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

mrmo wrote:

Quote:

If we must build more roads in the UK then let them be built over the bloody railways. They really are the most useless, anachronistic form of transport available to humanity.

unless you want to move large quantities of freight about the country. have a think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train, or one of the steel trains that run from south to north wales.

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

well I guesstimate that is aroundabout 9090 lorries of 44tonne capacity each day just to move all of the freight that the railways shift each day...hmm thinks... I work for a company that makes parts for two major truck manufacturers, so imagine all the overtime we could have if I shut up and let michophull have his way - mind you imagine trying to move all that freight on butchers bikes... great fun yes, but not economical.

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 ...

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

But this is self-reinforcing. The reason people live 20 miles away from their place of work is that they know they can drive there.

I hear people say things like 'oh, well you're lucky you only live 3 miles from work, of course you can cycle', as if where I live and where I work were decisions taken entirely independently of each other!

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?

HKCambridge wrote:

But this is self-reinforcing. The reason people live 20 miles away from their place of work is that they know they can drive there.

I hear people say things like 'oh, well you're lucky you only live 3 miles from work, of course you can cycle', as if where I live and where I work were decisions taken entirely independently of each other!

Well, you're answering this yourself. Over time this will "self-reinforce" itself back in the opposite direction. And fairly quickly too, I would imagine.

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!

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.

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Banning might seem draconian, but I did say PRIVATE for a reason, if you need a car hire one, or get a taxi etc. For most people the question of whether they need a car is more, is a car more convenient than the alternatives, and almost always there is an alternative it is just less convenient so gets immediately discounted.

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...

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

oldstrath wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'. Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

Even as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.

The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.

Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).

Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.

userfriendly wrote:

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.

I do agree with your sentiments on this. I just feel that to make it practical so many things would have to change. here goes..

Expensive hobbies are expensive and that needs to be accepted - I'll grant you that.

Keeping a race car at the track - OK if you only ever want to drive at that track. Would you be happy to only ever ride your bike in one location?

Hobby pilots enjoy the freedom of the skys, I don't think that the runway itself is a big part of the appeal. It's a bit like parking the car in the garage and having the freedom of the roads. There is actually a plane on a driveway just round the corner from me but I agree that this isn't the norm. More common are small boats which do need to be towed to the water.

Taking the bike to the train station and riding to the race is not a solution, at least with the railways as they stand. If you are lucky enough that there is a train that will get you there and back (bearing in mind that most races are on a Sunday) you will need to hope that the operating company will carry your bike as most have limitations. If you want to be highly competitive (not me BTW) there is also a lot of extra gear to take along which you simply couldn't do on a train. Riding double-bike at BMX races would be impossible as would having a spare bike at CX races.

Renting a surfboard would limit you to surfing at only the more tourist friendly beaches and in some locations only during peak season. Keeping a board in a locker would limit you to surfing at only one beach. Fine if you just want to have a dip now and then but for serious and competitive surfers it just wouldn't work.

Paying someone to transport you and your gear - OK, this would work but we're basically talking about using taxi's to get everywhere. The cost would be prohibitive for most people and it's no improvement on driving yourself if you do it all the time. If you had the funds you could hire a full-time profesional driver, at which point you may as well be allowed to drive yourself.

All this is against the backdrop that anyone who has a job that requires them to drive would have the ability to use the car for all of these things there is an inequality that I can't reconcile. The fact that you would have a better chance of sporting sucess (or even the oportunity to be involved in a sport in the first place) as the son of a builder than the son of a factory worker doesn't seem right to me. It's rather a mute point anyway really as those who hold the power would not tolerate measures such as this and any government that introduced such restrictions would guarantee that they woud not be re-elected for a very long time.

"...think how many 44tonne lorries you need to replicate a coal train"

Why oh why did you have to employ a notional "coal train" to make your point. Sort of cuts us off at the knees in terms of our 'green blob' environmentalist 'image' doesn't it?

Personally I thought the aim was to regulate coal-fired power stations out of existence for the benefit of us all...not to use them as an excuse for investing in rail infrastructure.

[quote=zanfEven as a hardcore as I maybe, banning private cars is not an option and will only harden peoples determination to use them.

The reason that people do not cycle or walk more is because its not the most convenient mode of transport. It takes more effort then to just drive.

Reverse that and people will quickly get pissed off with the huge inconvenience of driving and parking. Remove the subsidy that motorised traffic receives and ban all free parking (there is no such thing really).

