Is it a right or is it a privilege to have a car ?

It is a difficult one. Cars are inanimate objects so cant be evil or demonised in themselves. Drivers are victims of a situation we have ended up in believing (whether true or not) that they have no choice but to drive, and in doing so choose an activity that is harmful. I suppose as things stand I would judge individuals as making an immoral choice if 1. They drove in a manner that intentionally harms others, 2. Drove in a manner where they are likely to harm even if unintentionally, 3. Drove where an alternative way of travelling is accessible.

People in power however who could change things yet don't are much more culpable

The problem with this argument is saying "we're currently operating under the legacy of our own history" is basically saying "we've always done it this way why should we change" when the need for radical change is clearly apparent.

As for demonising car owners and users: I'm not sure how much I care about that. They are adults who have and can make their own decisions. The fact is that really most car users know that their choice is selfish and unsustainable, but they don't care. Everyone else does it so why shouldn't they, and they don't feel they are paying a price for their convenience. I do sympathise with this, to a degree - I'm not a car hater, in fact I'm regularly tempted to buy one myself - but most won't even engage in thinking about it or debating it.

People in power however who could change things yet don't are much more culpable

The reason politicians only tinker at the edges is because it would be political suicide to attack car users. We live in a democracy where they need to respond to the views of the public. Politicians aren't ultimately culpable, their electorate is.

Hence their tactics:-

• Slowly ratchet up fuel duty
  
• Ratchet up VED for the worst offending vehicles
  
• Lower VED for the cleaner vehicles (and then get fucked over by VW spoofing results, etc)
  
• Zero rated VED for green vehicles
  
• Allow initial testing of driverless vehicles
  
• Move to newer technology (like ANPR equipped patrol cars cross linked with insurance/MOT/VED databases) to increase compliance
  
• Invest in better public transport
  
• Don't invest as much in new roads
  
• Campaigns to get people to live healthier where they will (hopefully) leave the car at home for some journeys
  
  

Smoking:

• Slowly ratchet up tobacco duty
  
• Ban smoking from bars
  
• Ban smoking from many public places
  
• New technology (vaping, that is way less harmful)
  
• etc
  
  

Slowly slowly catchy monkey. Nudge. Or whatever else you want to call it.

The problem with this argument is saying "we're currently operating under the legacy of our own history" is basically saying "we've always done it this way why should we change"...

No it isn't. It isn't saying that at all. That is actually getting pretty close to the opposite of the argument that I've been making.

The argument that I have been making is that we need to start making some radical changes so that we can end this legacy that has caused the necessity of motor vehicles. I'm not sure how you conflated that as not doing anything at all but that really isn't what I've been saying at any time at all.

And it may well be that you aren't concerned about whether drivers feel demonised. However, that opinion of yours is basically irrelevant. It's been borne out time and time again that the most efficient and effective way to bring about social change is to engage people in the changes you want to make. You reckon most people won't even engage in thinking about it or debating it. I say you aren't trying to engage them in the right way. Ranting about how you don't care, that's definitely the wrong way.

I'm not ranting :)

I just said I don't care that much if car drivers get demonised. Why would I? I see all the harm they do, it seems logical to me that they might be. It's not the same as saying they should be.

You're right about engaging people though, that is the way forward. I just fear that in this case it may be particularly difficult.

Yet the real term cost of motoring has fallen massively while the cost of public transport has risen disproportionately. Public perception is that there is a 'war on motoring' and motorists are treated as a cash cow, when they aren't. There's a long way to go.

One remark: A near empty diesel bus isn't particularly environmentally friendly either. Same with a near empty train.

Only for a certain amount of cover public transport > car.

Now this can be solved with more flexible solutions (the dial-a-bus dispatching a small van bus for example for those not in a hurry) and alternative fuels (biofuel bus).

But as transport vehicles are always "hard goods" that need to be in a certain place it's not an easy puzzle.

Even worse, yes worse, at the moment as they're working on it, are li-ion battery powered cars: They may not emit a lot of local pollution but it's extremely costly to produce the battery and they don't last.

An uncle of mine worked on the transport issue, and increasing distances from work lead to dead inner cities and what The_Seldom_Killer also noted: Stupid long commutes. His solution was to slow the car down and stop building roads that just fill up again.

As for me, taxis cost me more on the school run than my car, and it's impossible to do with public transport where I am. (a box bike MAY be possible, it's too bad you can't try one out where I am, and some days in the year it won't work)

However, transport may be a right (it would be I feel wrong to force isolation on somebody that can't cycle) driving a car is not, break the rules and lose the license. And rightly so.

like a bit of weed, drink far too much, run red lights and indulge in anal sex

Three out of four ain't bad...

What's wrong with anal sex?

cars are needed, i drive mine everyday as i need to.

that and theyre fucking awesome. so are motorbikes.

