Even clarkson is smart enough to realize trains and planes make more sense for mass travel, he just likes cool and high end cars because theyโre cool. Heโs not out here advocating for everyone to sit in traffic in festivas all day
Next step: โwe are a nation of smokers and millions of us smoke daily. We are making the life of these people easier. Stop to the No Smoking areas. If a pregnant woman is present she can go eff herself. Stop to taxes on tobacco.
Luckily, these are just the last desperate acts of an unelected Prime Minister, who only got the job because the last one crashed the economy inside a month (who only got the job because the last one was Boris Johnson). He knows that the party will be condemned to irrelevance next year and is anxious to find anything that could possibly resonate with enough voters
Ironically Rishi Sunak famously doesn't really drive, and once had to borrow someone else's car for a publicity stunt where he inadvertently demonstrated that he doesn't even know how to fill one up with petrol. Sadly he doesn't drive because hes a gazillionaire, not because he uses public transport
Have you seen the polls in the last two years? Or the that a majority of prominent Conservative MPs for the last ten years have already announced they won't run next year to avoid their own little portillo moments?
They know they're done and are holding on for either a miracle or something like this policy change to stick. Which isn't impossible, but that there's a good chance of him winning an election is what is wishful thinking. They're done.
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN. And make sure your friends vote. Make sure you've all got voter ID - don't get caught out by the Tories' voter suppression tricks. VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
Letting people travel "how they want" he says while cancelling new train lines for those who wants to use that. The blokes a disengenuious wanker who we can't be rid of quick enough.
Absolutely fucking not. Privatisation is literally the worst thing you could do. Do we really want some random assholes to own something we rely on and try to squeeze it for as much profit as possible? I don't, fuck capitalism
Britain has nationalised railways since 1940-s and they've been in a desperate state ever since. The biggest railway nationalisation experiment turned out to be the biggest flop.
Privatized public transportation rarely works. At most you'll find some success stories of companies that partnered with a government to jointly service a transportation line.
In France, nationalized transport worked for decades before rail was opened to private compagnies circa 2014 (would have to check exactly). Since then, no one has been able to afford a train ticket. You have no idea what you're talking about
Japan literally has privatized roads and it's kind of a nightmare. You have to pay tolls for nearly all highway transportation because it's owned by 3 companies.
Privatized railways are mostly failures most of the time. Besides Brightline, and I think a bunch of the Japanese railway companies, no nation really has privatized passenger rail. But I think the Japanese system has a weird setup.
Actually, I think Italy and Germany have started allowing private companies to operate on their railways, but I think they need to fit it between the nationalized services. I could be wrong about that tho.
I disagree. Aside from privately owned Brightline who already owns the land around their stations, owns their tracks, and has a lot of incentive to expand their coverage, I have not heard of a single other piece of privatized infrastructure that actually benefits the users or actively engages in expansion
I'm just taking a moment to remember the massive smear campaign against Corbyn, including the centrists in Labour working to undermine him during their election, and how ultimately it led to this dumbass taking the reins instead.
At the moment each carpark on the UK can use any app it likes on mobile to pay, so you end up with every place having its own. Dozens of apps on phones to pay for parking, having to remember which one is right for the one you're in today.
The proposal is to have a single app and have different car parks sign up to it so it's easier for people to pay.
I say proposal. It's not a plan is it. Idea? Dream?
Fantasy? I dunno how much they can do before they are forced to call an election and get kicked out.
@mondoman712
Best driving experience in the world? The Netherlands, because when you shift a significant number of people off the roads into alternative transport the remaining drivers have less traffic and higher average speeds than an over-reliance on cars.
Risak is just committing the same mistake Robert Moses made 80 - 50 years ago, building more roads to "solve" traffic but it just induced more car traffic - - and then repeat again and again.
Do you have a good source? Not denying, just on the lockout for stuff to shove in diehard motorists' faces that they will struggle to deny with anything coming anywhere close to resembling facts
Adding extra capacity to a network when the moving entities selfishly choose their route can in some cases reduce overall performance. That is because the Nash equilibrium of such a system is not necessarily optimal. The network change induces a new game structure which leads to a (multiplayer) prisoner's dilemma. In a Nash equilibrium, drivers have no incentive to change their routes. While the system is not in a Nash equilibrium, individual drivers are able to improve their respective travel times by changing the routes they take. In the case of Braess's paradox, drivers will continue to switch until they reach Nash equilibrium despite the reduction in overall performance.
Freedom to travel except if you're taking the train, then you can get fucked with delays, overcrowded trains and expensive fairs. Glad to be living on this hell rock
Forcing everyone to own a car due to lack of public transport/safe cycling infrastructure fucks over motorists as well. Imagine the traffic in London if suddenly everyone that commutes by train was forced to drive in.
houses, shops, offices, city centres. parks, they've been waging war on cars for since 1666.
It's about time someone did something to put a stop to them.
I can afford a car. There's plenty of parking where I live. But I'd much rather use my transport as an opportunity to use my bike, raise my fitness, and reduce my contribution to climate change, thanks. All of Sunak's ideas here are bad news.
As someone who drives a car in the UK, I'd like to point out that this is a load of old bollocks designed to drum up votes from Boomers ahead of what's looking to be an absolute embarrassment of an election for the Tories in the next year or so.
Almost none of these promises have any actual substance to them, and are largely just meaningless slogans designed to rile up the Boomers* who have spent their lives being taught that public transport and bikes are what poor lefties do.
If Labour have been quiet on these issues, it's because they know that their best election strategy at this point is to just let the Tories flap on, doling out enough rope with which to hang themselves.
*not all Boomers, obviously, but they really are the majority of Tory voters
Well I'm not a UK driver but all of those ideas sound good to me, because cars give people freedom to go wherever they want and help the economy keep going. Tons of people don't have access to public transit and they do have cars, and they need them to get to work and the rest of the places they go to live their lives.