Make walking, cycling and public transport the most convenient forms of transport and you will see private car usage (and consequently ownership once all subsidies are removed) fall through the floor.[/quote]

Spot on. Look at the places where cycling is prevelant as a mode of transport. Sure, you can drive a couple of miles accross town to work but it will take you longer than cycling and you'll still have to park some way away from your actual workplace. Suddenly the bike looks like an attractive option.

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

oldstrath wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

mrmo wrote:

the only real solution is to ban the private car....

Errrr - I agree about rail use but to what is this a solution ? If there were viable alternatives, it might have some merit, but they're most likely a long way off unfortunately.

Well, it would be solution to the 'lack of viable alternatives'.

How do figure that ?

oldstrath wrote:

Or do you really think all the resultant demand wouldn't result in improved services?

Of course it would, eventually they might even get to a usable level (functionally and financially). My point was that it seems to be a bit drastic to stop all private vehicles before anything is there to replace it. As mrmo said though, he was only calling for a ban on private vehicles - which i'd not picked up on the meaning of - so car hire and taxis would help in some cases.

Don't get me wrong, i'm very much in favour of reducing private vehicle use and massive increases in public/mass transit and infrastructure, as well as other easy things like changes in road (speed limits, reducing through roads, pedestrianisation etc etc). I just happen to think that to pre-empt that by an instant mass ban on cars is not the way - unless you want an instant, and quite reasonable, back-lash that could set things back a long way.

Matt eaton wrote:

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

Car ownership is a problem too, albeit I think the lesser one.

As my name suggest, I live in Cambridge, and the majority of people here cycle, and 30% commute by bike.

People often own cars too, though. And a lot of the housing here is Victorian two-up, two-down terraces, and the roads are about two cars wide. A car is longer than the house is wide, there are no garages, and there is no room for parking on both sides of the street. Even with reduced car ownership, there isn't room to store cars for all residents who have one.

When it snows you can see how infrequently some of these cars move. They'll still be snow-covered 5 days since the last precipitation.

In the meantime, this private property is creating pinch points, blocking pavements (in one area these are actually marked bays on the pavement!), and reducing visibility along the roads.

We have ever-growing residents' parking schemes, so that people can reserve their own little bit of public space for an object they use occasionally. Consequently there is a shortage of parking for non-residents as well, some of whom might actually need a car.

Ownership certainly can be a problem on its own.

Matt eaton wrote:

I do agree with your sentiments on this. I just feel that to make it practical so many things would have to change.

...

It's rather a mute point anyway really as those who hold the power would not tolerate measures such as this and any government that introduced such restrictions would guarantee that they woud not be re-elected for a very long time.

No doubt about that - I never said it would be easy. But it is a much more pragmatic and realistic approach than fantasising about banning private car use for journeys of an arbitrary distance (difficulty of enforcement was mentioned) or banning private car ownership altogether.

Of course it's still unrealistic at this point, as it would require either a much more authoritarian government (which actually gives a toss about the well-being of its populace) or an informed public that can be trusted with making reasonable decisions about its future. Neither of which I can picture in the Greatest of all Britains (or really anywhere else, for that matter). But it is the most elegant solution I can come up with, and I'm still quite fond of the idea.

Matt eaton wrote:

Expensive hobbies are expensive and that needs to be accepted - I'll grant you that.

Keeping a race car at the track - OK if you only ever want to drive at that track. Would you be happy to only ever ride your bike in one location?

Hobby pilots enjoy the freedom of the skys, I don't think that the runway itself is a big part of the appeal. It's a bit like parking the car in the garage and having the freedom of the roads. There is actually a plane on a driveway just round the corner from me but I agree that this isn't the norm. More common are small boats which do need to be towed to the water.

People I know who go to a race track do seem to always go to that race track, possibly simply for the reason that it's the only one within a reasonable distance. They seem quite happy doing it.

Freedom of the roads? With few exceptions such a thing exists only in the imagination of people who make car adverts. In most people's reality freedom of the roads translates to freedom to be stuck in traffic.

Matt eaton wrote:

Taking the bike to the train station and riding to the race is not a solution, at least with the railways as they stand. If you are lucky enough that there is a train that will get you there and back (bearing in mind that most races are on a Sunday) you will need to hope that the operating company will carry your bike as most have limitations. If you want to be highly competitive (not me BTW) there is also a lot of extra gear to take along which you simply couldn't do on a train. Riding double-bike at BMX races would be impossible as would having a spare bike at CX races.

Renting a surfboard would limit you to surfing at only the more tourist friendly beaches and in some locations only during peak season. Keeping a board in a locker would limit you to surfing at only one beach. Fine if you just want to have a dip now and then but for serious and competitive surfers it just wouldn't work.

