You are reading a single comment by @The_Seldom_Killer and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • This is exemplary of a problem we come up against time and time again. People latch on to a panacea. The trouble is it's easily debated against and then gets used as a brickbat against anyone trying to tackle the issue.

    Any issue of this scale necessitates a range of responses that can be tailored by individuals to suit their own personal needs. Presenting a problem and saying that we should all do X in response will only lead to very swift rejection by the target audience. First you should work on getting that audience to accept there is a problem and commit to personal change to address it, then work on sustainable individual solutions.

  • Good post.

    I think it's easy to forget your starting bias when you like cycling and live in London, where on balance cycling / walking is often the best transport on offer. What's the solution if you wanted to transport 3 children to 2 difference schools and had to cross the North Circular?

    Now I'm in the 'burbs I use the car more than I should. Why? It's quick, comfortable and practical (and I've not sorted out a runnaround bike). Oddly I routinely walk further to meetings than I would to the shops. What practical restriction could be placed on me?

    • make it illegal for me to own a car? - well it would work.
    • fuel price? - I wouldn't correlate it to a small distance.
    • a congestion zone? -would it be economically viable? What about people who really do have drive further a-field to work?

    I would also query whether using a car to run errands and long journeys is "the thing" that decreases my fitness? Or is it a total lifestyle combination of; commute > sit at PC > eat at PC > commute > TV / drinks / food?

    I think "the" solution is a more holistic change in how people view their lives. I've been quite heavily motivated by this article in the newyorker took me to mr money mustache's blog

About