Cars, good or bad?

Ok putting it another way.
Drivers kill around 3,000 people a year and injure tens of 1000s more
A tiny number are hurt by people who ride bikes

Most cycling accidents are caused by absolutely nobody else.
Which means that a lot of people are hurt by bike riders, but it's themselves.

^^If you mean that is a result of behavior then I'm coming on board with you. Cars aren't going away, we have to improve the way we use them and the way we interact with them.

what are there? something like 30 million cars in the country?
And only 3000 people being killed by them?
statistically they are pretty safe then

Doesn't feel it though does it BQ? Not when they are being used as bully boxes on a daily basis.

We (cyclists) don't hurtle about on pavements (on the whole) as it's frowned upon and criminalised because it's dangerous.

Cycling on the pavement is NOT dangerous:
This data is from here
What are the risks of pavement cycling?
• In London between 2001-05 there were 17 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles on pavements or verges, and not a single cyclist.

Pedestrians injured on footpaths/verges in London, in collision with cycles and pedestrians: 2001-05
.........................................Fatal..Serious.. Slight.... Total
…in collision with a cycle ............0..... 12..... ..40......... 52
…in collision with a motor vehicle 17.... 387..... 1793.......2197

I know, I'm just pointing out logical fallacies :-)
and almost certainly making some.

I love pointing out those figures to people who say pavement cycling is a menace.

Mind you, if cycling on the pavement was legal and more widespread, I guess we'd start seeing a steep rise in cyclists injuring pedestrians on pavements.

Cars aren't going away.

you sure?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128255.600-the-end-of-the-road-for-motormania.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/features/is-this-the-end-of-the-car-2286616.html
http://www.rudi.net/node/22123
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/are-we-reaching-peak-car/article2210139/

etc...

Of course they aren't.
Unless you have some splendid idea of how a disabled pensioner in a rural cottage is supposed to get to the hospital without one.

If and when cars become obsolete, they will be replaced by something an awful lot like cars.

shaw

Even their mule is inbred. 8 legs and 2 heads... wtf!

theyre alright for some trips,
hiring is cheap as shit these days dont get why people would want to own one.
the thing is the culture around them is fucked
the combined messages that society sends out about being a proper person who drives is fucked.
the car career that kids want to get onto is repellent
the propaganda of top gear normalises all the brainless time wasted every day on the roads, countless millions in productivity, countless hours of inactivity that will continue to diasble the countrys people.

Good rant J.
isn't Top Gear BBC's most watched programme in the whole world
and Top gear Magazine the BBC's most lucrative publication?

good

I suppose Top Gear, while perhaps an entertaining programme does work against the aims of a sustainable transport policy.

Lynn Sloman in her book car sick suggests a 40:40:20 rule where
40% of trips currently made by car people could shift to sustainable modes now
40% would require a change in infrastructure, additional public transport etc.
& 20% couldn't be shifted (i.e . BQs disabled pensioner's trip to hospital)

For the initial 40% shift to happen soft measures and information backed by political will are required. The populist promotion of driving on top gear negates many of these soft measures that are coming from the department for transport. It is dodgy that these views a promoted by the state TV channel.

We do have an opportunity now. Everyon'e skint. Car ownership is pricey. So that convenience of ownership is balanced against wallets etc.... What do we get? 5% train price increases.

Top Gear drive all those cars so that I don't have to.

I wonder if I'm not the only one that thinks of it like that, and in fact it reduces driving? :-)

probably not.

I reckon most people own cars because they have to. They have to work too far from home, shop too far from home, send the kids to school miles away. They don't live in central London where there are adequate alternatives. These people probably aren't interested in cars or driving at all. It's just what happens between breakfast and work. Or it is work. These are the ones that probably cause most accidents because they are so unlikely to be concentrating on their driving. It's truck drivers in London that kill the majority of cyclists after all. The people that are genuinely into cars are probably better, more attentive and safer drivers.

I also think that ranting against cars in London is a bit redundant because you're preaching to the converted. So few of the cars you encounter in the centre are actually private cars. They are all commercial vehicles: vans, cabs and minicabs. Most Londoners surely think driving into work is either impossible or so painful as to be counter-productive.

I'm with you on that BQ. I drive cars vicariously via shouty curly man and odd midlife crisis hobbit. Bit like me having a garage full of non existent bikes through spending time on here. Only actually have two but when I'm snoozing and my little legs are pedaling air, I could be on any number of shiny desirables!

I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating- I use trains all the time (3-4 days a week) when travelling to meetings for work, they are fast and efficient. But really really expensive.

I use them when I can expense them.

I will use the car for personal travel as it is a lot cheaper- no way am I getting a train then taxi when going to see my parents.

£25 in the car for me and the Mrs, or £60+£14 cab fare on the train. No contest.

Except it's not quite 25 squid is it, when you factor in the costs of the car and so on...

It's a close run thing depending on how often you use it. I've started sharing my car with a friend. I don't use it enough to justify it. Splitting all the costs is a massive win.

The car costs ~£1,000 per year, so £85 per month.

Not a great deal, therefore.

Car sharing is the new wife swapping.

It's worse than that. We don't have kids, but my pals do. Whenever I drive to see my dear old Ma she damn near has kittens when she sees the baby seat in the back. Plus I get all the sticky, crappy detritus of child raising in my life without any of the joys of parenthood. Jammy hands on the headrests, rusky kak in the centre console, unimaginable kak on the radio and so on.

I reckon most people own cars because they have to. They have to work too far from home, shop too far from home, send the kids to school miles away. They don't live in central London where there are adequate alternatives.

This. I drive 200 miles a week minimum just because of where I live and the awful public transport. Cycling isn't even a pleasant option because it's all down dual carriageways(cycle path) or a terrifying narrow B road where drivers will do 60-70.

I don't see how there can ever be an alternative for people out in the sticks?

You could always become a metropolitan fop.

Of course they aren't.
Unless you have some splendid idea of how a disabled pensioner in a rural cottage is supposed to get to the hospital without one.

If and when cars become obsolete, they will be replaced by something an awful lot like cars.

Taxi? if the only car trip she needs to make is to the hospital, it'd be far more cost effective.

Most if not all Hospitals have some kind of community transport or run by other local charities/organisations either free or at a fraction of the cost of a taxi.

A taxi is a car.
If you get rid of cars there are no taxis.

And the only scenario in which cars are eliminated is likely to eliminate minibuses and the like too.