venues for nearly 20 years you fucking clown



Oh, so you are a keen motorist despite your earlier protestation that you only blat down the M5 on holiday occasionally in your highly damaged death trap.



edcraw said:


> I’ve been driving for 25 years - reckon it’s a ploy to get me to post my license so he can stalk me. Certainly seems to have a weird obsession for us all on this thread.



Another keen motorist, if you're to be believed. 

I assume you've both undertaken further driver training and/or assessment since your L test? Surely anyone who thinks drivers are a dangerous liability would ensure that they receive more than the most basic level of one-off training several decades ago.

What did you both learn from this additional training and/or assessment with respect to road safety?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh, so you are a keen motorist despite your earlier protestation that you only blat down the M5 on holiday occasionally in your highly damaged death trap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Defiantly not a keen motorist - sounds a bit Jeremy Clarkson - I drive rarely when necessary and don’t build my life around it.

Best way to reduce risk is to limit the activity by finding alternatives  - what are you doing to reduce your amount of driving.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Defiantly not a keen motorist - sounds a bit Jeremy Clarkson - I drive rarely when necessary and don’t build my life around it.
> 
> Best way to reduce risk is to limit the activity - what are you doing to reduce your amount of driving.



So no training or assessment in 25 years and you drive infrequntly so you lack experience too. Why not give up entirely?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So no training or assessment in 25 years and you drive infrequntly so you lack experience too. Why not give up entirely?


Pretty much have - again, what have you done to reduce your driving?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 29, 2022)

For 20 years I was designated drinker.   Now I'm sober, I still don't need a license. I have managed fine thus far.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Pretty much have - again, what have you done to reduce your driving?



You haven't though - you drive rarely by your own admission and so are inexperinced, and without training since your L test are likely far more of a danger than most drivers per mile.  Even if I drove a hundred times further than you per year I'd probably be less of a risk - and you're the one who keeps complaining about cars being underutilized assets sitting doing nothing most of the time.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Even if I drove a hundred times further than you per year I'd probably be less of a risk


Anything to back this weird claim up? Fact is you almost certainly drive several hundred times more than me so are far far far more risky.

Your saying driving is inherently risky and the first step of reducing risk is always to stop or reduce the activity. You’re choosing to miss this step because you can’t be arsed.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

I only drive when necessary.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I only drive when necessary.


Not the question - how have you reduced the necessity? Weird you’re refusing to answer.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not the question - how have you reduced the necessity? Weird you’re refusing to answer.



Because it's whataboutery from you - avoiding my original question - why have you not bothered with any training or even assessment of your driving in 25 years?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Because it's whataboutery from you - avoiding my original question - why have you not bothered with any training or even assessment of your driving in 25 years?


Because the risk is reduced by only driving a few times a year. As mentioned that’s the first and most important step on reducing risk and one you’re selfishly ignoring cos you don’t actually give a shit.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

I bet he has driving gloves.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2022)

As someone who used to price car insurance, I can say that the overwhelmingly most important risk factor (at least for those over about 21 years of age) is how much somebody drives. A lot of rating factors are in essence just trying to find correlates for this.  Next most important is where/when people drive (ie driving conditions). Things like extra driving qualifications barely register as risk factors, just as rating factors via proxies for things like attitude to risk — for example, those who care enough to get extra qualifications are broadly also likely to have a more cautious attitude.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Because it's whataboutery from you - avoiding my original question - why have you not bothered with any training or even assessment of your driving in 25 years?


You’re focusing on step four and ignore the first one. Typical selfish driver!


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Because it's whataboutery from you - avoiding my original question - why have you not bothered with any training or even assessment of your driving in 25 years?


Assuming you're waving some IAM qualification around here, why is it appropriate to teach a system designed for police pursuit driving to civilian motorists?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> Assuming you're waving some IAM qualification around here, why is it appropriate to teach a system designed for police pursuit driving to civilian motorists?


Probably a special constable 🤪


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Probably a special constable 🤪


It has some of the same letters as constable.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

Hmmm, I seem to remember edcraw advocating regular retesting, surely this is particularly important for those who only drive rarely.

Yes here it is:



edcraw said:


> Oh dear - a driver (I presume) who doesn’t understand the Highway Code. This is my we need regular retesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When did you last take a retest?


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> Assuming you're waving some IAM qualification around here, why is it appropriate to teach a system designed for police pursuit driving to civilian motorists?



It’s not designed for pursuit driving. Anyway a voluntary mock L test or check test from an ADI should suffice. Anything to check that you have kept abreast of changes to road law and practise, and your driving hasn’t deteriorated since you first learnt decades ago.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Hmmm, I seem to remember edcraw advocating regular retesting, surely this is particularly important for those who only drive rarely.
> 
> Yes here it is:
> 
> ...


Yeah - I think that should happen. 

Again, how are you reducing your driving?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s not designed for pursuit driving. Anyway a voluntary mock L test or check test from an ADI should suffice. Anything to check that you have kept abreast of changes to road law and practise, and your driving hasn’t deteriorated since you first learnt decades ago.


For sure - obviously needs to be compulsory and license confiscated if the test is failed.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - I think that should happen.



Except to you apparently.



edcraw said:


> Again, how are you reducing your driving?



By only driving when necessary, as I said. 

I cycle more than I drive, as I’ve said previously on this thread, which you appear not have read much of.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Except to you apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s mountain biking isn’t it? 🙃


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s not designed for pursuit driving. Anyway a voluntary mock L test or check test from an ADI should suffice. Anything to check that you have kept abreast of changes to road law and practise, and your driving hasn’t deteriorated since you first learnt decades ago.


ADI's teach weird shit and shouldn't be allowed to test people.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> ADI's teach weird shit and shouldn't be allowed to test people.



Agree with you there but it’s better than nothing if you can’t be arsed to seek anything else. At least ADIs know stuff like how a zebra crossing works these days, which teuchter admitted he didn’t know despite driving through them.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It’s mountain biking isn’t it? 🙃



Nope, I only cycle to get to places, which means sticking to roads and paths around here. And I’m not one of those weirdos who insists on using public roads as a personal gym.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Nope, I only cycle to get to places, which means sticking to roads and paths around here. I’m not one of those weirdos who insists on using public roads as a personal gym.


----------



## xenon (Oct 29, 2022)

I just heard Mike Rutherford on the radio. He’s been boring people about cars for 20 years. This two has to be one of the most boring threads ever on urban.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Agree with you there but it’s better than nothing if you can’t be arsed to seek anything else. At least ADIs know stuff like how a zebra crossing works these days, which teuchter admitted he didn’t know despite driving through them.


Only a very small number of motorists will ever do voluntary testing; it should be at least 5 yearly (and preferably annually by the age of 65-70) for everyone.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> Only a very small number of motorists will ever do voluntary testing;



Indeed, although I would have hoped a vocal proponent of retesting who spends lots of time posting online about bad driving would make the effort.



maomao said:


> it should be at least 5 yearly (and preferably annually by the age of 65-70) for everyone.



Sounds good to me.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2022)

I’ve got nothing in principle against retesting every 5 years but I’m 95% convinced it won’t do anything to help. There’s a reason that driving experience effectively ceases to be a rating factor after about 5-7 years. On average, people do over 1000 hours of driving in five years. That is more than sufficient to obtain and maintain competence. More experience doesn’t really help after that unless you’re doing thousands of hours of what psychologists call “deliberate practice”, which no driver does (except maybe racing drivers or something).

What all that means is that anybody that does even a moderate amount of driving (probably a fraction even of that average) will stay at a level of experience that should make it incredibly easy for them to pass a driving test if they just concentrate a bit for 30 minutes. The exceptions will be those people who basically never drive. Maybe it’s satisfying to remove a licence from such people but it won’t really make any difference to road safety because, well, they _don’t drive_. The ones that fail are the very ones we don’t care about anyway, basically.

There’s a decent argument for a retest five years after qualification, because if you have not done enough driving in that time, you’re basically back to being a learner. And there is an argument for testing people beyond an age threshold at which awareness starts to suffer. Testing those in between, though, is going to cost an awful lot, create stress and time problems for people and deliver very little for that overhead.

All this focus on driver ability is an example of the Fundamental Attribution Error — a focus on individual factors rather than the baseline.  Honestly, if you want to improve road safety, the two most effective methods by far will be (1) to reduce the number of miles driven; and (2) to address the conditions under which people drive.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2022)

Might be worth distinguishing between a "driving test" where you concentrate for half an hour on not exposing your bad habits, and some kind of knowledge test which is basically about ensuring everyone is up to date on changes to the highway code every few years. And yes there's an argument for cyclists and scooterists doing the latter, but probably no practicable way of enforcing it. Perhaps there could be a motorist funded incentive scheme.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

It’s not as simple as reducing miles driven. In 2020 during the pandemic we did a big experiment where people drove less but cycled more. In 2020 cyclist deaths increased 43% on the previous year as the total motor vehicle mileage dropped by 22%. 

The reasons for this may be complex, but it seems clear that encouraging drivers to switch to cycling should be done very cautiously, perhaps with due regard to cyclist training.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 29, 2022)

Who's 'we' and where are the stats from out of curiosity? I'm not a driver or a cyclist and use public transport in the North to be transparent.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh, so you are a keen motorist despite your earlier protestation that you only blat down the M5 on holiday occasionally in your highly damaged death trap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nah, only dickheads do advanced driving courses, so they can boast about it in order to impress absolutely no one apart from maybe Alan Partridge


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

stethoscope said:


> Who's 'we' and where are the stats from out of curiosity? I'm not a driver or a cyclist and use public transport in the North to be transparent.



We is society at large, specifically in Great Britain to which the statistics pertain. I got the data for the graph from the DfT website e.g. (1, 2, 3 etc).


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Nah, only dickheads do advanced driving courses, so they can boast about it in order to impress absolutely no one apart from maybe Alan Partridge



Funny how the most dangerous thing most people do regularly apparently warrants no further study or reflection beyond a simple test X decades ago.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2022)

Fun


platinumsage said:


> Funny how the most dangerous thing most people do regularly apparently warrants no further study or reflection beyond a simple test X decades ago.


Funny how the worst most dangerous roadhogs like to boast of their advanced driving quals - put your beige gloves away, brrrm-brrrm boy


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Fun
> 
> Funny how the worst most dangerous roadhogs like to boast of their advanced driving schools. put your beige gloves away



Funny how people just make up random insults instead of address the issue. May as well say "funny how pedestrians need a slap" or something.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Might be worth distinguishing between a "driving test" where you concentrate for half an hour on not exposing your bad habits, and some kind of knowledge test which is basically about ensuring everyone is up to date on changes to the highway code every few years. And yes there's an argument for cyclists and scooterists doing the latter, but probably no practicable way of enforcing it. Perhaps there could be a motorist funded incentive scheme.



Yes, the poor standard of training and testing is why we have to have television adverts telling drivers to stop on the hard shoulder and not the outside lane if they have a mechanical problem on the motorway.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

If anyone wants to think a bit more about their driving without doing a police-derived Alan Partridge wankers course this book might be a good start, written by a software engineer not an ex-police interceptor or whatever:






						9781873371169: Mind Driving: New Skills for Staying Alive on the Road - Haley, Stephen: 1873371160 - AbeBooks
					

Mind Driving: New Skills for Staying Alive on the Road by Haley, Stephen at AbeBooks.co.uk - ISBN 10:  1873371160 - ISBN 13:  9781873371169 - DIA Publishing - 2006 - Softcover



					www.abebooks.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, the poor standard of training and testing is why we have to have television adverts telling drivers to stop on the hard shoulder and not the outside lane if they have a mechanical problem on the motorway.


The level of training and testing is where it is in order that pretty much anyone can pass, because we have built ourselves a fundamentally unsafe system of transport and then made lots of things dependent on nearly anyone being able to use it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2022)

"I'm a special driver, I took an _advanced driving _course"


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

Platinumsage getting his IAM certificate. He put his best tie and fleece combo on for the test.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The level of training and testing is where it is in order that pretty much anyone can pass, because we have built ourselves a fundamentally unsafe system of transport and then made lots of things dependent on nearly anyone being able to use it.


Of course, and you don’t need an advanced driving course or a big powerful car to do your weekly shop at some grim out of town tesco. It's just Ego.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

There are several things that worry me about advanced motoring courses. Drivers that have done them have told me they've been instructed to drive slightly above the speed limit and 'take a commanding position on the road'. No organisation should be teaching non adherence to the Highway Code or telling people that they should behave differently from other drivers. 

More worryingly, because it's a small, motivated group of drivers it sets them up as 'experts' giving out dodgy advice to other drivers, often many years after they did the silly course.

There should be a single testing authority and it should start with absolute adherence to the Highway Code.


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 29, 2022)

And don’t forget there was a study where 88% of men rated themselves above average drivers. Presumably their self-diagnosed giftedness allows them to drive faster and more dangerously …


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The level of training and testing is where it is in order that pretty much anyone can pass, because we have built ourselves a fundamentally unsafe system of transport and then made lots of things dependent on nearly anyone being able to use it.



Obviously your ideal scenario of a hundred-fold increase in bus movements combined with a hundred-fold increase in cycling wouldn't be fundamentally unsafe at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> And don’t forget there was a study where 88% of men rated themselves above average drivers. Presumably their self-diagnosed giftedness allows them to drive faster and more dangerously …



Yes as I've said previosuly on this thread most people posting on it appear not just to be above-average drivers, but exceptionally gifted drivers who despite claiming to drive only occasionally never make any sort of mistake at all.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> There are several things that worry me about advanced motoring courses. Drivers that have done them have told me they've been instructed to drive slightly above the speed limit and 'take a commanding position on the road'. No organisation should be teaching non adherence to the Highway Code or telling people that they should behave differently from other drivers.
> 
> More worryingly, because it's a small, motivated group of drivers it sets them up as 'experts' giving out dodgy advice to other drivers, often many years after they did the silly course.
> 
> There should be a single testing authority and it should start with absolute adherence to the Highway Code.



I've never heard of that or encoutnered anything like it, although it probably happens a lot on advanced motorbike courses.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Obviously your ideal scenario of a hundred-fold increase in bus movements combined with a hundred-fold increase in cycling wouldn't be fundamentally unsafe at all.


I'm not sure anyone's planning on 380% of Londoners commuting by bike, much less 4600% of them using public transport.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'm not sure anyone's planning on 380% of Londoners commuting by bike, much less 4600% of them using public transport.



I was talking vehicle miles, rather than proportions or journey numbers or whatever.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I was talking vehicle miles, rather than proportions or journey numbers or whatever.


That makes even less sense. People who already rely on bicycles and public transport would have to increase their mileage.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> That makes even less sense. People who already rely on bicycles and public transport would have to increase their mileage.



No, all the existing car drivers would enter the fray, travelling far more by bus and by cycle than existing bus and cycle users.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh, so you are a keen motorist despite your earlier protestation that you only blat down the M5 on holiday occasionally in your highly damaged death trap.


Not quite sure why my car is a "damaged death trap" but hey ho.

As for keen motorist - I've always said I like cars. I love the history, the design, the engineering. I've done loads of track days in everything from Caterhams to various supercars to single seaters. Have had session on a skidpan and multiple advance instruction sessions.

I've driven large vans and 7.5t trucks as part of how I make a living for over 15 years, and hold a CPC for such. 

Here's the bit that your brain can't probably compute though - it's possible to do all of the above and still acknowledge that cars as a tool for to get around in our cities are an utterly terrible idea.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, all the existing car drivers would enter the fray, travelling far more by bus and by cycle than existing bus and cycle users.


I was going to ask for your workings out but you're just pulling it out of your arse again aren't you.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> I was going to ask for your workings out but you're just pulling it out of your arse again aren't you.



Not quite sure how you think teuchter's car-banning is going to work if existing car users only travel less by bus and by cycle than existing bus and cycle users. Presumably it would involve some sort of forced relocation of millions of people to urban tower-blocks next to tube stations.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Here's the bit that your brain can't probably compute though - it's possible to do all of the above and still acknowledge that cars as a tool for to get around in our cities are an utterly terrible idea.



Hmm, I must have forgotten the bit where I said cars were great for intra-city transport. It might surprise some people on here, but many city-dwellers do sometimes leave their cities, and find that a car is by far the most suitable and efficient vehicle for the task.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not quite sure how you think teuchter's car-banning is going to work if existing car users only travel less by bus and by cycle than existing bus and cycle users. Presumably it would involve some sort of forced relocation of millions of people to urban tower-blocks next to tube stations.


I'm disputing a 'hundredfold' increase not any increase.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'm disputing a 'hundredfold' increase not any increase.



Substitute "a largefold" if it makes you happier, my point still stands.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Hmm, I must have forgotten the bit where I said cars were great for intra-city transport. It might surprise some people on here, but many city-dwellers do sometimes leave their cities, and find that a car is by far the most suitable and efficient vehicle for the task.


Go back to the start of the thread, read though it all, slowly.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Go back to the start of the thread, read though it all, slowly.



Oh I'm the only person who has read it all.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Oh I'm the only person who has read it all.


I could read a doctorate thesis on advanced quantum theory, I wouldn't necessarily understand it though.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I could read a doctorate thesis on advanced quantum theory, I wouldn't necessarily understand it though.



Go on then.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Substitute "a largefold" if it makes you happier, my point still stands.


No it doesn't. Bicycles tend to be safer when there are more of them. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a large increase in cycling or buses.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It’s not as simple as reducing miles driven. In 2020 during the pandemic we did a big experiment where people drove less but cycled more. In 2020 cyclist deaths increased 43% on the previous year as the total motor vehicle mileage dropped by 22%.
> 
> The reasons for this may be complex, but it seems clear that encouraging drivers to switch to cycling should be done very cautiously, perhaps with due regard to cyclist training.
> 
> ...


So you’re pointing out that at a time when loads more people cycled, some extra cyclists died?  Surely this needs measuring as a proportion of cyclist-miles, not pure deaths. If there were twice as many cyclists but only 40% more deaths, that would suggest the inverse of your inference.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

maomao said:


> No it doesn't. Bicycles tend to be safer when there are more of them. There's nothing inherently dangerous about a large increase in cycling or buses.



There were more bicycles during the pandemic yet lots more fatalities, so that's clearly wrong. As to buses they are more dangerous to pedestrians per mile than any other vehicle type. Asserting that a massive increase in bicycle use and bus use wouldn't be "fundamentally unsafe" is clearly wrong.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> buses they are more dangerous to pedestrians per mile than any other vehicle type.


Passenger mile or vehicle mile? You don't get a bus each you know.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There were more bicycles during the pandemic yet lots more fatalities, so that's clearly wrong. As to buses they are more dangerous to pedestrians per mile than any other vehicle type. Asserting that a massive increase in bicycle use and bus use wouldn't be "fundamentally unsafe" is clearly wrong.


Tell that to the Dutch/Danish/Belgians/Melbas and wait for the laughter and mocking (though that will probs just be from the Melbas, as the North Europeans would probably just confine their mocking feelings to a wry quizzical look)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> There were more bicycle during the pandemic yet lots more fatalities, so that's clearly wrong. As to buses they are more dangerous to pedestrians per mile than any other vehicle type. Asserting that a massive increase in bicycle use and bus use wouldn't be "fundamentally unsafe" is clearly wrong.


What you’re also missing is motorists speeding on the emptier roads, during a time of great pressure on the NHS.


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 29, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Tell that to the Dutch/Danish/Belgians/Melbas and wait for the laughter and mocking (though that will probs just be from the Melbas, as the North Europeans would probably just confine their mocking feelings to a wry quizzical look)



Funny you should mention Belgium. That’s a high outlier for both pedestrian fatalities per km and cycling fatalities per km, a far more dangerous place to do either activity than the UK.

I don’t have bus data to hand so can’t comment on the rest of your conjecture.


----------



## maomao (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I don’t have bus data to hand so can’t comment on the rest of your conjecture.


Luckily I do. Despite buses being more dangerous to pedestrians per vehicle kilometre, cars are four times as dangerous per passenger kilometre. 









						Traveling by Bus Instead of Car on Urban Major Roads: Safety Benefits for Vehicle Occupants, Pedestrians, and Cyclists
					

Some studies have estimated fatality and injury rates for bus occupants, but data was aggregated at the country level and made no distinction between bus types. Also, injured pedestrians and cyclists, as a result of bus travel, were overlooked. We compared ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Funny you should mention Belgium. That’s a high outlier for both pedestrian fatalities per km and cycling fatalities per km, a far more dangerous place to do either activity than the UK.
> 
> I don’t have bus data to hand so can’t comment on the rest of your conjecture.


Perhaps look at the cycle-friendly towns then - such as Antwerp


----------



## edcraw (Oct 30, 2022)

They’ve made changes to a junction in Edinburgh but tons of drivers happily ignoring it and driving the wrong way down a one way street. Selfish bastards.


----------



## mojo pixy (Oct 30, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Nah, only dickheads do advanced driving courses, so they can boast about it in order to impress absolutely no one apart from maybe Alan Partridge


I have to admit I did an advanced driving course years ago. I'd had crashes and I decided I needed and wanted to drive better. I wanted better habits and to feel safer. It honestly helped me, even though now I don't have a car and only occasionally drive for work. I don't brag about it, but I can say for sure it made me a more attentive, cautious driver. I think it made me a more attentive, cautious cyclist too, the road awareness benefits are the same for both. I wouldn't recommend the IAM, who I did mine with, because I got a really cunty vibe from almost everyone except this one instructor, but there are other courses. Personally, I'd always recommend doing one because knowing what I know now, it's clear the standard test really is bare-minimum stuff. A lot of this very thread testifies to that anyway.

So yeah, cunty braggart car dickheads are one thing but actually better drivers are another.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 31, 2022)

On the danger side of things, cycling is very beneficial for your health:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2022)

kabbes said:


> So you’re pointing out that at a time when loads more people cycled, some extra cyclists died?  Surely this needs measuring as a proportion of cyclist-miles, not pure deaths. If there were twice as many cyclists but only 40% more deaths, that would suggest the inverse of your inference.


Guess what - the inverse of platinumsage's inference is indeed suggested.










						Reported road casualties Great Britain, provisional results: 2020
					






					www.gov.uk
				




According to that report, some facts about 2020, the year when everyone drove less:


total number of fatalities by road user type went down for every type except cyclists
total number of casualties by road user type went down for every type including cyclists
looking at total fatalities: although 40 additional cyclists were killed, 112 fewer car occupants were killed, 54 fewer motorcyclists were killed, 115 fewer pedestrians were killed.
in total 25,219 fewer car occupants were injured. 2,654 fewer motorcyclists were injured. 654 fewer cyclists were injured. 7,053 fewer pedestrians were injured.
cycling became safer, with a 4% reduction in deaths per mile travelled and a massive 34% reduction in casualties per mile travelled
bus and coach travel became significantly safer at least in terms of casualties.


So as far as I can see, the main finding of the "experiment" was that if everyone drives less, and lots more people cycle, much fewer people get killed (about 241 fewer people) or injured (about 35,500 people), and cycling becomes a significantly safer mode of transport.

platinumsage's conclusion:



> _*encouraging drivers to switch to cycling should be done very cautiously, perhaps with due regard to cyclist training*_


----------



## platinumsage (Oct 31, 2022)

A gentle commuting comparison, (or insidious propaganda):


----------



## bcuster (Oct 31, 2022)




----------



## maomao (Oct 31, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A gentle commuting comparison, (or insidious propaganda):



Tokyo looks more livable. I've lived in an Asian megacity and a US sprawl and the US was much harder. Even though we had a car (not mine, I was 12-13) it always felt so isolated. I'd been round London on buses and tubes but couldn't really get anywhere without a lift.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 2, 2022)

Last time I stayed with my Aunt and Uncle in Connecticut, they had to drive _everywhere - _groceries, doctors... And they're hitting their mid 70s with no family and having to think about what happens if they're unable to drive. Felt proper isolating to me.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

Lots of brief clips at the start of this video but I'm interested in the longer one from 00:48 onward where the cyclist is interviewed. What do you think were the things done wrong before the crash, and how could each of the parties involved avoided it and what can they both learn for the future?









						Driver and cyclist near misses caught on camera
					

New research by BBC Panorama highlights the strained relationship between the road users.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of brief clips at the start of this video but I'm interested in the longer one from 00:48 onward where the cyclist is interviewed. What do you think were the things done wrong before the crash, and how could each of the parties involved avoided it and what can they both learn for the future?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are your views?