Again, if you're pursuing your hobby at that kind of level, you will have to accept that there is a cost involved, and it's unfair to expect society to cover it for you. Hire a van with driver and you're sorted. You could also consider pooling with other athletes, splitting the costs. And if you're doing it professionally your team will have the facilities in place and you're not going to have to worry about it to begin with.

For the rest of us, public transport will have to be made more convenient, completely agree. But that is a good thing for everyone, and like with everything else, with rising demand there is no reason why the supply couldn't be increased.

Matt eaton wrote:

Paying someone to transport you and your gear - OK, this would work but we're basically talking about using taxi's to get everywhere.

Yes. But not everywhere. Everywhere you can not reasonably get to by other means. The question is how we define 'reasonably'. I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people aren't being reasonable about their car use. At all. Your opinion may of course differ, and that's fair enough (that is, until the day I'm elected dictator - at which point the only opinion that matters will be mine)

Matt eaton wrote:

The cost would be prohibitive for most people and it's no improvement on driving yourself if you do it all the time. If you had the funds you could hire a full-time profesional driver, at which point you may as well be allowed to drive yourself.

No.

The point is that you don't need to be driving every day (unless you're doing it professionally, already covered above). The professional driver does. Which is why he would get a licence and you would not.

Regarding prohibitive cost, the cost is already there. And it's currently handled in two ways: 1. by splitting it across all of society, most members of which have no stake in your hobby, and 2. by simply not paying the rest, which is how we end up with a decade long backlog of roads in dire need of fixing that - at best - will be patched up for a few months until winter weather and road over-use will destroy them all over again, or - in most cases - simply won't be fixed at all. Instead the money goes into contracts to build new roads, as the article mentions, meaning profit for a few and shite roads for those that don't stand to gain anything from those projects.

Matt eaton wrote:

All this is against the backdrop that anyone who has a job that requires them to drive would have the ability to use the car for all of these things there is an inequality that I can't reconcile. The fact that you would have a better chance of sporting sucess (or even the oportunity to be involved in a sport in the first place) as the son of a builder than the son of a factory worker doesn't seem right to me.

That is a very good and valid concern. I suppose I would answer this with enforcement - being granted a licence on vocational grounds would entitle the motorist in question only to use of the licence in context of their job. Caught doing a private shopping run? Joy ride? Kiss your licence and job goodbye.

And given a vastly reduced number of vehicles on the roads, this isn't at all unrealistic even without throwing more money at the police. Enforcement of all kinds of (new and existing) regulations would suddenly become commonplace, as opposed to being a scary bed time story driving instructors tell novices nowadays before having a good laugh about it afterwards.

This all sounds more draconian and inflexible than it would be in reality. Take the case of the current law of a valid licence plate required for driving a car on public roads - there is an exception to that for cars to be moved between garages / car sellers etc. There are more examples like this. Again, if a reasonable case can be made for driving without a valid licence (wife in labour, parrot dying on your chest), fines and penalties can be mitigated or even lifted. I'm a socialist authoritarian, not a monster.

HKCambridge wrote:

Matt eaton wrote:

I don't see car ownership as the big issue here, it's the use of the car for every journey, every day of the week that the problem. The car is best suited to occasional journeys, like weekends away or family days out. Regular and scheduled journeys like the commute to work are a better fit for walking, cycling and public transport.

Car ownership is a problem too, albeit I think the lesser one.

As my name suggest, I live in Cambridge, and the majority of people here cycle, and 30% commute by bike.

People often own cars too, though. And a lot of the housing here is Victorian two-up, two-down terraces, and the roads are about two cars wide. A car is longer than the house is wide, there are no garages, and there is no room for parking on both sides of the street. Even with reduced car ownership, there isn't room to store cars for all residents who have one.

When it snows you can see how infrequently some of these cars move. They'll still be snow-covered 5 days since the last precipitation.

In the meantime, this private property is creating pinch points, blocking pavements (in one area these are actually marked bays on the pavement!), and reducing visibility along the roads.

We have ever-growing residents' parking schemes, so that people can reserve their own little bit of public space for an object they use occasionally. Consequently there is a shortage of parking for non-residents as well, some of whom might actually need a car.

Ownership certainly can be a problem on its own.

No argument from me on this, car ownership can be a problem. I do feel that there should be some limits to car ownership based on the type of property and off-road parking availibility. I've mentioned this before somewhere but perhaps an n+1 approach where n is the number of off-road spaces a property has. If the property has no garage or driveway then the total number of cars that could be registered at the address would be 1. I'd aknowledge that there are a couple of loopholes but it might prevent families who live in the type of houses you describe having 3 or 4 cars parked outside on the road.

userfriendly wrote:

Again, if you're pursuing your hobby at that kind of level, you will have to accept that there is a cost involved, and it's unfair to expect society to cover it for you. Hire a van with driver and you're sorted. You could also consider pooling with other athletes, splitting the costs. And if you're doing it professionally your team will have the facilities in place and you're not going to have to worry about it to begin with.

