Chris Boardman says it’s “ridiculous” for government to continue building roads

dogcc wrote:

Good sentiments but just a little short sighted.
Afterall, roads are needed as they lead to places. They need to be upkept. There are probably enough roads to ride on.

What we don't need is more Motorists. I feel that Motoring should be nationalised as a service. For people to use if and when required. And, that other means of (personalised) transport be heavily promoted instead.

This! When I become dictator you can be one of my members of cabinet.

userfriendly wrote:

This! When I become dictator you can be one of my members of cabinet.

Really?!

dogcc wrote:

Really?!

There is of course this little hold-up of me having to become dictator first.

Matt eaton wrote:

OK, I'm going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).

I think we're all largely on the same page. It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work. Very bold moves also require a very holistic approach, considering the whole transport network, work culture, schooling and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. Basically changing the whole stucture of the nation. All well and good but undoubtedly a conversation too complex for the comments section.

Agree that we need a bold vision, but it's all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a 'bikes before cars' manifesto and see how many votes they get....

Matt eaton wrote:

OK, I'm going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).

Sorry, my bad. I felt it was rather rude of him to barge into a casual conversation and only contribute a one liner of "your lecturing bores me", hence my shouty-ness. Probably should have ignored it. Note to self: need to work on that.

Matt eaton wrote:

It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work.

A very diplomatic way of putting it. "People who have visions should go see a doctor." -Helmut Schmidt

Matt eaton wrote:

Very bold moves also require a very holistic approach, considering the whole transport network, work culture, schooling and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. Basically changing the whole stucture of the nation. All well and good but undoubtedly a conversation too complex for the comments section.

JeevesBath wrote:

Agree that we need a bold vision, but it's all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a 'bikes before cars' manifesto and see how many votes they get....

I'm not actually suggesting a power grab by an authoritarian party or individual. I'm just very pessimistic about anything changing for the better in this current docile consumerist society. Hence my saying that if anything were to change significantly it would have to bypass the democratic process.

It goes without saying that you won't get any significant amount of votes for running on what is essentially a green leftist platform. UKIP on the other hand are getting a terrifyingly high amount of votes nowadays - just goes to show what the priorities are for a lot of people. "Feed my resentments but leave me alone with this sustainability crap." Childish stubbornness paired with stupidity and a "me me me me" sense of entitlement.

If one were to run for Parliament, sustainable transport should probably be the last thing mentioned. But promise them "beach bodies, more money, quiet neighbourhoods" and you might get somewhere. When asked how you plan to achieve that, that's the moment you've been practising your manic villainous cackle for all those past years. You haven't? Maybe that's just me then ...

userfriendly wrote:

If one were to run for Parliament, sustainable transport should probably be the last thing mentioned. But promise them "beach bodies, more money, quiet neighbourhoods" and you might get somewhere.

That's it! "Cycle-through" McDonalds is the way forwards

JeevesBath wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

OK, I'm going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).

I think we're all largely on the same page. It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work. Very bold moves also require a very holistic approach, considering the whole transport network, work culture, schooling and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. Basically changing the whole stucture of the nation. All well and good but undoubtedly a conversation too complex for the comments section.

Agree that we need a bold vision, but it's all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a 'bikes before cars' manifesto and see how many votes they get....

We don't necesarily need a 'bikes before cars' manifesto. More reasonable would be a manifesto promising quieter neighbourhoods, safer and less congested roads, cleaner air and a healthier population. None of these things are massivly left-leaning and I can't see any reason that anyone wouldn't want these things. Even the most hardened petrolheads would like to see less congestion.

Matt eaton wrote:

JeevesBath wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

OK, I'm going to duck out and go to bed. Getting a bit shouty for my liking (not aimed at anyone in particular).

I think we're all largely on the same page. It just takes a lot of vision to see how an authoritarian approach would work. Very bold moves also require a very holistic approach, considering the whole transport network, work culture, schooling and probably a lot of other things I haven't thought of. Basically changing the whole stucture of the nation. All well and good but undoubtedly a conversation too complex for the comments section.

Agree that we need a bold vision, but it's all well and good for armchair policy makers to suggest things in forums and accuse the Government of not delivering. We still have a democratic system in place, not a dictatorship. If someone is so committed to changing things, then I suggest that they run for Parliament on a 'bikes before cars' manifesto and see how many votes they get....

