The future of cars?

[WelshGas]

I’d like to point out that pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, etc have an absolute right to use the highway. Nearly all motor vehicle users do so under licence, which can, and sometimes is, revoked for misuse of the rules.

Traffic light signals, for example, are entirely optional for pedestrians. And apart from a very few limited places, such as the Royal Parks, speed limits are for guidance only for cyclists and equestrians.

So, the same rights do not apply equally to all road users.


Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

They Do Not have the right to ignore statutory road signs, such as riding the wrong way on one way streets or cycling on pavements that are Not designated cycleways.
The sooner cyclists are forced to register and get Insurance etc: so that they can be apprehended, when they break traffic laws , the better.
Or, obey these laws correctly in the first place.
Yes, there is a cycling sub-culture for some, one that puts ALL other road users at risk.

 

[Tom Downie]

And the countryside will get 1 Vehicle/village. Some villages around here don’t even get a bus/day.

For cities - fine. For anyone else - useless.

Electric cars will never take off until the infrastructure is in place. I only know of one public charging point in the whole of North Devon. The government/Local Authorities will have to make these available in public car parks as is starting to happen in France. What if you live in a terraced house and you park on the road outside your home. You can't run a cable over the pavement and you can't dig up the pavement to install a point at the kerb. The whole concept is typical of our government demonising the average man in the street when it is them who should get their act together. Personally I think that switching to electric is a great idea but come on Westminster think this through.

 

[Skewif]

Electric cars will never take off until the infrastructure is in place. I only know of one public charging point in the whole of North Devon. The government/Local Authorities will have to make these available in public car parks as is starting to happen in France. What if you live in a terraced house and you park on the road outside your home. You can't run a cable over the pavement and you can't dig up the pavement to install a point at the kerb. The whole concept is typical of our government demonising the average man in the street when it is them who should get their act together. Personally I think that switching to electric is a great idea but come on Westminster think this through.

But in the very near future the electric car will also be autonomous. No need for charging points everywhere, it will just go find a charge point on its own when you’re asleep or at work.

 

[Borris]

But in the very near future the electric car will also be autonomous. No need for charging points everywhere, it will just go find a charge point on its own when you’re asleep or at work.

Unless they paint them pink and make them fly then don't expect EVs to catch on outside of the techno centric cities. That's where all the investment cash always ends up and rural areas are always an after thought that is if they ever get thought about at all. T'was forever thus!

 

[Skewif]

Unless they paint them pink and make them fly then don't expect EVs to catch on outside of the techno centric cities. That's where all the investment cash always ends up and rural areas are always an after thought that is if they ever get thought about at all. T'was forever thus!

The government doesn’t invest in Über but they are spreading everywhere. It will come from commercial investment in the same way. I agree it sounds most suited to inside the ring road. But even in the smallest of towns I’ll bet a lot of people would be happy to give up the hassle and expense of car ownership when there is a fleet of local driverless cars at their beck and call 24/7 all for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Bellcrew]

The government doesn’t invest in Über but they are spreading everywhere. It will come from commercial investment in the same way. I agree it sounds most suited to inside the ring road. But even in the smallest of towns I’ll bet a lot of people would be happy to give up the hassle and expense of car ownership when there is a fleet of local driverless cars at their beck and call 24/7 all for a fraction of the cost.

I suspect these cars would have to be built like tanks with self defence mechanisms to survive.

 

[Digger]

The government doesn’t invest in Über but they are spreading everywhere. It will come from commercial investment in the same way. I agree it sounds most suited to inside the ring road. But even in the smallest of towns I’ll bet a lot of people would be happy to give up the hassle and expense of car ownership when there is a fleet of local driverless cars at their beck and call 24/7 all for a fraction of the cost.

To believe in lower costs when big business is involved is fantasy. When your Tesla fails you can only get spares fitted by them. Businesses are jumping onto the hysteria wagon to take advantage and make massive profits. Politicians go along to reduce our use of fuels and regretfully our freedoms. Sorry but I dont buy into the autonomous future as that will bring even bigger problems. Larger populations with no work or value leads to one outcome.

 

[Amarillo]

The sooner cyclists are forced to register and get Insurance etc: so that they can be apprehended, when they break traffic laws , the better.
Or, obey these laws correctly in the first place.