And why are you so focused on that one rather than any of the others?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What are your views?
> 
> And why are you so focused on that one rather than any of the others?



Apparently people are bored of my views so I’m in interested in how others would approach this.

I’m focused on that one clip because it’s the only one that is longer than a couple of seconds and for which a person involved is interviewed.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Lots of brief clips at the start of this video but I'm interested in the longer one from 00:48 onward where the cyclist is interviewed. What do you think were the things done wrong before the crash, and how could each of the parties involved avoided it and what can they both learn for the future?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From the limited oblique view available in the video, it appears that neither of them were using the roundabout properly. It seems the cyclist thought he had priority, but it looks like he might not have. It seems strange he did not go around the back of the car. Exactly what happened is impossible to discern. I imagine there is lengthy discussion elsewhere on the internet.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Apparently people are bored of my views so I’m in interested in how others would approach this.


🎉


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

Love that they had to scrap the barrel with Rod Liddell when finding folks to rant about cyclists!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> From the limited oblique view available in the video, it appears that neither of them were using the roundabout properly. It seems the cyclist thought he had priority, but it looks like he might not have. It seems strange he did not go around the back of the car. Exactly what happened is impossible to discern. I imagine there is lengthy discussion elsewhere on the internet.



As I see it they both committed three violations of the law as set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016 -

Car driver violates:

_"a vehicle entering the junction must give priority to vehicles coming from the right at the transverse road marking"_

Cyclist violates:

_"vehicular traffic approaching [such] a junction should give way at, or immediately beyond, the line to traffic circulating on the carriageway of the roundabout" _

Both violate:

_"a vehicle proceeding through the junction must keep to the left of the white circle"

"no vehicle is to proceed past the [white circle] in a manner, or at a time, likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident."_

I think the words of the cyclist at the end are important: "I now don't trust any drivers so I'm much more twitchy around vehicles until the moment I'm sure they've stopped, seen me and are not pulling out." That's probably how most sensible novice cyclists approach things.

Who'd have thunk it was so hard for two people to use a junction? I assume therefore that when self-driving cars (and tricycles or whatever) become the norm, cyclists will have to be banned from most roads.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I see it they both committed three violations of the law as set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016 -
> 
> Car driver violates:
> 
> ...



Come on mate - that didn’t last very long 😮‍💨



platinumsage said:


> Apparently people are bored of my views so I’m in interested in how others would approach this.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Come on mate - that didn’t last very long 😮‍💨



I invited you to engage but you repeatedly deflected. You can still redeem yourself and comment on the incident should you actually want to.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I invited you to engage but you repeatedly deflected. You can still redeem yourself and comment on the incident should you actually want to.


I just want you to stick to your earlier promise but a troll’s gotta troll I guess 🤷


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I just want you to stick to your earlier promise but a troll’s gotta troll I guess 🤷



Where did I promise anything


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I see it they both committed three violations of the law as set out in the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016 -
> 
> Car driver violates:
> 
> ...


Thanks for contributing your fascinating commentary to the thread. It took the number of replies from 9,351 to 9,352.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Thanks for contributing your fascinating commentary to the thread. It took the number of replies from 9,351 to 9,352.



Have another one, although I can’t compete with edcraw who turned your attempts at assembling a coherent argument for banning cars globally into a succession of third-rate videos of cyclists committing minor traffic violations.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)




----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

It was a shit program, typical BBC "impartiality" where they grab some randoms from each side of an absurd divide, call that "balance", and make out that they the two groups are representive of the general population. See Brexit etc.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

I learnt a long time ago to not watch Panorama.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 3, 2022)

Well if they do many drivers want cyclists banned maybe we should…. ban cars! LOL


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I learnt a long time ago to not watch Panorama.



I haven't watched Panorama since the BBC dumbed down Horizon in around 2007, starting with that episode where they got a comedian to talk about monkeys.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 4, 2022)

This sort of thing makes you realise roads will prob never be safe enough for a 5yr to cycle to school. Very depressing.


----------



## maomao (Nov 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This sort of thing makes you realise roads will prob never be safe enough for a 5yr to cycle to school. Very depressing.



They aren't (because drivers are cunts) and he shouldn't have. That's a step too far for me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2022)

I dunno. I don’t think kids that age should be on the road.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

So kids should not be cycling to school then? Best all drive…

Drivers constantly moaning about LTNs adding a few minutes to their journeys but walking a kid to school for 30mins would take minutes if it could be cycled but can’t be done cos we’ve just given up roads to cars. Truly selfish.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Tell that to the ...Melbas ..


 The who?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

Fucks’ sake do they really think a five year old has the capability to safely make such assertive decisions?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Fucks’ sake do they really think a five year old has the capability to safely make such assertive decisions?



What’s the solution? Break the law and ride on the pavement, remove parking to create cycle lanes, ban cars… or everyone drive and fuck those that can’t afford it!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What’s the solution? Break the law and ride on the pavement, remove parking to create cycle lanes, ban cars… or everyone drive and fuck those that can’t afford it!


Banning cars is the best solution.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What’s the solution? Break the law and ride on the pavement, remove parking to create cycle lanes, ban cars… or everyone drive and fuck those that can’t afford it!



I walked to school from age 5, pretty sure most primary schools are within walking distance.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What’s the solution? Break the law and ride on the pavement, remove parking to create cycle lanes, ban cars… or everyone drive and fuck those that can’t afford it!


Less choice of school with people obliged, within reason, to go to one of the closest schools to where they live; walking buses; segregated bike lanes; car-free roads. But no five year olds in traffic.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I walked to school from age 5, pretty sure most primary schools are within walking distance.


Yeah, it was rare to see kids been driven to school when I was a kid, we all just walked. Not sure of the distance but probably a 15 or 20 minute walk.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I walked to school from age 5, pretty sure most primary schools are within walking distance.


Yet you see tons of cars outside them?!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yet you see tons of cars outside them?!



They should charge for school drop-offs like they do airport drop-offs, but base the charge on a percentage of parents' incomes.

Thankfully though you don't see tons of five-year olds being urged by their parents to cycle directly at oncoming cars to force them to stop.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Yeah, it was rare to see kids been driven to school when I was a kid, we all just walked. Not sure of the distance but probably a 15 or 20 minute walk.


That’s my point - tons of drivers moan about a few minutes getting added on to their journeys by LTNs yet parents without cars need to find over and hour a day walking their kids to school!? 

By enabling safe cycling we’d save those parents like 45mins a day! Somehow drivers convenience always comes out on top and god forbid anyone questions it.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> They should charge for school drop-offs like they do airport drop-offs, but base the charge on a percentage of parents' incomes.


You’ve missed the huge backlash to airports charging for drop offs then?

Or the seemingly unquestionable right for drivers to have free parking at all hospitals.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’ve missed the huge backlash to airports charging for drop offs then?
> 
> Or the seemingly unquestionable right for drivers to have free parking at all hospitals.



I'm not sure I agree with airport drop-off charges, often a car is the most sensible mode of transport to an airport and such charges are typically just attempts to line the pockets of shareholders. There are primary schools within walking distance of the vast majority of homes, so it's not comparable.

I don't agree with blanket free hospital parking either.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> That’s my point - tons of drivers moan about a few minutes getting added on to their journeys by LTNs yet parents without cars need to find over and hour a day walking their kids to school!?
> 
> By enabling safe cycling we’d save those parents like 45mins a day! Somehow drivers convenience always comes out on top and god forbid anyone questions it.


I agree with this but that wasn't safe cycling. It's all very well claiming moral superiority but it's going to feel a little hollow when the kid's dead or maimed.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> I agree with this but that wasn't safe cycling. It's all very well claiming moral superiority but it's going to feel a little hollow when the kid's dead or maimed.


Its certainly not safe driving.

How can we make it safe to cycle rather than just let cars bully people into stopping.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Its certainly not safe driving.


Predictable and far from unusual though. Bullies should be stood up to, just not by five-year-olds.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> Predictable and far from unusual though. Bullies should be stood up to, just not by five-year-olds.


It looks like this road should have a lane of parking removed and a cycle lane put in. I can only imagine the outrage though.

The usual mob are outrage around here about a cycle lane on Streatham Hill where there are currently 6 lanes of traffic 😮‍💨


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> I dunno. I don’t think kids that age should be on the road.


Because…?


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

Surely it's possible to think that roads should be safe enough for kids without thinking that the way to achieve that is sending five year olds out onto the cunty roads we actually have.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What’s the solution? Break the law and ride on the pavement, remove parking to create cycle lanes, ban cars… or everyone drive and fuck those that can’t afford it!


Cycle lanes for kids and cyclists who don’t mind going slowly


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because…?


Too dangerous


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> Surely it's possible to think that roads should be safe enough for kids without thinking that the way to achieve that is sending five year olds out onto the cunty roads we actually have.


So what should they do until we get safer roads? Drive?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So what should they do until we get safer roads? Drive?


I don’t think children should be allowed to drive on the road either


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So what should they do until we get safer roads? Drive?


I reckon there's almost always a better choice than either but I'd be more approving of a trailer or a bolt on bike than asking a five year old to make life and death decisions.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

The car lobby’s just crazy - too many cars is never the problem.












						Vincent Stops: The cycling lobby has been allowed to ruin London's bus service - OnLondon
					

Between 2000 and 2008 London’s bus services were transformed. There were more buses, more bus routes and, critically, services were more reliable. An unreliable and often overcrowded service was transformed into one of the best in the world. Buses were fully accessible, operated 24/7 across the...




					www.onlondon.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

My (four and seven year old) kids ride scooters or walk to school and if they take their bikes to the park they ride there on the pavement (and I walk). Anyone who objects to a supervised five year old riding a bike on the pavement is a wanker anyway.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

Children are fine to ride on the pavement until age 10, that being the age of criminal responsibility from which they can be prosecuted for the offence. Not sure what the best age to start properly riding on the road is though - I didn't learn to ride a bike until I was 13, at which point I then kept going out for 30 mile round trips into the countryside and managed ok, so probably less than 13 for riding to school.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2022)

Children aren’t just small adults with less experience. The very way they process and understand the world goes through developmental stages. A five year old is so early in that developmental process that, at least in western countries where Piaget’s model broadly holds, they’ll still be in what is called the “preoperational stage”. That means they struggle with the perspective of others and have a very literal, concrete understanding of the world, ie they struggle with symbolic meaning. These characteristics make them highly inappropriate users of the road in anything other than a heavily supervised capacity.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

Some five year olds even need supervision crossing the road. They can’t judge speed and distance as well as older children and adults (many adults are shit at it too tbf, judging from my observations)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Too dangerous


Because…?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because…?


Cars


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

How many posts and no comment about the atrocious, dangerous & selfish driving. Just accepted.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Cars


Exactly. We’re back to the “I have to drive my kid to school because all the cars make it dangerous otherwise” argument. It’s mental.

Then if you suggest that maybe speed limits should be lowered further, all pavement parking banned, LTN’s everywhere and segregated bike paths should be built on every road, you get told that’s not possible because… cars.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Exactly. We’re back to the “I have to drive my kid to school because all the cars make it dangerous otherwise” argument. It’s mental.
> 
> Then if you suggest that maybe speed limits should be lowered further, all pavement parking banned, LTN’s everywhere and segregated bike paths should be built on every road, you get told that’s not possible because… cars.


I don't see how the answer to that is sending five-year-olds into traffic. If parents want to save time organise walking buses. I have four primary schools within five-year-old walking distance . If you can't walk to school why are you going to that school?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> How many posts and no comment about the atrocious, dangerous & selfish driving. Just accepted.



"None of those Muslims condemned the suicide bombing yet, they must support it"


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2022)

5 is simply too young to be able to deal with the reality of what the UK's roads are like. If there's a segregated bike route to school, let the 5 year old cycle. If not, put them in a trailer. None of this is incompatible with calling for safer roads and better cycle infrastructure.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> How many posts and no comment about the atrocious, dangerous & selfish driving. Just accepted.


Because that's not the stand out bad behaviour in that video, it's the cunt sending his own kid, who's barely higher than a car door handle, into UK traffic without so much as a flag to draw attention to him. Someone should send social services round.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Cars


And children being children


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> Because that's not the stand out bad behaviour in that video, it's the cunt sending his own kid, who's barely higher than a car door handle, into UK traffic without so much as a flag to draw attention to him. Someone should send social services round.


Really? A driver driving straight at a kid isn’t the bad behaviour? As I said it’s just accepted. Depressing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> If you can't walk to school why are you going to that school?


Because life isn’t always that simple.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "None of those Muslims condemned the suicide bombing yet, they must support it"


More like “the human being didn’t condemn the suicide bomber - we’ve just come to accept suicide bombers as always going to happen”


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because life isn’t always that simple.


Yet if you try stop someone driving kids to school you’re some middle class nimby 😮‍💨


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> More like “the human being didn’t condemn the suicide bomber - we’ve just come to accept suicide bombers as always going to happen”



Erm, no. Demanding condemnation from everyone and judging them when the don't offer it doesn't say anything about anyone's views but your own.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> More like “the human being didn’t condemn the suicide bomber - we’ve just come to accept suicide bombers as always going to happen”


It's more like 'Russia shouldn't have invaded Ukraine so let's send the kids unarmed to Kherson'.


edcraw said:


> Really? A driver driving straight at a kid isn’t the bad behaviour? As I said it’s just accepted. Depressing.



I'm not impressed by the driving but I see worse regularly (which is why my kids would never be in that situation). And any driver that does drive into that kid has the ready made excuse that he's exceptionally close to  the ground with no flag. 



beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because life isn’t always that simple.


So you'd have been happy sending your kids out at that age on that bike on that road? Both parents agreed on that?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2022)

Five year old children shouldn’t be cycling in the road even if there is precisely zero school traffic. It’s still a road with cars in it, even if those cars are infrequent. Plus even in a better word, that road would still have other users, like adult cyclists. Five year-olds are developmentally not equipped to handle that.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

There’s a difference between saying a 5yr old shouldn’t cycle on roads and a 5yr shouldn’t cycle to school.

I tend the agree with the first (depends on the road) but certainly not the second.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> There’s a difference between saying a 5yr old shouldn’t cycle on roads and a 5yr shouldn’t cycle to school.
> 
> I tend the agree with the first (depends on the road) but certainly not the second.


Who is arguing that a five year old shouldn’t cycle to school?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> So you'd have been happy sending your kids out at that age on that bike on that road? Both parents agreed on that?


I regularly ride on roads with my now 7 year old and have done since he was able to ride a bike. We ride 2 abreast, in primary position everywhere. That way I can either ride forward of, or drop back behind him as and when the situation requires.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I regularly ride on roads with my now 7 year old and have done since he was able to ride a bike. We ride 2 abreast, in primary position everywhere. That way I can either ride forward of, or drop back behind him as and when the situation requires.


Any visual aids on his bike? Would you have approached the above situation behind him or stayed on his right to block the car?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> Any visual aids on his bike? Would you have approached the above situation behind him or stayed on his right to block the car?


What do you mean by visual aids? Really don’t think it’s a problem of the driver seeing the kid.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

maomao said:


> Any visual aids on his bike? Would you have approached the above situation behind him or stayed on his right to block the car?


Visual aid - yeah, it’s a bike with a boy sat on it.

In the situation above I’d have blocked the car, forcing it to stop.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Who is arguing that a five year old shouldn’t cycle to school?


Well we should change the law if we’re saying they should use the pavement.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What do you mean by visual aids? Really don’t think it’s a problem of the driver seeing the kid.


A flag like a recumbent bike has. His head's about 1m20 off the ground and about the same height as the bottom of the passenger window.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well we should change the law if we’re saying they should use the pavement.


As has already been mentioned, no five year old is ever going to get into trouble for riding on the pavement.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2022)

kabbes said:


> As has already been mentioned, no five year old is ever going to get into trouble for riding on the pavement.


I can assure you that plenty of dickheads will get aggressive at the parent riding with them though.


----------



## maomao (Nov 5, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Visual aid - yeah, it’s a bike with a boy sat on it.
> 
> In the situation above I’d have blocked the car, forcing it to stop.


I suppose having a proficient adult makes it safer and definitely better than the twat in the video hanging back to get it all on film. But there are a hundred child cycling deaths and a quarter of a million injuries a year in this country. My own seven and a half year old ran ahead without looking into a carpark where she's been told dozens of times to stay with me, because she saw her friend and got excited last night. I think you're nuts and I genuinely hope that no harm comes to your kid.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

kabbes said:


> As has already been mentioned, no five year old is ever going to get into trouble for riding on the pavement.


It’s still illegal though. Should we pick and choice the laws we obey.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> The who?


Melbournians 
Incidentally just seen a three hour film of someone driving around the outskirts of Melbourne and was impressed by the cycle bridges across the main roads. Weird but interesting system for filtering traffic onto main roads as well


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2022)

The fact is - unfortunately - that cycling on the road with motor traffic is risky, including for adults. If this weren't the case, there would be no need for things like segregated cycle lanes.

Of course, this doesn't mean no-one should do it (or that the risk should be exaggerated). But everyone has to make their own decision on what level of risk is ok... including for their kids.

This is one of the reasons I think it's important for transport policy or expectations never to be based only on cycling. Cycling must always be part of a range of alternatives presented to people, which must include walking and public transport.

This can be a bit of a problem sometimes, because cycling advocacy groups are often some of the most effective in influencing policy. To be clear, I've got nothing against forceful cycling advocacy in itself. Even schemes primarily addressing cycling infrastructure usually have side benefits for pedestrians, and it's all an important part of the wider aim of displacing private motorists as the group who have the biggest say in how our roads and streets operate.

But you can end up with people so focused on cycling that everything transport related gets seen from the perspective of "can it be done by bike".

If we are talking about getting kids to school then I would say the most important thing is making sure it can be done without private car. That means looking at public transport and also looking at how far schools are from pupils' homes. Ideally in urban areas it should be walkable. Provisions for cycling should always be complementary to these more important things. It should never become the main alternative to car use, because not everyone is able to cycle, and not everyone should be expected to accept the risk involved (which will depend on a whole load of factors).

The point Im trying to make here is perhaps a slightly vague one, but I guess what I'm getting at is that an expectation of "your 5 year old can cycle to school" is one that should never be set up. You can end up making the choice one that is between car and cycling, whilst not acknowledging that the latter is risky. Yes, it's risky mainly because of motorist behaviour (and many assumptions that will not change quickly) but that's irrelevant to the choice of whether your kid cycles to school or not.

Actually I think it's the same for adults - you should not set up an expectation that an adult should cycle to work either - absolutely you should make it an option for those who want to, and encourage as many people to do it as possible - but there should always be walking and public transport there as the priorities.

Whenever I see promo material for traffic related schemes I have a look at the imagery used ... is it all focused around cheerful cyclists or is it also showing happy pedestrians and bus services and so on. Sometimes I feel there's an overemphasis on the cycling component.

Some of the discussion around this video also seems a bit tunnel-vision. Yes, the driver should have given more room or stopped. Yes it would be great if we could make our streets safe enough that a 5 year old could cycle unprotected like that. But the dad's expectation - that he should be able to get his kid to school in that manner - is unrealistic, and his indignation misdirected. It would be more useful to talk about why that is how he is taking the kid to school - is it because there is no bus service? Get that fixed first. More parents and small kids will benefit from folk getting angry about lack of public transport, than getting angry about what happens when they let their 5 year old cycle through traffic. Is it because it's too far to walk? As others have mentioned, having kids going to faraway schools is a problem in itself.

What I've written above, of course, opens the field for certain people who want to say things like "Aha! So, by the above logic, when you say we must ban all cars everywhere immediately, that is stupid, because it's unrealistic".


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 5, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Melbournians
> Incidentally just seen a three hour film of someone driving around the outskirts of Melbourne and was impressed by the cycle bridges across the main roads. Weird but interesting system for filtering traffic onto main roads as well


I wondered if that was what you meant. Have to say in ten years living in Australia, five in Victorian never heard of Melbas - except for the Dame. BTW it's Melburnians, they are quite particular on that .

Is Melbourne meant to be a good cycling city then?
Like I say I lived in Vic for five years, but outside Melbourne - so my experience of travelling around the city is as a pedestrian and public transport user.

I'd say the public transport of Melbourne was probably on par with London (through again no experience as someone who has actually lived in the city for any length of time). Perth was not quite so good, but probably a little above average compared with most major UK cities.
The free hop-on, hop-off tram service around Melbourne CDB was good, Perth had something similar with buses (maybe still does? Chairman Meow ) and is something more UK cities should do. Manchester has the free shuttle buses but that is the only UK city I know that has some sort of free city centre transport.

EDIT: I think things are improving for us Loiners though - the pedestrianisation of City Square is a very good move


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

Another driver in Brixton getting into trouble by driving on the pavement!

Poorly designed car or incompetent driver? Or both?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Another driver in Brixton getting into trouble by driving on the pavement!
> 
> Poorly designed car or incompetent driver? Or both?




At least no one was hurt like when a bus did a similar thing the other day:


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> At least no one was hurt like when a bus did a similar thing the other day:
> 
> View attachment 350444



That's unfortunate but buses are a far safer method of transportation than cars no matter how you fiddle the figures.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> At least no one was hurt like when a bus did a similar thing the other day:
> 
> View attachment 350444


Yep - some terrible bus drivers out there. Hope the driver loses their licence. Doesn’t seem a similar thing though.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yep - some terrible bus drivers out there are t there. Better training needed. Doesn’t seem a similar thing though.



Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.


I changed it after reading that it was rather different from the bollard incident. Should have licence taken away.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes I've noticed that bus drivers make unfortunate mistakes and need more training while car drivers are just reckless idiots.


Well we need buses, we don't need private cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> Well we need buses, we don't need private cars.



Who is "we"?


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who is "we"?


Us.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Who is "we"?


Society.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

As I said on, I don't know, page 94: no one has yet demonstrated how we can replace all the private cars with buses without being North Korea.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

stethoscope said:


> Society.


Platty Sage presumably subscribes to the Thatcher view of society.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I said on, I don't know, page 94: no one has yet demonstrated how we can replace all the private cars with buses without being North Korea.


What does that even mean? I don't have a car and yet I'm considerably better off both materially and socially than a North Korean. None of that wealth or freedom is dependant on others' private motor vehicles.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> What does that even mean? I don't have a car and yet I'm considerably better off both materially and socially than a North Korean. None of that wealth or freedom is dependant on others' private motor vehicles.



It would take a North Korean level of repression and consequent deprivation of wealth and freedom to ban all private cars in the UK and replace them with buses. North Korea is the only country that has banned private cars for a reason. Unless you have a plan of how it could reasonably be done otherwise?

And yes everyone knows it's possible to live within the range of those nice TfL red buses and not own a car.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> As I said on, I don't know, page 94: no one has yet demonstrated how we can replace all the private cars with buses without being North Korea.


You build a comprehensive, nationalised public transport system, free at the point of use.

There you go, that wasn’t so hard.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You build a comprehensive, nationalised public transport system, free at the point of use.
> 
> There you go, that wasn’t so hard.


Stalinist!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2022)

I should note I'm not some fervent anti-car person, and understand that the way we've ordered our economics, spaces, communities, workplaces, etc. over 50 years has meant that people don't have an awful lot of choice other than a car, especially with the continual lack of investment and priority for public transport systems, cycle networks, etc.

But surely people can see that we've got ourselves into a huge hole here? Back in the 90s and the protest movement it was clear that forever building more highways, bypasses ontop of bypasses, new housing developments miles away from amenities, and forever encouraging individualist car use at the cost of public transport was on a 'road to nowhere'.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It would take a North Korean level of repression and consequent deprivation of wealth and freedom to ban all private cars in the UK and replace them with buses. North Korea is the only country that has banned private cars for a reason. Unless you have a plan of how it could reasonably be done otherwise?


This is just meaningless piffle and a refusal to recognise the many environmental, social and health benefits of public transport over private cars. Yes, it would take wider changes than just getting rid of the cars but no that doesn't mean we would embark on a programme of _juche_. 

You're floundering around because you wanted to do your buses are dangerous thing but it doesn't work because buses are literally one of the safest methods of transport available.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You build a comprehensive, nationalised public transport system, free at the point of use.
> 
> There you go, that wasn’t so hard.



How does this work?

Say I live near Diss station and start an 8am shift at Battlies Green industrial estate near Bury St Edmunds on Monday.

Currently this takes 1 day 13 hours by bus and train (or 4 hours 21 minutes if I'm happy to arrive at 6pm on Saturday).

By car it's 28 minutes.

