PeakOil is You
THE British Petroleum (BP) Thread pt 2 (merged)
by rogersavage » Sat 25 Jun 2005, 13:05:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '6')0% of trips made by cars are less than 5 miles while 25% are less than 2 miles. In some areas as high as 71% of trips by cars are under 5 miles and 43% are less than 2. All these journeys would have been walked or cycled previous to the 1950s when car ownership became popular. Is it any wonder there is an ongoing obesity and congestion problem in towns?
Some journeys by car could indeed be done by foot or cycle. I choose to walk or cycle when I can for short journeys. However, some people actually have to transport heavy/valuable items or are unable to go on foot or by bike (e.g. disabled, elderly). To say that all these journeys would have been walked or cycled prior to the 1950s perhaps shows your overeliance on statistics and an ignorance of reality, my friend. It was also safer to walk or cycle in the '50s, because the reality or fear of crime was far less. As for obesity, it has nothing to do with transport choices and everything to do with diet. Congestion has more to do with poor council planning and their anti-car schemes - traffic volumes have not increased markedly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is myth that all trips generate GDP or contribute in some way to the wellbeing of society. While no one can deny that car travel has increased people’s liberty and mobility this has come at social cost. A little less car use might actually be beneficial, but the point is when you start looking at the figures of fuel consumption you soon begin to realise that is it a tall order to replace the fuel used by these vehicles by some other means. I’d be delighted if someone could come up with a sensible and sustainable plan to fuel increasing car usage and other heavy oil use (Eg airlines) but so far there is very little, if any evidence that this could be done, certainly in the timeframes being talked about, if at all.
All trips benefit Treasury coffers, but of course that money is wasted by New Labour on hair brained schemes and on transporting govt officials round by, ahem, car. How can you say that liberty and mobility have come at a cost - what cost exactly? Apart from the increasing cost to the individual to maintain liberty and mobility... As for 'sustainability' (if ever a word was overused, that's it!), where there's a genuine will, there's a way and technology advancements hold the key. Of course, some people (e.g. socialists masquerading as environmentalists) will try to make out there's no way forward for modern transport, simply because they have a quasi-Luddite agenda which involves restricting freedom of movement...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.
I'm sorry, did I actually write that? No - and you're an idiot for typing it.
Your arguments hardly marry up very well, do they. On the one hand, you say there are too many cars for the resources we have available. On the other hand, there can never be too many people... Hardly very consistent, is it?
We must recognise that poverty and depletion of the world's resources hardly fit in with continued overpopulation (often in poor countries with fewer resources and even less money). Tackling overpopulation doesn't involve some Mugabe-like regime, you know...
One last request - think about the logic behind your arguments before you type.
Roger
-
rogersavage - Wood
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by shakespear1 » Sat 25 Jun 2005, 14:09:45
Mass transport was destroyed in many US cities to such an extent that people prefer to drive a car for even the shortest of trips.
I used to live in Milwaukee and as a kid ( late 60's and early 70's ) I recall that there was an excellent bus system which people used a lot. It was run by the city.
Then it was privatized and slowly got worst and worst. Fewer buses, fewer routs and higher and higher price. At the same time freeway system was expending and people drove car more and the bus less. Suburbia was grow fast at this time.
Now in Milwaukee primarily the poor ride the bus
I used to live in Milwaukee and as a kid ( late 60's and early 70's ) I recall that there was an excellent bus system which people used a lot. It was run by the city.
Then it was privatized and slowly got worst and worst. Fewer buses, fewer routs and higher and higher price. At the same time freeway system was expending and people drove car more and the bus less. Suburbia was grow fast at this time.
Now in Milwaukee primarily the poor ride the bus
Men argue, nature acts !
Voltaire
"...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
Alan Greenspan
Voltaire
"...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."
Alan Greenspan
- shakespear1
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1532
- Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
by Wildwell » Sat 25 Jun 2005, 15:58:20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogersavage', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '6')0% of trips made by cars are less than 5 miles while 25% are less than 2 miles. In some areas as high as 71% of trips by cars are under 5 miles and 43% are less than 2. All these journeys would have been walked or cycled previous to the 1950s when car ownership became popular. Is it any wonder there is an ongoing obesity and congestion problem in towns?
Some journeys by car could indeed be done by foot or cycle. I choose to walk or cycle when I can for short journeys. However, some people actually have to transport heavy/valuable items or are unable to go on foot or by bike (e.g. disabled, elderly). To say that all these journeys would have been walked or cycled prior to the 1950s perhaps shows your overeliance on statistics and an ignorance of reality, my friend. It was also safer to walk or cycle in the '50s, because the reality or fear of crime was far less. As for obesity, it has nothing to do with transport choices and everything to do with diet. Congestion has more to do with poor council planning and their anti-car schemes - traffic volumes have not increased markedly.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is myth that all trips generate GDP or contribute in some way to the wellbeing of society. While no one can deny that car travel has increased people’s liberty and mobility this has come at social cost. A little less car use might actually be beneficial, but the point is when you start looking at the figures of fuel consumption you soon begin to realise that is it a tall order to replace the fuel used by these vehicles by some other means. I’d be delighted if someone could come up with a sensible and sustainable plan to fuel increasing car usage and other heavy oil use (Eg airlines) but so far there is very little, if any evidence that this could be done, certainly in the timeframes being talked about, if at all.
All trips benefit Treasury coffers, but of course that money is wasted by New Labour on hair brained schemes and on transporting govt officials round by, ahem, car. How can you say that liberty and mobility have come at a cost - what cost exactly? Apart from the increasing cost to the individual to maintain liberty and mobility... As for 'sustainability' (if ever a word was overused, that's it!), where there's a genuine will, there's a way and technology advancements hold the key. Of course, some people (e.g. socialists masquerading as environmentalists) will try to make out there's no way forward for modern transport, simply because they have a quasi-Luddite agenda which involves restricting freedom of movement...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.
I'm sorry, did I actually write that? No - and you're an idiot for typing it.
Your arguments hardly marry up very well, do they. On the one hand, you say there are too many cars for the resources we have available. On the other hand, there can never be too many people... Hardly very consistent, is it?
We must recognise that poverty and depletion of the world's resources hardly fit in with continued overpopulation (often in poor countries with fewer resources and even less money). Tackling overpopulation doesn't involve some Mugabe-like regime, you know...
One last request - think about the logic behind your arguments before you type.
Roger
Of course most journeys in towns were walked or cycled prior to the 1950s, the average working person couldn’t afford a car until this time. The Morris Minor and Mini revolution changed all of that. It’s a basic fact. Moreover, if you are driving more instead or cycling (most car trips are under 5 miles) it stands to reason that less exercise means more weight gain. Okay, people in those days did far more manual work as a rule, but car reliance and office work means less exercise and potentially less calories burned and you would obviously put on weight.
Benefiting the treasury coffers is not the same as generating GDP. There are huge external costs of cars in terms of accidents, pollution and congestion. This means society as a whole is paying. There is also damage to the road to be considered. Are you aware, that HGVs do not pay their way in terms of damage they cause compared to the tax they pay? Most of the rest of the tax take is used to pay benefits.
New Labour does not have a policy of restricting movement. And no I’m not a supporter either.Are you aware they deduct loss of road tax when doing cost-benefit analysis of public transport schemes? They are not especially pro public transport if you care to look into the facts, creating a lot of red tape for the rail system and trying to swamp the system down through ridiculous, costly, H&S issues and badly regulating bus services.
There are basic mathematical and logistical facts why you cannot solve congestion in urban areas. Please look at some public planning and road engineering documents before coming out with such tabloid remarks. To give you an idea if the problem, if the 2 million people that travel into central London every morning by bus, tube and trains transferred to individual cars, those cars would stretch from London to York….New York. Moreover if each car has a buffer in order to drive along a highway of around 28 feet, in front and behind, those cars would stretch around the world. The only way you can do it is offering a bus service that can shift 7,000 people per lane per hour, or a rail service that can shift 30,000-75,000 people per hour per track packed in trains. This is why these forms of transport have a considerable modal share in urban areas. To shift 2 million people by individual cars in 90 minutes into central London you would have to build 10 new 50-74 lane roads. Those are facts.
People should be attracted out of cars by good quality fast and clean public transport or telecommuting to solve these problems, nobody in government or on these forums has suggested restricting movement.
There is no war against the motorist, the cost of motoring hasn’t changed for 30 years and motor traffic has at least doubled. Your remarks are irrelevant to this debate about energy depletion; you are referring to one which concerns congestion and pollution.
As for too many cars, are you aware transport uses 70% of oil based products? So it is very much a transport issue. I too hope technology can solve it, I’m glad you enjoy driving your car, but there may come a time where technology cannot solve basic facts about energy depletion – indeed technology usually creates more demand. If this is the case a plan B is needed and population reduction doesn’t happen very easily or quickly and certainly not overnight. And China is very much an issue, especially as they already have population reduction laws and currently uses 1/18 of the oil per capita the US and 1/12th of the oil the average European uses – rising fast, mainly to do with cars.
Keep the insults to yourself and please investigate the problem, it’s certainly nothing to do with any sort of machine smashing or communist agenda.
And finally, in the 'real world' as you like to put it we have based our entire way of life on a finite treasure chest of energy. Let's hope it can be replaced.
