You don't have to live in the deepest countryside to need a car!

ceridwen

littlerat wrote: »

Nope there aren't - frankly it's pretty hazardous to even walk it, that's a whole other issue though! A bloke down the road from us had one but after somebody hit him he's gone back to a car even.

Dad can't bend his legs back far enough to sit in one though, he has good movement within a certain range thankfully (as it means he's allowed to and can safely drive!) but most things like that need your legs at a 90 degree angle, its damn annoying!


Same reason he can't use the public transport from our village if he wants to, there are mobility buses but he has to phone ahead and then they may send one depending on room for one of the stops that day, but they can't guarantee which time, if they send one at all :rotfl: And of course, there's then the same issue back.



Honestly on a selfish note, I hate public transport so I'd actually be more interested for myself in a viable way to keep us able to drive on sustainable fuel than I would be in more public transport.

A case in point for the missing pavements to be put in....

Re the "selfish note" point. My "selfish note" is that I absolutely hate the "natural state of play" - ie Peace and Quiet - being disturbed by all the car noise so prevalent in our society at present. I'm trying to listen to natural sounds only and there's all the constant roar of traffic. It was only since I moved out of my parents' home many years back now that I realised that car noise even intrudes into many peoples homes - and I will never ever accept that its okay for cardrivers to disturb the "peace and quiet" in peoples homes. The fumes are awful. The pollution is awful. The sheer amount of land devoted to cars (in our overcrowded country at that) is horrendous - with roads for them, carparks for them, garages for them - and its all at the expense of countryside. If people really stopped and thought logically about JUST how much damage the prevalence of cars has created (and thats without even taking into the accidents created by cardrivers) - then I think people might feel a bit differently about them.

System

tooldle wrote: »

The off duty driver and the driver were discussing the pending cuts to the service, and its impact on their hours of work. I feel it needs to be said that services will not increase in frequency or increase the area covered unless people actually use the service.

Then it is a lost battle. If the current services are not fit for use E.G. not at the time that workers require them, don't actually leave from/go to an area required etc then it will not be possible to generate the use to preserve/improve the service.

Padstow

tooldle wrote: »

I travelled home from town on Saturday morning on the bus. I was the only passenger with the exception of another driver returning home from his shift. The off duty driver and the driver were discussing the pending cuts to the service, and its impact on their hours of work. I feel it needs to be said that services will not increase in frequency or increase the area covered unless people actually use the service. This particular journey takes me approx 35 mins on foot, and approx 20 mins on the bus. If I took my car, it would have to be used in both directions and also parked somewhere. I cannot see that coming in cheaper than the £1.80 cost of using the bus.
My family live in a rural area. When pensioners were first offered free bus passes, the existing service in their area could no longer cope. Outcome being, more busses were laid on, not only on the main road route, but now right into the village itself. The village itself had previously had a once per week service. The main road route however is between 5-30 mins walk depending on where in the village you live. No one is going to improve the service in anticipation of customers, the customer base needs to be there to show the service is required. If more people were able to use the services and tolerate the slight inconvenience of longer journeys, not at exatly the time you would prefer etc, you may well find that the service improves. I can drive, but choose not to.

Another thing I'm missing out on. I'm entitled to free bus travel, but there are none.:)

Padstow

ceridwen wrote: »

A case in point for the missing pavements to be put in....

Re the "selfish note" point. My "selfish note" is that I absolutely hate the "natural state of play" - ie Peace and Quiet - being disturbed by all the car noise so prevalent in our society at present. I'm trying to listen to natural sounds only and there's all the constant roar of traffic. It was only since I moved out of my parents' home many years back now that I realised that car noise even intrudes into many peoples homes - and I will never ever accept that its okay for cardrivers to disturb the "peace and quiet" in peoples homes. The fumes are awful. The pollution is awful. The sheer amount of land devoted to cars (in our overcrowded country at that) is horrendous - with roads for them, carparks for them, garages for them - and its all at the expense of countryside. If people really stopped and thought logically about JUST how much damage the prevalence of cars has created (and thats without even taking into the accidents created by cardrivers) - then I think people might feel a bit differently about them.

Which is why I was initially opposed to Sunday trading. People living on noisy roads, at least got a day's respite.

laurel7172

With regard to short journeys, there are moves afoot at work to stop people who travel less than two miles (as the crow flies) using the car park.

I'm not quite sure whether I'm one of them or not- it's certainly a lot further than two miles by road, and I know I've test-walked the shortest possible route on foot and it took me 50 minutes. Each way.

*However*, what has made me incredibly annoyed is that it is being presented as some sort of moral issue, with the people who drive shorter distances being somehow inferior to those who drive a long way.