What I was sort of getting at, and didn't make clear, was that this would introduce a massive gulf between pros and high-ranking amateurs. You'd also need to define what constitued a pro; someone who rides for a living? or would having some sort of commercial sponsorship be sufficient? Being part of a team you are given new jerseys once a year by a local shop?

If we had the public transport infrastructure in place such an idea could work but, on the other hand, if our public transport links were that good would we need to worry about private car ownership and use at all? I often think about using public transport rather than taking the car but I never actually use it as it is either impossible, unviable or just more expensive than using the car. A day return to London from where I live on the train is £180. Cost of fuel is about £25/£30. Even going right into the centre and paying £10 congestion charge and, say, £20 for parking I'm quids in. Want to take my bike to get arround town? On the train forget it (OK, folders are a solution); in the car no problem.

I think the solution is much simpler: make the car the less attractive option in most scenarios. If I could take the train to London with a good chance of being able to get a seat for £40 return and take my bike without any hassle I'd never even think about using the car. Why would I?

Matt eaton wrote:

What I was sort of getting at, and didn't make clear, was that this would introduce a massive gulf between pros and high-ranking amateurs.

Sorry, I'm not sure I fully comprehend the gravity of that situation. Especially when compared to the benefits a massive decrease in car use would have for a) the population's health, b) the country's finances, c) the state of the roads, d) the environment, ... are you sure that it's that much of an issue?

Matt eaton wrote:

If we had the public transport infrastructure in place such an idea could work but, on the other hand, if our public transport links were that good would we need to worry about private car ownership and use at all?

If everyone keeps using their cars for every single journey, from driving to work (alone) to nipping to the shop down the road, there won't be any uptake of other modes of transport. If there is no interest in other modes of transport, no investment in a better public transport infrastructure will be made. At some point you have to say "okay, we may have to force people a bit here ..."

Matt eaton wrote:

I often think about using public transport rather than taking the car but I never actually use it as it is either impossible, unviable or just more expensive than using the car. A day return to London from where I live on the train is £180. Cost of fuel is about £25/£30. Even going right into the centre and paying £10 congestion charge and, say, £20 for parking I'm quids in. Want to take my bike to get arround town? On the train forget it (OK, folders are a solution); in the car no problem.

Yes, I know. But that's the consequence of prioritising private motorised traffic, not an argument for keeping it that way. Largely do away with private motorised traffic - whether by the methods suggested above by yourself and other people less authoritarian-minded than me or by introducing my rather splendid idea of making driving licences temporary and limited - and the situation will change immediately: there will be a vast amount of money to be poured into public transport infrastructure and a demand for it too, prices will come down, the health system will stop bursting at its seams, road traffic accidents vastly reduced. People will be happier and healthier, more comfortable with their bodies and their brains will get more oxygen. Society can progress. Songbirds everywhere. Rabbits copulating in the streets. Reality shows are taken off the air. The Sisters Of Mercy release a new album. We terraform and colonise Mars. Mars!

Well. That's my plan anyway.

userfriendly wrote:

If everyone keeps using their cars for every single journey, from driving to work (alone) to nipping to the ship down the road, there won't be any uptake of other modes of transport. If there is no interest in other modes of transport, no investment in a better public transport infrastructure will be made. At some point you have to say "okay, we may have to force people a bit here ..."

Umm, by the same thinking why build quality cycle infrastructure when so few cycle? It's a bit of a case that you have to build it in order that people can come. If private car ownership use disapeared overnight my £180 train fare would suddenly become a £1800 train fare. The train companies would, in time, provide more services and major stations would grow to cope with demand but the train operators would be able to charge higher fares still given the lack of competition from the car, using their recent capital investment as justification. Conversely, improve rail services and lower prices to the extent that it becomes the more attractive option and many people will forget about the car. Make short journeys accross town quicker and easier by bike and people will move away from the car here too. When they realise that they barely use the car and it's costing them rather a lot to keep it taxed, MOT'd and insured they'll get rid of it without being forced. The carrot really needs to be in place first and the stick reserved for those too stubbon to take the easy option.

One more point: I know it doesn't apply to a huge portion of the population but in some remote areas personal motorised transport really is the only viable means of travel and I can't see good, regular public transport being extended to such places.