Share the Road

191012141521

Comments

  • Deposit on drink cans, plastic and glass bottles, milk containers, tetra paks (those rectangular boxes), basically anything with something drinkable in them ranges from 5¢ to 40¢ depending on the size and what it's made of, meaning that if you return them you get that much money back. The fee plus about 3¢, which you don't get back, was paid when the thing was bought. We don't have much of such litter consequently.

    I've wondered about additional charges for anything and everything polluting.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Deposit on drink cans, plastic and glass bottles, milk containers, tetra paks (those rectangular boxes), basically anything with something drinkable in them ranges from 5¢ to 40¢ depending on the size and what it's made of, meaning that if you return them you get that much money back. The fee plus about 3¢, which you don't get back, was paid when the thing was bought. We don't have much of such litter consequently.

    I've wondered about additional charges for anything and everything polluting.

    Do that and the buggers think they've paid for a licence to litter.
  • Though I'd have made a small fortune from the trash collected coming down the mountain.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited May 2018
    Deposit on drink cans, plastic and glass bottles, milk containers, tetra paks (those rectangular boxes), basically anything with something drinkable in them ranges from 5¢ to 40¢ depending on the size and what it's made of, meaning that if you return them you get that much money back.

    It's something of a pain in the arse to do, though, isn't it?

    I used to buy orangeade that when when I was a kid - IIRC, there was a 10p deposit on the bottle, which I'd take back to the corner store. I always assumed that this is because the company wanted their specific bottles back, and would refill them a la milk bottles.

    But what you're suggesting here is that rather than collect all those things in recycling bins at home and put them out for collection once a week, I should haul them all out to the supermarket (meaning that "supermarket" would become a special trip rather than a stop on the way home from work), hand over my sack of containers, and wait for some cashier to count them all and then give me some cash.

    That seems like an awful lot of extra rather pointless work to me.

    I can well believe it would work to reduce the amount of litter, though - if nothing else, it provides a nice financial incentive for people to gather up trash.

    (Sidenote: some states in the US have a deposit on beer bottles. Some people have been convicted of fraud for transporting empty beer bottles across state lines to claim the refund.)
  • I get about $35 twice a year when I haul them all in. There's only the 2 of us. And we've had some fraud problems as well, but it's not huge. The other recycling is bins put onto the street on weekly collection day. Agree that not using is better.

    The additional charges might be productively put onto the packaging and consumers told and shown on cashier listing the charge for the package. Much like plastic bags are charged for at store checkout (inconsistently here).
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Meanwhile, yet another bicyclist whipped through a stop sign and wound up in the middle of the lane I occupied. I managed not to hit him, but it's a good thing that I was not distracted in any way, per the posts above.

    What is it with these people? Is it a death wish?

  • edited May 2018
    What is it with these people: Impatient driver hits 4 cyclists on charity ride. Why are they so impatient?

    Why are they stupid (driver did the usual "didn't see you").
  • Why are they stupid (driver did the usual "didn't see you").
    As that cyclist approaches the junction he passes a car on his left ... it doesn't even look as though the car that pulled into his path could have safely pulled out even if the bike wasn't there (or, at least, would have forced that other car to brake hard).
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    If I posted every time illegal, dangerous and/or stupid driving forced me to take evasive action it'd be twice a day, regardless of mode of transport.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    There are a lot of bad road users. I've yet to find a mode of transport that doesn't have them. Even pedestrians can be twats at times.

    The existence of bad drivers does not negate the existence of bad cyclists. And vice versa.
  • But there are a lot more drivers contained in a protective carapace that enables them to be far more damaging to the cyclists. Statistics for the UK are: 45.5 million active driving licence holders (pdf) compared with about 15.3 million cyclists aged 16+ who cycle more than once a year, 5.1 million of them less than once a month - so about 3:1.
  • MMMMMM Shipmate
    ....and all 15.3 million seem to congregate in the bit of London I have to walk around.

    MMM
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MMM wrote: »
    ....and all 15.3 million seem to congregate in the bit of London I have to walk around.

    MMM

    Try coming up here where hardly anyone dares cycle on the road owing to the appalling driving and no-one can walk anywhere because the pavements are covered with cars. It's depressing.
  • RocinanteRocinante Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Meanwhile, yet another bicyclist whipped through a stop sign and wound up in the middle of the lane I occupied. I managed not to hit him, but it's a good thing that I was not distracted in any way, per the posts above.