Excuse me? People who have organised their lives so they have to drive 30 miles are better than those who drive one? I don't think so.

littlerat

ceridwen wrote: »

A case in point for the missing pavements to be put in....

Re the "selfish note" point. My "selfish note" is that I absolutely hate the "natural state of play" - ie Peace and Quiet - being disturbed by all the car noise so prevalent in our society at present. I'm trying to listen to natural sounds only and there's all the constant roar of traffic. It was only since I moved out of my parents' home many years back now that I realised that car noise even intrudes into many peoples homes - and I will never ever accept that its okay for cardrivers to disturb the "peace and quiet" in peoples homes. The fumes are awful. The pollution is awful. The sheer amount of land devoted to cars (in our overcrowded country at that) is horrendous - with roads for them, carparks for them, garages for them - and its all at the expense of countryside. If people really stopped and thought logically about JUST how much damage the prevalence of cars has created (and thats without even taking into the accidents created by cardrivers) - then I think people might feel a bit differently about them.

I suppose this in a way is like the moving so you don't need one argument - you've also got in theory the option to move somewhere you won't hear them all the time. Of course again, that is money depending!

There are always places you can go and not hear cars unless you live in a large city. Of course.. these places tend to be out of the way enough you'll probably need a car to get there, catch 22.

That said, we live on the edge of a pretty big village and currently all I can hear is the birds outside my window and the odd lorry on the main road, it's pretty peaceful. Well and my computer, but that's personal choice.

GobbledyGook

laurel7172 wrote: »

With regard to short journeys, there are moves afoot at work to stop people who travel less than two miles (as the crow flies) using the car park.

I'm not quite sure whether I'm one of them or not- it's certainly a lot further than two miles by road, and I know I've test-walked the shortest possible route on foot and it took me 50 minutes. Each way.

*However*, what has made me incredibly annoyed is that it is being presented as some sort of moral issue, with the people who drive shorter distances being somehow inferior to those who drive a long way.

Excuse me? People who have organised their lives so they have to drive 30 miles are better than those who drive one? I don't think so.

The main office of where I work tried that once, but once they had to start making exceptions they found it to be unworkable.

People who work there until a certain time then have to collect their children from school didn't have time to walk home and collect the car to collect the children, people who had caring commitments after work, those who were unable to walk the 2 miles or less for a variety of reasons and on and on it went.

My car is vital for my job going from school to school so thankfully they never tried to include me. What I really objected to was the waste in that building is shocking - people are forever chucking things like cans and paper than could easily be recycled, they have lights on 24/7, have the heating on AND the windows open etc etc.

Deep_In_Debt

onlyroz wrote: »

Couldn't you cycle? 6 miles would take about 40 minutes.

I probably could but dangerous, nasty roads. Only takes about 20 mins in the car anyway.

ceridwen

laurel7172 wrote: »

With regard to short journeys, there are moves afoot at work to stop people who travel less than two miles (as the crow flies) using the car park.

I'm not quite sure whether I'm one of them or not- it's certainly a lot further than two miles by road, and I know I've test-walked the shortest possible route on foot and it took me 50 minutes. Each way.

*However*, what has made me incredibly annoyed is that it is being presented as some sort of moral issue, with the people who drive shorter distances being somehow inferior to those who drive a long way.

Excuse me? People who have organised their lives so they have to drive 30 miles are better than those who drive one? I don't think so.

Actually - I would agree with the employer on this - but point out that "2 miles" should equal the shortest walk possible (rather than "as the crow flies"). I would be surprised if they were interpreting 2 miles as being based on "as the crow flies"??

The criteria is that perfectly fit people who get in a car to drive a distance of less than 2 miles are doing so for selfish reasons - just because they WANT to. Those who drive 30 miles are (in the main) presumably doing so because they HAVE to (well - bar there being suitable public transport available that they could use - but choose not to).

THAT is the difference between these two distances - ie less than 2 miles/more than 2 miles. The basis for judgement is "Is the person coming by car because they WANT to or because they NEED to (ie as there is no other option)".

Society can no longer afford to cater for people travelling by car just because they WANT to - when they could perfectly well walk.

onlyroz

If I lived 2 miles from work I certainly wouldn't drive there - I'd walk or cycle in. At the moment my journey to work is around 14 miles. I drive most of the way and cycle the last mile, to avoid the hideous parking fees. I could get a train into work, but I'm 5 miles from the train station, and I also have to do runs to the nursery and school each morning. When my youngest is at proper school I might consider cycling that 5 miles to the station, but until then I'm going to carry on using the car.