We don't necesarily need a 'bikes before cars' manifesto. More reasonable would be a manifesto promising quieter neighbourhoods, safer and less congested roads, cleaner air and a healthier population. None of these things are massivly left-leaning and I can't see any reason that anyone wouldn't want these things. Even the most hardened petrolheads would like to see less congestion.

Agreed, I'm sure every driver would like less congestion. But I've also had countless conversations with motorists (in a professional capacity) who all think that their journey is necessary and it's the other people that should be getting off the road first. All the things in your alternative manifesto are desirable, as long as no-one has to change their behaviour, at which point it becomes "inconvenient" to them.
Sorry, not having a go but I've had too many arguments with members of the public in the past who are unwilling to change their behaviour and therefore I'm automatically pessimistic about any real change occurring.....

JeevesBath wrote:

Agreed, I'm sure every driver would like less congestion. But I've also had countless conversations with motorists (in a professional capacity) who all think that their journey is necessary and it's the other people that should be getting off the road first. All the things in your alternative manifesto are desirable, as long as no-one has to change their behaviour, at which point it becomes "inconvenient" to them.
Sorry, not having a go but I've had too many arguments with members of the public in the past who are unwilling to change their behaviour and therefore I'm automatically pessimistic about any real change occurring.....

I agree with you completley and I'm equally pesimistic. For any real change it will be necesary to play the political game. I think that the key to changing behaviours is to lead people to make the choice to change themselves; try to force it and you will meet such strong resistance that your aims will never be acheived in a democratic environment.

Here's an example that I think would work in the real world, although I concede only to a limited degree: removing VED (or road tax for those living in the '30s). Replace this with duty on fuel so that drivers actually pay duty according to how much they use the car (and thier actual emmisions) rather than for the simple fact that they own it. It's fairer to motorists and reduces the fixed costs of motoring; who could say fairer than that? With fuel prices increased drivers will be led to consider the cost of travelling by car in real terms. For some this might mean choosing alternative modes of transport, others may simply drive less or be more inclined to combine journeys or car share.

Combine this with other measures to make the choice even easier (cheaper trains, compulary secure bike parking for large employers, legislation to include cycle-planning in every new road build etc.) and we'll begin to see a shift.

IanW1968 wrote:

Nobody reads these massive posts, the right choice is obvious and doesn't need a lecture.

Oh I'm sorry ... I'm having a conversation with someone here, who I would assume does read my "massive posts", seeing how he replies to the points made within, and he writes long posts himself which I enjoy reading. And given several people 'liked' our posts makes me think we're not the only ones reading them.

But thank you for presuming to speak for everyone, oh wise one. I presume you get something out of that kind of thing. Ah well, each to their own, eh?

IanW1968 wrote:

The argumentts for for reducing the dominance of motorised traffic are well documented, logical and compelling to any right minded person.

However they dont make serious money for anyone, so whilst we have a goverment put in place by money all the words on here or any other forum are wasted.

That's why we need a different government. Vote userfriendly!

alotronic wrote:

I don't tell them that one of my high-importance criteria for selecting a job is the bike ride taken to get there. They would think I am crazy, but it is just these criteria that begin to free us from excessive car usage.

Yup. "Dear Madam/Sir. Thank you very much for the job offer. Sadly I'm unable to consider it, mainly due to the reason that the distance between my home and your offices is less than 10 miles. I wish you all the best and good luck with your future endeavours."

alotronic wrote:

We certainly need roads but we also need traffic to be less 'private'. But then telling motorists that a car is a privledge not a right will get you taken out the back and put up against a wall!

Aye. Fascist.

alotronic wrote:

I don't tell them that one of my high-importance criteria for selecting a job is the bike ride taken to get there. They would think I am crazy, but it is just these criteria that begin to free us from excessive car usage.

OT, I now, but: the small business (office work) I work for, is moving in the new year so my boss is out there looking for new space.

He is keen to have somewhere that will make his commute (by car) easier. He lives on the other side of the city, so I guess we'll be moving nearer to him (or, further from me).

I asked about bike parking (which we have, at present), and he informed me its not a priority. He said if we move much further away then I'll just have to start driving again (public transport not an option for crossing the city, in my city).

He pulled a face when I said I'll just have to get up earlier but will continue to cycle.

I talked about it with my LBS, and they suggested I just make sure to bring the bike into the office on the rainest, muddiest day, cos then they're sure bike parking with 'miraculously' appear very quickly...