Sure, build more public transit to help out too, and create incentives for pollution reduction and all that. But if you want the regular people on your side you will have to stop trying to take their freedom to drive away.
Let me tell you how "dumb" I am so you can gloat over it some more, you bright shining ray of sunshine. I'm so dumb that I have 2 college degrees, a great career doing high-tech stuff for lots of money, and I own my own house and land where I have an offgrid solar panel system and a sweet garden.
I'm so dumb that my life is great and you made me so sad about it.
I don't care, I'm just scrolling the Lemmy World feed for entertainment and this one came up. Now you get to hear my "boomer" thoughts on the matter haha.
I mean, all power to you for having your opinions, and what you say about public transport is absolutely correct.
But here's the thing; no one is taking people's "freedom to drive" anywhere. At the very, very worst, some councils are making it more expensive to drive within their jurisdiction, because they want to insert a moment of friction to make people wonder whether the car journey they "have" to take could be taken with public transport instead. I drive places (much less than I used to), and I see that as a Good Thing. We had the same grumbles back when Ken Livingston's council introduced the original scheme 20 years ago, but people very quickly adapted and got over it.
As for the 20mph zones; they just make sense in built up areas. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I live in an area that has 30mph limits in residential areas, but I've taken to traveling at 20mph anyway, because there are kids who live near me who have a tendency to run around without paying enough attention. Sure, I'd be legally in the clear if I hit one at 30 and seriously injured them, but that wouldn't help my conscience one bit.
You're a very typical US citizen that has bought into the "mah free dumbs" lie. There are 8 billion people on the planet and regulations are about those people (or some subset thereof) having a way to get along without buggering up someone else's freedom. It's all very well driving a car, but the asthma you cause in someone else necessitate regulation for many other people's freedom. USA is one of the very few places on the planet that has Jay walking laws, because most countries recognise people's freedom to walk in the street, ffs, it's not rocket science, it's a very basic freedom.
Nope, I'm far from typical. I'm a well educated successful American with a Zen-like level of contentment. I have the true freedom to do whatever I want in the USA, whether you believe it or not.
Oh dear god, that's sad. You are the definition of typical. I've spent years working and travelling in the US, and you speak exactly like virtually everyone else over there. My dear friend, you don't have control over anything. You don't even have control over your own bowels, they will drive you to obey them. Everyone thinks they are free and in control, and you, like everyone else, control virtual nothing in your life. This is not some great conspiracy, its just the law of nature. So enjoy your free dumb, you poor fool, but try very hard not to fuck up someone else's freedom in the process ๐ or accept that there is no such thing and go with the flow instead. You are soo American, it would be funny it it wasn't so sad. Sorry.
Well everything you just wrote is absolutely wrong. Why don't you go ahead and list anything that you think I don't have the freedom to do? Put some substance into your hyperbole for a change.
This is so obvious and dumb populism it reminds me of Trump because just like most of Trumps statements, it reads like bad satire. If this guy wouldnยดt be in a position of power it would be quite funny to read ... [email protected]
Thereโs a small YouTube channel I watch of a this dude longboard around London. Itโs amazing how pedestrian and skate friendly it is. Theyโd be doing some proper long term damage if this kind of thinking gets through.
With Brexit the Brits might be in for a decade more of rolling back civilisation.
What do you mean? I am sure he will put in place some shitty measures that will make traffic worse then he can blame Labour for it. They can even use their much loved "since the previous Labour government..." line. And it won't be over a decade ago they are talking about! Yay!
Fucking clown, if you're serious about your civilization you prepare it to move hundreds of millions efficiently on a daily basis. Cars don't provide that.
This kind of stance is common enough with Canadian conservatives. They prattle on about the "war on cars", all bleary eyed about people "just need to get to work" whenever public transit, climate change, parking or biking comes up.
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of proposing a tax on the ultra wealthy to try and subsidize buying less polluting cars. They are forcing the poor to buy cars they can't afford in cities where public transport is both not complete and expensive. They have lost touch with the working class. Alienating them against climate action. And driving them to the arms of the Tories.
Labour could literally anything and the Tories would react in as far the opposite way as possible. That says nothing about Labour, and everything about the Tories entire platform being "The Opposite Of Labour", despite literally being the party in power of government, able to make whatever decisions they want, but being completely devoid of any useful ideas that aren't just 'Tax breaks for rich cunts'.
As someone forced to drive for their commute, who has frequently been made late by cyclists forcing emergency stopz, and who hates the way things are currently going on the roads, this isn't going to win my vote.
The issue is that I'm forced to drive due to public transport being too expensive, unreliable, and, let me be frank, unsafe in some areas if you're transporting a laptop after dark. Ever tried to move a box of teaching supplies around on a bike, ye god's never again!
I don't want freed up bus lanes, I want more buses with a guard on then after dark. The roadworks fines, I think everyone wants that sorted out because it hits buses really hard. As for parking - definitely - better parking for bikes outside local shops, and safe storage for people travelling on public transport with luggage or heavy loads.
Less popular but definitely needed - insurance for bike users and mandatory licenses (sorry but some folks out there are accidents waiting to happen on a bike).
Insurance and licencing for cyclists is a really terrible idea. Everywhere that has tried mandatory insurance has given up on it because it just isn't worth the cost. If you want to do licenses how to you administer the tests? What age do you have to be to take it? And therefore how many children are you banning from cycling? The issues disappear once you have decent infrastructure for cyclists, which is a much better solution for both sides.
So in Germany for example, cyclists over the age of 13 (I believe) are required by law to use the road. And using the road, they should know the rules of the road.
In most places, some form of cycling classes is an integral part of the curriculum, with an actual exam in fourth grade. Though it's all voluntary, no child is legally required to participate.