How would a comprehensive public transport system make all these types journeys reasonably practical? How many buses would this involve and how many people would be on each bus. What would this cost?

When I asked last time it involved the mass relocation of millions of people.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

London’s taxi trade really seems to have a death wish - crazy stuff.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How does this work?
> 
> Say I live near Diss station and start an 8am shift at Battlies Green industrial estate near Bury St Edmunds on Monday.
> 
> ...


Your continued showing of just how much you lack any kind of imagination or problem solving ability is quite the thing.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Your continued showing of just how much you lack any kind of imagination or problem solving ability is quite the thing.



If you know where the people who want cars banned have demonstrated any imagaintion or problem solving ability that tackles this problem, please do share.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

stethoscope said:


> I should note I'm not some fervent anti-car person, and understand that the way we've ordered our economics, spaces, communities, workplaces, etc. over 50 years has meant that people don't have an awful lot of choice other than a car, especially with the continual lack of investment and priority for public transport systems, cycle networks, etc.
> 
> But surely people can see that we've got ourselves into a huge hole here? Back in the 90s and the protest movement it was clear that forever building more highways, bypasses ontop of bypasses, new housing developments miles away from amenities, and forever encouraging individualist car use at the cost of public transport was on a 'road to nowhere'.



I'm not disputing that the balance between car use and public transport should to change. I'm disupting the contention in the OP and elsewhere in this thread that private cars ought to be banned, and that there is some practical way to achieve that.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How does this work?
> 
> Say I live near Diss station and start an 8am shift at Battlies Green industrial estate near Bury St Edmunds on Monday.
> 
> ...


Yes, the ability to travel through 20 miles of semi rural sprawl to do a shitty job is true freedom and the only thing that stands between us and communism. 

Employers should have to justify the amount of travel it takes their staff to get to work. It will be less easy to live in the countryside and work in a city but cities will be nicer.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> How does this work?
> 
> Say I live near Diss station and start an 8am shift at Battlies Green industrial estate near Bury St Edmunds on Monday.
> 
> ...


Surely a comprehensive public transport system could mean something like running trains slightly earlier. Diss to Bury by train can be done in similar time it takes to drive it seems.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not disputing that the balance between car use and public transport should to change. I'm disupting the contention in the OP and elsewhere in this thread that private cars ought to be banned, and that there is some practical way to achieve that.


You don’t ban them. You make it so that using them is incredibly expensive, impractical, and ultimately downright stupid.

You do this by having cheap, comprehensive, integrated public transport systems and active travel infrastructure, along with road systems and public spaces designed around the needs of people, rather than cars.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Surely a comprehensive public transport system could mean something like running trains slightly earlier. Diss to Bury by train can be done in similar time it takes to drive it seems.
> 
> View attachment 350453



Sure but if you follow my link you'll notice that they have a 1hr 20 minutes walk each end, giving a 3hr 15 minutes journey by running earlier trains, compared to 28 minutes by car.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You don’t ban them. You make it so that using them is incredibly expensive, impractical, and ultimately downright stupid.



No one has outlined how you do this without negatively affecting so many people's lives to such an extent as to make it politically impossible, other than in a repressive dictatorship.



beesonthewhatnow said:


> You do this by having cheap, comprehensive, integrated public transport systems and active travel infrastructure, along with road systems and public spaces designed around the needs of people, rather than cars.



Again, easy to do at the city-level for people who never venture into the great wilds, but not everyone lives, works and socialises in London and takes their holidays from Heathrow.

And btw, all cars have people in them, so claiming that something is designed for cars rather than people is nonsensical. May as well rage about a facility designed for bicycles rather than people.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure but if you follow my link you'll notice that they have a 1hr 20 minutes walk each end, giving a 3hr 15 minutes journey by running earlier trains, compared to 28 minutes by car.


Could a comprehensive transport system not include a bus from Bury station to the industrial estate. Seems reasonable.

Not sure it would be able to cope with your imaginary person who seems to camp in a field though 🤪


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No one has outlined how you do this without negatively affecting so many people's lives to such an extent as to make it politically impossible, other than in a repressive dictatorship.


Because you define any planning as repressive which is absolute bollocks. Stop bullshit jobs, pay everyone a basic income, invest in local communities and education and your poor schmo can enjoy his six hour shifts at Diss technical college rather than pumping his time and wages into travelling forty miles a day in a death machine to do a soul sucking worthless job.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Again, easy to do at the city-level for people who never venture into the great wilds, but not everyone lives, works and socialises in London and takes their holidays from Heathrow.


If only there was a way for people to use more than one type of transport in a single journey.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Sure but if you follow my link you'll notice that they have a 1hr 20 minutes walk each end, giving a 3hr 15 minutes journey by running earlier trains, compared to 28 minutes by car.


Invest in a pair of rollerskates.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> Because you define any planning as repressive which is absolute bollocks.



No, it's not "planning" we're talking about.



maomao said:


> Stop bullshit jobs, pay everyone a basic income, invest in local communities and education and your poor schmo can enjoy his six hour shifts at Diss technical college rather than pumping his time and wages into travelling forty miles a day in a death machine to do a soul sucking worthless job.



It's quite revealing that you think these are all bullshit soul-sucking worthless jobs:


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Invest in a pair of rollerskates.



"He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it," said Tebbitt.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's quite revealing that you think these are all bullshit soul-sucking worthless jobs:
> 
> View attachment 350458


Its quite revealing that you seem to think that people who work on industrial estates live in fields tbh.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, it's not "planning" we're talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see any dream jobs there and yes I've worked in similar industries. Why are essential industries such as food distribution struggling to recruit? That might be a more pertinent question to ask than how do we get some poor fucker here from Diss because there's no-one nearer.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> I don't see any dream jobs there and yes I've worked in similar industries. Why are essential industries such as food distribution struggling to recruit? That might be a more pertinent question to ask than how do we get some poor fucker here from Diss because there's no-one nearer.



You might not see your dream job, but stop assuming that everyone else thinks like you. You literally assumed every job there was shit, you really don't have a clue about people outside your bubble do you?

There are multiple precision engineering companies there for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable for them to recruit someone who lives a 28-minute drive away.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You might not see your dream job, but stop assuming that everyone else thinks like you. You literally assumed every job there was shit, you really don't have a clue about people outside your bubble do you?
> 
> There are multiple precision engineering companies there for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable for them to recruit someone who lives a 28-minute drive away.


Further fuel price rises might well make it unreasonable. Lots of employers have had it easy while car ownership has been so widespread. They can base themselves on out-of-town estates and not worry about how their workers get there because most people have cars and fuel is relatively cheap.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> Further fuel price rises might well make it unreasonable. Lots of employers have had it easy while car ownership has been so widespread. They can base themselves on out-of-town estates and not worry about how their workers get there because most people have cars and fuel is relatively cheap.



Good luck relocating all of these types of business into town centres. Should be a doddle.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Good luck relocating all of these types of business into town centres. Should be a doddle.


Or just run a shuttle bus from the town centre (the smaller businesses on the estate could cooperate in that). The current travel to work ratio is unsustainable. Where I work there are people who travel over 50 miles a day, past other potential workplaces, and part of the reason for that is that private cars are cheap. There are lots of advantages to the employer to do things this way. Disgruntled employees are more likely to sling their hooks and work elsewhere than stay and fight in a union. People are more likely to feel replaceable because of the massive pool of labour the employer can draw upon. Doesn't sound much like freedom to me.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You might not see your dream job, but stop assuming that everyone else thinks like you. You literally assumed every job there was shit, you really don't have a clue about people outside your bubble do you?
> 
> There are multiple precision engineering companies there for example. It doesn't seem unreasonable for them to recruit someone who lives a 28-minute drive away.


Where are they parking a car if they live in a field? Shows how bad our infrastructure that this poor soul has to prioritise buying a car over proper housing. Depressing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Good luck relocating all of these types of business into town centres. Should be a doddle.


Perhaps the employers themselves could pay for shuttle busses from a few transport hub locations.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Good luck relocating all of these types of business into town centres. Should be a doddle.


Famously there are no industrial estates in London.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

A shuttle bus, train etc would still extend the 28 minute car commute in my example to over an hour. I’m sure there’s some low-hanging fruit of extra buses and more trains here and there, but the task of converting millions of people lives  to operate without cars whilst not cutting multiple hours from their days when they’re supposed to be looking after children and elderly parents and doing lots other stuff, is just so vast as to be practically unachievable.

I note that everyone arguing for banning cars on here lives in London or some other big city.

When people who currently live and work in small towns and villages across the country and own cars are campaigning for their abolition, I will take notice.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I'm not disputing that the balance between car use and public transport should to change. I'm disupting the contention in the OP and elsewhere in this thread that private cars ought to be banned, and that there is some practical way to achieve that.


For the benefit of those who haven't read the thread: the contention in the OP is not that all private cars should be banned everywhere now. I clarify this in several posts in the first couple of pages.

platinumsage likes to argue against this imaginary contention to keep himself occupied. Sometimes he accidentally starts arguing against the real contention, and then loses the argument, so reverts to posting pictures of crashed buses and so on.

He's allowed to post on the thread because it keeps it visible in new posts.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> For the benefit of those who haven't read the thread: the contention in the OP is not that all private cars should be banned everywhere now. I clarify this in several posts in the first couple of pages.
> 
> platinumsage likes to argue against this imaginary contention to keep himself occupied. Sometimes he accidentally starts arguing against the real contention, and then loses the argument, so reverts to posting pictures of crashed buses and so on.
> 
> He's allowed to post on the thread because it keeps it visible in new posts.



Of the 9,471 posts on the thread, how many detail a viable pathway to eliminating private cars say by 2050, when we’re supposed to be at net zero?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Of the 9,471 posts on the thread, how many detail a viable pathway to eliminating private cars say by 2050, when we’re supposed to be at net zero?


None of mine. Why are you suddenly introducing net zero to the discussion?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

Comprehensive public transport & stop building shitty cul de sacs in fields. Done.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A shuttle bus, train etc would still extend the 28 minute car commute in my example to over an hour. I’m sure there’s some low-hanging fruit of extra buses and more trains here and there, but the task of converting millions of people lives  to operate without cars whilst not cutting multiple hours from their days when they’re supposed to be looking after children and elderly parents and doing lots other stuff, is just so vast as to be practically unachievable.
> 
> I note that everyone arguing for banning cars on here lives in London or some other big city.
> 
> When people who currently live and work in small towns and villages across the country and own cars are campaigning for their abolition, I will take notice.


Given the number of people arguing on this thread and the likelihood of living in a genuinely rural setting in the UK (as well as the likelihood of having less convenient internet access in those locations) it's statistically unlikely that anyone will ever come here to argue such a position.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> None of mine. Why are you suddenly introducing net zero to the discussion?



You said “the contention in the OP is not that all private cars should be banned everywhere now”, so I am speculating as to when you hope the ban everywhere will be implemented? 2050 seemed a mild suggestion but if that’s too soon for you, what is your target date?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You said “the contention in the OP is not that all private cars should be banned everywhere now”, so I am speculating as to when you hope the ban everywhere will be implemented? 2050 seemed a mild suggestion but if that’s too soon for you, what is your target date?


I don't have a target date - I simply support things that move us in that general direction.

When's your target date for ending world poverty and what's your viable pathway?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> Given the number of people arguing on this thread and the likelihood of living in a genuinely rural setting in the UK (as well as the likelihood of having less convenient internet access in those locations) it's statistically unlikely that anyone will ever come here to argue such a position.



I didn’t say “genuinely rural”. In fact I’ll define it as anyone living outside the top twenty UK cities by population, which is something approaching 60 million people.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I don't have a target date - I simply support things that move us in that general direction.
> 
> When's your target date for ending world poverty and what's your viable pathway?



I posted the full details at the start of my poverty propaganda thread.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> When people who currently live and work in small towns and villages across the country and own cars are campaigning for their abolition, I will take notice.


I grew up part of my life in rural North Beds, and although public transport wasnt great 30 years ago, its been devastated in the last 10. Council have been building/extending plenty of roads in that time no doubt financed through PFI, and supporting more out of town developments. Whilst restoring the Oxford to Cambridge rail link still rolls on, so everybody continues to drive.

I used to do regular site visits for a few years with one company, it was a bloody nightmare not being able to drive and used to do it through trains/bus/taxi best I could.

Now I live in semi-rural East Yorks which fairs better, especially with local east coast bus/train routes for tourism, even so, I still recognise the need to break out of car ownership, and its about will/ideology/priority of those in power - it can be achieved.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I note that everyone arguing for banning cars on here lives in London or some other big city.
> 
> When people who currently live and work in small towns and villages across the country and own cars are campaigning for their abolition, I will take notice.


I live in a town of ~25000 people in a rural county. I have a child but I don't have a car, he rides with me and we take the train with the bikes when necessary. I cycle to work in a village just outside town, which takes about 20 mins there and 15 back (back is mainly downhill). I'm one of two who cycle to work, one other is starting to talk about doing it. The rest drive a similar distance but a few of them have started to complain about the cost of fuel, so there may be more joining us soon.

Downsides, yes - he goes to cubs and some of their activities are impossible to get to without a car, because the leaders work on the assumption everyone has a car. It's an uphill battle all the way.

Upsides, many. We're both pretty fit and healthy, he's learning independence and resilience, and when he's old enough I'll encourage him to get a driving licence because it's a good thing to have and driving is a useful skill for life

What's my point? Just that your assumption is wrong. I'd be glad to see 90% of cars gone tomorrow, my son feels about the same. I'm making my own tiny contribution to that aim by modelling a way of living, yes even outside a city, that doesn't rely on having a car, and doing my best to pass it on.

/2p


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned. Where are the campaigners saying "I currently drive 28 minutes to work, and later drive 17 minutes to pick up my child and take them to after-school juggling lessons at the village hall, then drive 19 minutes home. However I'd much rather get rid of my car, tell the child to just do extra-curricular soccer at school, and get the 60 minute shuttle bus to work"?


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I didn’t say “genuinely rural”. In fact I’ll define it as anyone living outside the top twenty UK cities by population, which is something like 60 million people.


A large number of those people will live in those places simply because for the last few decades we've encouraged people (with state subsidy) to think it's okay to commute hundreds of miles a week. The genuinely rural poor are likely to favour improved public transport.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned. Where are the campaigners saying "I currently drive 28 minutes to work, and later drive 17 minutes to pick up my child and take them to after-school juggling lessons at the village hall, then drive 19 minutes home. However I'd much rather get rid of my car, tell the child to just do extra-curricular soccer at school, and get the 60 minute shuttle bus to work"?


My dad would say the same thing, as a driver and whom had to ferry me around, work on a industrial estate for years. FFS.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned. Where are the campaigners saying "I currently drive 28 minutes to work, and later drive 17 minutes to pick up my child and take them to after-school juggling lessons at the village hall, then drive 19 minutes home. However I'd much rather get rid of my car, tell the child to just do extra-curricular soccer at school, and get the 60 minute shuttle bus to work"?


See how many times you can get the word "banned" into each post.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

stethoscope said:


> My dad would say the same thing, as a driver and whom had to ferry me around, work on a industrial estate for years. FFS.



Well I haven't heard any sort of groundswell among car drivers for car abolition, especially when the realities of doubling commute time or reducing employment opportunities are considered.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned.


So you want to hear from people who benefit from the current system and whose lifestyles the rest of us subsidise, and you're going to ignore contributions from two posters who meet your previously described criteria. Right.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned.


I used to have one ffs and I felt the same then, that's why I ultimately got rid. Be the change you want to see, or some shit.

Nvm .. no _true_ driver.....


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's no surprise that people without a car are happy to see them banned. What I suggested however is that I'd like to hear from people who currently own a car outside a city and would like them banned. Where are the campaigners saying "I currently drive 28 minutes to work, and later drive 17 minutes to pick up my child and take them to after-school juggling lessons at the village hall, then drive 19 minutes home. However I'd much rather get rid of my car, tell the child to just do extra-curricular soccer at school, and get the 60 minute shuttle bus to work"?


God you’re an arse. Two great posts from people that don’t usually post here and just a shitty response telling them you don’t care about their views.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> So you want to hear from people who benefit from the current system and whose lifestyles the rest of us subsidise and you're going to ignore contributions from two posters who meet your previously described criteria. Right.



I said I'd like to hear from car owners, which those two people aren't.

Yes, the vast majority of families outside of big cities own cars. If you want the lifestyles of a small minority of extra-city carless people to become the norm, you're going to have to work on your convincing skills by offering the car people a big fat carrot of an alternative to their current situation.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> God you’re an arse. Two great posts from people that don’t usually post here and just a shitty response telling them you don’t care about their views.


We've already established that platinumsage doesn't post here in good faith, so it's only to be expected


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I said I'd like to hear from car owners, which those two people aren't.


Mate I've been a car owner for years. I've stopped being, because I came to the conclusion that cars _suck_ .. traffic jams, pollution, pavement parking, injury and death .. but now re. you, my reasons for that change are irrelevant  because I don't have a car now. lol you're a joke.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I said I'd like to hear from car owners, which those two people aren't.
> 
> Yes, the vast majority of families outside of big cities own cars. If you want the lifestyles of a small minority of extra-city carless people to become the norm, you're going to have to work on your convincing skills by offering the car people a big fat carrot of an alternative to their current situation.


Rural dwellers commuting long distances are a minority but a disproportionately powerful and polluting one. Fuck 'em. Make employers responsible for the emissions their workforce produce and reduce the feasability of living thirty miles out of town and commuting by car every day.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

It's clear this thread is about posters expecting that everyone else should adopt their own world-view. The "I don't see the need to take drugs so they should be banned" position. Give yourselves a pat on the back.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It's clear this thread is about posters expecting that everyone else should adopt their own world-view. The "I don't see the need to take drugs so they should be banned" position. Give yourselves a pat on the back.


Are you trying to excuse your blood-stained coke habit now?


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:
			
		

> It's clear this thread is about posters expecting that everyone else should adopt their own world-view. The "I don't see the need to take drugs so they should be banned" position. Give yourselves a pat on the back.



And there it is, even if you're right you're wrong because _wah!_

Fucking goof.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> Are you trying to excuse your blood-stained coke habit now?



I tried it once when I was a teenager. Shit drug.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> And there it is, even if you're right you're wrong because wah!



No one has even answered my basic questions, let alone be "right". How do you convince 30 million car owners to adopt your lifestyle any time soon, in any reasonable way whatsoever? And the answer isn't just "more buses".


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No one has even answered my basic questions, let alone be "right". How do you convince 30 million car owners to adopt your lifestyle any time soon, in any reasonable way whatsoever? And the answer isn't just "more buses".


As if you care lol


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> As if you care lol



Regardless what people think of me, I would have thought that the other posters on this thread would have answered this question amongst themselves in 317 pages...


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Regardless what people think of me, I would have thought that the other posters on this thread would have answered this question amongst themselves in 317 pages...


There are loads of answers, try reading this thread you've shat all over ffs.

And again, it's not as if you actually care so why are you bothering? You just like the attention, at a guess.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No one has even answered my basic questions, let alone be "right". How do you convince 30 million car owners to adopt your lifestyle any time soon, in any reasonable way whatsoever? And the answer isn't just "more buses".


People have answered this lots of times, you just didn't like the answers because you see everything through an individualist consumer lense.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> There are loads of answers, try reading this thread you've shat all over ffs.
> 
> And again, it's not as if you actually care so why are you bothering? You just like the attention, at a guess.


Indeed, never actually pays attention to anyone’s posts but as shown he’s very very selective of who’s posts actually count 🙄


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> There are loads of answers, try reading this thread you've shat all over ffs.
> 
> And again, it's not as if you actually care so why are you bothering? You just like the attention, at a guess.



Why do you think I don't care about how transport, housing and employment is configured in this country?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

maomao said:


> People have answered this lots of times, you just didn't like the answers because you see everything through an individualist consumer lense.



I haven't seen any answer that would actually work, and if by individualist consumer lens you mean a democracy then sure.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why do you think I don't care about how transport, housing and employment is configured in this country?


Because it shines through every critical, negative, disingenous, status-quo justifying post you make. You like things _just as they are_ and you mock anyone who says anything that risks infringing that. It's the worst kind of contribution, no substance, no originality of thought, no attempts to reconsider, no flexibility or humility. Just repeated lumpen _nah that idea's stoopid_. 

Thats why.


----------



## maomao (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I haven't seen any answer that would actually work, and if by individualist consumer lens you mean a democracy then sure.


China and Russia are pretty keen on consumerism and private car ownership these days so I'm not sure the two are connected in the way you think they are. 

Fuel prices are spiralling, import chains are breaking down and the earth is hurtling past dangerous tipping points at a dizzying rate. It should be you explaining how this clearly unsustainable lifestyle can possibly be maintained.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I haven't seen any answer that would actually work


That answers the question "please explain how you will implement this thing that you have never proposed".


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Because it shines through every critical, negative, disingenous, status-quo justifying post you make. You like things _just as they are_ and you mock anyone who says anything that risks infringing that. It's the worst kind of contribution, no substance, no originality of thought, no attempts to reconsider, no flexibility or humility. Just repeated lumpen _nah that idea's stoopid_.



If this was a thread about improving public transport, I'd be proposing and agreeing with lots of new ideas. But it's not, it's about banning private cars, and any discussion about merely improving public transport to some sort level that doesn't allow for car-elimination is a distraction. I'm trying to tease out the kind of changes that would be needed to get majority public-opinion in favour of car-elimination, but I'm not sure anyone appreciates the extent of re-ordering of our society that would be necessary for such a change, let alone what would be needed to get the population on board.

But yes, criticise me about ignoring suggestions of a few more buses or painting a few cycle lanes if you want, but those don't really address the fundamental question of this thread.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If this was a thread about improving public transport, I'd be proposing and agreeing with lots of new ideas. But it's not, it's about banning private cars, and any discussion about merely improving public transport to some sort level that doesn't allow for car-elimination is a distraction. I'm trying to tease out the kind of changes that would be needed to get majority public-opinion in favour of car-elimination, but I'm not sure anyone appreciates the extent of re-ordering of our society that would be necessary for such a change, let alone what would be needed to get the population on board.
> 
> But yes, criticise me about ignoring suggestions of a few more buses or painting a few cycle lanes if you want, but those don't really address the fundamental question of this thread.


_Reordering society _has been happening for the last 100 years you muppet, since the motor car first became a regular sight on the roads. But somehow it's simply impossible to go back on that because _people wouldn't like it?_

That's just lazy thinking, and totally at odds with reality. Obviously it could take 100 years to get there, just as it's taken 100 to get here, but eventually we will if for no other reason than necessity. The costs of energy and of resources will drive slowly growing public pressure and generational cultural change .. exactly what brought us here.

Mainly, teaching and showing the kids a new way to go about things, and of course letting them create their own, cleaner and more sociable world. One day, private vehicles like cars will be an anachronism, the preserve of old, entitled loons waiting behind streams of buses and bikes fuming about their right to drive being stolen as the kids laugh "OK millenial"...

But do carry on. tbh I kind of miss Spymaster, at least he had a sense of humour  

No, I don't mean that. I'm just being a dick. As y'were


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I've answered these questions a zillion times on other threads, and don't have time to go through it all again just now. I intend to use this thread mainly as a repository for information.
> 
> The concise answer is that the aim is a reduction in car dependency. Of course you can't just ban cars and do nothing to change the infrastructure. You also can't change the infrastructure without banning cars. The two have to happen in parallel. We start with big cities and work outwards. In cities it's easy in practical terms (although more difficult politically) and proven. In rural areas it is less easy but in opinion not impossible. But like I say you start in cities which is where the majority of people now live. You provide good public transport so that people can get to places easily without their own transport. You provide more facilities locally, like shops that are in walking distance. You make systems for home delivery efficient. Widespread private car ownership directly makes these changes harder to implement.


From the first page of this thread.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> _Reordering society _has been happening for the last 100 years you muppet, since the motor car first became a regular sight on the roads. But somehow it's simply impossible to go back on that because _people wouldn't like it?_
> 
> That's just lazy thinking, and totally at odds with reality. Obviously it could take 100 years to get there, just as it's taken 100 to get here, but eventually we will if for no other reason than necessity. The costs of energy and of resources will drive slowly growing public pressure and generational cultural change .. exactly what brought us here.
> 
> Mainly, teaching and showing the kids a new way to go about things, and of course letting them create their own, cleaner and more sociable world. One day, private vehicles like cars will be an anachronism, the preserve of old, entitled loons waiting behind streams of buses and bikes fuming about their right to drive being stolen as the kids laugh "OK millenial"...



Yes, I am aware society becomes reordered over time, but that's generally not a directed process but something that happens by gradual consensus amongst large groups of participants. I'm sure cars aren't widespread now due to the horse-welfare folks complaining about working conditions for horses. If cars vanish in the future it won't be because a few niche edgelords tried to force everyone to relocate their homes to a tower block next to a tube station.

I admit I do find it pretty difficult to imagine a situation in which car-equivalent personally-directed door-to-door self-driving transport pods or whatever are something that society will ever decide that it wants to do without. It's a bit like oil-lamp-haters back in the day arguing against any type of artificial light.



mojo pixy said:


> But do carry on. tbh I kind of miss Spymaster, at least he had a sense of humour
> 
> No, I don't mean that. I'm just being a dick. As y'were



I shall try to leave this thread to the monothought clique then.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

Private cars - once they became affordable to people other than the wealthy - didn't replace horses. They replaced buses and trains and to some extent walking.

When private car use became widespread it wasn't a bunch of horses that were cast aside. It was a network of public transport, both urban and rural. It was also a whole bunch of services like shops and workplaces which were in locations that anyone could reach on foot or by public transport.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I admit I do find it pretty difficult to imagine a situation in which car-equivalent personally-directed door-to-door self-driving transport pods or whatever are something that society will ever decide that it wants to do without.


You have heard of bicycles, right? Tricycles? Tricycles with child seats or carrying boxes? Trailers for bikes? Tandems, for people who want to travel together? You're aware these vehicles can be electrified these days? And that waterproof clothing is a thing? And that bicycles and tricycles can be covered so the rider can stay warm and dry? And that hireable taxis will probably never go away? And that trains and buses also exist and their infrastructure can always be improved?



platinumsage said:


> I shall try to leave this thread to the monothought clique then.


liked for unironic use of _monothought clique_. Haven't heard that for aaages, brilliant.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Private cars - once they became affordable to people other than the wealthy - didn't replace horses. They replaced buses and trains and to some extent walking.
> 
> When private car use became widespread it wasn't a bunch of horses that were cast aside. It was a network of public transport, both urban and rural. It was also a whole bunch of services like shops and workplaces which were in locations that anyone could reach on foot or by public transport.



In the 50s and 60s, yes people did decide it was quicker and easier to drive than getting the bus to the branch line station. The horse-welfare folk decades earlier had no influence in the matter. Blackpool went to shit because people preferred to jet off to Torremelinos, not because there were a few locals that moaned about tourists. It's almost like people change their behaviour when there's an alternative they actually  prefer, but not when there's an alternative that a few people tell them they ought to prefer. This is basic stuff though right?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> You have heard of bicycles, right? Tricycles? Tricycles with child seats or carrying boxes? Trailers for bikes? Tandems, for people who want to travel together? You're aware these vehicles can be electrified these days? And that waterproof clothing is a thing? And that bicycles and tricycles can be covered so the rider can stay warm and dry? And that hireable taxis will probably never go away? And that trains and buses also exist and their infrastructure can always be improved?



Not sure there's much difference between "covered electric multi-occupancy trikes, and taxis" and "electric cars" tbh, but go off I guess.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> In the 50s and 60s, yes people did decide it was quicker and easier to drive than getting the bus to the branch line station. The horse-welfare folk decades earlier had no influence in the matter. Blackpool went to shit because people preferred to jet off to Torremelinos, not because there were a few locals that moaned about tourists. It's almost like people change their behaviour when there's an alternative they actually  prefer, but not when there's an alternative that a few people tell them they ought to prefer. This is basic stuff though right?


Yes, people who could afford a car could choose that option. People who couldn't afford a car or who couldn't drive, didn't get a choice in whether their transport services were cut back. Pretty basic stuff indeed.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 6, 2022)

stethoscope said:


> Now I live in semi-rural East Yorks which fairs better, especially with local east coast bus/train routes for tourism, even so, I still recognise the need to break out of car ownership, and its about will/ideology/priority of those in power - it can be achieved.


Heh I did not know you were a Tyke these days steth.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, people who could afford a car could choose that option. People who couldn't afford a car or who couldn't drive, didn't get a choice in whether their transport services were cut back. Pretty basic stuff indeed.



Of course many couldn’t afford rail fares prior to the reduction in services caused by car use. In fact people left the railways in droves prior to widespread car ownership due to unaffordability of tickets:






						RAILWAY FARES (Hansard, 25 January 1949)
					

RAILWAY FARES (Hansard, 25 January 1949)



					api.parliament.uk


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 6, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Not sure there's much difference between "covered electric multi-occupancy trikes, and taxis" and "electric cars" tbh, but go off I guess.


Not sure there's much difference between this post and a fart, but feel free to do it again. I'm far enough away the smell can't reach me.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 6, 2022)

If the state decided that it is in its interests to eliminate private car ownership, it could direct things that way effectively over a few decades, regardless of the thoughts and feelings of the population at the beginning of the process. By the end of those decades, that same population would even embrace it, if the state used the appropriate strategy. Consumer choice never achieves social change, it’s the social change that drives consumer choice. Maintaining a world built around the private car is a choice of the institutions of power, not an inevitability of democracy.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2022)

We’ll never be able to ban cars because how will people get coffee!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> We’ll never be able to ban cars because how will people get coffee!



Christ almighty


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 7, 2022)

Except the tweet is bollocks. They didn't "ask the workers to work faster" and it wasn't because "they didn't like waiting in line".

If you can't even verify claims in a random tweet, how can you possibly manage to ban cars?



			https://www.trumbulltimes.com/news/article/Move-people-quicker-Trumbull-seeks-action-16149765.php
		




Spoiler: full article



TRUMBULL — A thorough review of traffic needs in the area around Trumbull Center is being complicated by coffee, according to members of the Planning & Zoning Commission.


Toward the end of last week’s April meeting, Town Planner Rob Librandi informed the commissioners that a study of Trumbull Center would be getting underway shortly. That prompted commissioner Anthony Chory to ask if there was anything the commission could do to address congestion at the Starbucks at 965 White Plains Road.


“The drive-thru at Starbucks is causing backups on White Plains Road,” Chory said.

The coffee shop has a long drive-thru queuing line that can accommodate about 15 vehicles. But at busy periods the line spills out into White Plains Road. Chory suggested adopting a similar plan to that utilized at some fast food locations during their lunch rush.

“I know at Duchess in Monroe when it’s backed up, they have somebody go outside, you pull ahead, and they deliver to the car,” he said. “I wonder if we, are we going to be able to do anything like that?”

Librandi said forcing a change at this point is unlikely.

“I think to force them to change anything now is going to be tough because they do have their approval,” Librandi said. “We can recommend that they do it.”

Chory recommended sending a formal letter urging the store to pick up the pace.

“What I would like to recommend is that we write them a formal letter saying that we feel they are not adequately moving people through the line, and during peak hours they should develop a plan to allow people to put an order in and move head in the line to deliver to relieve the backup on White Plains Road and in the parking lot,” he said. “I think they could do that. It doesn’t have to be a redesign of the parking lot. I could be just having extra people, during peak hours, figuring out a way to move people quicker.”

Tony Silber, who was acting chairman at the meeting, was supportive of Chory’s idea.

“I think that’s a reasonable request to make of the owner. It really is,” Silber said. “And they don’t have the same level of interior service, walk-in service anymore, so they could redeploy people.”

A request for comment on company policies or standards on speed of service, sent to the Starbucks Media Relations Team, was not immediately returned.

First Selectman Vicki Tesoro said the issue was not new, and in fact had been discussed when plans first began to solidify for the new shopping center at 965 White Plains Road in 2017. The center is anchored by a CVS pharmacy that, along with Starbucks, relocated across the street from their former locations at 938 White Plains Road, and also has a drive-thru.

“It’s a very busy road with the schools, and Route 25 and the Merritt Parkway,” Tesoro said.

Tesoro said the shopping center’s owners had taken action to help reduce the problem, creating a dedicated lane for Starbucks customers to wait. By making it more clear where the line should be, the gridlocked parking lot seems to have improved, she said.

“There is work being done, but more needs to be done,” she said.

Police Lt. Brian Weir said the department had been in touch with the state DOT exploring long-term and short-term options. White Plains Road, also known as Route 127, is a state highway and not under the town’s control. Weir said adjusting the timing of the stop lights at White Plains Road, Church Hill Road and Daniels Farm road could be an option. While it would not shorten the Starbucks line, it could improve traffic around the shopping center’s entrance.

“What happens is that when you reach the intersection on White Plains Road, it’s three lanes and two lanes go up Church Hill Road and one lane turns right onto Daniels Farm Road,” he said. “The light coming down Church Hill Road has a turn arrow, but if you’re trying to turn left into the shopping center, there’s no arrow. So you just sit there.”

Librandi said he was surprised at the demand for the drive-thru since the store’s previous location on the other side of White Plains Road had not had one.

“Their old location was just a few hundred feet away, and everyone managed to get their coffee,” he said.

He said he was surprised that the 15-car queuing line was full so often.

“When it was approved, it seemed like overkill because the standard is for five cars,” he said.

Librandi and Economic and Community Development Director Rina Bakalar expressed hope that warmer weather and relaxed COVID-19 restrictions would lead to more people getting out of their cars to order inside at the counter, thereby reducing the line at the drive-thru.

On a recent visit, Bakalar said she bypassed the 20-car line and ordered inside, where she was one of only two customers.

“I get it, I’ve been a single parent with a kid in the back, and now people are worried about being inside with people who maybe haven’t gotten the vaccine,” Bakalar said. “But I think, when table seating resumes and you can sit inside, that will bring people into the store.”


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> If the state decided that it is in its interests to eliminate private car ownership, it could direct things that way effectively over a few decades, regardless of the thoughts and feelings of the population at the beginning of the process. By the end of those decades, that same population would even embrace it, if the state used the appropriate strategy. Consumer choice never achieves social change, it’s the social change that drives consumer choice. Maintaining a world built around the private car is a choice of the institutions of power, not an inevitability of democracy.



Do you have any examples from parliamentary democracies where the state has formulated a strategy and stuck to it for 50+ years despite it being deeply unpopular for the first two or three decades at least?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Except the tweet is bollocks. They didn't "ask the workers to work faster" and it wasn't because "they didn't like waiting in line".
> 
> If you can't even verify claims in a random tweet, how can you possibly manage to ban cars?
> 
> ...


So nothing wrong with people driving to get coffee?


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Do you have any examples from parliamentary democracies where the state has formulated a strategy and stuck to it for 50+ years despite it being deeply unpopular for the first two or three decades at least?


I said decades, not 50+ years. And yes, history is absolutely littered with examples. Particularly in states where you only need about 25% of the population to vote for you in order to have a functioning majority


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I said decades, not 50+ years. And yes, history is absolutely littered with examples. Particularly in states where you only need about 25% of the population to vote for you in order to have a functioning majority



Surely 50 years is "a few decades", which is what you said. I can't think of any examples where a parliamentary democracy state has "directed things" over that time period in such a way.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 7, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Surely 50 years is "a few decades", which is what you said. I can't think of any examples where a parliamentary democracy state has "directed things" over that time period in such a way.


The neoliberal consensus underlying principles of governing the country that arguably peaked in 2008 and enabled privatisation of the railways, the Royal Mail and vast swathes of the NHS was manufactured post-1979 by governments enacting policies in the face of broad disapproval. Widespread riots and strikes were evident but the government fundamentally stuck to its agenda, even if it made concessions on specific policies.  Over time, this shifted what was seen as normal further and further. Post-1995, voters not longer even had a choice in the matter, because all agents of the state were following the neoliberal path. By 2008, individualisation, consumer capitalism, privatisation, responsibilisation and the privatisation of debt were viewed as the status quo.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 7, 2022)

kabbes said:


> The neoliberal consensus underlying principles of governing the country that arguably peaked in 2008 and enabled privatisation of the railways, the Royal Mail and vast swathes of the NHS was manufactured post-1979 by governments enacting policies in the face of broad disapproval. Widespread riots and strikes were evident but the government fundamentally stuck to its agenda, even if it made concessions on specific policies.  Over time, this shifted what was seen as normal further and further. Post-1995, voters not longer even had a choice in the matter, because all agents of the state were following the neoliberal path. By 2008, individualisation, consumer capitalism, privatisation, responsibilisation and the privatisation of debt were viewed as the status quo.



Privatization of BT, British Gas etc had widespread popular support at the time, it wasn't some multi-decade devious scheme brewed up carefully by a succession of different governments.

Hardly comparable to "if the state decided that it is in its interests to eliminate private car ownership, it could direct things that way effectively over a few decades, regardless of the thoughts and feelings of the population at the beginning of the process"


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> God you’re an arse. Two great posts from people that don’t usually post here and just a shitty response telling them you don’t care about their views.


@platinumsage’s point is perfectly valid. It’s all very well for people who have no need for a car to call for cars to be banned, because they have viable alternatives for all the journeys they wish to make and zero mental capacity to imagine the circumstances of people who don’t.  

Before being so foolish as to call for policy changes which affect everyone, you should consider everyone’s circumstances.  It’s that simple.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2022)

Everything’s just fine how it is….


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2022)

Good to see there are _some _sensible people in positions of power.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 10, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see there are _some _sensible people in positions of power.



Of course plenty in power are idiots and unsurprisingly they’re Tories.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 11, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2022)

He’s got a point - very irresponsible of her to be pushing a pram with a small child in it somewhere you’re going to come in conflict with vehicles! Should really have just stayed at home.


----------



## nick (Nov 11, 2022)

Madness.
Would however had been amusing if that VW van was then used to collect a bike from the shop it stopped outside


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 11, 2022)

Probably the council's fault, they like to disguise private land as public pavements. There could be a few tiny brass studs or something, demonstrating that part of the paved area is private land and thus conferring the right of access by motor vehicles across the actual pavement. Even if that hasn't happened here, the fact it's a thing has normalised this behaviour.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Probably the council's fault, they like to disguise private land as public pavements. There could be a few tiny brass studs or something, demonstrating that part of the paved area is private land and thus conferring the right of access by motor vehicles across the actual pavement. Even if that hasn't happened here, the fact it's a thing has normalised this behaviour.


What the fuck are you on about? Just bizarre that you’ll defend pretty much all terrible driving. It’s a fucking pavement!


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What the fuck are you on about? Just bizarre that you’ll defend pretty much all terrible driving. It’s a fucking pavement!



I didn't defend it in the slightest, I criticised councils for devaluing pavements. And you don't know it's a pavement unless you've seen the plans and/or Traffic Regulation Orders kept in the council's basement.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 11, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I didn't defend it in the slightest, I criticised councils for devaluing pavements. And you don't know it's a pavement unless you've seen the plans and/or Traffic Regulation Orders kept in the council's basement.


🤪


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🤪



Here's an ostensible pavement I'm familiar with. Note that the actual pavement is only about 80cm wide, the rest is a loading bay which is marked by slightly different sized paving stones. Councils love this shit:


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2022)

There’s definitely something wrong with drivers…



I bet plattysage has a piss bottle!


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 12, 2022)

Sounds like the cabbie got a boner from it too


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2022)

Everything’s fine…


----------



## edcraw (Nov 12, 2022)

Reckon random rising bollards dotted around everywhere would be fun!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2022)

Platty Sage has put me on ignore for thinking the climate crisis is real, so suspect this thread will now just become just me posting 3rd rate tweets without his interaction 😀


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Platty Sage has put me on ignore for thinking the climate crisis is real, l


Oh god, they’re one of those as well?


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh god, they’re one of those as well?


If you read the thread in question you‘ll see edcraw is quite simply lying about the reason he‘s been put on ignore.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> If you read the thread in question you‘ll see edcraw is quite simply lying about the reason he‘s been put on ignore.


Pretty clear he’s a climate change denier.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2022)

This is good. I thought Manchester had wanted to do similar but they were needing to have Belisha beacon’s which would have made it very expensive.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 14, 2022)

Literally nobody sane can possibly object to those.

I wonder what this threads resident fucknut will have to say on the matter.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 14, 2022)

I like the general concept, but surely you run into the fact that cars will have to stop on the zebra crossing to assess whether they can merge into traffic?  And stopping on zebra crossings is against traffic rules?


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 14, 2022)

Makes me wonder then what status these crossings have. Are they officially zebra crossings, to which the rule kabbes highlighted applies, or are they painted markings intended to improve driver courtesy towards pedestrians?  Drivers should of course already give way to crossing pedestrians when they turn from a larger into a smaller road - says so in the Highway Code (or did when I learned to drive anyway!)


----------



## maomao (Nov 14, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Makes me wonder then what status these crossings have. Are they officially zebra crossings, to which the rule kabbes highlighted applies, or are they painted markings intended to improve driver courtesy towards pedestrians?  Drivers should of course already give way to crossing pedestrians when they turn from a larger into a smaller road - says so in the Highway Code (or did when I learned to drive anyway!)


Highway code now says they should give way to pedestrians crossing when turning the other way too. Bit of a coin flip if they'll actually stop or not though.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 14, 2022)

Everything’s fine.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 14, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> Makes me wonder then what status these crossings have. Are they officially zebra crossings, to which the rule kabbes highlighted applies, or are they painted markings intended to improve driver courtesy towards pedestrians?  Drivers should of course already give way to crossing pedestrians when they turn from a larger into a smaller road - says so in the Highway Code (or did when I learned to drive anyway!)


The sensible approach would be to just have them as a visual reminder that drivers should be giving way to pedestrians at junctions like that, with then allowing a car to move forward onto it when/if clear.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The sensible approach would be to just have them as a visual reminder that drivers should be giving way to pedestrians at junctions like that, with then allowing a car to move forward onto it when/if clear.


Hopefully that’s exactly what they achieve


----------



## kabbes (Nov 15, 2022)

I agree that’s the sensible approach. I worry about normalising drivers to the idea that it is okay to stop on zebra crossings, though.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 15, 2022)

kabbes said:


> I agree that’s the sensible approach. I worry about normalising drivers to the idea that it is okay to stop on zebra crossings, though.


It would be nice to think most drivers have the sense to know the difference between the two.

But…


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It would be nice to think most drivers have the sense to know the difference between the two.
> 
> But…



You don't know the difference, nor does anyone else on this thread.

- “Sorry officer, I thought this was a visually indicative reminder crossing and not an actual legally enforceable crossing, so I stopped on it to get a better view of the junction as that seemed the safest thing to do”

- “Well it’s easy to get confused between the two without committing Schedule I Part II of _The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997_ as amended to memory, so I won’t give you a ticket this time, just try not to do it again.”

Not that anyone gets stopped by the police and given a ticket for such things anyway. The only time it's likely to come up is in court following a fatality.


----------



## Athos (Nov 15, 2022)

I'll be honest and say that, if I'm on a motorbike turning left off a major road there's no way I'm stopping every time some pedestrian is standing near the curb; that's a recipe for being rear-ended by a car.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 15, 2022)

What? If someone's crossing a road you're about to turn into, you're already meant to let them cross. A zebra crossing doesn't change the already existing right of way of the pedestrian, it just makes 'should' give way into 'must' give way (if they're already crossing)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 15, 2022)

On every street in Brussels and they seem to survive


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> What? If someone's crossing a road you're about to turn into, you're already meant to let them cross. A zebra crossing doesn't change the already existing right of way of the pedestrian, it just makes 'should' give way into 'must' give way (if they're already crossing)



"Standing near the kerb" and "crossing" are two quite different things, both in the Highway Code and in the legislation.


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 15, 2022)

Having twice been hit by cars in that exact position, both times the cars were emerging from the side road to the main road I’d welcome them.

I’m more of a motorist than a pedestrian or cyclist these days and I think there are more measures needed to slow drivers down, personally I’d replace the 30mph limit with 20mph everywhere


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> "Standing near the kerb" and "crossing" are two quite different things, both in the Highway Code and in the legislation.








			
				Highway Code Rule H2 said:
			
		

> At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing *or waiting to cross* a road into which or from which you are turning.
> 
> You *MUST* give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists on a parallel crossing (see Rule 195).
> 
> ...



"Waiting to cross"


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> On every street in Brussels and they seem to survive


Exactly - they work in tons of other places so why not here?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> "Waiting to cross"



Yes, crossing and waiting to cross are dealt with very differently in those parts of the Highway Code you quoted. If you can’t see that then you may as well facepalm yourself. They’re also dealt with very differently in the legislation, which you didn’t quote.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yes, crossing and waiting to cross are dealt with very differently in those parts of the Highway Code you quoted. If you can’t see that then you may as well facepalm yourself. They’re also dealt with very differently in the legislation, which you didn’t quote.


Yes, 'should' and 'must'. I addressed it. The fact that pedestrians have right of way whether crossing or 'waiting to cross' though, doesn't change. You know this (you certainly shouldn't be driving if you don't)


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yes, 'should' and 'must'. I addressed it. The fact that pedestrians have right of way whether crossing or 'waiting to cross' though, doesn't change. You know this (you certainly shouldn't be driving if you don't)



The don't have a "right" of way. Check out rule 8 and rule 19 in the HC for starters.


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 15, 2022)

OK we're back to the platinumsage show  

Yeah, no.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> OK we're back to the platinumsage show
> 
> Yeah, no.


Love that he must have turned ignore off for me so he could see that post 🙃


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> OK we're back to the platinumsage show
> 
> Yeah, no.



Thankfully you don't drive so you're only putting yourself at risk by assuming "rights of way" where there are none.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2022)

Love platinumsage arguing about the technicalities of the Highway Code when this is the reality.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thankfully you don't drive so you're only putting yourself at risk by assuming "rights of way" where there are none.







> Rule 8
> At a junction. When you are crossing or waiting to cross the road, *other traffic should give way*. Look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you, and cross at a place where drivers can see you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, *you have priority and they should give way (*see Rules H2 and 170).
> 
> Rule 19
> Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. *Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing* (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 15, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> View attachment 351574



A suggestion to a pedestrian that other traffic should give way to them (to someone waiting to cross) is not the same as telling a pedestrian that other traffic is legally required to give way (while on a zebra crossing). 

It's really not rocket science, or brain surgery. They even capitalize "must" in the Highway Code to highlight the difference and make it idiot-proof. 🤷


----------



## mojo pixy (Nov 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Thankfully you don't drive so you're only putting yourself at risk by assuming "rights of way" where there are none.


I do drive (I drove someone to hospital and home again just last week), I just don't own a car because it's a huge waste of money, a massive health risk, and quite honestly my ego is perfectly comfortable without one.

I know what 'rights of way' are, and I know as well as a legal term it's a vernacular expression often used as shorthand for "X should/must give way to Y under Z circumstances" ... or, as they say it more clearly in French, "vous n'avez pas la priorité" (and yes, I know french traffic laws are not the same as UK ones)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 15, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A suggestion to a pedestrian that other traffic should give way to them (to someone waiting to cross) is not the same as telling a pedestrian that other traffic is legally required to give way (while on a zebra crossing).
> 
> It's really not rocket science, or brain surgery. They even capitalize "must" in the Highway Code to highlight the difference and make it idiot-proof. 🤷



🥅


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Everything’s fine.



Another video of it - should be automatic lifetime ban.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2022)

A lot of replies under that twitter thread asking what the context was and what had led up to it and so on.

It implies that there are people out there who can imagine some context where it's justifiable or reasonable to drive your car directly and deliberately into a pedestrian.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 16, 2022)

He’s gonna get a driving ban and nice big fine for that.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2022)

MrCurry said:


> He’s gonna get a driving ban and nice big fine for that.


A very short ban - should be a prison sentence.


----------



## maomao (Nov 16, 2022)

If he attacked someone in the street with a cricket bat or a hammer it would be chokey.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 16, 2022)

Well, the law — nonsensically, to my mind — differentiates the severity of the attack based on the level of harm to the victim. So if you swung a cricket bat at somebody’s head and they luckily moved at the last second, receiving a glancing blow, that would attract a lesser sentence than if they didn’t move at the last second and were seriously injured. Ridiculous, but there it is.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2022)

> “The matter was concluded by way of a community resolution order issued to the driver, who also agreed to pay compensation for the damage to the man.”



🤮









						Luxury SUV crushes bicycle as road rage escalates in front of horrified onlookers
					

Witnesses captured the moment a driver mows down a bicycle, with the cyclist only narrowly escaping in time.




