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

jamsandwhich

I was quite happy to use public transport when I was at uni but had to get a car as it was so unreliable - the buses were so full that they would often drive past a bus stop with 20-30 people standing there as they were already full. The day that I went to the stop an hour earlier than normal to make sure I got a bus to get to an exam in plenty of time and two buses 25 minutes apart went past me was the day I got a car.

We now have two cars, OH and I go in opposite directions to work and there are NO buses on these routes even though we live in a village on the outskirts of Middlesbrough.

My OH picks a work colleague up every morning on the way to work and drops him off in return for petrol money as he doesn't have a car as generally doesn't need one.

Our lifestyle demands at least a car and I would never be without one, I won't change our lifestyle - we go for a day out every weekend and quite often of an evening too, school nursery runs, kids clubs, our hobbies, visiting friends and family etc all rely on a car - we wouldn't be able to go camping without it unless we had a team of donkeys and extra travelling days for our holidays!

ceridwen

littlerat wrote: »

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.

I do understand the point you are making.

The thing is that I moved to current house before the traffic got QUITE so bad. Therefore my assessment was based on the, then, level of traffic. I assessed it - at that point in time - as being JUST manageable. What I didnt/other people don't take into account is that traffic levels have been allowed to continue to increase for some years since then. I have visited quiet places from my childhood - to find they no longer ARE quiet (ie because of increased traffic levels). I was perhaps a trifle over-optimistic that traffic wouldnt be allowed to increase - or put another way = I didnt realise JUST how many selfish people there are out there (I was still pretty idealistic at the time I bought this house:(). I've learnt a bit more (way too much more...:eek:) about human nature since getting it - unfortunately.

I think many of the people living in houses with too much traffic noise are either those who have no right to complain (ie because they are helping to create it) or those, like myself, who DO have every right to complain but have lived in our current house since back before it became SUCH a problem and are now waiting it out for the traffic to reduce visibly (as it shouldnt be much longer before that starts happening now..and I have noticed a few signs that there isnt quite as much as there was a couple of years back:)).

Ada_Doom

bap98189 wrote: »

Very few people actually need a car.

The problem nowadays is that because most people have one, we rely on it because we have geared up our lives on the assumption that we will have a car. As a result people live far further from their workplace/school than they used to. People also walk or cycle far less than in the past and as a result convince themselves they cannot live without a car. They are right insofar as they cannot see a way to do so, but the reality is that they could if they changed other things about their lifestyle or living situation.

The price of petrol is going to continue to rise and rise over the next couple of decades. Commuting is going to be come more and more expensive. The obvious solution is for people to re-organise their life so they travel less miles, which is ultimately what successive governments have been trying to achieve by constantly raising the tax on fuel. I think we are approaching the point at which fuel use will make people think seriously about cutting back on car use.

This is spot on.We are a family of two adults who do not drive and never have and two snall children. People are amazed that we manage without a car but it is no problem for us as we have never known any difference. We walk the kids to school (local primary) and both work within walking distance of home. We have chosen to live this way. We don't feel the need to drive to out of town retail parks or take the kids on long drives to places to entertain them, but we are really good at getting around by public transport, which , as someone who uses it all the time, seems pretty good to me.

You have to think about your journey and plan a bit more without a car, and it seems to be convienence more than anything that keeps people wedded to owning thier own car. I agree that in the future more people will be carless and I look forward to it!

nickyhutch

ceridwen wrote: »

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.

A person driving 2 miles or so might NEED to rather than want to because, for example, they have to pick kids or OH up after they finish work, or might be, say, driving to visit elderly mum after work, 20 miles in the other direction. They might be going shopping directly after work, so need the car to carry home a week's worth of shopping. It wouldn't make sense to walk 2 miles to work, 2 miles back, then get in the car to drive 20 miles to see mum - we just don't have the time in the day to do that.

We can't always "perfectly well walk" - most of the time we're combining journeys because we're busy. I drive 9 miles to work every day, but rarely drive straight there/back. Most days I'm callling somewhere on the way there or back.

FATBALLZ

I'm of the opinion that a driving license should require more than just being able to show that you know how to drive. A lot of car users don't need to be - a good example would be Students. I went to University in a big University City and large numbers of students had cars which they just drove from their halls, down the main road (a very busy bus route, you'd rarely wait more than 2-3 minutes for one), and park near Uni. College was even worse, people had cars for no other reason than to show off that they could afford one, they could easily catch a bus.

I believe you should have to justify a necessity to drive in order to own a car. Perhaps people could be licensed to only do particular types of journeys (eg, to work). Getting unneccessarily big cars off the road might also help, there seem to be a lot of Nissan Navaras about which I don't believe for a second the vast majority of owners have a use for.