So the license kids get from that is not an official document and more symbolic than anything, but I think it's quite nice for them to have actual classes and an exam they can take for it.
Education is great, but adding more barriers to entry isn't. It's the cars that cause the danger and we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of them.
Oh yeah, I just wanted to give some thoughts on it. That system as it is in Germany isn't really a barrier, it's just an optional thing kids can do, and I for one think that's good.
But then again, I'd rather have bike lanes that are completely separate to reduce possible danger, instead of telling cyclists to share the road with some of those lunatics I'm encountering daily
Cyclist insurance is primarily so expensive (here) because cyclists here are fucking morons with no affinity for personal safety and responsibility.
I understand their plight as a motorcyclist (as well as other vulnerable travel methods)
However, in my experience acting like shit and expecting everyone else to ensure YOUR safety is not a very appropriate way to stay safe.
I actively behave on the roads as if being targeted by a bit squad.
I have had one accident in my entire driving life that could be considered my fault.
Yet, when speaking with cyclists etc. All they have to talk about is their latest near fatality that most certainly wasn't their fault! No sir they had absolutely no hand in it!
I agree, good luck getting it past even the most progressive government in my country.
Nobody wants to pay their fair share of tax (and votes accordingly) and yet all expect the investment in infrastructure that comes with it.
When I bike here (Somewhere in Sweden) I barely ever have to interact with any cars because the car roads and bike lanes are entirely separate.
In the middle of the city you could make a case about lanes with pedestrians and bike lanes that often are only separated by a painted line.
The crossings have separate buttons for pedestrians and bikes. Traffic is very rarely ambiguous, at least in urban areas. It's easy to bike "the right way".
There are rules for biking, and some assholes break them, but that goes for everything.
Basically, I agree with the other commenter. Infrastructure is the answer.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment, could you come over and inform my country on how to build a city?
As it stands, it's more convenient, planned for, and infrastructure installed for cars. The only thing keeping me from using one of my smaller transportation methods to commute, remains safety.
Safety of myself, but also safety of my ride.
I certainly don't have enough good ideas to remedy this, but I sure hope someone else does.
I understand, while I live in Sweden, I didn't grow up here. I wish I could convince people back in my home country that reducing cars is a worthwhile goal, and certainly better people than me have tried. I'm not arguing for you to simply bike and take the risks, I didn't and I wouldn't.
Reducing car reliance would be a big project even if everyone agreed. I don't take it for granted here. Even in Sweden we're also facing risks of reduced public transportation and favoring cars, and that worries me. It's like finding a little piece of a well working system and watching it become underappreciated and potentially destroyed.
I both drive and cycle for commuting, and having experience with both it's hard to imagine what practical use mandatory insurance would be for cyclists, given that only third-party insurance is mandatory for drivers, and it's largely to cover the huge amount of physical damage someone can create with a 2-tonne block of metal propelled by an engine, something that really isn't comparable to ~10kg powered only by one person's legs.
and yeah sure hypothetically a cyclist could make a mistake that indirectly causes a car to cause an accident but this relatively very rare compared to the hundreds of accidents directly caused by drivers every day, and even rarer that the accident would be solely the fault of one party (ie. if a cyclist in front of a driver did a bad maneuver and the driver had to do an emergency stop, the driver was probably far too close to the cyclist)
at the end of the day, calls for cyclists to have insurance or licence plates usually come from people who are less invested in whether or not these are practical solutions, and more from car drivers who irrationally just want cyclists to suffer from the same inconveniences they have to deal with
As someone whose aunt was hospitalised because a young (early 20s) cyclist hit her on the pavement and sped off, I disagree.
Never caught, she ended up with a fractured hip. While it's easy to believe "all cyclists are good people like me", the reality is that every group of transit users has its problem members.
I do agree, cars can cause a lot more damage (and injuries are almost always MUCH more serious), which is why you'd set a lower premium rate for cyclists. They're covered, so you are covered.
If I am ever in a position to cycle in to work, I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if someone hits me and damages my bike, I won't be relying on their goodwill or just footing the bill.
Sure, that's why I qualified that harmful accidents do happen, though relatively rarely compared to car accidents, and relatively rarely anywhere near as harmful as a similar incident if it was caused by a car.
Similar anecdotal incident - I know someone who was hospitalised and got multiple fractures while riding his bike on a cycle path because someone was walking their dog without a lead and the dog ran in front of his bike. These things can and do happen, they're not unusual - but it's also a weak argument for, say, mandating that all dog owners get liability insurance for their pets.
You're not campaigning to increase the number of dogs on the road, you are aiming to increase the number of cyclists.
At the moment, the main worry is car/cycle interactions and car/person; however let us say all cars vanish and everyone who drove now cycles. You're now going to have a LOT more cycle/cycle and cycle/person interactions. Indeed, without the requirements of formal road training (I.e. a license) you're going to see injuries from cycle incidents in every city daily. It's a matter of probability, more so an increasing one.
Then again, "dog causes 50 person pile up" might well mandate stronger laws for dog owners, with cyclists pushing for it. So perhaps it isn't so much apples Vs oranges and more failing to appreciate scale - that the issue isn't the apples and oranges, but the sheer number of them!
You're really hitting the nail on the head with this analogy. If you replaced all the cars with cyclists then yes you'd increase the number of cycle accidents, but no one of those cyclists would be capable of causing anywhere even remotely near the level of carnage one car driver can cause. In fact, the amount of damage a single cyclist can cause would decrease with fewer cars on the road, given that at present the worst damage a cyclist can cause is by indirectly causing a car driver to crash.
We'd see more minor injuries (remember, all commuters are tired cyclists, so they're more likely to have minor bumps), but many less majore ones (at least among young cyclists, older ones in collisions I do not know enough about to comment reliably).
