<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum &#187; Topic: &#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</link>
<description>CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum &#187; Topic: &#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;</description>
<language>en</language>
<pubDate>Sun, 31 May 2026 15:32:13 +0000</pubDate>

<item>
<title>Instography on "&#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;"</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3652#post-38339</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 21:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Instography</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38339@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;I don't know. It looks less clever in the context of the full sentence where the &#34;dumb&#34; statement is preceded by two pieces of hyperbole: &#34;And &#60;strong&#62;urban gridlock&#60;/strong&#62;, combined with &#60;strong&#62;an absence&#60;/strong&#62; of parking places and congestion charging, makes the car a dumb way to move around in cities where there are public transport alternatives&#34;. My emphasis.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;We're nowhere near either of those situations. A bit congested, a shortage of (expensive) parking places but not gridlock and not an absence. And congestion charging only applies to London.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;More importantly, if, as he implies, motorists are plain dumb, what hope is there for significant change?
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Kim on "&#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;"</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3652#post-38338</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:52:57 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38338@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;The &#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34; we all know it but why don't policy makers get it? It has been clear for over 40 years...
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>LaidBack on "&#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;"</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3652#post-38286</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:26:54 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>LaidBack</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38286@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;makes the car a dumb way to move around in cities&#60;strong&#62; &#60;em&#62;where there are public transport alternatives.&#60;/em&#62;&#60;/strong&#62;&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;As users of the forum know - any old or new bike can get across central Edinburgh faster than exisiting bus routes.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Edinburgh's problem is one of too many buses and too many stops. Plus lack of pre-bought 24 hour tickets resulting in bus stop times taking longer than they could.&#60;br /&#62;
Most cities would maximise existing corridors (ie to Leth by rail, South Sub with interchanges. Edinburgh's statement of intent was shown a while back when the St Andrew Square bus station was re-built away from rail station and with no city buses going that close. That is a great example of a &#60;em&#62;dis-intergrated transport approach...&#60;/em&#62; . Even the re-vamp of Waverley offers less than it should although a public escalator in central Edinburgh is quite a step forward)
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>chdot on "&#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;"</title>
<link>http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3652#post-38278</link>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
<dc:creator>chdot</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">38278@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;&#34;&#60;br /&#62;
carltonreid: &#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;The &#34;car is a dumb way to move around in cities&#34;. It's in NewScientist so must be true. &#60;strong&#62;&#60;a href=&#34;http://t.co/07LKrFc&#34; rel=&#34;nofollow&#34;&#62;http://t.co/07LKrFc&#60;/a&#62;&#60;/strong&#62; &#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Original Tweet: &#60;a href=&#34;http://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/103442025973690368&#34; rel=&#34;nofollow&#34;&#62;http://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/103442025973690368&#60;/a&#62;&#60;br /&#62;
&#34;
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
