CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15730087
The comments under this have the usual "head in sand" aspect about the future of oil-driven transport. While most of the population believe in climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/31/public-belief-climate-change), there are many who complain about the rises in fuel prices. Do they not care enough about our children?
Unfortunately, no.
anyone else hear the MP on Today around 7am? he said some outrageous things. trying to find the quote. hmmm not online yet.
here we are: Robert Halfon:
'Britain is a great car economy the question is not whether you can afford to have a car the question is whether you can afford not to have a car'
'
"Do they not care enough about our children?"
Bizarrely I think that I, without any children, and my other half, who hates children, actually care more about the environmental impact on future generations of our actions now than many many people who do have kids.
um. children are people, you know.
"children are people, you know"
Not in the UK
Cars are more important
It's the Economy stupid
Or is that the Stupid economy?
Short term personal convenience is always going to win against long term universal benefit, unfortunately.
Of course, the most environmentally sound approach to children is to not have any.
*runs for cover*
"um. children are people, you know"
Sorry, might be being slow today, not sure I understand the point? (which I assume was a reply to my post?)
Amir asked if those 'members of the population' with their heads in the sand did not care about 'our children'. My response was basically on that point that, child-free, I still care about the environment, and in many cases more than some who do have children (and therefore if we're worrying about the planet for future generations you would think would have a bigger stake in making the earth a nicer place to live as they have someone to pass it onto whereas I don't (save for to my fellow human beings of course)).
seems to me that saying you 'hate children' is rather like saying you 'hate people', which is kind of pointless.
My daughter finds dogs scary, but we are trying to teach her not to say that she 'hates dogs' because we don't think any category of things deserves to be hated. We agree that we don't like badly trained dogs, that we don't like dogs jumping up on us, or barking at us, but it is not very mature to 'hate dogs'. To her credit, she understands the point and has stopped saying she hates dogs, and instead comments on how well-behaved some of them are.
I just hope she remembers the lesson and learns never to hate any 'categories' of people, whether that is nationalities of people, religions, genders, sexualities or generations.
(Ps if you'd just said 'my partner doesn't want kids' we wouldn't be having this discussion. happy to respect any/all personal decisions, but I find the idea of anyone 'hating' any group offensive).
My other half panics at the mere thought of my (perfectly behaved) 3 year old niece coming to stay, and gets stressed when faced with any situation where there are children around. A phobia, if you like, similar to 'hating' spiders or heights.
It might not be 'mature' to hate dogs, but if you have a phobia about it maturity doesn't really come into it...
"I find the idea of anyone 'hating' any group offensive"
That's the problem with things written in plain text and using a 'turn of phrase' like 'hate'. It's not as if my other half goes out campaigning against children or burns crosses in their sandpit. She 'dislikes strongly being around children'.
This does open up a (completely OT) wider debate though, such as what about 'hating' racists? It's singling out a group of people with views that are as strong and as big a guide on their life as someone's religion. And is there a difference between 'hating' racism itself and 'hating' racists who practice it?
I think my head is about to explode.
Might as well have "MPs to debtate motion to stop the sun setting and moon rising" (due to sunlight poverty caused by winter).
The UK population has become too reliant on private transport. The cost has been driven (no pun intended) down as our affluence has increased. Now private cars are so common where we live, work, and shop have become too dependent on car use. Compounded is the taxation on private veh use - fuel, road, parking, conjestion.... all seen as a source of revenue leverage. We have become so dependent on private car use - and compounded by car owners feeling that they are owed something in return for the tax we all pay, it has become very difficult to avoid the car lobby.
Even when oil runs out, we'll still be owning private cars as hydrogen cars will take over. The FCX Clarity has shown its possible.
@kaputnik, except what the MPs have in mind is to reduce the rate of taxation on the sun setting, thereby making sunshine more affordable for the limited time it's around. They haven't taken into account the international market in sunlight futures, however. Speculators may drive up the price of sunshine regardless of the level of revenue accrued to HM Treasury.
Choice quote from the Beeb article:
"AA president Edmund King told BBC Radio 5Live that the AA's latest survey showed that some 70% of motorists were already cutting back on journeys or other expenditure. He said price increases were "socially divisive", saying the nation was being divided into "drives" - people who can afford to drive - and "drive nots". Mr King said for many people on lower incomes motoring was a necessity, particularly if they lived in rural areas and needed their car to get to work."
Next they'll be tugging at the heart strings by pointing to elderly widows who live in 'too large to heat properly' houses and 'need' their car to get to Waitrose and back.
People in the countryside need cars because their public transport sucks. Or, alternatively, if you look at the demographic data for Scotland, people have moved out to the countryside from the cities for 'quality of life' knowing full well the public transport sucks, and because they all have cars, demand for public transport is very low and services are cut.
Oh, I'm a 'drive not' by choice, not through poverty. I live in a city, I don't need a car.
It might amaze the MPs to discover that the vast majority of the UK's population lives in cities or urban areas (for the avoidance of doubt, this also applies to supposedly 'rural' Scotland). Why they therefore 'need' cars is something of a mystery.