Let's not forget, pedestrians exist as well, and are just as unobservant as cyclists (pedestrians usually have right of way, though no cyclist I know respects that!).
In all the car commercials they show cars sitting at a stop in city traffic while 'Midnight city' by m83 plays, not zooming around NYC/Tokyo without another car in sight like they are the last man on earth.
An answer assuming you were genuinely asking: it's a fine that is considered disproportionately heavy I.e. 300k for stepping on your neighbors lawn.
An answer assuming you were sarcastically asking and an answer that this politician endorses: any fine that effects me - for all values of me that donated to my campaign.
To be honest, I could get behind fines for overrunning street works. Hell, go further: fines for any overrunning, underdelivering or overbudget public contracts. That would quickly resolve the mess that the torys have made giving out dodgy contracts to their mates.
Some drivers hate them because they think buses are cheating by using them, and of course that one more lane would totally fix traffic once and for all
Presumably this policy is around adjusting them to not be bus lanes outside certain hours, which is actually the case for many of them at the moment, but most drivers ignore this because it would require them to be capable of reading a sign.
You might hate it but freedom to travel is a vote winner, unless you can push similar messages about making people's lives better and freer then it's going to be hard getting people on board.
Also when you live in the city and need to do anything that involves more than just a small backpack, got a tool box and a couple of bits of wood? Enjoy the bus lol
All of these comments seem crazy to me. Getting mad you're allowed to go over 20mph? You want to pay rip off fines? I can understand that more parking has the potential to make roads unwalkable and unsafe, I've seen the videos about stroads, I totally agree. But the other points seem positive. Are people mad he's focusing on cars while doing nothing for other bicycling and walkability? Because if this was part of a larger transportation project I think it would be positive, except for the parking issue.
They're all encouraging more driving, which leads to more pollution and more pedestrian deaths. 20mph speed limits reduce collisions, reduce the severity when they do happen, decrease pollution, and barely has an effect on journey times.
The 20mph part is most infuriating. Obviously not paying 'rip-off fines' sounds great but I honestly don't even know what he's talking about. But 20mph is great, and from a driving experience perspective the difference to 30 is so arbitrary. How changing that back is letting drivers 'live their lives' I have no clue. What if I want to go at 35mph, Rishi?
what a wanker
The most oppressed people on Earth: motorists ๐
I read that in Jeremy Clarkson's voice lol
It's like they just let Jeremy Clarkson write this pamphlet.
finding this clip of frankie boyle shitting on clarkson made my life qualitatively better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qrCrxixBKY
My friend, that's positively milquetoast in comparison to Stewart Lee.
That was brilliant. And I loved it.
Even clarkson is smart enough to realize trains and planes make more sense for mass travel, he just likes cool and high end cars because theyโre cool. Heโs not out here advocating for everyone to sit in traffic in festivas all day
Same goes for carnists lol
Truly more oppressed than g*mers ๐
Next step: โwe are a nation of smokers and millions of us smoke daily. We are making the life of these people easier. Stop to the No Smoking areas. If a pregnant woman is present she can go eff herself. Stop to taxes on tobacco.
โWe are a civilization of fossil fuel users, billions of us use electricity generated from fossil energy sources daily. We areโฆโ
Unfortunately, this isn't far from the actual rhetoric they use.
Luckily, these are just the last desperate acts of an unelected Prime Minister, who only got the job because the last one crashed the economy inside a month (who only got the job because the last one was Boris Johnson). He knows that the party will be condemned to irrelevance next year and is anxious to find anything that could possibly resonate with enough voters
Ironically Rishi Sunak famously doesn't really drive, and once had to borrow someone else's car for a publicity stunt where he inadvertently demonstrated that he doesn't even know how to fill one up with petrol. Sadly he doesn't drive because hes a gazillionaire, not because he uses public transport
That is wishful thinking in the extreme
Have you seen the polls in the last two years? Or the that a majority of prominent Conservative MPs for the last ten years have already announced they won't run next year to avoid their own little portillo moments?
They know they're done and are holding on for either a miracle or something like this policy change to stick. Which isn't impossible, but that there's a good chance of him winning an election is what is wishful thinking. They're done.
God I hope so. I really can't imagine having to put up with another 5 years of this Tory clusterfuck. I genuinely think I would rather move abroad
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN. And make sure your friends vote. Make sure you've all got voter ID - don't get caught out by the Tories' voter suppression tricks. VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
Letting people travel "how they want" he says while cancelling new train lines for those who wants to use that. The blokes a disengenuious wanker who we can't be rid of quick enough.
That's why railways should be privatised.
Typical conservative strategy:
Are we winning yet?
Wut?
Absolutely fucking not. Privatisation is literally the worst thing you could do. Do we really want some random assholes to own something we rely on and try to squeeze it for as much profit as possible? I don't, fuck capitalism
Absolutely fucking yes! Nationalised railways never work.
Except they do and are
Except they don't.
Okay, prove it
Britain has nationalised railways since 1940-s and they've been in a desperate state ever since. The biggest railway nationalisation experiment turned out to be the biggest flop.
Privatized public transportation rarely works. At most you'll find some success stories of companies that partnered with a government to jointly service a transportation line.
No, it always works. Nationalised transport doesn't work though.
Thanks for providing these examples. They completely changed my mind about public transportation privatization
The example is across the channel - the whole of EU. And Japan as well. One must blind to think that nationalised transport can work.
In France, nationalized transport worked for decades before rail was opened to private compagnies circa 2014 (would have to check exactly). Since then, no one has been able to afford a train ticket. You have no idea what you're talking about
Japan literally has privatized roads and it's kind of a nightmare. You have to pay tolls for nearly all highway transportation because it's owned by 3 companies.
Yeah, privatization is great...