Yup, it's a right. Cos floating about in a steel 2000kg+ killing machine and spreading poisonous gasses is something that everyone simply must do. Oh and it's fun.

you must simply do it usually to; get to work, buy food etc in asda and take it home, move stuff around thats too big to carry, move people, go places, do stuff in general. i couldnt really do any of that without a car, despite riding bikes all the time. cars dont typically weigh 2000kg btw, and they are a lot of fun.

you must simply do it usually to; get to work, buy food etc in asda and take it home, move stuff around thats too big to carry, move people, go places, do stuff in general.

'usually'? OK here's my list:

Work: cycle (occasionally cycle>train>cycle)

Food in Smaller amounts: Carry local purchases on foot. Less local: Bike.
Larger amounts/long distance: Van delivering things (supermarket things and vegetable things) (no need why that has to be carbon fuel but it mostly is)
Bread etc delivered by local baker by bike.

Move stuff around that's big: delivery van (no need why that has to be carbon fuel but it mostly is - I'd like to choose what kind of vehicle retailers use but I don't get that choice)

Move People (i.e. my family): walk, tube/train, car, bus, cycle - in order of commonality.

Go places/do stuff:
Local: cycle, walk or quick hops on public transport
Middle/longer distance: Mostly car, or train (i.e. Holidays, visit family/inlaws and middle distance for long walks).

There's almost NONE of that that I absolutely couldn't manage without a car, and I very often do ignore my car and do it some other way. However for certain regular inlaws/family and going somewhere 'exotic' like Wales, it's the car. Main use is for holidays.

So I guess what I'm saying is you can actually own a car and realise it's almost redundant. In my case, not quite.

I think a Cargo Bike would reduce a few of my carbon fuel journeys.

It's a plight.

i perhaps should have been a little clearer. those of us who dont live in london. absolutely crazy to think that a world exists outside london i know, but all of that you listed just does not exist here and i dont exactly live in Timbuktu. that all reads as very la dee da to be honest, not just matey boy bread bike.

i do use a train occasionally but have to drive to get to the station. i could live without a car but would be very cut off and making my life very difficult unnecessarily and i know it would be the case for lots of others too.

If you live in a city - privelege

If you live in the country - necessity

Is it a hover car?

And if you live in a metropolis?

Batmobile/BatBike/BatEtc.

... very la dee da to be honest, not just matey boy bread bike.

Hiya, thanks for your sparkling repartee. Yep, I live in London.

I live here cos it's better than Tossforth in Middle Englandshire where I grew up. It was (and still is) full of bored right wing football teds with chips on their shoulders who liked fingering their cars more than their girlfriends, who couldn't fucking HANDLE it when somebody in their pub was wearing the Wrong Trousers. Sound familiar? I couldn't wait to leave. Plus all the jobs there were dull as. I would have ended up on nutty drugs if I stayed. No question.

La-de-da? well if you say so (not that you know me right?), but I don't think so, I just don't ever remember not wanting to be in London. Or at least another city that's a good place to live. I'm a pretty average person, not too posh or hip or whatever, just someone that hates the way cars dominate space and air and sound in cities.

'Matey boy bread bike' is a living for a few people, women as well as men, and I rate them for getting off their arses and making something into a decent small business.

I've found that driving is way cheaper than public transport (esp trains) so I can totally understand why, especially in rural places and deep suburbia, driving is really 'the only' option for most people. Like where I grew up, where No One cycles except children round their estate.

Now stop being a troll and use some Capital Letters.

Oh right yeah disagree with the mass opinion so must be a troll. Not much of that Englandshire rings true although I get what you mean. I live in Brighton which is meant to be a city but even so you can't just grab public transport to go places further than a few miles and even when you do it takes ages.

Big cities fair enough but that is literally the only place you can pull that off. Most people don't live there.

@SkullyBen sympathies @Dogtemple dosent appear to have read much on this subject.
Getting to the station in B.right.on must take all of 20 minutes even from where my mate lives in Rottingdean . No need for motors there.
I've owned a t4 for carrying bikes and kit for events since September, and I still see loads of occasions when it makes NO sense to sit in queues and hence ride. Generally at peak times.
Blighty is like a 20 something youth.
We still haven't learnt from decades of unfettered car use and therefore act like it's a right to sit in queues causing all associated problems.
When the country grows out of still imagining it's 1950 and changes are made to active travel everywhere, powers will look back and say wish I had have known what I know then when I imagined car use worked... sorry gotta go Evan Davies on

HTBRY?

I lived in London for the first 29 years of my life, I worked in an office, therefore I didn't need a car and went everywhere by bike or public transport. About the only time I was in a car was when being driven long miles to bike races.

I live in a small shop-free village and work as a landscaper, therefore I need a 4WD truck to carry my tools and up to a ton or so of materials or I would be an unemployed landscaper. I provide employment to several people in a struggling rural community, they do not need to drive.

There is no moral high ground, not all drivers are bad nor are all cyclists good. Consider the carbon footprint of the Tour de France......

Consider the carbon footprint of the Tour de France......

Not sure that has much relevance to car vs bike as transport topic, but it's probably less than a single F1 weekend.

Also, Bernie Ecclestone is clearly way more evil than Christian Prudhomme.