Cars - did we vote for this? (not entirely serious thread with a serious point)

[Deleted User][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.
«1

Comments

  • incy wincyincy wincy Posts: 839
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Also, we didn't get a referendum on houses. Who said they could build houses everywhere?

    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.
  • evil cevil c Posts: 7,833
    Forum Member
    How do you suggest we travel without cars? Back to the horse and cart with the roads full of horse shit?
  • miss_astridmiss_astrid Posts: 1,808
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ...is this a troll thread? I can't quite tell. :blush:

    If this isn't a troll thread, I am absolutely gob smacked. :o

    Edit: I see you altered your thread title. Thanks for the clarification. ^_^
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,279
    Forum Member
    ...is this a troll thread? I can't quite tell. :blush:

    If this isn't a troll thread, I am absolutely gob smacked. :o

    Edit: I see you altered your thread title. Thanks for the clarification. ^_^
    I think the phrase not entirely serious in the title is a bit of a clue.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
    Forum Member
    I hope it's not a troll thread. It's the first thread I've ever started - as far as I can remember. (I changed the thread title before I posted in the first place so I am confused why this was ever visible.) It was supposed to be making a serious point in a possibly provocative and fairly light way. If this makes me a troll, sorry.

    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.
  • 42dragonfly42dragonfly Posts: 207
    Forum Member
    Sheep are a massive issue, ask the folks who lived in Wharram Percy...

    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.
  • tenofspadestenofspades Posts: 12,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's something I think about a lot. I'm a driver, and when you live in a big city its a pain in the arse that some routes you just can't take by bus.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maryjh wrote: »
    Cars have transformed our landscape, our lives, our health, and contribute significantly to climate change.

    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.
    Nobody 'voted' and there has never been a referendum on whether to accept or reject realistic practicality. Next time you do a shop at your local Supermarket you need to ask yourself how the food you buy off the shelves got there. Same with the clothes you buy etc etc.

    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. :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
    Forum Member
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    Nobody 'voted' and there has never been a referendum on whether to accept or reject realistic practicality. Next time you do a shop at your local Supermarket you need to ask yourself how the food you buy off the shelves got there. Same with the clothes you buy etc etc.

    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. :D

    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.
  • Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Like everything else, technological advancement is taken up wholeheartedly because of the advantages and with little or no thought to the drawbacks.

    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
    Forum Member
    Like everything else, technological advancement is taken up wholeheartedly because of the advantages and with little or no thought to the drawbacks.

    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.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maryjh wrote: »
    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.
    You get a free vote on electing the person you believe best serves your interests to Parliament. After that you and everyone else gets told what to do and what not to do by a variety of laws and Bills they will pass through Parliament.

    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.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Like everything else, technological advancement is taken up wholeheartedly because of the advantages and with little or no thought to the drawbacks.

    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 just think of all that pollution created to generate electricity and emitted from light bulbs. :(

    I trust you use candles and cook over a bundle of twigs? :p

    Switch your computer off now......and save the planet! :D
  • pugamopugamo Posts: 18,039
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The thread title reminds me of books with titles like 'The Bitch in Spiky Heels': A Very Funny Romantic Comedy.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maryjh wrote: »
    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 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.
  • tenofspadestenofspades Posts: 12,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yeah I think its one of those things that is there as a liberty to people that make a living. So you make a living- here's a liberty of a car.
    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.
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    I blame the guy who invented the wheel, society has never been the same since.
  • Toby LaRhoneToby LaRhone Posts: 12,916
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Once there were parking lots
    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
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 257
    Forum Member
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    You get a free vote on electing the person you believe best serves your interests to Parliament. After that you and everyone else gets told what to do and what not to do by a variety of laws and Bills they will pass through Parliament.

    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 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.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yeah I think its one of those things that is there as a liberty to people that make a living. So you make a living- here's a liberty of a car.
    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.
    Whilst car sharing for some can work, it's totally impossible for many. Needless to say car owners who do practice it often experience a multitude of problems too. One guy i used to work with who didn't drive (couldn't be bothered to learn was what he told me), went through no end of different drivers he relied on to pick him up......due to the fact he often kept them waiting so made them late for work, not to mention he never offered any of them any payment either.

    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.
  • MSHMSH Posts: 90
    Forum Member
    Maryjh wrote: »
    huge quantities of land has had to be tarmacked over to accommodate them.

    barely any of the UK is built on, let alone has a road: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Maryjh wrote: »
    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.
    What would you suggest to replace the vehicle? Note....vehicle as opposed to just car, so that includes the vehicles which transport the essential goods you buy on a weekly basis.

    Maryjh wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MSH wrote: »
    barely any of the UK is built on, let alone has a road: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096
    And no better way to see the way we build than from the air too! Only problem is you need a relatively clear cloudless sky which is extremely rare in UK due not to pollution but simply 'island weather', but on the few occasions i have been lucky to see i was shocked at the appalling 'methods' of building.

    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.
  • Fists of FedorFists of Fedor Posts: 786
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Bulletguy1 wrote: »
    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.

    Really? The 1.8 petrol gave higher NOx and particulate readings than the 2.5 TDI?
  • Bulletguy1Bulletguy1 Posts: 18,429
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Really? The 1.8 petrol gave higher NOx and particulate readings than the 2.5 TDI?
    Yes.....the MOT place showed me the printout.
Sign In or Register to comment.