Didn't England already go through that, and wasn't it a complete failure ? someone knowledgeable quick please
Relevant video: https://youtu.be/DlTq8DbRs4k?si=y-muiI81MKk3gin0
Privatized railways are mostly failures most of the time. Besides Brightline, and I think a bunch of the Japanese railway companies, no nation really has privatized passenger rail. But I think the Japanese system has a weird setup.
Actually, I think Italy and Germany have started allowing private companies to operate on their railways, but I think they need to fit it between the nationalized services. I could be wrong about that tho.
Not really. British railways are 100% nationalised. All privatisation efforts have failed.
So, yes ?
I disagree. Aside from privately owned Brightline who already owns the land around their stations, owns their tracks, and has a lot of incentive to expand their coverage, I have not heard of a single other piece of privatized infrastructure that actually benefits the users or actively engages in expansion
I'm just taking a moment to remember the massive smear campaign against Corbyn, including the centrists in Labour working to undermine him during their election, and how ultimately it led to this dumbass taking the reins instead.
Now I'm just waiting 'til starmer does some blairite lowest common denominator research, by reading some red-tops and decides to support this.
It'll be like Tony Blair's housing policies.
...if that means what I think it means, it's probably the worst of the lot.
Take it from an American: mandatory minimum parking will absolutely ruin your towns and cities.
Sorry for downvote, it's not that at all.
At the moment each carpark on the UK can use any app it likes on mobile to pay, so you end up with every place having its own. Dozens of apps on phones to pay for parking, having to remember which one is right for the one you're in today.
The proposal is to have a single app and have different car parks sign up to it so it's easier for people to pay.
I say proposal. It's not a plan is it. Idea? Dream? Fantasy? I dunno how much they can do before they are forced to call an election and get kicked out.
More and more American cities are removing them too!
And thank goodness for that! I hope the trend continues until we have actual, livable places.
Just put one big parking lot for every car at the center of the country and then everyone can walk to their destinations! parking solved!
@mondoman712
Best driving experience in the world? The Netherlands, because when you shift a significant number of people off the roads into alternative transport the remaining drivers have less traffic and higher average speeds than an over-reliance on cars.
Risak is just committing the same mistake Robert Moses made 80 - 50 years ago, building more roads to "solve" traffic but it just induced more car traffic - - and then repeat again and again.
Just one more lane
Do you have a good source? Not denying, just on the lockout for stuff to shove in diehard motorists' faces that they will struggle to deny with anything coming anywhere close to resembling facts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
Thanks this is more or less what I hoped for :D
I think Not Just Bikes made a video on this
also CityNerd on youtube
TIL where the name of the Unsleeping City character came from...
This reads like satire
#motoristlivesmatter
Poor motorists having only like 99% of infrastructure reserved for them.
So victimised right now.
Let's take away railway sleepers so they can drive on the tracks.
What a fucking idiot. Has he been living under a rock? He's going out of his way to remake all of America's mistakes. Absolute buffoon.
What mistakes? The ultra rich have a great life in the US. He's just serving his own interests. But remember you're poor because of immigrants! /s
That's what brexit means - fuck 99% of the population so the 1% gets to enjoy the same inequality as in 'murica.
LTN is low traffic neighborhood.
Anyone else notice the pluses don't actually do anything?
Use bus lane when it's not rush hour? So it does nothing.
Parking? Doesn't solve traffic.
The beauty of all of this to the Tories is that it gives them something to crow about, without actually having to do any work.
Hey you can now use the bus lanes at midnight pm on a Sunday, and have extra parking spots in Peckham. It benefits everyone!
Freedom to travel except if you're taking the train, then you can get fucked with delays, overcrowded trains and expensive fairs. Glad to be living on this hell rock
Forcing everyone to own a car due to lack of public transport/safe cycling infrastructure fucks over motorists as well. Imagine the traffic in London if suddenly everyone that commutes by train was forced to drive in.
people wouldn't even be able to leave their driveways
Just look at strikes. From 12 minutes to reach the motorway to 40 minutes or more, and even that has issues near junctions
Ah yes, the freedom to be stuck in traffic jams. Now where have I heard that before...
No! They will add a lane! Can't be stuck on another lane!
/s
houses, shops, offices, city centres. parks, they've been waging war on cars for since 1666.
It's about time someone did something to put a stop to them.
More freedom for people that can afford to buy a car and live in an area with ample parking. But no freedom for everyone else amirite
You're free to travel how you like as long as you keep the fuck out of my way and breathe in my car farts
I can afford a car. There's plenty of parking where I live. But I'd much rather use my transport as an opportunity to use my bike, raise my fitness, and reduce my contribution to climate change, thanks. All of Sunak's ideas here are bad news.
My god what a trainwreck. I'm so sorry folks
Car wreck, trains already got too much bad pr
Right !
As someone who drives a car in the UK, I'd like to point out that this is a load of old bollocks designed to drum up votes from Boomers ahead of what's looking to be an absolute embarrassment of an election for the Tories in the next year or so.
Almost none of these promises have any actual substance to them, and are largely just meaningless slogans designed to rile up the Boomers* who have spent their lives being taught that public transport and bikes are what poor lefties do.
If Labour have been quiet on these issues, it's because they know that their best election strategy at this point is to just let the Tories flap on, doling out enough rope with which to hang themselves.
*not all Boomers, obviously, but they really are the majority of Tory voters
Well I'm not a UK driver but all of those ideas sound good to me, because cars give people freedom to go wherever they want and help the economy keep going. Tons of people don't have access to public transit and they do have cars, and they need them to get to work and the rest of the places they go to live their lives.
Sure, build more public transit to help out too, and create incentives for pollution reduction and all that. But if you want the regular people on your side you will have to stop trying to take their freedom to drive away.
Just move to America if you want unsafe roads for bikers and parking lot after parking lot.