					7news.com.au


----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2022)

Cars ruin cities.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 17, 2022)

Reckless cyclist endangers truck tyres  😢


----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2022)

Selfish drivers example #2,674



> Ms Goodlet asked councillors: “How did the council officers take into account the negative and distressing impact a large unattractive structure like the cycle hangar would have on the unfortunate residents living in the house where it is to be located, bearing in mind that the resident will have absolutely no control over this immovable structure?”











						Woman wins battle to stop new cycle hangar being placed outside her home
					

A Hove resident’s plea for the council not to site a cycle hangar outside her home led to councillors voting to remove it from the latest set of…




					www.theargus.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love platinumsage arguing about the technicalities of the Highway Code when this is the reality.



They’re just doing it on purpose now. Def need to ban cars until we work out what the hell is going on.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

My heart bleeds.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

This man is going to be allowed to drive again.


----------



## MrCurry (Nov 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This man is going to be allowed to drive again.



He didn’t call him a ****, but he is one.


----------



## maomao (Nov 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This man is going to be allowed to drive again.



platinumsage will be here in a minute to tell us he's just in shock because of the crash and it was the pedestrians fault for being alive or something.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love platinumsage





maomao said:


> platinumsage will be here




Why do I keep getting summoned to view another edcraw post, whom I'm ignoring? I know my wisdom is much in demand but I'm gonna put this thread on ignore now, since it's just duplicating the bad driving thread. Maybe that will stop the alerts.

FWIW edcraw even managed to get that last post wrong by stating "This man is going to be allowed to drive again."

He was banned for seven years to run consecutively with his eight year prison sentence, meaning he will have to live to 83 and then pass a test to be allowed to drive again, so there's nothing certain about it.


----------



## maomao (Nov 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Gonna put this thread on ignore now,


Hurrah. Don't let the door hit you in the arse etc.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 19, 2022)

Aw, no more ms paint diagrams?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> FWIW edcraw even managed to get that last post wrong by stating "This man is going to be allowed to drive again."
> 
> He was banned for seven years to run consecutively with his eight year prison sentence, meaning he will have to live to 83 and then pass a test to be allowed to drive again, so there's nothing certain about it.


Did they take his age into consideration with the sentence or are you just indulging in pointless pedantry & defending the obviously lenient sentence of an absolute evil scumbag?


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 19, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Aw, no more ms paint diagrams?



Have a parting graph, carefully researched:


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Have a parting graph, carefully researched:
> 
> View attachment 352093


Didn't know there were three billion users on this site.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Didn't know there were three billion users on this site.


I think he also does the Lib Dem election leaflets.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

Fuck cars.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2022)

^^^ paging T & P 
Look at this kid, the awful hypocrite, saying all that and then admitting he can't wait to be able to drive and that he will be driving! And his only excuse is that the urban design of his neighbourhood gives him no option!


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Fuck cars.



That's quite sad.  But I'm more disturbed to see you don't use dark mode.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> That's quite sad.  But I'm more disturbed to see you don't use dark mode.


Does that change for everyone?


----------



## Elpenor (Nov 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This man is going to be allowed to drive again.



Copper sounds like Roy Tucker off the archers


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 21, 2022)

Elpenor said:


> Copper sounds like Roy Tucker off the archers


 I did not notice that until you said that but he really does!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2022)

🎻









						Our council has turned a 10 minute drive home into an HOUR - it's insane
					

FURIOUS residents have slammed a controversial council scheme that has clogged up their streets – turning a ten minute drive into an HOUR trip. The measures in Haringey, North London, were de…




					www.thesun.co.uk


----------



## alex_ (Nov 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🎻
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is why the Hammersmith scheme is clever, no one who votes for the council is affected


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2022)

alex_ said:


> This is why the Hammersmith scheme is clever, no one who votes for the council is affected


But cynical - smacks of the ultimate NIMBYism to me.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> But cynical - smacks of the ultimate NIMBYism to me.



Massively, be interesting to see in 3 years which scheme makes the most difference.

Less ambitious/higher coverage Vs more ambitious/lower coverage.

They must have an idea of what % of traffic is local vs not.

And they are already better than Ealings schemes they rolled back


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2022)

Everything’s fine…



> Pedestrian fatalities on US streets have surged in the past decade. In 2021, 7,485 pedestrians were killed by vehicles. That’s an increase of more than 65% since 2011 and the highest annual total in 40 years.











						‘He was fast … he ran you right over’: what it’s like to get hit by an SUV
					

The long read: One Thursday afternoon, I stepped out to cross a city street – and woke up in hospital with broken bones and a brain injury. After I recovered, I started looking into why so many drivers just don’t stop




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Massively, be interesting to see in 3 years which scheme makes the most difference.
> 
> Less ambitious/higher coverage Vs more ambitious/lower coverage.
> 
> ...


Well I guess they’re better than nothing but Hackney & Lambeth really leading the way.

When people are complaining about their 10min journeys being lengthened it just smacks of selfishness, arrogance & cluelessness. We’ve spent far too long indulging selfish drivers at the expense of everyone else and they have tantrums about the smallest inconvenience. Hammersmith smacks of pandering to these people yet again.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2022)

alex_ said:


> This is why the Hammersmith scheme is clever, no one who votes for the council is affected


Non car users are affected.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 23, 2022)

__


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Everything’s fine…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Road deaths outnumber non-suicide gun deaths in the US but they're only crazy for their gun laws right?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2022)

Volkswagen unveils drivable office chair that can travel up to 20 kilometres per hour
					

German automotive manufacturer Volkswagen has developed a five-wheeled office chair that uses the same technology found in its electric vehicles.




					www.dezeen.com
				






> The chair is designed to give those who work in an office a feeling of what it's like to have a car from Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles as your workplace," said Volkswagen.  "You can drive, honk and listen to music – even signal as you take a turn into a meeting room," the brand added.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2022)

shot









						Manchester Christmas markets parking: All the best places to park in the city
					

The Manchester Christmas markets are returning - here is where you should park in the city centre for the best access




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
				




chaser









						Christmas Markets shoppers fuming after waiting FOUR hours to leave car park
					

“People were shouting and swearing and it all descended into chaos"




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
				




Of course Manchester famously has very little public transport so what you going to do….


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2022)

Weird people opposing less pollution. They could talk about better scrapage scheme rather than just opposing. Car culture is toxic.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 26, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Weird people opposing less pollution. They could talk about better scrapage scheme rather than just opposing. Car culture is toxic.




tories gonna tory.

Though really are there any votes going to be lost taking this position ?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2022)

alex_ said:


> tories gonna tory.
> 
> Though really are there any votes going to be lost taking this position ?


Yet originally brought in by Boris Johnson - reducing pollution shouldn’t be about politics but so many crazy Tories around at the mo.


----------



## bcuster (Nov 27, 2022)




----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 28, 2022)

Haven't seen this video for years - just shows drivers have always been dangerous.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 29, 2022)

Local heroes:








						'It's just crazy': Dozens of Meanwood residents have tyres deflated by climate activists
					

Dozens of residents in Meanwood woke up this morning to find that their car tyres had been deflated by a climate change campaign group going by the name Tyre Extinguishers.




					www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk


----------



## bcuster (Nov 29, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Local heroes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is not right


----------



## maomao (Nov 29, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> Local heroes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Global heroes: 









						Tyre Extinguishers deflate tyres of 900 SUVs in ‘biggest ever action’
					

The climate activists claim to have targeted 4x4 owners in eight European and US cities




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 29, 2022)

bcuster said:


> That is not right


Which bit is incorrect?


----------



## bcuster (Nov 29, 2022)

the tire flattening part; it is wrong to do that...


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Nov 29, 2022)

Arguably it is more harmful to everyone to continuing driving. 
They should consider themselves told.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 29, 2022)

bcuster said:


> the tire flattening part; it is wrong to do that...


Because?


----------



## bcuster (Nov 29, 2022)

Deflate the tires of airliner or private jets, not the tires of common people who may have an emergency need for their cars...


----------



## edcraw (Nov 29, 2022)

bcuster said:


> That is not right


But it’s okay


----------



## edcraw (Nov 29, 2022)

Well this is embarrassing - Piers Corbyn is against bus gates. Poor guy, imagine having the same views as platinumsage !


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 29, 2022)

bcuster said:


> Deflate the tires of airliner or private jets, not the tires of common people who may have an emergency need for their cars...



Buy a smaller or more efficient car and the problems solved.

Statistically speaking the richer you are the likelier you are to own a car. A bigger car at that.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 30, 2022)

I wonder what he means by “transnational elite” 🤔


----------



## nick (Nov 30, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> Buy a smaller or more efficient car and the problems solved.
> 
> Statistically speaking the richer you are the likelier you are to own a car. A bigger car at that.
> 
> View attachment 353516


without wishing disagreement with the "boo cars" original purpose of this thread, that graph doesn't talk to car size, just that  richer people have more cars.

(full disclosure, we have a car in my family, albeit offset by 5 bikes and 4 pairs of legs)


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 30, 2022)

nick said:


> without wishing disagreement with the "boo cars" original purpose of this thread, that graph doesn't talk to car size, just that  richer people have more cars.
> 
> (full disclosure, we have a car in my family, albeit offset by 5 bikes and 4 pairs of legs)



It's one of those things that's almost impossible to get full figures on but just extrapolation from the number of cars combined with the vast growth in SUV figures means there's some correlation.


----------



## nick (Nov 30, 2022)

Not sure. 
It could be all the rich ones have teslas.

Just guessing , but I imagine a graph of total car ownership in U.K. per decade would do the trick. (combine that with miles of available road at the time, and the too many cars argument is resolved)


----------



## alex_ (Nov 30, 2022)

If suv ownership has trebled, unless we think that the amount of new car purchasing is equal in every decile ( that people in the bottom ten% of income are as likely to purchase new cars as people in the top 10% ) 

It’s pretty clear that the richer you are the more likely you are to own an SUV.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

Ford are stopping Fiesta production, its indirect replacement is the Ford Puma, which is officially classed as a SUV despite being the same size as a VW Golf.

I note from the Yorkshire Evening Post article above that the Tyre Extinguisher wankers deflated the tyres of a Puma, although it is also officially classed as a small car, and has an mpg of 50.

In short neither the Tyre Extinguisher wankers nor most people babbling on this sorry excuse for a thread have a fucking clue.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Ford are stopping Fiesta production, its indirect replacement is the Ford Puma, which is officially classed as a SUV despite being the same size as a VW Golf.
> 
> I note from the Yorkshire Evening Post article above that the Tyre Extinguisher wankers deflated the tyres of a Puma, although it is also officially classed as a small car, and has an mpg of 50.
> 
> In short neither the Tyre Extinguisher wankers nor most people babbling on this sorry excuse for a thread have a fucking clue.


I don’t have a problem with the Tyre Extinguishers widening their remit a bit


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I don’t have a problem with the Tyre Extinguishers widening their remit a bit



Perhaps you'll join in and do your own car


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps you'll join in and do your own car


If they’re working their way down vehicles by size and associated environmental impact it’ll be a while before they get to it.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If they’re working their way down vehicles by size and associated environmental impact



They're clearly not doing that.

Go on, just let your tyres down, otherwise you're a climate change denying child killer.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2022)

It’s part of the natural processes of social change that norms become contested as being part of the problem, and as these challenges become more accepted as legitimate, ever more stringent action gets taken in defiance of those norms. Meanwhile, those caught in the crossfire feel hard done by, because all they’re doing is leading a “normal” life. Eventually, the new ideas become recognised as new norms and then it takes even longer for those new norms to become embedded as new practices.

What I’m saying is that complaining about (or lauding) the tyre extinguishers is as fruitless as complaining about (or lauding) people who use their car to drive places. Both are just part of a wider social process of development and change.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> It’s part of the natural processes of social change that norms become contested as being part of the problem, and as these challenges become more accepted as legitimate, ever more stringent action gets taken in defiance of those norms. Meanwhile, those caught in the crossfire feel hard done by, because all they’re doing is leading a “normal” life. Eventually, the new ideas become recognised as new norms and then it takes even longer for those new norms to become embedded as new practices.
> 
> What I’m saying is that complaining about (or lauding) the tyre extinguishers is as fruitless as complaining about (or lauding) people who use their car to drive places. Both are just part of a wider social process of development and change.



History is littered with once-heralded challenges to social norms that didn’t actually become recognised as new norms at all.

I‘m pretty sure deflating tyres of vehicles categorised as SUVs regardless of their actual impact relative to vehicles not thus categorised will prove to be just such an example.


----------



## maomao (Nov 30, 2022)

SUV is a poorly defined category. But bigger cars are a bad thing. We've done this before.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> History is littered with once-heralded challenges to social norms that didn’t actually become recognised as new norms at all.
> 
> I‘m pretty sure deflating tyres of vehicles categorised as SUVs regardless of their actual impact relative to vehicles not thus categorised will prove to be just such an example.


Well, if the trend towards ever bigger cars is ever to be reversed, this kind of anger against them will have been part of that reversal. Only time will tell. Either way, I just see things like  the letting down of tyres and the aggressive driving towards cyclists as two sides of the same reactionary coin, both part of the war over what is seen as “normal”.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

kabbes said:


> Well, if the trend towards ever bigger cars is ever to be reversed, this kind of anger against them will have been part of that reversal. Only time will tell. Either way, I just see things like  the letting down of tyres and the aggressive driving towards cyclists as two sides of the same reactionary coin, both part of the war over what is seen as “normal”.



If you think that "this kind of anger against them will have been part of that reversal" then surely "complaining about (or lauding)" is all part of that process too, rather than being fruitless, so I don't really see what point you're trying to make...


----------



## Athos (Nov 30, 2022)

There's an argument that, all other things being equal, bigger cars are worse in some respects.

But the idea that bigger always means worse is ridiculous.

A modern electric SUV pollutes less and is safer for occupants, pedestrians, and other road users than, say, a 20 year old fiesta.

People deflating tyres on cars they don't like isn't really about the environment.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

A Ford Puma "SUV" which was targeted by Tyre Extinguishers vs a Mondeo:



The emissions profile of the Puma is of course vastly superior.

Wankers.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's an argument that, all other things being equal, bigger cars are worse in some respects.
> 
> But the idea that bigger always means worse is ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Correct, it's not just about emissions/pollution.

Big cars symbolise an attitude; one that more and more people are reacting against.

Throwing paint at celebrities wearing fur was quite effective. This is similar.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Correct, it's not just about emissions/pollution.
> 
> Big cars symbolise an attitude;



No, we've covered this. Big estate cars are fine (gotta take those fridges to the tip), non-Euro-2-compliant diesel camper vans for jolly jaunts are fine (they symbolise a free-thinking enviro-hippy attitude).

Meanwhile the ordinary person who just drives a modern, efficient, average-sized, ordinary car such as the Ford Puma has a bad attitude, that of a climate-change denying child killer and they need to be scolded.



teuchter said:


> one that more and more people are reacting against.



More and more twats.



teuchter said:


> Throwing paint at celebrities wearing fur was quite effective. This is similar.



It would be similar if they had only targeted celebrities wearing a certain kind of fur, with the result that those celebrities were driven to switch to a different type of fur that was produced with a greater level of associated cruelty.


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

The only black smoke I see coming out of exhausts in town is from double-decker buses. Should I deflate their tyres perhaps? Pretty sure that if everyone on board had a car and drove, it would result in fewer particulates being inhaled. I wouldn't deflate electric buses and I know I'm on the right side of history so that's cool, right?


----------



## Athos (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Big cars symbolise an attitude; one that more and more people are reacting against.


More and more people are buying big cars.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

Athos said:


> More and more people are buying big cars.


Exactly. Therefore this action is increasingly important.


----------



## Athos (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Exactly. Therefore this action is increasingly important.


I suppose it's important insofar as it serves some psychological need in those who are doing it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> No, we've covered this. Big estate cars are fine (gotta take those fridges to the tip), non-Euro-2-compliant diesel camper vans for jolly jaunts are fine (they symbolise a free-thinking enviro-hippy attitude).
> 
> Meanwhile the ordinary person who just drives a modern, efficient, average-sized, ordinary car such as the Ford Puma has a bad attitude, that of a climate-change denying child killer and they need to be scolded.
> 
> ...


Anything higher or wider than a Mondeo is fair game.


----------



## Athos (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Anything higher or wider than a Mondeo is fair game.


You are a monster.


----------



## Chz (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Anything higher or wider than a Mondeo is fair game.


That Puma is about half an inch taller than a Mondeo, about a foot shorter, considerably lighter, and minus a fairly large number of CO2g/km.
I don't find myself agreeing with platinumsage often, but the nonsense of applying the label "SUV" to anything that's half an inch higher off the ground than a Nissan Micra is bollocks. The aging public have spoken and they want the comfort and convenience of higher seats. The vast majority of the "SUV"s sold today are a supermini jacked up by an inch. Just as efficient (the height does knock a touch off the MPG, but it's margin of error level and no-one wants to sit on the floor for maximum drag coefficient), pretty much the same size.

The car I have lined up to replace our Note in a few years (CX-30) is larger, about the same height, and get an additional 10% extra mileage on the motorway. How is it bad that it's bigger? It's also one of those "SUV's that are a regular car with an extra inch in height (because we're old now and the Mazda 3 is a bit low-ish).


----------



## maomao (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Pretty sure that if everyone on board had a car and drove, it would result in fewer particulates being inhaled.


I'd like some workings out on that one. Seems unlikely to me.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 30, 2022)

I have moaned about this before but when did indicating become optional? 

Just seen three cars out of five in a traffic snarl go left without indicating first


----------



## platinumsage (Nov 30, 2022)

maomao said:


> I'd like some workings out on that one. Seems unlikely to me.



Euro III 2000.10 heavy-duty diesel engine standard is 0.1 PM (g/kWh).

As to how much particulates would increase if it's badly maintained and producing lots of visible soot, this article would suggest upto +85% for nozzle and needle wear, +50% for a dirty air cleaner and +85% for excessive oil consumption. This would give 0.22 PM.

The average car is 12.2 years old. Let's assume 20 people on the bus each drive in an average car instead, that would be Euro 5 standard of 0.005 PM (g/km!). 

Obviously real-world would be different. I suspect the smoky bus would be a lot worse and the cars massively better than stated limits (because most of them would be petrol cars), but that's some workings out for you.

If you have better data or can be arsed to do more calcualtions please feel free to share.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

Chz said:


> That Puma is about half an inch taller than a Mondeo, about a foot shorter, considerably lighter, and minus a fairly large number of CO2g/km.
> I don't find myself agreeing with platinumsage often, but the nonsense of applying the label "SUV" to anything that's half an inch higher off the ground than a Nissan Micra is bollocks. The aging public have spoken and they want the comfort and convenience of higher seats. The vast majority of the "SUV"s sold today are a supermini jacked up by an inch. Just as efficient (the height does knock a touch off the MPG, but it's margin of error level and no-one wants to sit on the floor for maximum drag coefficient), pretty much the same size.
> 
> The car I have lined up to replace our Note in a few years (CX-30) is larger, about the same height, and get an additional 10% extra mileage on the motorway. How is it bad that it's bigger? It's also one of those "SUV's that are a regular car with an extra inch in height (because we're old now and the Mazda 3 is a bit low-ish).



As often happens on this thread , this is written from a "won't anyone think of the elderly drivers" perspective rather than "won't anyone think of elderly people".

The height of cars is very relevant to pedestrians (and cyclists). Here are eye level heights for standing adults:



Cyclists' eye levels are quite similar.

Until relatively recently, most European cars were lower than most adults' eye level. That meant that most people could see over the top of most cars parked along streets. That means more visibility for things like crossing roads (including at designated crossings) and it also contributes to the general feel of a street with cars parked along it. I took the Mondeo as a bit of an arbitrary benchmark, but according to the dimensions posted further up the thread, it's 1460mm high. Compare that to the numbers in the eye level chart. The Puma is "only" 77mm higher (about 3 inches) but at 1537mm it's already higher than the 50% percentile of women. Relatively small increases in height, around this level, can be significant for humans. In case anyone's forgotten what they are, they are the things that are often in cars but also the things that walk around on pavements. Some of them are elderly, many of them find crossing roads difficult or prefer streets where they can clearly see the other side.

Width is important for the amount of physical street space taken up. Again only a small increase in width becomes significant if you multiply it by 4 (2x kerbside parking and 2x moving traffic lanes) and then subtract it from the space left over for a cyclist. It means that in general more space is needed for parking. Space that could be used for other things.

The cross sectional area of a car is determined by its width x height. Greater cross sectional area means more air resistance means more energy to move. It's just physics. Maybe a modern "SUV" is more efficient and less polluting than a 10 year old "standard" car but so what? The comparison should be with a modern "standard" car. That's the choice that's being made.

We have infrastructure that is designed for what used to be the "standard" car size. We have various rules and assumptions built on that too. It's a genuine problem if a large number of cars start to become bigger (which is what's happening). If buyers of large vehicles don't want their tyres deflated maybe they should lobby for measures which would let them have large vehicles in return for some changes to how we accomodate cars in the public realm. For example, all streets currently with kerbside parking on both sides to be changed to one side only. All two-way streets below a certain width re-designated as one way. Vehicles over a certain size disqualified from on-street parking anywhere. Once they have succeeded in such measures being implemented, the problem will have been mitigated and they can get back to shopping for their giant death machines.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 30, 2022)

^^ That is a really excellent and informative post


----------



## maomao (Nov 30, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Euro III 2000.10 heavy-duty diesel engine standard is 0.1 PM (g/kWh).
> 
> As to how much particulates would increase if it's badly maintained and producing lots of visible soot, this article would suggest upto +85% for nozzle and needle wear, +50% for a dirty air cleaner and +85% for excessive oil consumption. This would give 0.22 PM.
> 
> ...


Aside from pulling the number 20 out of your arse, and making best case assumptions for all the cars while making worst case assumptions for the bus (the sliver of truth in which is a reflection of the resources put into private transport compared to public) it's also 80 tryes and 20 sets of brakes instead of four and one, six times the road space etc.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

Even if the numbers for the bus argument added up: it would only make sense if your starting point was that public transport is unnecessary - everyone should be responsible for their own private transport.

If we agree that there should be public transport, then the bus needs to be there in some form - that's a given. Obviously, the more efficient and less polluting the bus can be, the better (and buses have improved a lot in the recent past), so sure, argue about whether we should be investing in new buses.

But once the bus, in whatever form, is there, it's simply not an option to shift all the passengers to cars, and remove the bus. Maybe 60% of the bus passengers also own a car, and could use it instead. But shifting them all to car doesn't decrease pollution, it increases it. Even if the cars produce a fraction of the pollution the bus does, per occupant.

On the other hand, if you have a 50% full bus, even a polluting one, filling the remainder up with passengers who otherwise would have used their cars (even low-pollution ones) is almost certainly going to reduce pollution overall.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> As often happens on this thread , this is written from a "won't anyone think of the elderly drivers" perspective rather than "won't anyone think of elderly people".
> 
> The height of cars is very relevant to pedestrians (and cyclists). Here are eye level heights for standing adults:
> 
> ...


----------



## Chz (Nov 30, 2022)

teuchter said:


> As often happens on this thread , this is written from a "won't anyone think of the elderly drivers" perspective rather than "won't anyone think of elderly people".
> 
> The height of cars is very relevant to pedestrians (and cyclists). Here are eye level heights for standing adults:
> 
> ...


That's half insightful and half bonkers with zero concession to reality.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

Chz said:


> That's half insightful and half bonkers with zero concession to reality.


Such is the nature of this thread but what specifically do you think is bonkers? Is it the idea that people could accept that their individual desire for a bigger car, when part of a general pattern, has a wider impact, which should therefore be mitigated or restricted in some way? And that they would voluntarily take appropriate action? If course it is, which is why they'll just continue to whine about lentils deflating their tyres.


----------



## Chz (Nov 30, 2022)

It would take me at least a half hour to pick out what I agree and disagree with and formulate a rational response, so please don't take offense in my laziness of just not being arsed. But if I'm to pick out one thing - the small suvs that are the most popular things (pumas, konas, jukes, etc) are _barely_ any larger than the superminis they've replaced. Why is the line here? Cars have been getting larger, generation upon generation for 50 years. At least. The Puma is taller than the Mondeo, but it's still narrower and presents less aerodynamic area. Why do we not slash a Mondeo? Surely it's larger than most people need?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

Chz said:


> It would take me at least a half hour to pick out what I agree and disagree with and formulate a rational response, so please don't take offense in my laziness of just not being arsed. But if I'm to pick out one thing - the small suvs that are the most popular things (pumas, konas, jukes, etc) are _barely_ any larger than the superminis they've replaced. Why is the line here? Cars have been getting larger, generation upon generation for 50 years. At least. The Puma is taller than the Mondeo, but it's still narrower and presents less aerodynamic area. Why do we not slash a Mondeo? Surely it's larger than most people need?