    What is it with these people? Is it a death wish?

    Meanwhile, yet another motorist "beating the lights" almost takes me out as I'm setting off from a junction. Fortunately I have long ago learned that it isn't enough for the light in front of me to be green - you have to check left and right as well for people "beating the lights" (i.e. driving through a red light at 45 mph).

    What is it with these people? Are they determined to kill me?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MMM wrote: »
    ....and all 15.3 million seem to congregate in the bit of London I have to walk around.

    MMM

    Try coming up here where hardly anyone dares cycle on the road owing to the appalling driving and no-one can walk anywhere because the pavements are covered with cars. It's depressing.

    Not only are pedestrians unable to use the pavements, cyclists won't be able to use them either.
  • [
    As that cyclist approaches the junction he passes a car on his left ... it doesn't even look as though the car that pulled into his path could have safely pulled out even if the bike wasn't there (or, at least, would have forced that other car to brake hard).

    It looked to me as though the car was slowing, perhaps to turn left, or perhaps in anticipation of the traffic jam up ahead. Perhaps the car even stopped before the junction to "let the other car cross". None of that excuses the car for not seeing the cyclist (and do note that while the car was waiting at the junction, it was waiting with its nose in the cycle lane, so it's already wrong).
  • That video is an example of why some cyclists don't like bike lanes - it puts cyclists where drivers just don't look. I had an identical accident many years ago - car stopped at stop sign, me with right of way in bike lane, no vehicles in the vehicle lane, CRASH!, driver sees I'm not dead and takes off. (Plus many burgs seem to have resources to sweep miles and miles of their street network but not a few bike lanes, so they're often full of hazardous debris.)

    It's the same phenomenon with drivers turning across traffic lanes and crosswalks - they will check for traffic but not for people. In Caprica City, pedestrians are a significant proportion of car crash fatalities - even much-maligned death-wish cyclists and motorcyclists are safer on our streets than pedestrians.


  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MMM wrote: »
    ....and all 15.3 million seem to congregate in the bit of London I have to walk around.

    MMM

    Try coming up here where hardly anyone dares cycle on the road owing to the appalling driving and no-one can walk anywhere because the pavements are covered with cars. It's depressing.

    Here too.

    Mr Boogs lives for his cycling road trips - but he never cycles in this country, all his cycling is done in the US and Europe. He trains on an exercise bike, keeps a bike in Germany and flies there then cycles in Germany, France, Holland etc etc. When he cycles in the US he flies his bike there in a bike box. If he’s not on a bike trip he’s avidly planning the next one.

    He’d be the first to cheer if roads were made safe for bikes round here.

    My friend is a keen triathlon competitor, she does train on roads. She’s been knocked off by cars three times. I fear for her safety :confused:

    I agree about the pavements too. We need an enforced no pavement parking ban. They have one in my son’s area in Bristol and it works well. I train GuideDog pups and the number of times we have to walk in the road is huge. Now imagine being blind and having to walk in the road (wheelchairs, prams too). Local authorities could make a fortune in fines, I don’t know why they don’t.

  • sionisais wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MMM wrote: »
    ....and all 15.3 million seem to congregate in the bit of London I have to walk around.

    MMM

    Try coming up here where hardly anyone dares cycle on the road owing to the appalling driving and no-one can walk anywhere because the pavements are covered with cars. It's depressing.

    Not only are pedestrians unable to use the pavements, cyclists won't be able to use them either.
    The Transport Bill currently going through our Parliament includes a ban on parking on pavements.
  • The street I live on is only passable because we park on the pavements. Everyone just walks down the middle of the road.
  • ie: there are too many cars parked there. To make the pavements usable then you need to do a combination of reduce the number of cars, reduce the space occupied by each car, or increase the provision of suitable parking places.
  • No. The road itself is very narrow. We all park on one side, which leaves just enough room to drive by on the other. Reducing the number of cars to zero is the only other strategy that would work, because just one car not on the pavement would block the road.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    No. The road itself is very narrow. We all park on one side, which leaves just enough room to drive by on the other. Reducing the number of cars to zero is the only other strategy that would work, because just one car not on the pavement would block the road.

    Clearly this road was not designed for cars. At least, not parked cars. Maybe don't park there.

    "But it's where I live! I need to park my car somewhere."

    I feel that. Really, I do. But the built in logical fallacy of "I own it therefore I should be able to store it in public space near where I live" does not extrapolate well. Try owning a boat, or an airplane, or a skunk. Your right to have your car near your not-designed-for-cars dwelling/neighbourhood probably should not trump people's ability to walk in a different place than cars drive.

    Probably, there was that first selfish asshole who decided that their parking convenience really did outweigh the public good. And then, after the public good was already impaired vis-a-vis walking where cars drive, everybody else said "ah, fuck it, might as well park too".

    "There are no realistic alternatives that work."

    No, probably not. Doesn't mean the fucked-up distributed selfishness is particularly defensible either.
  • Do you pay extra in Council Tax for the ability to park on the pavement and impede a public right of way, and damage the pavement while you're at it? There's no inalienable right to park on the street outside your front door, if you want to park outside your door buy a house with off-street parking on the property. Otherwise you'll have to park as close as you can reasonably get to your door ... and if it's unreasonable to park on the street at all then that could be a decent walk away.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Tangent: Typical American use of garages annoys the fuck out of me.
    Not public parking garages, though Oregonians do seem to fundamentally lack understanding that other cars intend to use a parking lot. No, I mean residential private garages. Many homes here have these. What are they mostly used for? Not the safe keeping of the second most expensive artifact they own. No, they're mostly used for fucking storage. Not transformed into racks of useful storage, but just random heaps of things they foolishly acquired that they have no actual place for.

    I particularly delight in the (very) occasional freezing weather, when I pull out of my garage and drive past folks pathetically scraping the ice off their vehicles - which are parked in their driveways directly in front of their wasted garage space. Mind you, that delight is usually soured shortly thereafter when some moron tries driving having only scraped a tiny porthole through their windshield ice.
  • I grew up with a garage fitted with an ingenious set of ropes and pullies devised by my dad that meant we could hang our bikes from the roof to keep them out of the way, and he could get his car in. If I had a garage my car would be in it.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Clearly this road was not designed for cars. At least, not parked cars. Maybe don't park there.

    "Not designed for cars" describes a considerable number of British roads, given that they predate the invention of the motor car.
    RooK wrote: »
    But the built in logical fallacy of "I own it therefore I should be able to store it in public space near where I live" does not extrapolate well. Try owning a boat, or an airplane, or a skunk.

    It's got nothing to do with "I own it, so I should be able to store it near my house" and everything to do with the ways that we use cars. Parking your plane in the street outside your house wouldn't be useful, unless the "street" happened to be a taxiway with attached runway.
    RooK wrote: »
    Your right to have your car near your not-designed-for-cars dwelling/neighbourhood probably should not trump people's ability to walk in a different place than cars drive.

    Just imagine the selfishness of the first person to install heating in his not-designed-for-heating home, and so force his guests to adopt a completely different wardrobe. People modify things in ways that were not originally intended all the time. It's all part and parcel of having both technological progress and history. "Oh, but it wasn't intended for this" is a non-argument. It is part of the description of the problem, certainly, but not more than that.

    The actual discussion is how to balance the desire of Doc Tor and his neighbours to park their cars near their homes (so that their cars are useful to them) with their desire to be able to walk to the shops without being run down. Both of those things are reasonable desires.

    What is the right balance? Well, it partly depends on whether Doc Tor's road is used by people who don't live on it - either as an access by car or as an access by foot. From his description, it sounds unlikely that there is much traffic - either wheeled or footed - that does not originate or terminate at one of his neighbours' homes. In which case theoretical discussions about council tax and rights of way aren't very interesting.

    Sounds like what Doc Tor functionally has is a single-car-width road whose use is shared between cars and pedestrians. In other words, a normal country lane, familiar to many people across the country. It's just that his is in a town, and has a row of cars down one side rather than a hedge.
  • ^This^

    Except we're a cul-de-sac in an urban area. Most people don't even realise the street exists. And as for 'forcing pedestrians to walk in the road'? I look on as 'sharing' it with cars/bikes/scooters/roller skaters/go carts/prams/mobility scooters. Because that's the ideal, surely?

    My next door neighbour has lived in the same house for 50+ years (it was his parents). Parking on the street has such an honourable tradition, that the kerbstones are at maximum half an inch above the height of the road surface. The council keep it that way because they recognise the problem.

    tl;dr: one-size fits all legislation doesn't.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I get it. The "way we use cars" mostly involves "not walking any significant distance". Because it's inconvenient to have to walk to your car. And, let's face it, because nobody is willing to walk any distance from their home to their car, there is going to be no demand for a local parking structure to actually accommodate said cars. Hence there is probably no such option possible.

    BUT, indulge me for a moment:
    Imagine that you and your neighbours in predates-automobiles-burg weren't mostly lazy bastards, and that there was enough will geographically to put resources into a dedicated parking structure within, say, a kilometer of your residence. Would you then agree that it would be generally better to park the cars in the parking structure, leaving the generic "road" for cars and the sidewalk for pedestrians?
    Just imagine the selfishness of the first person to install heating in his not-designed-for-heating home, and so force his guests to adopt a completely different wardrobe.

    Are you really equating having pedestrians dodging traffic¹ with people being warm indoors? Congratulations on halving your apparent IQ. Presumably to make room for the sheer magnitude of that non-sequitur.


    ¹ Admittedly, we are talking a generic case. Doc Tor's cul-de-sac is likely less horrific safety-wise than most circumstances, but I'd argue still a couple orders of magnitude separated from having to take off a coat.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I hope that ban comes in.

    My many blind friends will dance with joy. At the moment they are having to walk into busy roads to get round parked cars. Bad enough when you are sighted.

    A little inconvenience for me and others like me is a very small price to pay. There is already a ban where my son lives in Bristol and it works well.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited June 2018
    RooK wrote: »
    Imagine that you and your neighbours in predates-automobiles-burg weren't mostly lazy bastards, and that there was enough will geographically to put resources into a dedicated parking structure within, say, a kilometer of your residence. Would you then agree that it would be generally better to park the cars in the parking structure, leaving the generic "road" for cars and the sidewalk for pedestrians?

    I'd be good with that. Such is the width of our road that you couldn't fit two people side by side, or even a pram on the 'pavement', a term honoured more in the breach than not, and pedestrians would simply continue to wander down the middle of the road. The exercise of freeing up the pavements would result in more accidents than fewer (fewer being none in the 25 years I've lived here) because drivers might be tempted to go over the 10mph it's feasible to do around the street.

    (Obviously, when parking elsewhere, I park on the road. Because I'm not a dick: I'm a pedestrian far more than I'm a driver.)
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I'm still trying to get my mind around all the parking on the sidewalk, as it's totally illegal where I live. If you park with just one wheel up on the curb you'll be ticketed. But of course our streets were laid out with both driving and parking in mind. If you've got a wheel on the curb you either need to practice parallel parking or you've got to stop parking under the influence.
  • Whereas we had the kids practice repeatedly on how to park the cars close enough to the wall to prevent them from blocking the street.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited June 2018
    Ruth wrote: »
    I'm still trying to get my mind around all the parking on the sidewalk, as it's totally illegal where I live. If you park with just one wheel up on the curb you'll be ticketed. But of course our streets were laid out with both driving and parking in mind. If you've got a wheel on the curb you either need to practice parallel parking or you've got to stop parking under the influence.

    Many of our roads are very narrow indeed.

    Where my son lives, if the pavements are very wide they mark out parking spaces on the pavement, still leaving space for wheelchairs, Guide Dogs, prams etc to pass safely without going onto the road. Near me that would be feasible too. Otherwise you keep your wheels on the road or get a ticket. I hope this goes nationwide and they police it rigorously - big revenue stream available there.

    We will all adapt and the roads will become safer overnight.

  • Boogie wrote: »
    Many of our roads are very narrow indeed.
    The majority of roads in residential areas are wide enough to let two cars pass going in opposite directions, so not IMO "very narrow". If people park on the road, as is very often the case, then as long as they all park on the same side that leaves one lane so if you meet an on-coming car someone has to back up to a point where it's possible to pass. A very few roads are so narrow that parking on the road blocks it entirely, forcing people to either park on the pavement or somewhere else entirely (DocTor seems to be living on one such road). More common reasons for parking on the pavement are if people want to park on both sides of the road (going on the pavement leaves a car width down the middle), or where there are concerns that cars get damaged by people going too fast on the road given the lack of space (so going on the pavement gives extra width to accommodate those who want to go too fast for the road). I admit that when I visit my mum and there is another visitor already in the driveway I go onto the (wide) pavement because she's almost opposite a junction which people regularly take at excessive speed and being fully on the road would get me a dent within an hour - but it's a wide pavement and I'm not taking up more width than the trees planted on the road side, there is still plenty of space for pedestrians, wheel chairs, buggies etc.

    A ban on pavement parking would require people to re-assess where they park and whether they need multiple cars (without off-road parking no street could accommodate two or more car households). And, would require a significant reduction in speed on residential streets (not a bad thing anyway). With less cars, there would also need to be improved provision for alternative transport - walking, cycling, buses (also not a bad thing anyway).
  • RooK wrote: »
    I get it. The "way we use cars" mostly involves "not walking any significant distance". Because it's inconvenient to have to walk to your car.

    [..]
    BUT, indulge me for a moment:
    Imagine that you and your neighbours in predates-automobiles-burg weren't mostly lazy bastards, and that there was enough will geographically to put resources into a dedicated parking structure within, say, a kilometer of your residence. Would you then agree that it would be generally better to park the cars in the parking structure, leaving the generic "road" for cars and the sidewalk for pedestrians?]

    So people "need" cars for two reasons:

    1. They're travelling further than can be walked in a reasonable amount of time
    2. They're travelling with more stuff than they can reasonably carry

    and, of course, use cars also for a third reason

    3. Lazy bastard

    Imagine that you put all the cars in a car park 5-10 minutes walk away, as you are suggesting. What does car use look like then?

    For case 1, you walk to your car and then drive to your destination (or perhaps to another car park 5-10 minutes from your destination, and then walk again.) So it takes a bit longer, but perhaps is not a big deal for a once-a-day journey (although it sucks in bad weather), and might be a compromise that you are willing to make in order to live somewhere which is perhaps desirable, or perhaps cheap enough that you can afford it. Assuming, of course, that you can walk that far. I have a close neighbour who is an elderly lady. She lives alone, and walks with a stick. She drives a car, and is pretty independent. There's no chance at all that she could walk half a mile in one go to get to her car, even in good weather. What should she do - call a taxi to take her to her car?

    Case 2 is a bit more of a problem. Now you have to go and get your car, bring your car back to your house, park it blocking the street / footpath / whatever for a few minutes while you load the car, and then leave. This is more inconvenient, and causes (temporarily) the problem you're trying to avoid, but is doable. Unless the things you can't carry are children, say, 'cause you can't leave them unattended for 10-15 minutes while you go and get the car, and perhaps you can't fit the pram in your small car as well as the shopping you're on your way to get, and so on.

    Doc Tor lives on a cul-de-sac. His generic "road" has no use other than to get vehicles to the houses of his neighbours. If nobody parked on his road, then the only traffic would be people driving up to their houses to drop off shopping, elderly relatives, or whatever else before parking their cars in a local car park, and delivery vans. And all those things would still block either the road or the footpath.

    Boogie points out that parking on the footpath is a problem for blind people, and she's right. It sounds to me as though in the particular case of Doc Tor's road, making everyone park half a mile away would be a problem for all of his elderly & infirm neighbours, and probably many of his neighbours with small children. I'm guessing that there are more of them than there are blind people.

    I lived for a few years in London without a car. I know it can be done. If we had bought a car, we would have had to park it in the street with a resident's permit, and it would have ended up a few hundred yards from our house. And when we moved there, we understood what the deal was, and were fine with it. If either of us had difficulty walking, we wouldn't have lived there - we'd have chosen somewhere more suitable.

    It seems to me as though Doc Tor and his neighbours have about the best compromise for the use of the particular space that they have.
  • AFAICT, DocTor's road is being treated as more like a communal driveway than any other way to describe it. Which is fine, especially if it's not part of a right of way (eg: there's no footpath from somewhere else leading into it) and the only reason anyone has to be there is to access the homes along that road. Providing he's not expecting other council tax payers to foot the bill for repairs to the pavement as a result of damage caused by cars parking on it (or he and his neighbours are OK with a damaged pavement).
  • Stepping back on to more normal roads rather than Doc Tor's cul de sac, Cambridge seems to be building a Dutch-style roundabout with bikes and pedestrians given priority over cars. Opinion seems to be divided over whether or not this will be a good thing (and not just along car drivers vs cyclists lines).



  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Stepping back on to more normal roads rather than Doc Tor's cul de sac, Cambridge seems to be building a Dutch-style roundabout with bikes and pedestrians given priority over cars. Opinion seems to be divided over whether or not this will be a good thing (and not just along car drivers vs cyclists lines).