Shades wrote:

The thing I like about CB is he's an ex-pro who's prepared to get stuck into the general cycling debate and help the 'average joe' cyclist. A lot of other pros/ex-pros either say nothing or make a badly thought through statement and then beat a hasty retreat.

That's a bit harsh. CB is a fantastic spokesman who happened to be an ex-pro. That gives him some profile and some credibility with cyclists and politicians. But just because you can whack out 350w for hours on end is unrelated to whether you will be a good cycling advocate or have something useful to say on topics related to general cycling. Or even want to. A lot of elite sports people don't want anything to do with this sort of thing because being an elite athlete quite often requires monk like lifestyles that that squeeze out and deliberately ignore anything unrelated to their performance.

CB is a bright lad. He pioneered a lot of aero kit and styles. Built a business and also happens to have the gift of the gab and has something useful to say. Having a lucrative business and getting gigs on ITV 4 or the beeb that also increase your visibility means that CB also has a income stream and the time and inclination to do this stuff. Just because other ex-pros don't doesn't mean that they are lacking in any way. They may well be working out what to do to keep themselves or their families in cake or bread.

honesty wrote:

The solution would be to ban private car use for journeys less than 3 miles... but you work out a way to enforce that!

No - simply remove all licences from non-professional drivers. Then create a process by which everyone is entitled to re-apply (this will entail re-taking the tests which includes extensive road cycling training as well as an assessment of the applicant's personality, i.e. how likely they are to fly into a fit of road rage), but only those who can provide a valid reason why they actually need their car will be considered. What constitutes a valid reason can be set as strict as "lives more than 20 miles away from place of work". The process is to be repeated every so often for any given licence.

Sit back and watch as the nation leans out, saves a shitload of money, and gets healthier and happier (once the initial outcry dies down and everyone gets over themselves). Nice side effect: number of road fatalities will go down drastically.

Oh how I wish I got to be dictator for a while ...

userfriendly wrote:

honesty wrote:

The solution would be to ban private car use for journeys less than 3 miles... but you work out a way to enforce that!

No - simply remove all licences from non-professional drivers. Then create a process by which everyone is entitled to re-apply (this will entail re-taking the tests which includes extensive road cycling training as well as an assessment of the applicant's personality, i.e. how likely they are to fly into a fit of road rage), but only those who can provide a valid reason why they actually need their car will be considered. What constitutes a valid reason can be set as strict as "lives more than 20 miles away from place of work". The process is to be repeated every so often for any given licence.

Sit back and watch as the nation leans out, saves a shitload of money, and gets healthier and happier (once the initial outcry dies down and everyone gets over themselves). Nice side effect: number of road fatalities will go down drastically.

Oh how I wish I got to be dictator for a while ...

This is interesting thinking and I agree with the idea of a cycling element to driver training and testing and perhaps even a personality assesment. A slightly different spin would be to remove/withold the right to drive from anyone convicted of a violent crime.

The downfall to your idea would be that a valid reason would be very easy to come up with. A driving licence is a qualification that allows a person to carry out certain kinds of work and this applies outside the scope of profesional drivers. If a person was unemployed it would be perfectly valid for them to learn to drive in order to improve their employability. Likewise, any working age person at all could make the valid claim that they would like to acheive this qualification in order that they could consider alterntive employment options. Maybe the principal could be applied to car ownership rather than licensing?

Matt eaton wrote:

This is interesting thinking

Why, thank you! I'm rather pleased with it myself.

Matt eaton wrote:

The downfall to your idea would be that a valid reason would be very easy to come up with. A driving licence is a qualification that allows a person to carry out certain kinds of work and this applies outside the scope of profesional drivers. If a person was unemployed it would be perfectly valid for them to learn to drive in order to improve their employability. Likewise, any working age person at all could make the valid claim that they would like to acheive this qualification in order that they could consider alterntive employment options. Maybe the principal could be applied to car ownership rather than licensing?

Easy way around this: the qualification to drive is what matters in terms of employability, and everyone would be entitled to acquire that qualification. If the applicant is then actually hired in a job requiring this capacity they will then be sent their (physical) licence. All it takes is one additional communication from the place of employment to the DVLA. And another one at the time of termination of employment, at which time the licence needs to be returned / made invalid.

I see much more of a problem with applying this to car ownership, TBH. There is nothing wrong per se with people owning cars - say, you like collecting nice oldtimers or want to drive a car on a racetrack somewhere sometimes. In the same vein, with the driving licence becoming a temporary thing constrained by legitimate justification and regular retesting, I can see some people wanting to keep their existing cars (possibly quite a few) while others (possibly quite a few more) may decide to sell them. Totally up to them. And why shouldn't it be?

userfriendly wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

This is interesting thinking

Why, thank you! I'm rather pleased with it myself.

Matt eaton wrote:

The downfall to your idea would be that a valid reason would be very easy to come up with. A driving licence is a qualification that allows a person to carry out certain kinds of work and this applies outside the scope of profesional drivers. If a person was unemployed it would be perfectly valid for them to learn to drive in order to improve their employability. Likewise, any working age person at all could make the valid claim that they would like to acheive this qualification in order that they could consider alterntive employment options. Maybe the principal could be applied to car ownership rather than licensing?

Easy way around this: the qualification to drive is what matters in terms of employability, and everyone would be entitled to acquire that qualification. If the applicant is then actually hired in a job requiring this capacity they will then be sent their (physical) licence. All it takes is one additional communication from the place of employment to the DVLA. And another one at the time of termination of employment, at which time the licence needs to be returned / made invalid.

I see much more of a problem with applying this to car ownership, TBH. There is nothing wrong per se with people owning cars - say, you like collecting nice oldtimers or want to drive a car on a racetrack somewhere sometimes. In the same vein, with the driving licence becoming a temporary thing constrained by legitimate justification and regular retesting, I can see some people wanting to keep their existing cars (possibly quite a few) while others (possibly quite a few more) may decide to sell them. Totally up to them. And why shouldn't it be?

OK, good points about doing your test etc. and then only being given your licence when you get a job where it's relevant - problem solved there. I think, however, we'd need to consider the idea of collecting classic cars or owning race cars for the track in more detail. Most owners of classic cars do like to drive them occasionaly and for race cars the problem is even more pronounced - they need to be taken or driven to the track in order to be used. If owners of such vehicles want to use them what would they do? I suppose they could hire a profesional driver to take them and their vehicle to somewhere that they could enjoy it but the costs would be huge if they did this regularly.

This brings me on to another line of thinking - amatuer atheletes like many posters on this very forum. Without a car I would be unable to race BMX or CX (OK, I might be able to ride to some local CX races). For those who are more serious about these things and might have multiple bikes, wheelsets with different tyres, tools and spares, a turbo-trainer or rollers etc. with them at races it would be imposible to use public transport. Would a hobby that requires the use of a car qualify for a valid reason to hold a licence (surfing would probably be a more prime example than cycling)? Would you envisage a scenario where sporting equipment was available to hire and you would get the bus or train to a race or event and hire a bike when you got there?

Matt eaton wrote:

I think, however, we'd need to consider the idea of collecting classic cars or owning race cars for the track in more detail. Most owners of classic cars do like to drive them occasionaly and for race cars the problem is even more pronounced - they need to be taken or driven to the track in order to be used. If owners of such vehicles want to use them what would they do? I suppose they could hire a profesional driver to take them and their vehicle to somewhere that they could enjoy it but the costs would be huge if they did this regularly.

Well, there is no free lunch as they say. Though one could argue that currently motorists are getting a deal that is pretty damn close to it, what with everyone subsidising them while they destroy the roads and directly and indirectly harm people, and all of society pay the massive external costs. If you have an expensive hobby, expect it to be expensive for you.

There is also the option of keeping such a car in a garage rented at the location. Think of hobby pilots, do they take their planes home and park them in front of the house? Of course they don't.

Matt eaton wrote:

This brings me on to another line of thinking - amatuer atheletes like many posters on this very forum. Without a car I would be unable to race BMX or CX (OK, I might be able to ride to some local CX races). For those who are more serious about these things and might have multiple bikes, wheelsets with different tyres, tools and spares, a turbo-trainer or rollers etc. with them at races it would be imposible to use public transport. Would a hobby that requires the use of a car qualify for a valid reason to hold a licence (surfing would probably be a more prime example than cycling)? Would you envisage a scenario where sporting equipment was available to hire and you would get the bus or train to a race or event and hire a bike when you got there?

Easy one. Take the bike to the train station, take the train to a place near the event, cycle from train station to event. The bicycle is a form of transport in itself, so that would not constitute a valid reason to grant a licence. The surf board on the other hand can't well be used on the road (even in very strong winds it just wouldn't be much fun), so either rent a board at the location or, similar to the suggestion above, keep your own board in a locker provided there.

Of course there is also always the possibility of paying someone for the service of transporting you and whatever you have to transport somewhere.