I'm already here and it is wonderful
Brother our infrastructure is why our kids are all weak and obese and all of ours cities are unlivable.
Well I don't have any of those problems, I live in a small town and life is great here. Cost of living is low, crime is low, and the air is fresh.
Nothing much I can do about the rest of the country's problems. I vote against the Trumptards each November.
So, to paraphrase, โI got mine, so fuck youโ?
"It doesn't affect me therefore it's not a problem and nothing should be done. Doing things might inconvenience me in some way."
What a shitty attitude, but you vote so good for you have a sticker. (/s in case you're as dumb as I assume)
Americans like you are why things are so shitty in the first place and why we're an international embarrassment.
Do better.
Let me tell you how "dumb" I am so you can gloat over it some more, you bright shining ray of sunshine. I'm so dumb that I have 2 college degrees, a great career doing high-tech stuff for lots of money, and I own my own house and land where I have an offgrid solar panel system and a sweet garden.
I'm so dumb that my life is great and you made me so sad about it.
Boy oh boy are you in the wrong community...
I don't care, I'm just scrolling the Lemmy World feed for entertainment and this one came up. Now you get to hear my "boomer" thoughts on the matter haha.
I mean, all power to you for having your opinions, and what you say about public transport is absolutely correct.
But here's the thing; no one is taking people's "freedom to drive" anywhere. At the very, very worst, some councils are making it more expensive to drive within their jurisdiction, because they want to insert a moment of friction to make people wonder whether the car journey they "have" to take could be taken with public transport instead. I drive places (much less than I used to), and I see that as a Good Thing. We had the same grumbles back when Ken Livingston's council introduced the original scheme 20 years ago, but people very quickly adapted and got over it.
As for the 20mph zones; they just make sense in built up areas. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I live in an area that has 30mph limits in residential areas, but I've taken to traveling at 20mph anyway, because there are kids who live near me who have a tendency to run around without paying enough attention. Sure, I'd be legally in the clear if I hit one at 30 and seriously injured them, but that wouldn't help my conscience one bit.
Same here
Bah gawd if I want to go seventy past a primary school I reckon them fellers will learn fast or else the problem will take care of itself
You're a very typical US citizen that has bought into the "mah free dumbs" lie. There are 8 billion people on the planet and regulations are about those people (or some subset thereof) having a way to get along without buggering up someone else's freedom. It's all very well driving a car, but the asthma you cause in someone else necessitate regulation for many other people's freedom. USA is one of the very few places on the planet that has Jay walking laws, because most countries recognise people's freedom to walk in the street, ffs, it's not rocket science, it's a very basic freedom.
Nope, I'm far from typical. I'm a well educated successful American with a Zen-like level of contentment. I have the true freedom to do whatever I want in the USA, whether you believe it or not.
Oh dear god, that's sad. You are the definition of typical. I've spent years working and travelling in the US, and you speak exactly like virtually everyone else over there. My dear friend, you don't have control over anything. You don't even have control over your own bowels, they will drive you to obey them. Everyone thinks they are free and in control, and you, like everyone else, control virtual nothing in your life. This is not some great conspiracy, its just the law of nature. So enjoy your free dumb, you poor fool, but try very hard not to fuck up someone else's freedom in the process ๐ or accept that there is no such thing and go with the flow instead. You are soo American, it would be funny it it wasn't so sad. Sorry.
Well everything you just wrote is absolutely wrong. Why don't you go ahead and list anything that you think I don't have the freedom to do? Put some substance into your hyperbole for a change.
I see, taking notes from their overweight neighbors across the pond, they've chosen the way of teh hambruger
They're called hamberders now, in line with the infoulable orange Jesus
This is so obvious and dumb populism it reminds me of Trump because just like most of Trumps statements, it reads like bad satire. If this guy wouldnยดt be in a position of power it would be quite funny to read ... [email protected]
Typical tory, their patron saint Thatcher said as much:
"A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure."
Thereโs a small YouTube channel I watch of a this dude longboard around London. Itโs amazing how pedestrian and skate friendly it is. Theyโd be doing some proper long term damage if this kind of thinking gets through. With Brexit the Brits might be in for a decade more of rolling back civilisation.
Just the one?
Cursed island
There's absolutely zero point in discussing this.
It's pure
whistleblowingdogwhistle and deflection politics. And that's it.Edit: Mixed up whistling. Tired and distracted.
Do you mean dogwhistling? Whistleblowing is something else.
Yes, my bad. Total brain melt moment.
What do you mean? I am sure he will put in place some shitty measures that will make traffic worse then he can blame Labour for it. They can even use their much loved "since the previous Labour government..." line. And it won't be over a decade ago they are talking about! Yay!
Fucking clown, if you're serious about your civilization you prepare it to move hundreds of millions efficiently on a daily basis. Cars don't provide that.
This kind of stance is common enough with Canadian conservatives. They prattle on about the "war on cars", all bleary eyed about people "just need to get to work" whenever public transit, climate change, parking or biking comes up.
As an expat - fuck this clowncar. Fuck this litany of clueless prime ministers that so desperately wants to be a mini USA, with no lessons learned.
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of proposing a tax on the ultra wealthy to try and subsidize buying less polluting cars. They are forcing the poor to buy cars they can't afford in cities where public transport is both not complete and expensive. They have lost touch with the working class. Alienating them against climate action. And driving them to the arms of the Tories.
None of this post is about Labour...
It kinda is. Because this is the Tories' response to Labour and Sadiq Khan expanding Ulez in London
Labour could literally anything and the Tories would react in as far the opposite way as possible. That says nothing about Labour, and everything about the Tories entire platform being "The Opposite Of Labour", despite literally being the party in power of government, able to make whatever decisions they want, but being completely devoid of any useful ideas that aren't just 'Tax breaks for rich cunts'.