Gosh! You talk as if law-breaking among cyclists is endemic. It is not. The rarity of such offences make them stand out on the odd occasion when it does happen.

You also talk as if registering and licensing cyclists would be a cure for the occasional wrongdoers. It hasn’t worked for motorists where lawbreaking IS endemic, routine for many if not most and continuous for some.

When I stick to the speed limit in my neighbouring borough of Lewisham I end up with a snake of motorists behind me who must have broken the law to catch up, and I myself am never hindered by a slower moving vehicle.

Try this: drive at a steady 70 on a free flowing motorway and count the number of cars you pass (driving lawfully) and the number that pass you (driving unlawfully). I will expect that you will find the majority drive unlawfully. And then there are those who drive continuously with defects such as bald tyres or faulty lights.

I’m not saying that is an excuse for poor behaviour by a minority of cyclists who should dismount if wanting to travel the wrong way along a one way street, and keep off the footway. But I also feel that the law for cyclists should be changed to reduce lawbreaking. I cycle Ben to school using the road daily, but I don’t think it would do any harm to decriminalise a parent allowing their four year old son to ride on the pavement. You might even find more four year olds cycling to school and not being driven.



Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

 

[WelshGas]

Gosh! You talk as if law-breaking among cyclists is endemic. It is not. The rarity of such offences make them stand out on the odd occasion when it does happen.

You also talk as if registering and licensing cyclists would be a cure for the occasional wrongdoers. It hasn’t worked for motorists where lawbreaking IS endemic, routine for many if not most and continuous for some.

When I stick to the speed limit in my neighbouring borough of Lewisham I end up with a snake of motorists behind me who must have broken the law to catch up, and I myself am never hindered by a slower moving vehicle.

Try this: drive at a steady 70 on a free flowing motorway and count the number of cars you pass (driving lawfully) and the number that pass you (driving unlawfully). I will expect that you will find the majority drive unlawfully. And then there are those who drive continuously with defects such as bald tyres or faulty lights.

I’m not saying that is an excuse for poor behaviour by a minority of cyclists who should dismount if wanting to travel the wrong way along a one way street, and keep off the footway. But I also feel that the law for cyclists should be changed to reduce lawbreaking. I cycle Ben to school using the road daily, but I don’t think it would do any harm to decriminalise a parent allowing their four year old son to ride on the pavement. You might even find more four year olds cycling to school and not being driven.



Follow my blog: www.au-revoir.eu

Sorry, must Disagree. ALL road users should follow the Law as laid out in the various Road Traffic Legislation as well as the Highway Code.
I have been knocked over twice by a cyclist, once by someone using the pavement rather than the cycle lane and once in a Pedestrian ONLY area. At least motorists can be identified most of the time, cyclists rarely.
All should be treated the same, at All times. I don't see why I should be put at risk when walking by cyclists and nor should I put cyclists at risk when driving.

Remember your Speedo can vary by uptown 10% so you driving at the speed limits could mean you are 10% slower than you think.

I think you should also re-read my post. Register OR follow the Rules of the Road . Even Jeremy Corbyn is reported as cycling the wrong way up a 1 way street, and he should know better.

 

[Amarillo]

Sorry, must Disagree. ALL road users should follow the Law as laid out in the various Road Traffic Legislation as well as the Highway Code.

I'm a little unsure what you are disagreeing with here. Yes, all road users should follow the law - but, there is nothing wrong with suggesting the law be changed if you think the law is wrong. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten, so why make parents criminally responsible when their child under the age of eleven rides on the pavement rather than decriminalising the offence in the very young.

I have been knocked over twice by a cyclist, once by someone using the pavement rather than the cycle lane and once in a Pedestrian ONLY area. At least motorists can be identified most of the time, cyclists rarely.

If you were bumped into by a pushchair would you support the compulsory registration of such vehicles? Supermarket trolleys? Zimmer frames? Skateboards? Roller skates? Mobility scooters? Or do you single cyclists out as a particular case?

All should be treated the same, at All times. I don't see why I should be put at risk when walking by cyclists and nor should I put cyclists at risk when driving.

This is a bit of a strawman. I agree with the second part but the first part is a bit vague. Are you implying that cyclists, mobility scooters, etc should be allowed on the motorway? Or that motorists who drive onto the footway to park should be vilified in the same way as cyclists who ride on the pavement are vilified (the latter, around here anyway, is far less common than the former)?