    Looks interesting - and there are lots of cyclists in Cambridge to justify it.

  • One of the comments in the article is possibly correct - that drivers will be confused, and that could introduce extra hazards to cyclists. But, presumably the roundabout will have signs on the approaches to clearly state "priority to cyclists and pedestrians", and the Highway Code does tell people to "On approaching a roundabout take notice and act on all the information available to you" so drivers should have no excuse. Presumably if these roundabouts become slightly more common a revision to the Highway Code would cover them explicitly, much as the "magic roundabouts" are in the current version (and there are only a few of those in the UK), which will also reduce confusion (as all road users should be familiar with the Highway Code).
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    There is, I believe, some evidence to suggest that in some circumstances confused drivers are safer because, being confused, they take much more care.
  • The RogueThe Rogue Shipmate
    Only if they realise they are confused.
  • That's one of the things about the 'Dutch model' of traffic calming in residential streets - remove all street furniture so that the road is just another space that needs to be negotiated. Drivers, no longer having a designated lane, or priority, simply have to manage hazards at a slower pace.

    There are occasions when the traffic lights are out at local junctions, and traffic flow is often better than when the lights are working. Drivers (and pedestrians and cyclists) negotiate with each other, often at reduced speeds but still crossing the junction faster than the cycle of lights would allow.
  • I am staggered by all the "Mr Angry Driver" comments in that article by people who think it's a bad idea for cyclists to be safe. Dutch style roundabouts really aren't as confusing as people seem to think they are going to be.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    I get it. The "way we use cars" mostly involves "not walking any significant distance".

    That's just one part of how we use cars. For the most part we "use cars" by leaving them outside or in a garage doing sweet FA for 20+ hours a day.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Stepping back on to more normal roads rather than Doc Tor's cul de sac, Cambridge seems to be building a Dutch-style roundabout with bikes and pedestrians given priority over cars. Opinion seems to be divided over whether or not this will be a good thing (and not just along car drivers vs cyclists lines).

    What an excellent example of the sort of segregated infrastructure I was calling for way back on page 2 of this thread.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    sionisais wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I get it. The "way we use cars" mostly involves "not walking any significant distance".

    That's just one part of how we use cars. For the most part we "use cars" by leaving them outside or in a garage doing sweet FA for 20+ hours a day.

    Cars are a means of transport, so of course we're not going to use them when we don't need to travel anywhere.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I get it. The "way we use cars" mostly involves "not walking any significant distance".

    That's just one part of how we use cars. For the most part we "use cars" by leaving them outside or in a garage doing sweet FA for 20+ hours a day.

    Cars are a means of transport, so of course we're not going to use them when we don't need to travel anywhere.

    Compared to public transport however, they are very inefficient and, when you take servicing and cost of replacement/depreciation into account, expensive too. It's rare for our car to be used for more than two hours a day and although our daughter has a 120 mile round trip to work I doubt she uses hers for more than about 25 hours a week.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    sionisais wrote: »
    Compared to public transport however, they are very inefficient and, when you take servicing and cost of replacement/depreciation into account, expensive too.

    Efficiency can be measured in many ways. Personally, I view a 1-hour commute on public transport to be a less efficient use of my time than the 20-minute drive that is my alternative.

    For other journeys, such as to and from cricket matches during the summer, there simply are not any viable public transport routes. In those cases using my own car is considerably cheaper than getting taxis there and back would be!
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    sionisais wrote: »
    Compared to public transport however, they are very inefficient and, when you take servicing and cost of replacement/depreciation into account, expensive too.

    Efficiency can be measured in many ways. Personally, I view a 1-hour commute on public transport to be a less efficient use of my time than the 20-minute drive that is my alternative.

    For other journeys, such as to and from cricket matches during the summer, there simply are not any viable public transport routes. In those cases using my own car is considerably cheaper than getting taxis there and back would be!

    I take your point. Hanging around for a bus that may not come, or might already have been and gone, in the rain as likely as not, does motivate one to get alternative means of transport.

    On the subject of transport to cricket matches and the like, I remember that we shared cars (or in London, taxis) because these often worked out cheaper, quicker and more convenient especially with hefty bags to carry. btw, are cricket bags getting bigger? I saw one last year that must have been bigger than the lad carrying it!
This discussion has been closed.