CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Former Top Gear presenter Quentin Willson believes the poor state of Britain's ring roads is a "national scandal".
"We are in denial about cars in this country," he said. "There is a tacit government policy to discourage people from using roads and get them on to a public transport system that doesn't exist." BBC News
Cyclists would love that amount of denial around, through and over our major towns and cities.
Mr Willson seems to also be in denial. And the government's "tacit policy" doesn't work.
To be fair the public transport in quite a lot of the country is appalling and expensive.
...get them on to a public transport system that doesn't exist...
Ah, the old, "look we built this shopping centre/offices/housing estate by a busy road junction and now there's no public transport to get there..."
Joined up thinking.
Quentin seems to think there should be frequent/quality public transport from 'anywhere' to 'everywhere', which clearly is not practical.
South Lanarkshire council just threw out plans for a new "eco town", citing a major concern about lack of existing road capacity in the area.
It got me wondering just how eco this new eco town really was, beyond a few windmills bolted on and some trees here and there.
“People I have spoken to find it hard to see this as anything other than a second rate development opportunity wrapped up in marketing speak.” Urban Realm
Has the ever-smug Quentin Wilson ever been on a bus?
This to me falls into the common category of "My car gives me a convenient way of traveling from A to B, but other people's cars cause congestion and park in the space right outside B that I want to"
Need to think of a catchier name for this but you get my drift.
It's hard for people to understand that we have to share the world and our own actions impact others. It's all to easy to ignore this.
I'm sure I read something once about the total extra time spent in traffic from 1 additional car heading into Lower Manhatten - can't remember the exact number but it was a lot more than the time that the marginal car would spend.
How about: "I want to drive like everyone. Why everyone likes to drive where I want?"
There's a 'simple' way to express this phenomenon: it's called 'The Tragedy Of The Commons'.
Applies to much more than just driving.
Has anyone ever carried out a cost benefit analysis of driving? Presumably there is a benefit from cars which outweighs the cost to the communities they pass through.
Edit: I've followed on from your link crowriver and found the tyranny of small decisions. There's no CBA required, no planning happens at all, just lots and lots of people deciding that even though their trip through town in a car might not be ideal it's in their best interest at that moment. The long view, which might find sustainable alternatives is crippled by the likes of Quentin Willson who can only see policy as a larger version of the small decisions.
See also Social Trap.
A common error is to assume humans are rational, sentient beings.
For example, much better power deals if you switch supplier (applies to insurance too). Who switches? Small minority.
Cheaper for many city dwellers to have no car, take a taxi when need transport or hire a car if public transport inconvenient. How many do that?
I understand that the way I love bicycles is the way many people love their cars (irrationally?)
See also the three car problem in curious incident of the dog in the nighttime. Well changed from original three goat problem. There are three doors and there is a free goat/car behind one of them. You pick your door. The quiz show host then reveals there is no goat/car behind a different door. You are then invited to stick to original door or change your mind. Are your chances better switching or sticking? This probability/chance question caught out many mathematicians, tho not the then top actuary at standard life one day I put it to him when he gave me a lift into Edinburgh.
The answer is that you are better sticking to your original door. This is wrong to many people but is in fact correct.
Sometimes CCE sounds like an Adam Curtis documentary.
In a good way.
@gembo. You are better off switching. Google if you need an explanation...
[Edit] - I retract my statement.
You are better off switching in the original 3 goat problem. You are better off not switching if the host does something random like open a different door.
Oops, I misremembered that. You are always better switching, cars and utilities. Sorry
Although this caused massive controversy, so may be more maths I confess I do not know. Big explanation in the book, can cite formula etc.
You switch you get car in twoscenarios. You switch you move from goat to car in one scenario
"If the contestant actually wants to win a car rather than a goat, should they switch?"
FTFY.
Three-door/three-cup/three-card example was used in school to try and get everyone to be wary of logical/mathsy situations where real-world irrationality/intuition creeps in. Might have been in a biology lesson rather than maths.
If you can't be bothered to Google it, here's a full explanation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
When I was doing post-grad research at Uni on something completely different, a discussion of this problem nearly caused fisticuffs in our office.
I'm not for switching door
Just give me the goat, thanks
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts