Options
Cars - did we vote for this? (not entirely serious thread with a serious point)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 257
Forum Member
✭
Cars have transformed our landscape, our lives, our health, and contribute significantly to climate change.
They clutter up the streets and town centres: huge quantities of land has had to be tarmacked over to accommodate them. Most of the time they are not in use so they just sit there in streets and car parks - you've probably seen them - taking up space and spoiling the view.
They have driven walkers, children playing, animals, etc off our streets (there were streets for thousands of years before there were cars), corralling those who insist on still going by foot onto narrow pavements where once they could roam free (sometimes the cars even park on the pavements, encroaching even further on the remaining space). They have led to people interacting much less with their neighbours, as they whizz by shut up in their individual tin boxes, and as the once communal space of the street has become a no-go area.
They have played a role in growing obesity, and other heatlh conditions related to low-levels of activity - as people no longer need to use their own energy to get to the places they need to go, and carry the stuff they need to take with them. Excercise has become an often commercial leisure activity separate from the requirements of daily life - and so mostly undertaken by those with the time, resources, and will power to do it.
They pollute both on a micro and a macro level: lead in car exhaust (now discontinued) has been proven to be harmful to children, and has been linked to crime rates. High levels of car pollution is also associated with respiratory illnesses. Their emissions are also a significant factor in climate change, so may play a part in making the planet uninhabitable for thousands of plant and animal species, including perhaps humans.
What I want to know is, who voted for this? When were we asked whether the benefits of cars outweigh their downsides? I don't remember the referendum on that.
They clutter up the streets and town centres: huge quantities of land has had to be tarmacked over to accommodate them. Most of the time they are not in use so they just sit there in streets and car parks - you've probably seen them - taking up space and spoiling the view.
They have driven walkers, children playing, animals, etc off our streets (there were streets for thousands of years before there were cars), corralling those who insist on still going by foot onto narrow pavements where once they could roam free (sometimes the cars even park on the pavements, encroaching even further on the remaining space). They have led to people interacting much less with their neighbours, as they whizz by shut up in their individual tin boxes, and as the once communal space of the street has become a no-go area.
They have played a role in growing obesity, and other heatlh conditions related to low-levels of activity - as people no longer need to use their own energy to get to the places they need to go, and carry the stuff they need to take with them. Excercise has become an often commercial leisure activity separate from the requirements of daily life - and so mostly undertaken by those with the time, resources, and will power to do it.
They pollute both on a micro and a macro level: lead in car exhaust (now discontinued) has been proven to be harmful to children, and has been linked to crime rates. High levels of car pollution is also associated with respiratory illnesses. Their emissions are also a significant factor in climate change, so may play a part in making the planet uninhabitable for thousands of plant and animal species, including perhaps humans.
What I want to know is, who voted for this? When were we asked whether the benefits of cars outweigh their downsides? I don't remember the referendum on that.
0
Comments
And on sheep. Go out into the countryside and there's loads of sheep. No-one has sent me a voting card on whether I'm happy that the place is full of sheep.
And children. They clutter the place up and make annoying squawking noises. Never got a chance to vote for them either.
If this isn't a troll thread, I am absolutely gob smacked.
Edit: I see you altered your thread title. Thanks for the clarification. ^_^
I was going to add an apology in advance to say that I won't have time respond in great detail to points raised on the thread - depending on the number and kind of resposnes.
But to reply quickly to the quick questions so far:
I would vote for houses if asked; I would vote to reduce the number of sheep; I would vote in favour of children.
Other means of transport: trains, buses, bicycles, trams, walking, boats, lorries for transporting heavy and bulky material, cars/taxis for people who were unable for whtever reasons unable to use other means of transport.
I didn't say I would necessarily vote against cars. I deliberately didn't list their benefits as I think these are well known.
I blame some of it on Dr Beeching and his cuts; getting rid of all of the railway branch lines pretty much drove us (no pun intended) in to greater car usage.
If we had no cars and no trains we would have to resurrect the idea of the Mill town or colliery towns so we can walk to work to the one large employer who nearly everyone in that town work for.
Perhaps you should divert your green conscience on closing down the Airport industry and ban flying? Sorry to spoil your holiday plans. You should cycle or walk to Spain instead.