As someone forced to drive for their commute, who has frequently been made late by cyclists forcing emergency stopz, and who hates the way things are currently going on the roads, this isn't going to win my vote.
The issue is that I'm forced to drive due to public transport being too expensive, unreliable, and, let me be frank, unsafe in some areas if you're transporting a laptop after dark. Ever tried to move a box of teaching supplies around on a bike, ye god's never again!
I don't want freed up bus lanes, I want more buses with a guard on then after dark. The roadworks fines, I think everyone wants that sorted out because it hits buses really hard. As for parking - definitely - better parking for bikes outside local shops, and safe storage for people travelling on public transport with luggage or heavy loads.
Less popular but definitely needed - insurance for bike users and mandatory licenses (sorry but some folks out there are accidents waiting to happen on a bike).
Insurance and licencing for cyclists is a really terrible idea. Everywhere that has tried mandatory insurance has given up on it because it just isn't worth the cost. If you want to do licenses how to you administer the tests? What age do you have to be to take it? And therefore how many children are you banning from cycling? The issues disappear once you have decent infrastructure for cyclists, which is a much better solution for both sides.
So in Germany for example, cyclists over the age of 13 (I believe) are required by law to use the road. And using the road, they should know the rules of the road.
In most places, some form of cycling classes is an integral part of the curriculum, with an actual exam in fourth grade. Though it's all voluntary, no child is legally required to participate.
So the license kids get from that is not an official document and more symbolic than anything, but I think it's quite nice for them to have actual classes and an exam they can take for it.
Education is great, but adding more barriers to entry isn't. It's the cars that cause the danger and we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of them.
Oh yeah, I just wanted to give some thoughts on it. That system as it is in Germany isn't really a barrier, it's just an optional thing kids can do, and I for one think that's good.
But then again, I'd rather have bike lanes that are completely separate to reduce possible danger, instead of telling cyclists to share the road with some of those lunatics I'm encountering daily
Cyclist insurance is primarily so expensive (here) because cyclists here are fucking morons with no affinity for personal safety and responsibility.
I understand their plight as a motorcyclist (as well as other vulnerable travel methods) However, in my experience acting like shit and expecting everyone else to ensure YOUR safety is not a very appropriate way to stay safe.
I actively behave on the roads as if being targeted by a bit squad. I have had one accident in my entire driving life that could be considered my fault. Yet, when speaking with cyclists etc. All they have to talk about is their latest near fatality that most certainly wasn't their fault! No sir they had absolutely no hand in it!
Infrastructure is the answer, not insurance.
I agree, good luck getting it past even the most progressive government in my country. Nobody wants to pay their fair share of tax (and votes accordingly) and yet all expect the investment in infrastructure that comes with it.
Shocking, to say the least.
When I bike here (Somewhere in Sweden) I barely ever have to interact with any cars because the car roads and bike lanes are entirely separate.
In the middle of the city you could make a case about lanes with pedestrians and bike lanes that often are only separated by a painted line.
The crossings have separate buttons for pedestrians and bikes. Traffic is very rarely ambiguous, at least in urban areas. It's easy to bike "the right way".
There are rules for biking, and some assholes break them, but that goes for everything.
Basically, I agree with the other commenter. Infrastructure is the answer.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment, could you come over and inform my country on how to build a city? As it stands, it's more convenient, planned for, and infrastructure installed for cars. The only thing keeping me from using one of my smaller transportation methods to commute, remains safety. Safety of myself, but also safety of my ride.
I certainly don't have enough good ideas to remedy this, but I sure hope someone else does.
I understand, while I live in Sweden, I didn't grow up here. I wish I could convince people back in my home country that reducing cars is a worthwhile goal, and certainly better people than me have tried. I'm not arguing for you to simply bike and take the risks, I didn't and I wouldn't.
Reducing car reliance would be a big project even if everyone agreed. I don't take it for granted here. Even in Sweden we're also facing risks of reduced public transportation and favoring cars, and that worries me. It's like finding a little piece of a well working system and watching it become underappreciated and potentially destroyed.
I both drive and cycle for commuting, and having experience with both it's hard to imagine what practical use mandatory insurance would be for cyclists, given that only third-party insurance is mandatory for drivers, and it's largely to cover the huge amount of physical damage someone can create with a 2-tonne block of metal propelled by an engine, something that really isn't comparable to ~10kg powered only by one person's legs.
and yeah sure hypothetically a cyclist could make a mistake that indirectly causes a car to cause an accident but this relatively very rare compared to the hundreds of accidents directly caused by drivers every day, and even rarer that the accident would be solely the fault of one party (ie. if a cyclist in front of a driver did a bad maneuver and the driver had to do an emergency stop, the driver was probably far too close to the cyclist)
at the end of the day, calls for cyclists to have insurance or licence plates usually come from people who are less invested in whether or not these are practical solutions, and more from car drivers who irrationally just want cyclists to suffer from the same inconveniences they have to deal with
As someone whose aunt was hospitalised because a young (early 20s) cyclist hit her on the pavement and sped off, I disagree.
Never caught, she ended up with a fractured hip. While it's easy to believe "all cyclists are good people like me", the reality is that every group of transit users has its problem members.
I do agree, cars can cause a lot more damage (and injuries are almost always MUCH more serious), which is why you'd set a lower premium rate for cyclists. They're covered, so you are covered.
If I am ever in a position to cycle in to work, I'd feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if someone hits me and damages my bike, I won't be relying on their goodwill or just footing the bill.
Sure, that's why I qualified that harmful accidents do happen, though relatively rarely compared to car accidents, and relatively rarely anywhere near as harmful as a similar incident if it was caused by a car.