I think you should also re-read my post. Register OR follow the Rules of the Road . Even Jeremy Corbyn is reported as cycling the wrong way up a 1 way street, and he should know better.

But as the registering of motorists has shown, registering motorists has not solved the problem of lawbreaking motorists. This sort of sign might do more to reduce lawbreaking by cyclists such as that alleged against Jeremy Corbyn:

 

[motacyclist]

Jeremy Corbyn is reported as cycling the wrong way up a 1 way street

Sure it wasn’t a dead end street?

 

[WelshGas]

I'm a little unsure what you are disagreeing with here. Yes, all road users should follow the law - but, there is nothing wrong with suggesting the law be changed if you think the law is wrong. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is ten, so why make parents criminally responsible when their child under the age of eleven rides on the pavement rather than decriminalising the offence in the very young.

If you were bumped into by a pushchair would you support the compulsory registration of such vehicles? Supermarket trolleys? Zimmer frames? Skateboards? Roller skates? Mobility scooters? Or do you single cyclists out as a particular case?

This is a bit of a strawman. I agree with the second part but the first part is a bit vague. Are you implying that cyclists, mobility scooters, etc should be allowed on the motorway? Or that motorists who drive onto the footway to park should be vilified in the same way as cyclists who ride on the pavement are vilified (the latter, around here anyway, is far less common than the former)?

But as the registering of motorists has shown, registering motorists has not solved the problem of lawbreaking motorists. This sort of sign might do more to reduce lawbreaking by cyclists such as that alleged against Jeremy Corbyn:

Who’s mentioned children? And some of your other crazy comments regarding pushchairs etc. ?
But please have the last word because you obviously hate anyone else to have it.

 

[WelshGas]

 

[Borris]

I live in London and keep being told 40K deaths a year caused by pollution. No real evidence of course and the total hypocrisy that instead if a ban ( which is what you would do if the 40k was true) you can pay a charge and carry on killing!
No wonder people distrust politicians.

Another fact that politicians conveniently forget when quoting that dubious 40k deaths per year figure is the nearly half a million aircraft movements each year from Heathrow alone. These aircraft, more often than not multi engined heavy cargo and passenger carriers, crop dust London with huge amounts of just the same kind of pollution. So what measures are the Government taking to reduce this source of pollution? Answer: another runway at Heathrow!

 

[WelshGas]

Also, as has been stated elsewhere it is 40,000 who have a decreased life expectancy of upto 3 months. And as has been said on another thread , “3 months less in a nursing home”.
In London with an estimated population of 8,600,000 this basically means 8,560,000 people will suffer significant expense, hardship etc: because of these political decisions.
There are many, many other factors which have a much more significant effect on life expectancy, obesity / smoking / alcohol and drugs and these factors probably affect a lot more than 40,000 people in London alone.

These decisions are purely about tax revenues NOT public health.

 

[Amarillo]

Another fact that politicians conveniently forget when quoting that dubious 40k deaths per year figure is the nearly half a million aircraft movements each year from Heathrow alone. These aircraft, more often than not multi engined heavy cargo and passenger carriers, crop dust London with huge amounts of just the same kind of pollution. So what measures are the Government taking to reduce this source of pollution? Answer: another runway at Heathrow!

One issue where I supported Boris Johnson was the relocation of London's main airport to the Thames Estuary.

 

[Borris]

One issue where I supported Boris Johnson was the relocation of London's main airport to the Thames Estuary.

Since the prevailing annual wind direction over central London is supposed to be South Westerly then an airport located in the Thames Estuary would surely have enabled much of the aircraft related pollution to dissipate over the North Sea. As it is, both Heathrow and Gatwick are perfectly located to add considerably to London's current air pollution levels.

 

[motacyclist]

Living out "in the sticks" here, I can't understand why so many people choose to live in London or why all the jobs are concentrated down there. Surely with the Internet and modern telecommunications companies could be based anywhere in the UK to relieve the pressure on housing, cost of living, pollution etc caused by the high concentration of the population in such a small space.



Can't understand the Heathrow thing at all, should be out away from the population. Flies around a jam pot!

Or are the streets REALLY paved with gold?