System

FATBALLZ wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that a driving license should require more than just being able to show that you know how to drive. A lot of car users don't need to be - a good example would be Students. I went to University in a big University City and large numbers of students had cars which they just drove from their halls, down the main road (a very busy bus route, you'd rarely wait more than 2-3 minutes for one), and park near Uni. College was even worse, people had cars for no other reason than to show off that they could afford one, they could easily catch a bus.

I believe you should have to justify a necessity to drive in order to own a car. Perhaps people could be licensed to only do particular types of journeys (eg, to work). Getting unneccessarily big cars off the road might also help, there seem to be a lot of Nissan Navaras about which I don't believe for a second the vast majority of owners have a use for.

Why don't we extend that principle. Maybe a home based on your status and also only being allowed to use certain shops i fyou meet certain pay criteria.

Oh hang on that's already been tried, it was called communism then.

FATBALLZ

!!!!!! wrote: »

Why don't we extend that principle. Maybe a home based on your status and also only being allowed to use certain shops i fyou meet certain pay criteria.

Oh hang on that's already been tried, it was called communism then.

So driving licenses are communism. You should cancel that subscription to the daily mail.

System

No the idea that people should only have a driving licence if they can prove a need

NEH

ceridwen wrote: »

I do understand the point you are making.

The thing is that I moved to current house before the traffic got QUITE so bad. Therefore my assessment was based on the, then, level of traffic. I assessed it - at that point in time - as being JUST manageable. What I didnt/other people don't take into account is that traffic levels have been allowed to continue to increase for some years since then. I have visited quiet places from my childhood - to find they no longer ARE quiet (ie because of increased traffic levels). I was perhaps a trifle over-optimistic that traffic wouldnt be allowed to increase - or put another way = I didnt realise JUST how many selfish people there are out there (I was still pretty idealistic at the time I bought this house:(). I've learnt a bit more (way too much more...:eek:) about human nature since getting it - unfortunately.

I think many of the people living in houses with too much traffic noise are either those who have no right to complain (ie because they are helping to create it) or those, like myself, who DO have every right to complain but have lived in our current house since back before it became SUCH a problem and are now waiting it out for the traffic to reduce visibly (as it shouldnt be much longer before that starts happening now..and I have noticed a few signs that there isnt quite as much as there was a couple of years back:)).

We lived in a rental house where we were next to the village road, it was a nightmare with all the tractors and lorries thundering up and down at all times...just because we had a car doesn't mean that we didn't have a reason to complain....Some people don't always have a choice where you live, either that be financial constraints or in the case of rental properties they are few and far between...

Ada_Doom wrote: »

This is spot on.We are a family of two adults who do not drive and never have and two snall children. People are amazed that we manage without a car but it is no problem for us as we have never known any difference. We walk the kids to school (local primary) and both work within walking distance of home. We have chosen to live this way. We don't feel the need to drive to out of town retail parks or take the kids on long drives to places to entertain them, but we are really good at getting around by public transport, which , as someone who uses it all the time, seems pretty good to me.

You have to think about your journey and plan a bit more without a car, and it seems to be convienence more than anything that keeps people wedded to owning thier own car. I agree that in the future more people will be carless and I look forward to it!

You're very lucky to a)have jobs and b)have jobs so close to where you live and c)be able to afford the housing near where you work...

It's not about thinking more you just happen to have a set of circumstances that allows you the luxury to take public transport all the time and you're damn lucky that your public transport hasn't suffered cuts or that you've got public transport at all...

tooldle

!!!!!! wrote: »

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.

It isn't a lost battle. I live in the second biggest city in Wales. From the top of my road (and round the corner a bit) there are busses into the city centre three times hourly on weekdays. From the bottom of the road and along a bit the busses run almost every five minutes on a weekday. Yet, all my neighbours drive. Why? Beacuse the bus doesn't stop outside their front door, because it doesn't stop outside their office, because it won't stop outside the front door to tesco (change of bus required) and so it goes on. Not forgetting of course that we all live on a hill, yet no one want's to walk up the hill lol!
Where I work we have almost 2000 car parking places. A number of busses actually run through the campus each hour. Can our estates department persuade people not to drive? Yes, you've guessed it constant complaints about the difficulty of parking, but no one wants to take it on themselves to change. All expect someone else not to drive. Just recently we were offered annual season tickets for the bus service at the bargain price of £380 per year in an attempt to stop the number of cars coming onto site each day. It was an outstanding offer, very few people took it up.
There is always a reason not to use public transport. I suspect that a lot of people would find it a lot better than they expect, if only they would give it a go.