Actually I thought the least bonkers bit of what I wrote was relating car height to eye level.

Cars under about 1500mm, most adults can see over the top of them. Much more than that, and significant numbers of adults can't.

We can argue about _exactly_ where to draw the line. A tyre slasher with an eye height of 1500mm might judge a Mondeo to be "not unusually large" and a Puma to be "large".

If you don't want your tyres slashed, perhaps it would be wise to consider those percentile statistics in relation to the height of whatever vehicle you are considering buying.

It doesn't really matter if there's a bit of inconsistency about where each tyre slasher draws the line - what's important is that it creates some kind of downward pressure on car size preference amongst purchasers.

Is it true that cars have been getting bigger for 50 years? This chart suggests that height was relatively stable until the late 90s. Width seems to have started increasing in the late 80s.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Actually I thought the least bonkers bit of what I wrote was relating car height to eye level.
> 
> Cars under about 1500mm, most adults can see over the top of them. Much more than that, and significant numbers of adults can't.
> 
> ...



You think people should yield to the car slashers and buy longer, heavier, more polluting and inefficient cars like  Mondeos instead of Pumas, just to satisfy someone’s eye height fetish?



teuchter said:


> It doesn't really matter if there's a bit of inconsistency about where each tyre slasher draws the line - what's important is that it creates some kind of downward pressure on car size preference amongst purchasers.



It only creates downward pressure on car height, but it creates upward pressure on car length, car weight, car inefficiency and car pollution.

If the tyre slashers had a logic that was internally consistent, I might not support them but at least I could say fair play they’re taking direct action in support of their professed beliefs.

However, currently they’re leafleting about climate change and various other factors, but they’re not targeting cars on that basis. They’re actually encouraging people to go against their stated aims by ditching efficient, safer, hybrids for long, heavy, dangerous polluting diesels.

If they can’t be arsed to work out what sort of cars they should target to further their aims, how can they expect the car buying public to choose cars based on those aims?


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> You think people should yield to the car slashers and buy longer, heavier, more polluting and inefficient cars like  Mondeos instead of Pumas, just to satisfy someone’s eye height fetish?


Yeah I don't think it's a 'fetish', it's to do with more pedestrians not being able to see over / beyond cars, which is a road safety issue. But you know this.

Plus the fetish, if that's a word we're using now, is the car .. the power, the prestige, the sounds and smells, the aggressive frowny headlight arrays, the shiny paint, the groovy geometric wheel trims etc. _Phwoar_, eh?


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah I don't think it's a 'fetish', it's to do with more pedestrians not being able to see over / beyond cars, which is a road safety issue. But you know this.
> 
> Plus the fetish, if that's a word we're using now, is the car .. the power, the prestige, the sounds and smells, the aggressive frowny headlight arrays, the shiny paint, the groovy geometric wheel trims etc. _Phwoar_, eh?



Yeah ignore my substantive points and focus on one word choice, great stuff.

Nowhere in their literature does it mention not being able to see over the top of certain cars. I don't think the thought even occurred to them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Yeah ignore my substantive points and focus on one word choice, great stuff.


Well it's your word, and it's an interesting one. Speaks volumes actually. Says more than your 'substantive points' tbh.


platinumsage said:


> Nowhere in their literature does it mention not being able to see over the top of certain cars. I don't the thought even occurred to them.


I'm not interested in the tyre deflaters, but if I gave them any thought it'd broadly be amusement. The height thing is true and important though, and you seem to be avoiding addressing it. Any thoughts, then? Any thoughts on whether the increasing size of cars on the roads is a plus or a minus for road users, specifically non-driving road users? Any thoughts on the psychology of MASSIVE CARS in the urban environment?

(you edited, oh well)


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Well it's your word, and it's an interesting one. Speaks volumes actually. Says more than your 'substantive points' tbh.
> 
> I'm not interested in the tyre deflaters, but if I gave them any thought it'd broadly be amusement. The height thing is true and important though, and you seem to be avoiding addressing it. Any thoughts, then? Any thoughts on whether the increasing size of cars on the roads is a plus or a minus for road users, specifically non-driving road users? Any thoughts on the psychology of MASSIVE CARS in the urban environment?
> 
> (you edited, oh well)



Why capitalize MASSIVE CARS? Seems a bit weird when we're talking about Ford Pumas.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Why capitalize MASSIVE CARS? Seems a bit weird when we're talking about Ford Pumas.


I'm not, I'm talking more generally about MASSIVE CARS, especially in the urban environment. Particularly 

the psychology of choosing them and
their impact on the safety of non-drivers.

Still, good job on the err what was it?


platinumsage said:


> ignore my substantive points and focus on one word choice, great stuff.


oh yes that's right


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> I'm not, I'm talking more generally about MASSIVE CARS, especially in the urban environment. Particularly
> 
> the psychology of choosing them and
> their impact on the safety of non-drivers.
> ...



Ok, I'm talking about the tyre twats and the fact their program of tyre vandalism will have the opposite effect of their published aims.

I couldn't care less whether a car is 1485mm high or 1521mm high. If you care so much about that maybe start a dedicated thread on the topic.


----------



## mojo pixy (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If you care so much about that maybe start a dedicated thread on the topic.


Nah, this is that thread.


platinumsage said:


> I'm talking about the tyre twats and the fact their program of tyre vandalism will have the opposite effect of their published aims.


Well,


platinumsage said:


> If you care so much about that maybe start a dedicated thread on the topic.



On the other hand,


platinumsage said:


> I couldn't care less whether a car is 1485mm high or 1521mm high.


And I couldn't care less about car tyres being deflated. Don't have a car, don't get your car's tyres let down, easy peasy.

There you go. Now I can ask about the psychology behind choosing a MASSIVE CAR, and the impact of increasing numbers of such vehicles on people who aren't driving them. I know ''other people's wellbeing" is a weird and uncomfortable area of reflection for many drivers (especially the kinds who choose MASSIVE CARS) but it bears some discussion imo.

Evidently not with you, though.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Nah, this is that thread.
> 
> Well,
> 
> ...



Define MASSIVE first. Is a Puma MASSIVE? How about a Skoda Superb? A Toyota Aygo X?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Dec 1, 2022)

Want another topping of actual facts that car drivers ignore and get really fragile if pointed out to them?









						Pollution from tire wear 1,000 times worse than exhaust emissions | Tire Technology International
					

Air pollution from tire wear particles can be 1,000 times worse than what comes out of a car’s exhaust, Emissions Analytics has found. Harmful particle matter from tires is a very serious and growing environmental problem, and is currently unregulated.  Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) – particles...




					www.tiretechnologyinternational.com


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Anything higher or wider than a Mondeo is fair game.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> Want another topping of actual facts that car drivers ignore and get really fragile if pointed out to them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ridiculous nonsense though:

"it was found that the car emitted 5.8g/km of particles"

Think about that for a minute. In the 20,000 miles it typically takes to wear a car's tyres from 8mm of tread to 2mm, it produces 185kg of particles? That's several times more than the entire weight of all four tyres, despite only 6mm being skimmed off the treads.

A clue is elsewhere in the article "particles released into the air from brake wear, tire wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road vehicle usage – are currently believed to constitute the majority of primary particulate matter from road transport: 60% of PM2.5 and 73% of PM10."

So the headline should read "Pollution from tyre wear and lots of other stuff about the same as exhaust emissions", rather than "...1,000 times worse...".


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> It only creates downward pressure on car height, but it creates upward pressure on car length, car weight, car efficiency and car pollution.


Before we go further can we just confirm that you agree the tyre slashers actions create a downward pressure on car height, or do you in fact want to do a U turn on your statement above?


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Before we go further can we just confirm that you agree the tyre slashers actions create a downward pressure on car height, or do you in fact want to do a U turn on your statement above?



If it was effective it would create a downward pressure on height but not on any of the things the slashers profess to care about such as weight, CO2, pollution or whatever. Whether it is effective at all I have no idea. I suspect it is not.

It's quite funny that you've invented the idea that their campaign is actually about enabling people to see over the top of cars.


----------



## Chz (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Ridiculous nonsense though:
> 
> "it was found that the car emitted 5.8g/km of particles"
> 
> ...


The tyres are more pliant than the road, but basic physics says the road is _also_ ablating particles into the air and roads aren't made of puppies and lollypops either. Unfortunately, in the name of safety cars are much heavier and tyres much wider than they've ever been in the past. So this sort of pollution could be lost to noise in the past (especially since the cars polluted a lot more out the tailpipe), but it's becoming significant.

I think we're losing the essentials to semantics right now, even if it is partly my own fault.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> If it was effective it would create a downward pressure on height but not on any of the things the slashers profess to care about such as weight, CO2, pollution or whatever. Whether it is effective at all I have no idea. I suspect it is not.
> 
> It's quite funny that you've invented the idea that their campaign is actually about enabling people to see over the top of cars.


A U-turn it is, then.

I'm not inventing anything about their campaign - I am explaining why I am happy for them to use height as an identifier of vehicles that are appropriate for action. And why I don't particularly care about their, your, or anyone else's definition of an "SUV".


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

Chz said:


> The tyres are more pliant than the road, but basic physics says the road is _also_ ablating particles into the air and roads aren't made of puppies and lollypops either.
> 
> I think we're losing the essentials to semantics right now, even if it is partly my own fault.



No that was actual mass loss from tyres in these clown's experiment: 

"As we were originally concerned that the mass loss levels would be too small to measure, we stacked the decks by choosing the cheapest tyres, ballasted the car heavily, chose a track with average surface quality and designed a test cycle with high speeds and much cornering. Driving a 2011 VW Golf 320kms at high road speeds on the track resulted in a mass loss of 1,844g which equates 5.8g per km."

Which if course is entierly irrlevant to particulate pollution. I suspect big lumps were falling off their tyres.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> A U-turn it is, then.
> 
> I'm not inventing anything about their campaign - I am explaining why I am happy for them to use height as an identifier of vehicles that are appropriate for action. And why I don't particularly care about their, your, or anyone else's definition of an "SUV".



So you're happy for them to attempt to incentivize people to switch from Ford Pumas and Toyota Aygo Xs into larger, longer, heavier, more polluting saloon and estate cars which according to their campaign are not SUVs and so much more acceptable to own?

Their website is a joke, I can't even think of any nine-year olds who would write such tripe, so to call it childish would be unfair:

"How To Spot An SUV: SUVs and 4x4s are easy to recognize because they are much larger than ordinary cars, towering above them and taking up huge amounts of space."

How huge is the space that a Ford Puma takes up?


----------



## Chz (Dec 1, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah I don't think it's a 'fetish', it's to do with more pedestrians not being able to see over / beyond cars, which is a road safety issue. But you know this.
> 
> Plus the fetish, if that's a word we're using now, is the car .. the power, the prestige, the sounds and smells, the aggressive frowny headlight arrays, the shiny paint, the groovy geometric wheel trims etc. _Phwoar_, eh?


Cars are pretty much luxury items depending on marketing to sell them. The most basic transportation for anyone that _needs_ it is a van. But that's clearly nonsense because it's too tall and too wide for our roads.

Edit: I'm not trying to argue in favour of the latest HMS Range Rover or whatever, but you can't complain about the design and marketing of what is, for most people whether they accept it or not, a non-essential item.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So you're happy for them to attempt to incentivize people to switch from Ford Pumas and Toyota Aygo Xs into larger, longer, heavier, more polluting saloon and estate cars which according to their campaign are not SUVs and so much more acceptable to own?


What's leading you to think I'd be happy with that? Let's take it step by step and see if we can reduce your confusion.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's leading you to think I'd be happy with that? Let's take it step by step and see if we can reduce your confusion.



Well that's what they're doing, and you're happy with it, so there you go.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Well that's what they're doing, and you're happy with it, so there you go.


It's what you think they are doing, based on some muddled ideas you seem to have. We can't pin down the flaws in your thinking unless you explain your reasoning clearly. We can tell that you haven't thought things through from your U-turn on your initial hasty claim.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's what you think they are doing, based on some muddled ideas you seem to have. We can't pin down the flaws in your thinking unless you explain your reasoning clearly. We can tell that you haven't thought things through from your U-turn on your initial hasty claim.



Perhaps you could explain what they are doing that involves targeting a Ford Puma, as they seem incapable of it doing themselves.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Perhaps you could explain what they are doing that involves targeting a Ford Puma, as they seem incapable of it doing themselves.


I'm not making any claims about what they are doing or why. On the other hand, you are making an outlandish claim about the consequences of their actions, but dodging my request to explain the reasoning behind that claim. I wonder why that is? Readers can come to their own conclusions.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 1, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm not making any claims about what they are doing or why. On the other hand, you are making an outlandish claim about the consequences of their actions, but dodging my request to explain the reasoning behind that claim. I wonder why that is? Readers can come to their own conclusions.



So you can't explain what they're doing or why. Neither can you analyse the consequences of their actions. Great. Remember to slash your own tyres the next time you find yourself about to drive a vehicle, I'm sure the deflations will enable a child to see over it who otherwise wouldn't have been able to.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 1, 2022)

Everything is fine.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Dec 6, 2022)

They should adopt this rule here - ideally stricter so anyone speeding by 5mph or more loses their car for good.









						Speeding motorists in Austria risk having cars seized and auctioned
					

Planned legislation aims to curb illegal street races and other cases of extreme speeding




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Dec 6, 2022)

Tony Young having a normal one here.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 6, 2022)

They’re all bat shit crazy! Must be where plattysage gets it from.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Dec 6, 2022)

yes. Or just walk. 
Oxford is not big. Just because towns have been badly designed around the motorcar doesn't mean there isn't a way out of this mess. It just means you have to use your brains Toby.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 6, 2022)




----------



## stethoscope (Dec 6, 2022)

Where I live right in the middle of a town centre, only some flats have got dedicated parking spaces, however two minutes walk around the corner there's ample parking in the CPZ which just requires a council permit annually of £30. The fuss people who rent or come to look at buying a flat without dedicated parking make 'I can't possibly have to go around the corner for my car?!'.

(I'm not talking about those with mobility issues either)


----------



## A380 (Dec 7, 2022)

GT 40. 40 inches or 101.6 cm high.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

The 15 minute city seems like a great idea - everything within walking distance, fewer cars on the roads, stronger communities etc.  But, I can't help but feel a bit uneasy about the coercive aspects of it (albeit I don't buy much of the hysterical response, some of which is just straight-up lies).  Why bring it about by a _de facto_ restriction on people's freedom of movement?  Surely it'd be better to improve public transport and local facilities to the point where people choose not to travel by private car?


----------



## Chz (Dec 7, 2022)

Have discovered that I am Part of the Problem, because my car is the same height as a Ford Puma, despite being neither a van nor an SUV.  I'm surprised no-one has slashed my tyres yet, although they did get the shit punctured out of them while they were throwing up those flats in Hackbridge.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 7, 2022)

Siri, show me an example of how cars send some people utterly fucking mental









						Accountants spend £100,000 on parking row that's lasted seven years
					

The judge warned them not to waste anymore money, but their legal dispute continues.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2022)

A380 said:


> GT 40. 40 inches or 101.6 cm high.
> 
> View attachment 354585


I would never slash that car's tyres. I'd just do a shit on the roof instead.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> The 15 minute city seems like a great idea - everything within walking distance, fewer cars on the roads, stronger communities etc.  But, I can't help but feel a bit uneasy about the coercive aspects of it (albeit I don't buy much of the hysterical response, some of which is just straight-up lies).  Why bring it about by a _de facto_ restriction on people's freedom of movement?  Surely it'd be better to improve public transport and local facilities to the point where people choose not to travel by private car?


Where have you got the impression that "de facto restrictions on people's freedom of movement" are being imposed?

I imagine what you actually mean is "motorists' freedom of movement" seeing as users of almost all other modes have had their freedom of movement increasingly restricted as the private car has come to dominance.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Where have you got the impression that "de facto restrictions on people's freedom of movement" are being imposed?


From the fact that people (and, yes, motorists are people) will effectively be prevented from making journeys - including route and mode of transport - that they were previously able to make.  I understand the intention, but, as noble as the aim might be, the state imposing such measures seems like a the wrong way to go about it.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> From the fact that people (and, yes, motorists are people) will effectively be prevented from making journeys - including route and mode of transport - that they were previously able to make.  I understand the intention, but, as noble as the aim might be, the state imposing such measures seems like a the wrong way to go about it.


By that kind of logic we should never build any new roads, or railways or schools or hospitals, on land that is currently traversible on foot. And of course we should never implement any public transport that means drivers have to take a different route. We shouldn't convert any roadspace to cycle lanes. No pedestrianisation should ever take place. These would all be coercive measures imposed by the state that restrict people's freedom of movement.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> By that kind of logic we should never build any new roads, or railways or schools or hospitals, on land that is currently traversible on foot. And of course we should never implement any public transport that means drivers have to take a different route. We shouldn't convert any roadspace to cycle lanes. No pedestrianisation should ever take place. These would all be coercive measures imposed by the state that restrict people's freedom of movement.


What's being proposed sounds more significant than those measures.  As I understand it, it's a pilot, so it'll be interesting to see what effect it has, and whether or not the people of Oxford want it to continue - at the moment it sounds like most aren't keen.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> From the fact that people (and, yes, motorists are people) will effectively be prevented from making journeys - including route and mode of transport - that they were previously able to make.  I understand the intention, but, as noble as the aim might be, the state imposing such measures seems like a the wrong way to go about it.


The state currently says where you can drive to, how you get there, where you park your car etc. Towns being built or mangled afterwards purely for motor traffic is a big part of the problem.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> What's being proposed sounds more significant than those measures.  As I understand it, it's a pilot, so it'll be interesting to see what effect it has, and whether or not the people of Oxford want it to continue - at the moment it sounds like most aren't keen.


I thought you were talking about some hypothetical place but if you're talking about Oxford, do you really view it as a place without viable alternatives to private car travel?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Also, do you have any examples of places where significant modal shift has successfully been achieved without any "coercion"?


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> The state currently says where you can drive to, how you get there, where you park your car etc. Towns being built or mangled afterwards purely for motor traffic is a big part of the problem.


"Motor traffic" is people going about their lives. They want to be able to do so, and, generally, that's been the public consensus hitherto, because, on balance, people feel it adds to the quality of their lives. It'll be interesting to see if that changes in Oxford as a result of this pilot.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, do you have any examples of places where significant modal shift has successfully been achieved without any "coercion"?


No.  I don't know if there are any; I've not looked.  But, even if they're aren't, it doesn't mean there can't be.


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I thought you were talking about some hypothetical place but if you're talking about Oxford, do you really view it as a place without viable alternatives to private car travel?


I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that suit some people.   Others find e.g. public transport unpleasant and inconvenient, or bikes dangerous.  I'd rather the alternatives were made better, such that people want to use them, rather than force them to do something they don't want to.  That would be a win-win for everybody, no?


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 7, 2022)

That's not how it works.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives that suit some people.   Others find e.g. public transport unpleasant and inconvenient, or bikes dangerous.  I'd rather the alternatives were made better, such that people want to use them, rather than force them to do something they don't want to.  That would be a win-win for everybody, no?


That would be having your cake and eating it, because, for example if you want to improve bus reliability you need to decrease congestion. If you want to make cycling less dangerous you need to reduce road capacity for motor vehicles.

Of course in principle the alternatives have to be made better as well as the disincentives being put in place. But most places where the "15 minute city" is being pursued, there is already good public transport. Places like inner London, or Oxford. And no-one is being prevented outright from doing a journey by car, it is being made somewhat more inconvenient.

There is a rebalancing of priorities. If your starting point is that the status quo is "fair" - that is there are those with cars and those without, and everyone's kind of equal, then any inconvenience imposed on car drivers is seen as persecution.

On the other point, if you can see that the status quo involves maintaining massive privilege in favour of car owners at the expense of everyone else, then what's a fair rebalancing looks different.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> No.  I don't know if there are any; I've not looked.  But, even if they're aren't, it doesn't mean there can't be.


And if there are no places where it's succeeded, and several places where it's been attempted and has failed, what should the conclusion then be?


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> And if there are no places where it's succeeded, and several places where it's been attempted and has failed, what should the conclusion then be?



That the methods they tried in those times and places didn't work.  It doesn't necessarily follow that there are no less coercive measures than what's being proposed that could succeed in UK cities now.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> That the methods they tried in those times and places didn't work.  It doesn't necessarily follow that there are no less coercive measures than what's being proposed that could succeed in UK cities now.


Ok, so what are your specific ideas or proposals... things that no-one else has previously thought to try?


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> That would be having your cake and eating it, because, for example if you want to improve bus reliability you need to decrease congestion. If you want to make cycling less dangerous you need to reduce road capacity for motor vehicles.
> 
> Of course in principle the alternatives have to be made better as well as the disincentives being put in place. But most places where the "15 minute city" is being pursued, there is already good public transport. Places like inner London, or Oxford. And no-one is being prevented outright from doing a journey by car, it is being made somewhat more inconvenient.
> 
> ...



I accept that there's some chicken-and-egg.

And I don't necessarily disagree with all of the measures you'd no doubt favour e.g. better cycle lanes, even if that would mean some disruption to motorists.

But the measures propsed in Oxford seem to me to be an unwarranted infingement on existing freedoms.

I completely accept that those freedoms historically reflect (perhaps undue) prviledge to motorists. And maybe if we were staying from scratch I'd have favoured a better balance.  But the state taking away existing freedoms that'll have a really significant impact on people's lives isn't something we should welcome lightly.

So I would continue to favour carrots over sticks, even really radical ones like financially incentivising people to forego car ownership, or free ebikes for everyone.

In the meantime, even in areas where you think public transport is good, I'm sure that there's more that can be done to improve it before having cars e.g. making it free.  Alongside making more stuff available locally - part of the 15 minute city I like.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Dec 7, 2022)

Chz said:


> Have discovered that I am Part of the Problem, because my car is the same height as a Ford Puma, despite being neither a van nor an SUV.  I'm surprised no-one has slashed my tyres yet, although they did get the shit punctured out of them while they were throwing up those flats in Hackbridge.


Just cut the top of the car off to reduce the height.  Wear some wooly gloves and stuff to keep warm while you're driving in colder weather.


----------



## maomao (Dec 7, 2022)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Just cut the top of the car off to reduce the height.


Cut about a foot and a half off, with driver at wheel.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> I accept that there's some chicken-and-egg.
> 
> And I don't necessarily disagree with all of the measures you'd no doubt favour e.g. better cycle lanes, even if that would mean some disruption to motorists.
> 
> ...


Carrot measures - especially radical ones - mean spending a lot of public money. You have to make that politically attractive.

It's very hard to make massive spending on public transport attractive to a car dependent population.

On the other hand, people who were previously mainly using their cars, but who have been "coerced" into using an ok (but could be better) public transport system, will be much more invested in improving that system (and more likely to vote for measures that fund it more adequately).

Remember, non car owners are putting up with inadequate public transport every day because measures to inprove it are rejected by car owning majorities in many places.

As for making more services available locally - like grocery shops - how actually do you achieve this through carrot only? Subsidies? Because those local shops usually have to compete with big supermarkets with lots of infrastructure supporting them and making them as convenient as possible for those with cars. You can't just provide a big car park for the corner shop. You need to create a situation where someone who lives ten minutes walk away, but has a car and a supermarket a convenient 15 minutes drive away, decides it's more attractive to go to their local shop three times a week than the supermarket once a week, possibly on their way home from work because they are already driving there already. How do we attack this situation with carrots only?


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Carrot measures - especially radical ones - mean spending a lot of public money. You have to make that politically attractive.
> 
> It's very hard to make massive spending on public transport attractive to a car dependent population.
> 
> ...


Yes, I get that carrots might be more expensive, and possibly less effective.  Nevertheless, I still think that approach is better than welcoming the state radically curtailing existing freedoms in a way that (currently, at least) most people don't want because (rightly or wrongly) they belive it'll have a net negative effect on their quality of life.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 7, 2022)

I would like things to work this way too. But they don't.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes, I get that carrots might be more expensive, and possibly less effective.  Nevertheless, I still think that approach is better than welcoming the state radically curtailing existing freedoms in a way that (currently, at least) most people don't want because (rightly or wrongly) they belive it'll have a net negative effect on their quality of life.


Somebody should do a film of this.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

Athos said:


> radically curtailing existing freedoms


Just to calibrate my understanding of what you call "radical curtailment" are you referring to things like making some roads no-through roads such that people have to drive a less convenient route to get somewhere? Or something else?


----------



## Athos (Dec 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Just to calibrate my understanding of what you call "radical curtailment" are you referring to things like making some roads no-through roads such that people have to drive a less convenient route to get somewhere? Or something else?


I think you (deliberately) understate the level of inconvenience the Oxford proposal will cause to ordinary people trying to go about their normal lives e.g. get to work.  I could well see the forced diversions adding a significant time to many people's commute.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 7, 2022)

I haven't stated anything about the level of inconvenience caused by the Oxford proposals as I haven't even looked at what they are yet: I was asking what "radical curtailment" meant to you. That language suggests something more dramatic than "inconvenience" to me.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 8, 2022)

This is Mayfair. Crazy how were prioritising tanks over people in central London.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

Emergency statement presumably because they failed to publicise their plans appropriately:





__





						Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters | Oxford City Council
					

Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters - Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters




					www.oxford.gov.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> I think you (deliberately) understate the level of inconvenience the Oxford proposal will cause to ordinary people trying to go about their normal lives e.g. get to work.  I could well see the forced diversions adding a significant time to many people's commute.


If only there were other ways they could get to work.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I haven't stated anything about the level of inconvenience caused by the Oxford proposals as I haven't even looked at what they are yet: I was asking what "radical curtailment" meant to you. That language suggests something more dramatic than "inconvenience" to me.


I've been talking about the Oxford proposal.

I guess it's a matter of degree; there's a point at which inconvenience becomes so significant as to amount to a serious reduction in someone's quality of life.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 8, 2022)

Not being able to drive whenever and wherever you want is not a “serious reduction in someone’s quality of life” ffs


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If only there were other ways they could get to work.


Yes, that's what I'd like to see. Other equally good (or better) ways to get to work.  If what they considered a comfortable, reliable, cost-effective alternative existed then fewer people would choose to use cars.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Not being able to drive whenever and wherever you want is not a “serious reduction in someone’s quality of life” ffs


It is for a lot of people; it represents a freedom and convenience they value greatly.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> It is for a lot of people; it represents a freedom and convenience they value greatly.


They can get a grip and fuck right off at the same time.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> It is for a lot of people; it represents a freedom and convenience they value greatly.


They can get a grip and fuck right off at the same time.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They can get a grip and fuck right off at the same time.


I'm sorry it angers you that some people think differently from you.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> They can get a grip and fuck right off at the same time.



So it's your way or the highway?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Emergency statement presumably because they failed to publicise their plans appropriately:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes - they should have really made clear from the outset 🙄


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> So it's your way or the highway?


Absolutely


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> I've been talking about the Oxford proposal.
> 
> I guess it's a matter of degree; there's a point at which inconvenience becomes so significant as to amount to a serious reduction in someone's quality of life.


Can you give us an example of a journey in Oxford that will be affected in such a way by the current proposals?


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Can you give us an example of a journey in Oxford that will be affected in such a way by the current proposals?


I'm not sufficiently familiar with the area, but it's clear from the local response that many feel it'll have that effect.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> I'm not sufficiently familiar with the area, but it's clear from the local response that many feel it'll have that effect.


So to summarise:

you don't know the area
you don't know the specifics of the proposals
you don't have any specific alternatives to propose
your opinion that freedoms are being radically curtailed is based on media reports that some people there are unhappy.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So to summarise:
> 
> you don't know the area
> you don't know the specifics of the proposals
> ...


Points 1 and 2 are correct.

With regard to point 3, I did set out what I'd prefer.

With regard to point 4, that's not entirely true.  I've read some of the press reporting, but I've also spoken to a colleague who lives in Oxford; she said that many locals are up in arms.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> With regard to point 3, I did set out what I'd prefer.



Not in any specific terms. 

Making broad statements is easy; actually coming up with something that can be implemented in the real world is very difficult. The kinds of schemes that are being promoted just now are based on decades of experience of what works and what doesn't work. And of what can actually be made to happen politically. If it were possible to convince people that they pay higher taxes in order to fund public transport systems that were so good, they simply wouldn't want to use the car they've already invested in, it would be happening everywhere.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> The kinds of schemes that are being promoted just now are based on decades of experience of what works and what doesn't work. And of what can actually be made to happen politically.



Absolutely nonsense. No council officers at at Oxford or Cambridge have any experience of the kind of schemes they are proposing, and if both of the schemes are actually implemented without major climb-down revisions I'll donate £10 to the server fund.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Absolutely nonsense. No council officers at at Oxford or Cambridge have any experience of the kind of schemes they are proposing, and if both of the schemes are actually implemented without major climb-down revisions I'll donate £10 to the server fund.


What's being proposed in Cambridge then?


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Not in any specific terms.
> 
> Making broad statements is easy; actually coming up with something that can be implemented in the real world is very difficult. The kinds of schemes that are being promoted just now are based on decades of experience of what works and what doesn't work. And of what can actually be made to happen politically. If it were possible to convince people that they pay higher taxes in order to fund public transport systems that were so good, they simply wouldn't want to use the car they've already invested in, it would be happening everywhere.


My issue isn't with the efficacy; I'm sure those measures will reduce the number of cars in the city centre.

My issue is with the principle of the state imposing measures to curtail existing freedoms, thereby degrading the quality of life of many people, without a sufficient mandate.

It's on that basis that I'd rather they did other things, notwithstanding that they might be less effective at reducing the number of cars in the city (an aim with which I agree).


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's being proposed in Cambridge then?



A £5 congestion charge zone, covering the entire city right up to the furthest suburbs, and offering no discount for residents (or motor scooters for that matter).


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> My issue isn't with the efficacy; I'm sure those measures will reduce the number of cars in the city centre.
> 
> My issue is with the principle of the state imposing measures to curtail existing freedoms without a sufficient mandate.
> 
> It's on that basis that I'd rather they did other things, notwithstanding that they might be less effective at reducing the number of cars in the city (an aim with which I agree).


Yes, we are clear you'd rather they did "other things". You can tell us what you want the end result to be but you have zero proposals for how to get there.

I would like the war in Ukraine to stop. How should that happen? Oh, they should just do "other things" instead of fighting.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> principle of the state imposing measures to curtail existing freedoms without a sufficient mandate


I understand it starts when they create your legal person with your birth certificate.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, we are clear you'd rather they did "other things". You can tell us what you want the end result to be but you have zero proposals for how to get there.
> 
> I would like the war in Ukraine to stop. How should that happen? Oh, they should just do "other things" instead of fighting.


I have set out some of those things - the sort of incentives I'd like to see.  I appreciate they're not perfect, but, to me, they're better than the alternatives - the status quo, or the proposed measures in Oxford.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I understand it starts when they create your legal person with your birth certificate.


Yes, because only a FOTL loon could care about undemocratic actions of an over-bearing state.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> over-bearing state


It's some minor traffic changes, not a one-child policy.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's some minor traffic changes, not a one-child policy.



Minor for whom? I'm sure if some footpaths were stopped up, the effect of which was to add half an hour's walk to your daily journey (albeit this could be ameliorated by hopping in a car), you'd be suitably disgruntled.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's some minor traffic changes, not a one-child policy.


Clearly, it's not minor to those affected.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 8, 2022)

You've made the mistake of thinking the amount people whine and complain is in proportion to the amount they are inconvenienced.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> You've made the mistake of thinking the amount people whine and complain is in proportion to the amount they are inconvenienced.


Or maybe you lack empathy.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 8, 2022)

Athos said:


> Or maybe you lack empathy.


I'm sorry it angers you that some people think differently from you.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I'm sorry it angers you that some people think differently from you.


It doesn't at all.


----------



## maomao (Dec 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Yes, we are clear you'd rather they did "other things". You can tell us what you want the end result to be but you have zero proposals for how to get there.
> 
> I would like the war in Ukraine to stop. How should that happen? Oh, they should just do "other things" instead of fighting.


It's the 'argument to moderation' logical fallacy. A reasonable middle path is claimed where none is possible and the status quo remains unchallenged.


----------



## Athos (Dec 8, 2022)

maomao said:


> It's the 'argument to moderation' logical fallacy. A reasonable middle path is claimed where none is possible and the status quo remains unchallenged.


What is the logical reason that incentivising reduced car use must fail?


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 11, 2022)

Enjoy this stunning anti-Cambridge-congestion-charge propoganda poem off of Facebook.

Surely car abolitionists can come up with something like this? I look forward to reading attempts on this thread.

Feeling lost and slightly down
With what they plan for our old town
Close the roads and slow the lights
Road works reaching untold heights
Bus lanes causing so much pain
Traffic Jams are here again
Roundabouts and cycle paths
Slow us down and no one laughs
All the shops are closing too
Leaders who are just not true
Lies and lies no information 
Pretty words on consultation 
Leaflets posted through our door
Five quid a day won’t hit the poor
Cleaner air the council cry
Scores of buses that’s a lie
Five pounds ain’t so much to pay
And once you’re in you stay all day
And please don’t go to to A and E
Cos even then there’ll be a fee
And what of Nan she’s on her own
She can’t go shopping all alone
She needs a car to carry food
Her legs don’t work a bus is crude
But it’s ok the rich don’t care
We’ll watch them driving everywhere 
Not for them the freezing bus
And my Nan she won’t make a fuss. 
She’s 92 can hardly walk
The GCP to her don’t talk
Go online is what they say
 She bought an smart phone yesterday
She tried for hours is what she said 
Eventually the phone went dead
No filling in the consultation 
The disenfranchised generation
It’s so unfair this lib lab con
The fight we’re in it must be won


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 11, 2022)

Fuck me sideways


----------



## Elpenor (Dec 11, 2022)

I hope that’s been submitted to the local paper


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 11, 2022)

Cars are shit
That’s pretty much it
You say you’ve lost all of your rights
But you’re just a bunch of awful shites


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 11, 2022)

I thought the loons in London were bad, but that poem is up there.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 11, 2022)

Athos said:


> What is the logical reason that incentivising reduced car use must fail?


Why not use a stick instead of a carrot?. The problem is serious enough. Do you agree with the smoking ban?.


----------



## Athos (Dec 11, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why not use a stick instead of a carrot?. The problem is serious enough. Do you agree with the smoking ban?.


Surely the reasons to be wary of governments imposing coercive measures that don't have wide support are obvious? 

I didn't support the smoking ban.  But even that had wider public support, the inconvenience was less, and people don't need to smoke in the same way they need to travel to work, hospital, etc.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 11, 2022)

Athos said:


> Surely the reasons to be wary of governments imposing coercive measures that don't have wide support are obvious?
> 
> I didn't support the smoking ban.  But even that had wider public support, the inconvenience was less, and people don't need to smoke in the same way they need to travel to work, hospital, etc.


Where traffic measures have been introduced in London they've proven to be popular with voters. 

It's not imposing coercive measures, it's traffic management which govts do all the time.

The smoking ban did curtail people's freedoms for the general good, we're actually not doing anything like enough for the environment.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> Enjoy this stunning anti-Cambridge-congestion-charge propoganda poem off of Facebook.
> 
> Surely car abolitionists can come up with something like this? I look forward to reading attempts on this thread.
> 
> ...


Must be true that air pollution is worse inside cars then.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars are shit
> That’s pretty much it
> You say you’ve lost all of your rights
> But you’re just a bunch of awful shites




How is my pensioner pregnant disabled wife going to carry her fridge back from work every day without a car? Answer me that chairman fucking Mao


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

Fuck me, there are a lot of very thick drivers out there.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

Seems like many people’s driving is as bad as their poetry!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 13, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Dec 14, 2022)

Particularly love seeing the Range Rover go in this one!


----------



## Chz (Dec 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Particularly love seeing the Range Rover go in this one!



Amazing how many people don't realise that 4WD doesn't magic ice away. Most of them here are on summer tyres anyhow, and I would take a RWD car with snow tyres over an AWD on summers any day in the slush.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


>




This does slightly amuse me in relation to the LTN arguments in Haringey.  Apparently LTNS are the only thing that can fix the traffic problem in Haringey per our deputy council leader.  However, Wood Green currently has over 1800 car parking spaces... 600 of which are directly run the council.  They're all very cheap as well.. 

You'd think if they wanted to discourage car journeys then doing somethng about that might be a starting point.


----------



## klang (Dec 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Fuck me, there are a lot of very thick drivers out there.



really just shows how shit cars are, never mind their drivers.


----------



## klang (Dec 14, 2022)

omg it's snowing and my car got a little scratch


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

Hollis said:


> This does slightly amuse me in relation to the LTN arguments in Haringey.  Apparently LTNS are the only thing that can fix the traffic problem in Haringey per our deputy council leader.  However, Wood Green currently has over 1800 car parking spaces... 600 of which are directly run the council.  They're all very cheap as well..
> 
> You'd think if they wanted to discourage car journeys then doing somethng about that might be a starting point.


No doubt, unlike LTNs, a reduction in parking spaces would be accepted by resident motorists without the slightest objection.


----------



## klang (Dec 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> No doubt, unlike LTNs, a reduction in parking spaces would be accepted by resident motorists without the slightest objection.


anything to piss them off tbh....


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

Closing car parks would seem a cheap solution.  Also alot of the traffic will be from outside surrounding areas... it seems the Council is probably more concerned at not pissing off Primark, and protecting its own car parking revenue.

When LTNs are presented as the only solution, its somewhat hypocritical when you're designing in car parks to facilitate use of car..

I know Waltham Forest Council has now closed its staff car park.. small steps.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

Hollis said:


> Closing car parks would seem a cheap solution.  Also alot of the traffic will be from outside surrounding areas... it seems the Council is probably more concerned at not pissing off Primark, and protecting its own car parking revenue.
> 
> When LTNs are presented as the only solution, its somewhat hypocritical when you're designing in car parks to facilitate use of car..
> 
> I know Waltham Forest Council has now closed its staff car park.. small steps.


Here's a consultation by Haringey on restricting parking by splitting a large CPZ into smaller ones.

From page 19 onwards you can read all the complaints from people about how it's unfair.



			https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/documents/s130936/Outcome%20of%20Public%20Consultation%20for%20Wood%20Green%20Controlled%20Parking%20Zone%20Review.pdf


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

Yeah - I remember that.  That's slightly different to closing the mutli-storeys though.  Of course, I know it'll never happen, or not until they knock down Shopping City in 50/100 years..

I'm not sure the popularity would have been that different to the consultations on LTNs if they'd effectively included people outside the LTN areas.  I've looked at the West Green LTN consultation and the vast majority of respondents were within the LTN - so not suprising it was net popular.

Car parking prices are really cheap atm..  Park for up to 10 hours for £5... not much of a disincentive even.


----------



## Chz (Dec 14, 2022)

It does aggravate me sometimes that even though I _want_ to take the bus, for two of us it's cheaper to drive into Croydon or Sutton and park. They need to take the £3.30 return bus fare into account when they set parking fees. Even if you were going as one person, the prices above make driving more attractive than the bus for up to a 4 hour shop.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

Hollis said:


> Yeah - I remember that.  That's slightly different to closing the mutli-storeys though.  Of course, I know it'll never happen, or not until they knock down Shopping City in 50/100 years..
> 
> I'm not sure the popularity would have been that different to the consultations on LTNs if they'd effectively included people outside the LTN areas.  I've looked at the West Green LTN consultation and the vast majority of respondents were within the LTN - so not suprising it was net popular.
> 
> ...


Not really sure what your point is. I'd like city centre car parking to be significantly reduced, and made more expensive, too.

You are presenting it as if there's a choice between things like LTNs and restricting parking. For some reason you say it's "hypocritical" to go for LTNs. Using LTNs doesn't rule out other measures. Clearly your council has attempted other measures too, but they proved unpopular.

Proposing to close city centre multi-storeys would reliably result in protest, and people saying that such schemes were unnecessary when there are lighter touch alternatives like LTNs (which don't actually stop anyone getting anywhere in their car).


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Not really sure what your point is. I'd like city centre car parking to be significantly reduced, and made more expensive, too.
> 
> You are presenting it as if there's a choice between things like LTNs and restricting parking. For some reason you say it's "hypocritical" to go for LTNs. Using LTNs doesn't rule out other measures. Clearly your council has attempted other measures too, but they proved unpopular.
> 
> Proposing to close city centre multi-storeys would reliably result in protest, and people saying that such schemes were unnecessary when there are lighter touch alternatives like LTNs (which don't actually stop anyone getting anywhere in their car).



More commenting on the words of Haringey's deputy leader: 

"In fact, the only traffic mgmt interventions which have proven to reduce traffic volumes on main roads in urban areas are where network access is scaled down, as with LTNs."

"It's worth repeating - schemes such as LTNs are the only traffic management interventions which have cracked the problem of reducing congestion without actually banning cars altogether."

And, to clarify, I certainly don't see it as an 'either/or'.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

Hollis said:


> More commenting on the words of Haringey's deputy leader:
> 
> "In fact, the only traffic mgmt interventions which have proven to reduce traffic volumes on main roads in urban areas are where network access is scaled down, as with LTNs."
> 
> ...


So you're quoting from this Twitter thread:



He does not say that "LTNs are the only solution" as you initially wrote.

What he says is that the only interventions that reduce traffic on main roads are ones where *network access is scaled down. *LTNs are one of various types of intervention that do this. And I would say that significantly reducing parking space is one way of reducing network access.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

Yeah - fair point - But you do see what he's doing on that thread don't you? - It all happens to be about LTNs - no discussion/mention of any actual alternatives.. and then if you're not supportive of them then the final inference is that you're happy with road collisions etc..

ETA:  there's a good comment by someone on that thread around the impact of congestion charging, reinvesting in busess.. and impact on journeys.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

The thread is specifically about boundary road effects after the introduction of LTNs. Presumably because LTNs have just been introduced in Haringey, and lots of people are complaining about these effects.

Probably lots of people are saying "we should do X or Y instead". So I imagine that's why he's written the thread. To defend why they have decided to implemented LTNs.

He says schemes *"such as LTNs*". 

The thread does not appear to me to rule out anything else being used in conjunction.

London-wide congestion charging and bus services are controlled by the mayor/TfL, not London boroughs. Haringey implementing LTNs does not prevent investment in bus services. Currently, central govt policy prevents further investment in buses.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

You are right he's written it in response to the current mess happening on the boundary roads... and to try to justify what is happening and what he's done.  They've changed tack because initially there was minimal communication, but because of what's happening on the roads - and not just the immediate boundary roads - they're now doing the 'we are listening/they're not a binary choice'.

I do wonder what the long term success of these will be - given the large amount of through traffic in Haringey - particularly coming down the A10.  Hakarta himself acknowleges through traffic is the main problem.  I suspect a £20 road charge on the A10 would've achived far more than these will.  As things stand I think we're going to just see long term traffic displacement - which I doubt the evaluation plan will capture.  Instead they'll conveniently just focus on the immediate boundary roads.

If they were serious about modal shift - they ought to be serious about cycle lanes as well  - they're non-existent on virtually all the main roads - including Green Lanes.  And I see fail to see why having 1800 cheap car parking spaces available is consistent with a genuine plan of traffic reduction.

And today you'll see on twitter they're being called out on their car parking consultation - people are rightly challenging if it should just be about cars, or if it should be about how street space is used.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2022)

All these arguments have been done to death on the Brixton LTN thread.

Pretty much every single measure, aimed at reducing car dominance, that anyone proposes, is always met with a bunch of complaints that _why aren't we doing this something else instead_. Pretty much every example of _something else instead _is something that would be met with resistance on the same grounds.

If you want to reduce cheap car parking spaces hassle your councillors about doing that as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.

If you want to see more road pricing, lobby TfL and your MP for road pricing as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.

If you want to see more cycle lanes, lobby your council and TfL about implementing them as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.

If, for example, you're really serious about getting more cycle infrastructure in, try actively supporting it in discussions on social media. You'll find that you are arguing against a bunch of people who have a pretty big overlap with the anti-LTN bunch.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 14, 2022)

Well I'm sorry if I've missed all the arguments on the Brixton Forum - however I don't live in Brixton, so probably wading through 298 retrospective pages of what's going on in the Brixton LTNs would be hard work..

I am however familiar with a number of arguments through other social media - and the 'stop moaning' argument which you seem to be making now - is quite a common one.  Okay to post stuff about how amazing they are - but if you're someone whose been adversely impacted by them then you really shouldn't have an opinion.  Or people who moan about them never have any ideas about anything else to do, but if you do... that's not welcome either.

FWIW I have been supporting cycling infrastructure on social media - including direct posts to Hakarta about the state of the roads in Haringey.  I've also emailed and engaged with every local councillor and the transport department - the response rate is _very_ low.  I have, however, now been successful in having one meeting to discuss the LTNs and explaining what's happening in the area I live.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2022)

Fair enough, maybe my comment was an unreasonably impatient one.

But it's always the same things.

I don't know Haringey so I can't say much about the specifics of the A10 or whatever. It seems unlikely that it's some kind of extra special case though.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 15, 2022)

Hollis said:


> You are right he's written it in response to the current mess happening on the boundary roads... and to try to justify what is happening and what he's done.  They've changed tack because initially there was minimal communication, but because of what's happening on the roads - and not just the immediate boundary roads - they're now doing the 'we are listening/they're not a binary choice'.
> 
> I do wonder what the long term success of these will be - given the large amount of through traffic in Haringey - particularly coming down the A10.  Hakarta himself acknowleges through traffic is the main problem.  I suspect a £20 road charge on the A10 would've achived far more than these will.  As things stand I think we're going to just see long term traffic displacement - which I doubt the evaluation plan will capture.  Instead they'll conveniently just focus on the immediate boundary roads.
> 
> ...


There’s no evidence LTNs increase traffic on boundary road. The A10 is pretty much at capacity at peak times anyway. Lots of studies however to show that making it easier to drive (eg. by providing back street routes) increases traffic.

As evidenced endlessly in this thread, we’ve pandered to car owners (who remember are the minority in Haringey) for decades. LTNs are a small rebalancing and an acknowledgment that we don’t have to give over all roads to endless traffic. The tantrum that car owners throw over them just highlights their inherent selfishness.

Of course there are other things that should be done but these are actually being done now so we should support them. If cycle lanes, limiting parking, road pricing were being done then maybe we wouldn’t need LTNs but they aren’t and would face just as much opposition anyway.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2022)

A good post about the continuing failure to build housing around public transport, rather than around private transport.









						Upside-down geography - Transport for New Homes
					

Locations for new housing are not considered in terms of sustainable transport, access to services, employment or environmental impact.




					www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk
				




I've been in Inverness quite a bit recently. Not that long ago a new ring-road / bypass road opened. Some of my relatives think this is great because there are various places they can now drive to in their cars more easily. But I hate it - it's part of an entirely car-centric suburban sprawl that has been going on for decades. It's an example of the kind of planning that the article above is going on about.

All of the housing in this part of town is built around this distributor road.

Here's what it looks like if I search for "groceries" in google maps in this part of town. I don't think it's missed out any small convenience stores.



Pretty much this whole area is served by two massive supermarkets. The supermarkets are placed exactly where they are convenient to get at by car from that ring road (marked as the A8082). No smaller shops that are convenient to get at on foot from all of those houses. Even the residential streets are laid out in a way that isn't very convenient for pedestrians. 

A lot of this development is from the 80s/90s and earlier.

But they are currently building new bits. It's the 2020s so maybe there is a more enlightened town planning approach now?

Nope not really. One of the new bits, of course connected to the stupid ring road, is to the left of the Tesco superstore on that image above. But does it include any kind of local centre, with the kinds of shops people would be inclined to visit on foot? No. Not as far as I can see anyway.



Fairly much just more of the same. It looks like a bit more effort has gone into providing some pedestrian or cycle through routes. So maybe there is a footpath that will take you to the giant supermarket, perhaps crossing its giant carpark on the way. And maybe there is a cycle path that will get you to the distributor road. Is there cycling provision on this brand new road? Yes! You get to share the pavement with whatever pedestrians want to walk along a windswept road, with nice gentle curves that people can drive fast along. And at every single roundabout (there are lots of roundabouts) you can cross each exit individually, because you are a second-rate low priority road user.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 15, 2022)

Hmm, all the recent and planned large developments on the edge of Cambridge in recent years have a local centre with a mandatory supermarket, community centre, primary school etc. This sort of stuff was required in the Local Plan.

Perhaps the residents of Inverness are shit at electing councilors to their planning authority.


----------



## bcuster (Dec 17, 2022)




----------



## Chz (Dec 17, 2022)

Bit brave driving that speed in those conditions. I get that you can't just pull over and wait for the snow to go away like you would a heavy thunderstorm (because it might be a very long wait), but at least cut your speed.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 18, 2022)

A cycle campaigner argues against the bus improvements proposed to be implemented with the Cambridge congestion charge revenue. Well worth reading if you hope to eliminate private cars by providing lots more buses:






						Response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation.
					

Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation . Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion C...




					cjhowell.blogspot.com


----------



## teuchter (Dec 18, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> A cycle campaigner argues against the bus improvements proposed to be implemented with the Cambridge congestion charge revenue. Well worth reading if you hope to eliminate private cars by providing lots more buses:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which part of this ex conservative city councillor's opinion did you find the most compelling?


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Which part of this ex conservative city councillor's opinion did you find the most compelling?



He's treasurer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Your usual transport-related political assumptions don't apply in Cambridge.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> He's treasurer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Your usual transport-related political assumptions don't apply in Cambridge.


Not all cyclists are awesome - some are twats (bet he’s a car owner).

Also he has a personal blog so 😂


----------



## edcraw (Dec 19, 2022)

So many drivers showing they don’t give a fuck about anyone else.


----------



## platinumsage (Dec 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Which part of this ex conservative city councillor's opinion did you find the most compelling?



I agree with his comments on subsidising buses:

"_The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight. "

"most of the proposed changes to increase services into increasingly more rural areas, increase frequency and increase operating hours e.g. to the early hours of the morning are likely to involve enormous levels of public subsidy with very little benefit to the overall transport situation, as for reasons elsewhere in these responses they fall far short of what is needed to make a journey by bus a more appealing option for most journeys, and with lower population densities there won’t be enough demand to sustain the large ‘per passenger-journey’ subsidies needed. Our local Councils have repeatedly tried to subsidise various routes at extended hours, but usually cancel schemes when the extraordinary subsidy per person becomes apparent. (e.g. nightbuses were tried in Cambridge City in 2001 but cancelled later as it would almost have been cheaper to pay for taxis for the low usage numbers). "_

and that such money would be better spent thus:

_"The proposals outlined for cycling and walking are vague and unambitious. We should plan to deliver a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling. By Dutch standard network I mean a dedicated network of interconnected segregated routes in and around Cambridge, with appropriate infrastructure such as bridges and underpasses to ensure cycling and micromobility is the most cost and time effective choice for most journeys. "_

But he's a Tory apparently so is obviously some sort of cunt who must be disagreed with.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 19, 2022)

Love how opponents of these schemes suddenly come up with amazing alternatives as soon as the schemes get implemented - _a full dutch standard network of cycling and active travel routes to support safe and convenient cycling 😂_

They’ve had forever to campaign for and implement other measures and done nothing so excuse those that are sceptical.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2022)

platinumsage said:


> I agree with his comments on subsidising buses:
> 
> "_The proposals to improve the bus service do not amount to a significant intervention commensurate with the transport needs of the Cambridge subregion and its recent and potential growth. They cannot provide a comprehensive solution to sustainable transport as they will leave too many journeys that simply cannot be made in a reasonable timeframe by bus or active travel. They do not constitute investment in transport infrastructure, and do not provide new dedicated public transport corridors - they provide subsidies to operating costs that could be removed at any time if budgets get tight. "
> 
> ...



You described him as a cycle campaigner so apparently obviously some kind of angel who must be agreed with.

I'm still not clear what lessons you think we can take away from his comments.

You said "Well worth reading if you hope to eliminate private cars by providing lots more buses"

I don't see what great enlightenment is offered in his comments, on this particular subject.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Dec 20, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So many drivers showing they don’t give a fuck about anyone else.



The council or police should just deploy cameras at that junction and fine the fuck out of the stupid drivers.


----------



## Chz (Dec 20, 2022)

The plod have decided to actively ignore the problem, despite being made aware of it. Will be interesting when the first victim sues the plod over it.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 22, 2022)

Fuck me - sooooo many selfish drivers.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 23, 2022)

This cabbie is checking Facebook while driving…


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 23, 2022)

Artaxerxes said:


> This cabbie is checking Facebook while driving…


Take a photo/video. Get him to stop, get out the cab then report the cunt.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 27, 2022)

American Dream Shopping Mall. How appropriate!


----------



## edcraw (Dec 28, 2022)




----------



## bcuster (Dec 29, 2022)

i'd've thought ice was "the reason"...
Also, there seems to've been a lot of "high end" cars in this mash up...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 30, 2022)




----------



## edcraw (Dec 31, 2022)

Just ban cars already.


----------



## Hollis (Dec 31, 2022)

Another somewhat regressive step:

Buses: More cuts to services to come, operators warn

How are you meant to get people out their cars if you're reducing bus routes and timetables? There's loads of people who are never going to ride a bike or use a scooter... but you might get them on a bus.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 31, 2022)

A car dependent society, which is what most of the UK is, creates the political environment where public transport can be continually under attack because in many places the majority do not rely on it.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 31, 2022)

Hollis said:


> Another somewhat regressive step:
> 
> Buses: More cuts to services to come, operators warn
> 
> How are you meant to get people out their cars if you're reducing bus routes and timetables? There's loads of people who are never going to ride a bike or use a scooter... but you might get them on a bus.


Keep seeing it said that the £2 fare cap doesn’t include London - that’s because it doesn’t need to as fares are already below that.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> A car dependent society, which is what most of the UK is, creates the political environment where public transport can be continually under attack because in many places the majority do not rely on it.



It also means that the public transport is caught in traffic causing it to be delayed which creates a feedback loop of poor service


----------



## MrCurry (Jan 1, 2023)

Happy 2023 folks!  A year of rapprochement between cyclists and car drivers perhaps?  We’ve all got to look out for one another, after all!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 1, 2023)




----------



## edcraw (Jan 1, 2023)

er…okay….


----------



## teuchter (Jan 1, 2023)

Assumed this reply was tongue in cheek but it looks like it's actually serious


----------



## edcraw (Jan 1, 2023)

Can only presume that platinumsage has gone down some weird Jordan Paterson/Andrew Tate rabbit hole.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 2, 2023)

Seven rescued after moving barriers and trying to drive through flood water
					

A child was among those rescued




					www.sussexlive.co.uk
				




_With a kid in the car_


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 3, 2023)

We have to have shit like this because car drivers are cunts


----------



## Elpenor (Jan 3, 2023)

Almost kills a cyclist



The driver should be banned for life IMO


----------



## teuchter (Jan 3, 2023)

And cars above some power threshold shouldn't be allowed on public roads. What possible reason is there to allow that kind of car onto anything other than a racetrack? Only extremists would defend it.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 3, 2023)

edcraw said:


> Can only presume that platinumsage has gone down some weird Jordan Paterson/Andrew Tate rabbit hole.


You mean the jail? Or a literal meat coma?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 3, 2023)

teuchter said:


> And cars above some power threshold shouldn't be allowed on public roads. What possible reason is there to allow that kind of car onto anything other than a racetrack? Only extremists would defend it.


Completely agree with this - there's no reason to have a car that can break speed limits.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 3, 2023)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Completely agree with this - there's no reason to have a car that can break speed limits.


It's not just speed but rate of acceleration, which is what you see leading to crashes in many of these supercar videos. Plus, the power to accelerate rapidly encourages risky overtaking and aggressive driving in general. And it makes car movements harder for pedestrians to predict in urban environments.

Usually we'd now see someone show up with the argument that aggressive acceleration is actually a safety feature but I think this thread has hopefully done sufficiently good education that no-one is going to be stupid enough to come up with that one now.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jan 4, 2023)

teuchter said:


> Usually we'd now see someone show up with the argument that aggressive acceleration is actually a safety feature but I think this thread has hopefully done sufficiently good education that no-one is going to be stupid enough to come up with that one now.


There's time yet - there are probably some on here who would defend such reckless speeding.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 4, 2023)

edcraw said:


> Cry me a river.



A warning letter might arrive a little too late to prevent an accident? Perhaps a sign of some sort?


----------



## Elpenor (Jan 4, 2023)

Elpenor said:


> Almost kills a cyclist
> 
> 
> 
> The driver should be banned for life IMO



Video now removed but it showed a man in a supercar accelerate rapidly m as he turned on to a bridge over the Thames, lose control of the vehicle and spin into the opposite lane, hitting the barriers between the pavement and the highway, almost hitting a cyclist


----------



## edcraw (Jan 4, 2023)

Elpenor said:


> Video now removed but it showed a man in a supercar accelerate rapidly m as he turned on to a bridge over the Thames, lose control of the vehicle and spin into the opposite lane, hitting the barriers between the pavement and the highway, almost hitting a cyclist


It’s still here.



Good account to follow!


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 4, 2023)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> A warning letter might arrive a little too late to prevent an accident? Perhaps a sign of some sort?




It’s amazing how speeding fines and cameras are seen as somehow cheating by drivers. Every deterrent to speeding has to be marked out and clearly warned. 


I was watching the cabbies sat nav the other day and just all these warnings about speed cameras and red light cameras seem to just normalise the idea you can do whatever as long as your not being watched by The Man


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2023)

edcraw said:


> It’s still here.


Would be interesting to know the story of exactly how the video ended up on the internet.


----------



## Chz (Jan 4, 2023)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Completely agree with this - there's no reason to have a car that can break speed limits.


Are you talking about limiters (which is a good idea), or simply not using powerful engines?
If an engine has to run flat out to make the speed limit, it's not going to be a great thing for the planet. There has to be some sort of excess to keep it in the efficiency curve. Even mopeds empty their tanks surprisingly fast running flat out. I can see an argument for normal consumer vehicles not needing more than - to pull a number out of my butt - 100hp. (my car has 108 and seems nippy enough to me) But a 100hp car can still hit 100mph+ given enough space to do it in. Buses have historically got by on 250hp just fine for larger vehicles.

Yes, cars got by on less in the past, but modern cars are much heavier for a variety of reasons. Most of them good reasons. Plus we're talking about a limit - say 100 for premium vehicles, 80 for most muck and 65 for a basic box.

What the video demonstrates is the idiocy of having enough power to wheelspin driving on the straight and narrow, which is a frankly absurd amount of power for anything not dedicated to a track.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2023)

Impose a limit on maximum speed and a limit on maximum rate of acceleration. The unconstrained maximum power of the engine can be whatever delivers the most efficiency at everyday driving speeds.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2023)

teuchter said:


> Impose a limit on maximum speed and a limit on maximum rate of acceleration. The unconstrained maximum power of the engine can be whatever delivers the most efficiency at everyday driving speeds.


Or tiered licensing, based on power and age, like motorbikes.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2023)

Athos said:


> Or tiered licensing, based on power and age, like motorbikes.


For what reason?


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2023)

teuchter said:


> For what reason?


To strike a balance between safety and people's freedom to enjoy particular vehicles.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2023)

Athos said:


> To strike a balance between safety and people's freedom to enjoy particular vehicles.


How about we just decide safety is what's important, and people can "enjoy certain vehicles" somewhere that's not the public road.


----------



## Athos (Jan 4, 2023)

teuchter said:


> How about we just decide safety is what's important, and people can "enjoy certain vehicles" somewhere that's not the public road.


Presumably, you'd be happy never enjoying a bus ride, then?   Because it'd be safer if everyone walked.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2023)

edcraw said:


> It’s still here.
> 
> 
> 
> Good account to follow!





Lewis Hamilton wouldn't drive that on a public road with the traction control off. Note the way that before he even undoes the seatbelt he'd removed the camera...


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> people's freedom to enjoy particular vehicles


Just play a video game or something.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

liquidindian said:


> Just play a video game or something.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 5, 2023)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Lewis Hamilton wouldn't drive that on a public road with the traction control off. Note the way that before he even undoes the seatbelt he'd removed the camera...


Lewis Hamilton dresses like an overgrown toddler in his shit yourself romper suits


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> To strike a balance between safety and people's freedom to enjoy particular vehicles.


Oh do fuck off


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2023)

Boris Sprinkler said:


> Lewis Hamilton dresses like an overgrown toddler in his shit yourself romper suits



He can dress however he wants, anyone can as far as I care.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh do fuck off


What?  We'd all be safer with no planes, trains, busses, etc.  In fact, if we just stayed inside our houses. But, as a society, we balance public safety with the freedom to do stuff.  I'm not sure the balance is too far off at the moment, but I still think there's a bit more we could do to improve safety without any negative impacts e.g. making the test tougher, a licensing system that's tiered and restricted by power and age, compulsory retesting, better enforcement and stiffer penalties, etc.  And, of course, incentivising people to use public transport by making more routes, more frequent, and free (particularly in cities).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> What?  We'd all be safer with no planes, trains, busses, etc.  In fact, if we just stayed inside our houses. But, as a society, we balance public safety with the freedom to do stuff.  I'm not sure the balance is too far off at the moment, but I still think there's a bit more we could do to improve safety without any negative impacts e.g. making the test tougher, a licensing system that's tiered and restricted by power and age, compulsory retesting, better enforcement and stiffer penalties, etc.  And, of course, incentivising people to use public transport by making more routes, more frequent, and free (particularly in cities).


Sorry, if all you’ve got as an excuse for driving vehicles capable of twice the speed limit and ridiculous acceleration is “because I want to” you really need to try harder.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> What?  We'd all be safer with no planes, trains, busses, etc.  In fact, if we just stayed inside our houses. But, as a society, we balance public safety with the freedom to do stuff.  I'm not sure the balance is too far off at the moment, but I still think there's a bit more we could do to improve safety without any negative impacts e.g. making the test tougher, a licensing system that's tiered and restricted by power and age, compulsory retesting, better enforcement and stiffer penalties, etc.  And, of course, incentivising people to use public transport by making more routes, more frequent, and free (particularly in cities).


You don't incentivise use of public transport by pandering to the idea that people have a right to enjoy driving in itself. And the idea that it's such a god given right that it's ok to make some compromise on safety in order to facilitate it.

We should be making it more enjoyable to use other, less harmful forms of transport. For cycling and walking, getting rid of un-necessarily powerful cars would serve this end. And bus journeys are more enjoyable when the bus is not caught up in congestion caused by people deciding that their car is a more enjoyable environment so use it for journeys where they could have used public transport.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Sorry, if all you’ve got as an excuse for driving vehicles capable of twice the speed limit and ridiculous acceleration is “because I want to” you really need to try harder.


People don't need "an excuse" to choose to live differently from you.  And I'm not sure that stopping them from doing so would have all that much effect; I don't have the date data, but I'd be surprised if most accidents were are speeds below the national limit.  There's plenty of things that would help road safety before that.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

teuchter said:


> You don't incentivise use of public transport by pandering to the idea that people have a right to enjoy driving in itself. And the idea that it's such a god given right that it's ok to make some compromise on safety in order to facilitate it.
> 
> We should be making it more enjoyable to use other, less harmful forms of transport. For cycling and walking, getting rid of un-necessarily powerful cars would serve this end. And bus journeys are more enjoyable when the bus is not caught up in congestion caused by people deciding that their car is a more enjoyable environment so use it for journeys where they could have used public transport.


It's not a god-given right; it's a freedom we as a society have chosen, weighted against the risks.

I agree we should make other forms of transport more attractive; I'm just not sure that banning powerful cars would have that effect.

For many cars are a more enjoyable environment; they find public transport expensive, inconvenient, and unpleasant e.g. scrotes playing shitty music.  Though i accept there's a chicken-and-egg problem to some extent.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> It's not a god-given right; it's a freedom we as a society have chosen, weighted against the risks.


And it's time to realise it was a mistake for "society" to allow this to happen.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> What?  We'd all be safer with no planes, trains, busses, etc.  In fact, if we just stayed inside our houses. But, as a society, we balance public safety with the freedom to do stuff.  I'm not sure the balance is too far off at the moment, but I still think there's a bit more we could do to improve safety without any negative impacts e.g. making the test tougher, a licensing system that's tiered and restricted by power and age, compulsory retesting, better enforcement and stiffer penalties, etc.  And, of course, incentivising people to use public transport by making more routes, more frequent, and free (particularly in cities).


If there’s a line to be drawn, why not draw it before the point where you’re justifying people playing with dangerous toys on public roads?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Jan 5, 2023)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> If there’s a line to be drawn, why not draw it before the point where you’re justifying people playing with dangerous toys on public roads?


“Because _I_ want to”.

That’s literally the only argument they have.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> If there’s a line to be drawn, why not draw it before the point where you’re justifying people playing with dangerous toys on public roads?


All cars have the potential to be dangerous.  It's the "playing" with them i.e. how they're driven that's the real issue.  Focusing on the power of a minority is, I suspect, not the best way to improve road safety.   I don't have a car (albeit I drive my wife's, sometimes), but I ride bikes.  Some of them are capable of terrifying speeds and face-melting acceleration, but I tend to save that for the track.  There's no reason why I can't enjoy them on the road at slower speeds the rest of the time.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Because _I_ want to”.
> 
> That’s literally the only argument they have.


That's pretty much how pluralist societies accommodate all of our desires for personsl freedom. It's a give-and-take, finding the balance between letting people do what they want, and the harms that might cause.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> All cars have the potential to be dangerous.  It's the "playing" with them i.e. how they're driven that's the real issue.  Focusing on the power of a minority is, I suspect, not the best way to improve road safety.   I don't have a car (albeit I drive my wife's, sometimes), but I ride bikes.  Some of them are capable of terrifying speeds and face-melting acceleration, but I tend to save that for the track.  There's no reason why I can't enjoy them on the road at slower speeds the rest of the time.


That’s complete bollocks. The fact that all cars have the potential to be dangerous is exactly why extra justification is necessary to decide what is used and when. The fact that all cars have the potential to be dangerous is why they shouldn’t be used recklessly. The fact that all cars are potentially dangerous is exactly why there is no excuse for cars to be on the public road that needlessly increase that potential danger.

You’re arguing that costs and benefits have to be weighed. I agree, and I’m saying that benefits that amount to “it’s fun” are laughably insufficient, when it comes to cars, for the costs associated with that “fun”


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> You’re arguing that costs and benefits have to be weighed. I agree, and I’m saying that benefits that amount to “it’s fun” are laughably insufficient, when it comes to cars, for the costs associated with that “fun”


That's fair enough.  Maybe one day that'll become the majority view, and there will be more and more restrictions on  what cars people are allowed to drive.  But that doesn't seem very likely to me in the short to medium term - if anything, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more people aspiring to drive cars capable of better and better performance.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> That's fair enough.  Maybe one day that'll become the majority view, and there will be more and more restrictions on  what cars people are allowed to drive.  But that doesn't seem very likely to me in the short to medium term - if anything, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more people aspiring to drive cars capable of better and better performance.


The point of discussions is to challenge what is seen as “normal” in the hope of driving long-term change.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> The point of discussions is to challenge what is seen as “normal” in the hope of driving long-term change.


Good luck with it.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> Good luck with it.


If it didn’t work, we’d still be living with the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago.


----------



## Chz (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> People don't need "an excuse" to choose to live differently from you.  And I'm not sure that stopping them from doing so would have all that much effect; I don't have the date data, but I'd be surprised if most accidents were are speeds below the national limit.  There's plenty of things that would help road safety before that.


I will be the first to admit that "contributory factor" is not the same as "was the vehicle speeding". But IME most accidents do occur at low speeds. It's just that the high speed ones are exceptionally dangerous.



> In 2020, for all accidents, 4% (4,454) of vehicles had an exceeding the speed limit contributory factor allocated to them. This percentage has increased since 2014, although raw numbers have decreased, with the value being 2.5% (5,381) in 2014.
> 
> Motorcycles had the highest proportion of accidents (7.1%) where exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor. 26% of fatal motorcycle accidents had exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor, compared to 10% for all vehicles.
> 
> HGVs had the lowest proportion of accidents (1%) in 2020 where exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor. This may relate to HGVs being speed limited or the drivers being professionally trained.








						Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2021
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


>


Yes, you need to do that when you crash in a video game to get the full effect.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> If it didn’t work, we’d still be living with the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago.


Of course it can work. 

But many of the alternatives to the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago were bonkers, and widely rejected. 

Time will tell how society reacts in this instance.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> Of course it can work.
> 
> But many of the alternatives to the assumptions and norms of 500 years ago were bonkers, and widely rejected.
> 
> Time will tell how society reacts in this instance.





kabbes said:


> The point of discussions is to challenge what is seen as “normal” in the hope of driving long-term change.


Note the use of the word “driving”. Not “sitting back and hoping others come to agree”. Not “let’s just see what the reaction is”


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

kabbes said:


> Note the use of the word “driving”. Not “sitting back and hoping others come to agree”. Not “let’s just see what the reaction is”


I did note it; my posts to that into account.  I can't see anyone successfully driving such a change in the short to medium term.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2023)

Athos said:


> I did note it; my posts to that into account.  I can't see anyone successfully driving such a change in the short to medium term.


It's a shame you don't recognise the profound changes this thread is prompting in UK society.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2023)

Chz said:


> I will be the first to admit that "contributory factor" is not the same as "was the vehicle speeding". But IME most accidents do occur at low speeds. It's just that the high speed ones are exceptionally dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And it goes beyond safety as measured by deaths or injuries - aggressive driving (which includes but isn't limited to speeding) has a major impact on how streets and roads are perceived by pedestrians and cyclists (influencing journey choices), and on the general quality of life of anyone living on, or using them.


----------



## Athos (Jan 5, 2023)

teuchter said:


> It's a shame you don't recognise the profound changes this thread is prompting in UK society.


I like the fact you can laugh at yourself.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2023)

.


----------



## edcraw (Sunday at 12:13 PM)

Poor thing…


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sunday at 1:52 PM)

edcraw said:


> Poor thing…



If only there was a simple 'work around' so that he wouldn't have to get a ticket.


----------



## a_chap (Sunday at 5:38 PM)

edcraw said:


> Poor thing…




That pillock is being suitably ratioed


----------



## a_chap (Sunday at 10:34 PM)




----------



## edcraw (Monday at 12:31 PM)

Everything’s fine…











						‘Entrenched car culture’ leaves millions of Britons in transport poverty
					

Study finds drivers spending up to a fifth of pre-tax income on running a car as lack of infrastructure deters people from cycling




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Monday at 2:15 PM)

edcraw said:


> Everything’s fine…
> 
> View attachment 358881
> 
> ...


Bonkers.


----------



## platinumsage (Yesterday at 1:06 PM)

I’m sure all urbanites would agree that direct action that they don’t approve of is a very bad thing, and that people shouldn’t take the law into their own hands if they are wrong:


----------



## Orang Utan (Yesterday at 3:05 PM)

You’re tweeting conspiralunacy now, platinumsage
(Even worse, an antisemitic conspiraloon account)


----------



## platinumsage (Yesterday at 3:31 PM)

I‘ve never tweeted anything. And if we can’t lampoon conspiraloons what’s the point?


----------



## Orang Utan (Yesterday at 5:33 PM)

platinumsage said:


> I‘ve never tweeted anything. And if we can’t lampoon conspiraloons what’s the point?


You’ve posted a tweet from an antisemitic antivaxxing conspiraloon.


----------



## platinumsage (Yesterday at 5:37 PM)

Orang Utan said:


> You’ve posted a tweet from an antisemitic antivaxxing conspiraloon.



Yes.


----------



## Orang Utan (Yesterday at 5:39 PM)

platinumsage said:


> Yes.


Well don’t


----------



## platinumsage (Yesterday at 5:42 PM)

Orang Utan said:


> Well don’t



Why not? You think such content should be censored and not discussed on Urban?


----------



## Orang Utan (Yesterday at 5:44 PM)

platinumsage said:


> Why not? You think such content should be censored and not discussed on Urban?


No, but I also don’t think you needed to post that as you could have easily posted that clip without also giving those loons a platform


----------



## platinumsage (Yesterday at 5:46 PM)

Orang Utan said:


> No, but I also don’t think you needed to post that as you could have easily posted that clip without also giving those loons a platform



No I couldn’t have easily posted it, and I wanted to highlight the nature of the debate in Oxford, there’s a big involvement of anti-vaxxers in the congestion charge protests - worth highlighting I think.


----------