You think I haven't thought about all those thing, plus a few more?
The 'subject' of this thread is the random nature of what we get to decide about through our democratic system and what we don't. Plus perhaps trying to look at the central presence of cars in our world from a different perspective - trying to keep it light.
I didn't, and don't, claim to know how we can ensure the long-term future of the planet and life on it. And I didn't, and don't, claim to live an environmentally - or in any other way - blameless life.
Let it bed in a few decades and even suggesting there are downsides becomes a form of heresy.
And so humanity stumbles from crisis to crisis.
Yes indeed - nicely put.
Some of your own personal observations are somewhat extreme and odd to say the least. Your view on cars which have "driven walkers off our streets"? Hhmmm......years ago you used to be able to drive around my town. Not now. It's all been 'pedestrianised' and the car been 'corralled' off to use your expression!
The street where i live is perfectly fine for children to play....but they don't. If their parents haven't locked them away because of their paranoia over 'stranger danger', then they are too busy sitting in their bedrooms playing on computers or watching rubbish on 24hr telelevision.
I will agree with you that the vehicle has "transformed our lives." Indeed it has. It's enabled me to travel to the far corners of planet GB including numerous islands of the Scottish mainland plus years of extensive touring throughout numerous European countries.....none of which i'd have achieved by foot or pedal bike! It also enabled me to "interact" with people from those countries.
As for vehicle emissions......the TfL LEZ is nothing more than a money spinning joke. I used to have a Focus 1.8 (petrol). That's ok to drive inside the LEZ. My Motorhome is Ford Transit based chassis with 2.5TDi engine. That's banned.
Proven fact via MOT; the Focus 1.8 gave higher emission reading than my Transit engined 2.5TDi motorhome.
I trust you use candles and cook over a bundle of twigs?
Switch your computer off now......and save the planet!
I cant use a bicycle to get to work because my journey is down a motorway and a taxi every day would cost more than I am paid. If I wanted to use the train, even setting off tonight at 11pm, travelling for over 9 hours with three changes, I would still get to work late tomorrow morning. The good news is the trip home is quicker but I would get home 1.5 hours before I had to set off again to get to work the following morning.
Doesnt help that I need to use my car for my job too.
But it's backwards planned, like houses. It's a waste 200 cars clumped in a road, pumping out pollution when 8 buses could run along that road instead.
I think car shares should be more popular. And I think some roads should be made cycles only.
Now it's a peaceful oasis
you got it, you got it
This was a Pizza Hut
Now it's all covered with daisies
you got it, you got it.
We used to microwave
Now we just eat nuts and berries
you got it, you got it
Don't leave me stranded here
I can't get used to this lifestyle
I tried to indicate through my tone that I wasn't representing my own opinions in a direct way - although I do think the position of the car is too dominant in our physical environment, yes, and that there would be lots of benefits in reducing its use.
I have noticed a few pedestrianized streets, and more and more 20 mph residential zones - all good IMO. I was trying to suggest a much more historical - that is pre-car - perspective. I live in a historical city, in which many of the streets, especially in the centre, predate the car by centuries. I like sometimes to remember that they weren't built for cars (and some of them now allow fairly restricted access), and imagine them used for much more varied traffic.
I have resisted until now saying that I have travelled long distances without using cars or planes - got to China without getting on a plane (but flew back). But I know that's not really the point - I am very privileged to even consider doing such a thing just as a holiday. I couldn't spare either the time or the money to travel back in the same way. And I didn't do it for the planet. I have travelled more than my fair share by car and plane too. So not claiming any points.
Then there is the ugliness of personal conflicts which inevitably arise.
If you made certain roads 'cycle only' then that would bring up the subject of taxation (roads don't come free)......and cyclists won't pay tax so that's a total non-starter.
barely any of the UK is built on, let alone has a road: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
And are those streets full of kids kicking a ball around, spinning tops, skipping or whatever?
No......because all that is as 'historic' as the city you live for the reasons i mentioned previously.
Vast expanses for mile after mile of open land and then suddenly a clump of little boxes all built so close together you couldn't get a hair between them.
Given the huge amounts of open land we do have, our strange obsession with building rabbit hutches seems odd.
Really? The 1.8 petrol gave higher NOx and particulate readings than the 2.5 TDI?