Yes
It's fascinating/sickening when people in rural areas are used as a reason/excuse for wanting lower fuel prices.
I'm sure there are people living in places without much PT and who are too poor to get to the nearest settlement which is somehow overflowing with the sort of jobs they are able to do.
But compared with 'everyone else' (car owners or not) there aren't many of them!
When the roads got better north of Inverness it became common(?) for people to go on evening trips to the bright lights (up to 100 mile round trips apparently).
Maybe petrol is too cheap...
Fuel costs have only risen slightly in real terms
"UK motorists are only paying slightly more for fuel now than in 1980 due to the better fuel economy of today’s cars, according to new Which? research."
(31 March, so a bit out of date, but still - what's all the fuss about?)
I'll belive fuel is too expensive when the Mr Toads on the roads drive in a fuel efficient manner and dont leave their engines running forever when stationary, and when there are fewer Chelsea tractors bought and driven in an urban setting
Asked a woman in big Range Rover in George Square to turn off her engine a few weeks ago. She thought that the fact that she was waiting for school child from Heriots was an explanation for keeping it running, but she did turn it off. Often there are 6-10 of them all in a line, MOST of them do switch off though.
One thing that makes other half slightly dependent on car is that despite Lothian Buses amending much of their fleet to have a specific pram space on it, they then inexplicably banned unfoldable prams (i.e. the kind you use when you have a small child so they can lie flat).
Wife walks most places, and I do the morning nursery run, but she really doesn't have another option at the moment if it's very cold or peeing it down.
Is a range rover part of the required uniform for private schools in Embra, Fleets of them dropping secondary school pupils off at the Edinburgh Academy in the morning clog up Glenogle Road.
@crowriver
I'm sure I read somewhere than an astonishing (to me, coming from rural Northern Ireland), percentage of UK adults didn't have a driving license.
<wanders off to check>
Ah, found the Scottish stats:
Scottish Driving License holders
One third of Scots don't have a license. Half of low income householders (<£10K net household income p.a.) don't have a license, with only a tenth of high income householders (>£40K) unable to drive.
This isn't even considering car ownership, just possession of a license...
The figures for actually driving are also available - 60% of us don't drive daily!
@chdot
I'm happy to concede that living in a rural area requires greater self sufficiency all round, not just with transport - partially because the cost of living is higher and wages are lower...
Transport wise, it's not just employment and entertainment, it's also access to food, education, healthcare, etc. For example, the nearest NHS dentist to my parents is 50 miles...
I'm pretty certain I wouldn't be as happy cycling the kids to school down rural, national speed limit roads as I am cycling them down urban 20-30mph limit roads. I probably wouldn't commute to work or church as readily either. Statistically rural roads are much more dangerous than urban roads. And, oddly enough, there don't appear to be as many traffic free paths in the countryside...
It is definitely much easier to be car free in a city, so don't be too harsh on the rural drivers, particularly if we can't readily increase modal share in urban areas...
Robert
I've had two diff prams/buggies which allow baby to lie flat, both of which fold....[one a big old thing the carry cot lifts off of, chassis folds; other a reliable old maclaren].
Gee I'm in a grumpy mood today, aren't I?
Yeh but, and sorry I should have been clear on this, under the inexplicable new LB rule the big old thing (we've got a Quinny buzz with a carrycot) wouldn't be allowed on, it's got to fold in one single piece.
I'm staying out of this one.
Oh b****
"don't be too harsh on the rural drivers"
I wasn't being (apart from commenting on extra miles due to improved roads).
I'm sure it's no fun 'stuck' in rural areas on low/no wages.
I was complaining about the people who use such people (inevitably a relatively small number) as a reason why everyone should have cheap(er) fuel.
Forum member just been on R4 You and Yours talking about just this!
"it's got to fold in one single piece."
really? hadn't heard that. can see the problem (although honestly wee babies can go in a Maclaren)
BUT, have just looked at LB conditions of carriage and it appears to say that the 'foldable in one piece' thing refers to the wheelchair space, not the buggy space:
"If there is no wheelchair user on the bus, other passengers including those travelling with a foldable buggy or with bulky luggage may occupy the wheelchair space. By “foldable” we mean collapsible as
a single unit and therefore not of the type which can be dismantled into a wheeled frame with one or more other separate elements. Whenever the space is needed by a wheelchair user, other passengers must move to make it available. On those buses which also have a
designated buggy space, an unfolded buggy may occupy that space."
Does not appear to say that chassis/pram concepts are banned at all, just that they are not allowed in the wheelchair space. Suppose it depends on which bus lines serve you.
"an unfolded buggy may occupy" not an unfoldable buggy. Is a recent change, some of the onboard signage doesn't even comply with it.
Despite protestations, other half has been turned away for that reason, has kind of put her off the buses entirely as she's not keen to face a grilling from the driver as to whether she'll be allowed on or not.
Plus could be put in the situation where she gets up town, then can't get back down again.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts