Driving is a luxury and a responsibility - not a right

[Rupert_Baehr]

You can argue that driving a car is a luxury - but by the same argument, having an indoor toilet, piped (and clean) water, electricity and central heating are also luxuries.

 

Is toilet paper a luxury? - Toilet brushes are fine - but I do prefer paper.

 

In some societies (like the small Island on which I grew up) having a car is indeed a luxury - When I was a boy there were about 250 vehicles (cars, lorries and motorcycles) on the Island. There are now (AFAIK) more than 3500, so there's nowhere to park and traffic chaos. The people who live there could do without cars (everywhere is within walking distance) but in rural (and even suburban) parts of the UK, cars are, arguably, more of a necessity than running water, inside toilets and electricity.

 

80 years ago private car ownership was somewhat limited. Those who worked in cities lived in cities, those who worked in rural areas lived in those rural communities and many people didn't travel very much. There were rather more agricultural workers then so rural communities were thriving communities.

 

How big was Sheffield 80 years ago? How many of the towns and villages which are now a part of Sheffield were separate communities (or were open land)?

 

It's easy enough to say that people could move from rural areas to where they work, but could they?

 

How many people commute into Sheffield each day to work? If they all had to move into Sheffield, where would they all live?

 

There wasn't much in the way of public transport 80 years ago and if private cars were to be banned, there might not be as much public transport today, either. If there were no cars, how would the bus drivers get to work? - If they (or many of them) couldn't get to work, who would drive the buses?

 

If the only people who lived in the country were those who worked on the land, then many rural communities would be so small that they could no longer survive. They would certainly be too small to support things like cinemas (a bit of a rarity in many villages) libraries, swimming pools and the other 'luxuries' enjoyed by townies (and, in modern times, considered to be ordinary parts of life.)

 

If there was no transport between cities and rural areas how would the townies get their food? if those who lived in rural areas (those who produce the food) found that they had to spend a small (or not so small) fortune to enable them to enjoy the 'luxuries' that the townies treated as 'normal' how much do you think they would charge for the food they produce? - at least enough to cover their costs.

 

80 years ago (or in some places as little as 50 or 60 years ago) much of the population did without cars, electricity, water and all the other luxuries ... but the population then was far smaller, life expectancy was shorter and life was a lot harder.

 

Take away privately-owned transport and you would take away the livelihood of a significant number of people. They would no longer be able to get to work (and there isn't enough room in most towns and cities to accommodate them all) so presumably they would just starve.

 

Take away privately-owned transport, reduce pubic transport (which would happen as a direct result because the people who operate that pubic transport have to be able to get to work) and how are you going to run a health service? Are you going to keep the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners, lab technicians and the host of other people who work in hospitals in little boxes in a corner of the hospital?

 

It's so-called 'luxuries' (like cars, running water, electricity, gas, central heating, ambulances, hospitals etc) which allow the country to support the number of people it does.

 

There is no doubt that the car is responsible for many of the problems of modern life, but there is also no doubt that it is responsible for many of the advantages, including the ability to support far more people than the country was able to support before it came into common use.

[H_Hounds]

Whilst I have probably been the biggest contributor to this thread, it has gone a bit to the extreme.

 

I started this thread to try and explain why I used the word 'hate' so many times in a previous comment, which was about peoples behaviour on the road or ignorance of the highway code and other road users. I just think peoples' general attitude towards driving is pretty awful, that's all. I guess I gave the thread the wrong title or just used the wrong words in it.

[adamf]

im worried about being forced into the middle of the road by a foot wide cyclist doing 0 miles an hour using more road than a bus, im worried about hitting oncoming traffic,you quoted has a frustrated cyclist. driving is a luxury, only something that expends so much money could qualify has a luxury

 

No-one is forcing you into the middle of the road. The law and the Highway Code make it clear that it is the overtaker's responsibility to wait until it is legal & safe (safe for the other person too). The person being overtaken is responsible for the following: maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass, according to HC 168.

[adamf]

Yeah, being a farmer is completely a lifestyle choice. Of course if it was one that some people didn't make then everyone not living in the country would starve.

 

Yes, but a lot of the people who live in the country don't have any good reason to do so. They drive up the price of rural housing (to the detriment of farmers) and cause extra congestion and pollution.

[Cyclone]

Yes, but a lot of the people who live in the country don't have any good reason to do so. They drive up the price of rural housing (to the detriment of farmers) and cause extra congestion and pollution.

 

I'm intrigued by this statement.

 

Maybe you can elaborate or give us some examples.

What type of person (and there's a lot of them you said) lives in the country but doesn't need to... Where should they live instead (remember, it's a lot of people)... And how do you work out where someone should live?

[truman]

Statistically, you are more likely to get bitten by a labrador than other breeds of dogs. Does this mean that labradors are aggressive dogs? No, it's just that there are far more of them than most other breeds.

 

What does that have to do with motorways?

[H_Hounds]

I was just pointing out that 'statistics' can often be misleading, pointless or used to benefit the point that you want to make, by using the example of labs.

[truman]

I was just pointing out that 'statistics' can often be misleading, pointless or used to benefit the point that you want to make, by using the example of labs.

 

So are you saying that motorways are the most dangerous roads? The number of accidents says that they aren't..

[H_Hounds]

So are you saying that motorways are the most dangerous roads? The number of accidents says that they aren't..

 

The number of accidents may be due to lots of reasons, like motorways are better controlled eg they have the flash up signs etc. it doesnt mean that they are safer just because there are less accidents on them. if you did have an accident on a motorway it would be a lot more severe/fatal than if you did on a housing estate in a 30 zone.

 

I'm just saying that the 'statistic' that was quoted was irrelevant and inconclusive. I haven't commented on whether or not I think the motorways are dangerous.

[truman]

The number of accidents may be due to lots of reasons, like motorways are better controlled eg they have the flash up signs etc. it doesnt mean that they are safer just because there are less accidents on them. if you did have an accident on a motorway it would be a lot more severe/fatal than if you did on a housing estate in a 30 zone.

 

I'm just saying that the 'statistic' that was quoted was irrelevant and inconclusive. I haven't commented on whether or not I think the motorways are dangerous.

 

Could you define "safe" then?