Rupert_Baehr Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 If you want to go back to 19th Century England (and it does appeal to me) then you have to accept it. All of it. Ice on the inside of the windows in the morning (I remember that from the 1960s, so it's not so far away) no running water (running water requires people to work on the waterworks and pipes. Unless they live locally, they have to travel.) No electricity (do you expect the electricity workers to live at the generating stations?) We live the way we do because we enjoy a degree of mobility our grandparents could hardly imagine. We've known each other for some years and I shouldn't have to remind you about life in the rural parts in which I used to live. I lived in a small (and bootiful) Breckland village. A village with little or no public tansport. (That village did without piped water until 1959 and didn't get electricity until 1963.) Nearest Doctor: 5 miles away. (No buses) Nearest Hospital: 20 miles away. The Norfolk and Norwich. You can get a bus to Norwich from where I used to live on the first and third Saturday of EVERY month. You could probably get to the hospital the same day (but you might not be able to get back.) Anyway, the hospital doesn't do many appointments on Saturdays. Don't get sick. Nearest Market Town: (nearest place with a shop) 6 miles away. You could get a bus there avery weekday. No problem. Unfortunately, if you wanted a bus back, you'd have to wait until the next day. If -as you suggest - we should do without cars, how do you propose to support those who have no access to public transport? - None of the political parties had a solution and I doubt you do either. We could indeed turn the clock back, but if we were to move back to the golden age of no traffic, no pollution, little stress and little crime we would also have to accept far fewer amenities, minimal A&E coverage, shorter lifespans and a comparatively barren [as some would see it] life. I'm quie happy to live a primitive lifestyle (providing I have access to medical care and a library.) I can entertain myself and I'm quite hapy to be without much of 'modern life'. Not everybody feels the same way however and I suspect you might have morethan a little difficulty in 'selling' a car-free life to the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Nobody is suggesting turning the clock back rupert. Why are you devoting so much energy to scenarios nobody's suggested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It's happening anyway, road tolls are inevitable, schemes like London's congestion charge will spread What, you mean like the Manchester Congestion Charge? A majority of voters in all of the region's 10 boroughs voted against the plans, with 812,815 (79%) no votes and 218,860 (21%) in favour of the charge. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7778110.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What, you mean like the Manchester Congestion Charge? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7778110.stm Future road pricing 'inevitable' - RAC Foundation Heavy traffic on the M6 Traffic levels could increase 33% within 15 years, the report suggests Charging motorists for each mile they travel is "inevitable" if future traffic gridlock is to be avoided, the RAC Foundation charity has suggested. A "pay-as-you-go" system could be the answer to congestion, according to its director Prof Stephen Glaister. Population rises and economic recovery, causing traffic to grow 33% by 2025, combined with road spending cuts will necessitate wholesale reform, he says. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10504764 According to Prof Glaister, to gain public support a system of charging motorists per mile would have to be backed by: * A cut in fuel duty and abolition of vehicle tax * Roads run at "arm's length" from the government, perhaps by a privatised utility * A guaranteed sum of revenue put aside to pay for the work and a regulator to ensure it was done efficiently * More reliable journey times and compensation for delays Prof Glaister said: "Some form of 'pay-as-you-go' system is inevitable because of the benefits it will deliver for motorists and the country, and the lack of a credible alternative. "Our poll shows that most people are instinctively opposed to road charging when they think it is an extra tax. But when the details are explained and they realise the benefits then the opposition falls away dramatically. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote Existing roads... are publicly owned and have already been paid for by the taxpayer” End Quote Department for Transport spokesman "Motorists are resentful of the relentless rise in the cost of fuel and feel short-changed by the amount spent on the road network. But these proposals address such issues." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 To be honest, your RAC quotes and statements are not really convincing. They claim motoring is cheaper when it simply cannot be due to: increased road tax increased insurance premiums increased fuel costs expensive servicing costs And now they claim "Heavy traffic on the M6 Traffic levels could increase 33% within 15 years". Well, duh. The RAC have always been an "also ran" with breakdown cover, and these statements and quotes reinforce that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 To be honest, your RAC quotes and statements are not really convincing. They claim motoring is cheaper when it simply cannot be due to: increased road tax increased insurance premiums increased fuel costs expensive servicing costs And now they claim "Heavy traffic on the M6 Traffic levels could increase 33% within 15 years". Well, duh. The RAC have always been an "also ran" with breakdown cover, and these statements and quotes reinforce that. The costs are less now than they were 20 years ago, and the RAC Foundation has the square root of bugger all to do with RAC Breakdown! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 So, to cut out all the waffle what your are saying is that cyclists should be charged to use the roads? Not charged. Paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.