Similar anecdotal incident - I know someone who was hospitalised and got multiple fractures while riding his bike on a cycle path because someone was walking their dog without a lead and the dog ran in front of his bike. These things can and do happen, they're not unusual - but it's also a weak argument for, say, mandating that all dog owners get liability insurance for their pets.
Apples and oranges friend.
You're not campaigning to increase the number of dogs on the road, you are aiming to increase the number of cyclists.
At the moment, the main worry is car/cycle interactions and car/person; however let us say all cars vanish and everyone who drove now cycles. You're now going to have a LOT more cycle/cycle and cycle/person interactions. Indeed, without the requirements of formal road training (I.e. a license) you're going to see injuries from cycle incidents in every city daily. It's a matter of probability, more so an increasing one.
Then again, "dog causes 50 person pile up" might well mandate stronger laws for dog owners, with cyclists pushing for it. So perhaps it isn't so much apples Vs oranges and more failing to appreciate scale - that the issue isn't the apples and oranges, but the sheer number of them!
You're really hitting the nail on the head with this analogy. If you replaced all the cars with cyclists then yes you'd increase the number of cycle accidents, but no one of those cyclists would be capable of causing anywhere even remotely near the level of carnage one car driver can cause. In fact, the amount of damage a single cyclist can cause would decrease with fewer cars on the road, given that at present the worst damage a cyclist can cause is by indirectly causing a car driver to crash.
Yes and no.
We'd see more minor injuries (remember, all commuters are tired cyclists, so they're more likely to have minor bumps), but many less majore ones (at least among young cyclists, older ones in collisions I do not know enough about to comment reliably).
Let's not forget, pedestrians exist as well, and are just as unobservant as cyclists (pedestrians usually have right of way, though no cyclist I know respects that!).
these are some absolutely wild generalisations and honestly daft assumptions but I doubt there's much to be gained arguing this point any more
Holy shit I don't want to live where you're living. It sounds horrible.
South of England, 10/10 would not recommend.
I don't think completely unprompted violence is often the answer, but I'd love to se this fucker mauled.
Is it unprompted?
God cursed bri'ins with horrible teeth as punishment for their many sins.
I thought that was gargling with urine in the middle ages as an early whitener.
It is pretty curious how all the problems with the world can be traced to British people doing things.
British imperialism which is the fault of the nobility, and no other aristocratic community is any less ambitious.
All you have to say is "conservative"
What's LTN?
Low Traffic Neighbourhood. The pinnacle of oppression for all those poor motorists.
Motorists want more traffic now, interesting.
... but not in their neighbourhoods or housing estates, that would be silly. It's more fun when the rat runs go through someone else's estate.
Yes.
In all the car commercials they show cars sitting at a stop in city traffic while 'Midnight city' by m83 plays, not zooming around NYC/Tokyo without another car in sight like they are the last man on earth.
Something similar to the autoluw concept
Wow I have not heard of a single news item about sunak that is even relatively benign. What a tool.
fucking dreadful scumbag is going to win votes from this, too
Damn, it's a fucking bold stance to say you're for increasing ripoff fines.
What's a ripoff fine? Google isn't helping on this one
Presumably any fine applied to a motorist. They are all unjust.
An answer assuming you were genuinely asking: it's a fine that is considered disproportionately heavy I.e. 300k for stepping on your neighbors lawn.
An answer assuming you were sarcastically asking and an answer that this politician endorses: any fine that effects me - for all values of me that donated to my campaign.
Yeah, sorry about him.
To be honest, I could get behind fines for overrunning street works. Hell, go further: fines for any overrunning, underdelivering or overbudget public contracts. That would quickly resolve the mess that the torys have made giving out dodgy contracts to their mates.
Is this real? I honestly can't tell any more.
Genuine question, what is the deal with bus lanes?
Some drivers hate them because they think buses are cheating by using them, and of course that one more lane would totally fix traffic once and for all
Presumably this policy is around adjusting them to not be bus lanes outside certain hours, which is actually the case for many of them at the moment, but most drivers ignore this because it would require them to be capable of reading a sign.
Busses get to cheat because they are a super-duper car pool. Maybe fully packed cars with 4+ passengers might be allowed to use them.
Some carpool lanes in the States are open to a driver and a single passenger.
They're lanes for buses
Nothing.
Nothing in there about promoting work from home, I see. Best part of the lockdowns was the empty roads. More wfh the easier commutes get
Terrible man has terrible plan. More at eleven
Is that supposed to be legible?
You might hate it but freedom to travel is a vote winner, unless you can push similar messages about making people's lives better and freer then it's going to be hard getting people on board.
These measures are only freer travel for those who can afford to drive (and sit in traffic). Fuck everyone else, because tory
Also when you live in the city and need to do anything that involves more than just a small backpack, got a tool box and a couple of bits of wood? Enjoy the bus lol
Where are you talking about? My local public transport network is considered one of the best in the world and it's far from a vote winner lol
I would like to see how he deals with rip off fines... Nottingham city comes to mind. That council loves bleeding motorists for funding.
All of these comments seem crazy to me. Getting mad you're allowed to go over 20mph? You want to pay rip off fines? I can understand that more parking has the potential to make roads unwalkable and unsafe, I've seen the videos about stroads, I totally agree. But the other points seem positive. Are people mad he's focusing on cars while doing nothing for other bicycling and walkability? Because if this was part of a larger transportation project I think it would be positive, except for the parking issue.
They're all encouraging more driving, which leads to more pollution and more pedestrian deaths. 20mph speed limits reduce collisions, reduce the severity when they do happen, decrease pollution, and barely has an effect on journey times.
The 20mph part is most infuriating. Obviously not paying 'rip-off fines' sounds great but I honestly don't even know what he's talking about. But 20mph is great, and from a driving experience perspective the difference to 30 is so arbitrary. How changing that back is letting drivers 'live their lives' I have no clue. What if I want to go at 35mph, Rishi?