Road layout, use of space, and motoring vs cycling (off-topic from shared use thread)

AltAccount

SeanW wrote: »

I never said that it did. Would you care to respond to what I actually said?

I dunno, what you actually said seemed to be "I think there's a solution but I bet you'll have a problem with it" in a very attack the poster manner.

patrickbrophy18

AltAccount wrote: »

And a lack of parking makes it ok to abandon your car in any old inconvenient place how?

To be fair to SeanW, he wasn't necessarily saying that it is okay to park "in any old" way. He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands. While I still maintain that it is the height of absolute ignorance to park in cycle lanes and is also illegal, the type of road design seen in the above picture makes it all to easy for ignorant motorists to flout the rules of the road. This is down to the fact that there is no boundary or other physical deterrent to stop motorists from intruding and obstructing designated cycle space. Instead, a road level white line and a dark red strip is the only thing separating the two.

On a broader note, I am all for roads which offer mutual benefit to all who use them. However, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) appears to want a mixture of all transportation modes into tighter spaces which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. In some parts of the manual, it recommends pinch points on some roads in the form of on street parking or kerb built outs which is nothing short of daft. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking cars off the road especially those doing journeys that are well within a mile in length. Unfortunately, backwards road engineering like those recommended in the DMURS will likely have negative implications on journeys exceeding 10 miles. This includes hundreds/thousands of bus and truck journeys and tens of thousands of long-haul car journeys.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

To be fair to SeanW, he wasn't necessarily saying that it is okay to park "in any old" way. He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands. While I still maintain that it is the height of absolute ignorance to park in cycle lanes and is also illegal, the type of road design seen in the above picture makes it all to easy for ignorant motorists to flout the rules of the road. This is down to the fact that there is no boundary or other physical deterrent to stop motorists from intruding and obstructing designated cycle space. Instead, a road level white line and a dark red strip is the only thing separating the two.

On a broader note, I am all for roads which offer mutual benefit to all who use them. However, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) appears to want a mixture of all transportation modes into tighter spaces which, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. In some parts of the manual, it recommends pinch points on some roads in the form of on street parking or kerb built outs which is nothing short of daft. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking cars off the road especially those doing journeys that are well within a mile in length. Unfortunately, backwards road engineering like those recommended in the DMURS will likely have negative implications on journeys exceeding 10 miles. This includes hundreds/thousands of bus and truck journeys and tens of thousands of long-haul car journeys.

From what I'm told and have read from those in Dutch transport and street design, you'll find it very hard to find parking as described in the Netherlands near many schools.

Their solution is to provide, not for car parking, but for student and parents to cycle and walk.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

It's ridiculous that I could go put on my shoes right now and set off through the city centre without any requirement to know the rules of the road, any practical experience of travelling in busy traffic, or any insurance (both to protect myself and others).

BTW, on a serious note: Everybody is required to know the law; ignorance is not an excuse.

I was going to post a retort, and be even more of a smart aleck, but that would only keep this kind of nonsense going.

It's a terrible shame, it would be so important to have an intelligent pro cycling voice to partake in these arguments, but unfortunately, all the pro cycling posters continually fall back on the smart aleckry all the time, and the argument is scuttled. You simply cannot take them seriously at all.

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

Running in cycle lane = illegal.
Cycling in roadway = legal.

That's a big difference. On the other hand, cycling on a footpath is comparable to running in a cycle lane -- I think both are wrong.

That last part was on-topic. To the core of the topic at hand. Sadly so much of this thread has not being.

I have tried to keep coming back to the original topic, which was the inappropriate imposition of shared use paths, and the manner in which a flawed design, as you describe it, is almost becoming standard by default and without due consideration.

I hope I haven't dragged the thread OT too much. However, I find it difficult to discuss such flawed designs without also pointing to the flawed mindset that makes such designs appealing (for some). It all boils down to one thing, imo, which is that cycling, walking and public transport are the poor relations in public policy and therefore people travelling by those modes are expected to make do with the leftovers after cars have been catered for.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

http://i1089.photobucket.com/albums/i355/Iwannahurl/2011NationalCycletoSchoolandWorkDay1.jpg

He was merely pointing out that there is ample space on both sides of the road in the picture above. This could be used to change the alignment of the road slightly for the provision of inset parking whereby the cycle lane could pass on the outside of the system. A grass verge could then be used to separate the parking spaces and footpath from the cycle lane. The result would be a road that better resembles those seen in the Netherlands.

I don't believe Irish roads authorities are technically, politically or culturally capable of delivering anything remotely like that which Dutch cyclists have enjoyed for decades. That said, I understand the public desire for such infrastructure.

You couldn't know this, presumably, but in the situation pictured above the school was "planned" with a drop-off and pick-up area inside the grounds. For reasons best known to themselves the school management decided to close the gates and abandon the originally approved design. The Council, in its infinite wisdom, decided that safe and continuous routes to school were not applicable in this case (or any other case, but we'll leave that aside) and so they bunged in a tick-box cycle lane that appears out of thin air 150 metres from the school. Children and their parents wishing to access the fragment of cycle lane have first to traverse a roundabout on a busy arterial road where speeding is endemic and no pedestrian crossings are provided. On the way out, of course, the cycle lane disappears and child cyclists/pedestrians are provided with no means to cross the road safely and conveniently on their route home.

The land beside the access road to the school is earmarked for other purposes. That's a whole other story for a different thread and a different forum.

There is another, pedestrian-only, access route to the school. It is pretty much guaranteed that a majority of pupils come from estates in the general vicinity (there are about 15,000 people living in the district). However, similar to other urban areas in this country, even parents resident 1 km or less from the school still choose to drive, which is why the vehicular access road is clogged with cars every school day. On 'special' days, when there is some significant event occurring, cars are parked on the footpaths and dished kerbs right up to the roundabout.

monument wrote: »

From what I'm told and have read from those in Dutch transport and street design, you'll find it very hard to find parking as described in the Netherlands near many schools.

Their solution is to provide, not for car parking, but for student and parents to cycle and walk.

The problem is not the absence of parking but the over-use of cars. It is the sheer number of motorists going right up to the school at drop-off and pick-up times that causes both the congestion and the safety concerns. Typically, the collective response is to ignore the effects on cyclists and pedestrians and just to let cars take over the lion's share of the space. The solution, in my view, is to eliminate excessive car use by whatever means necessary, and to facilitate access to the greatest extent possible for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. The drop-off and pick-up area within the school grounds would be fine if there was a manageable number of cars.

I don't blame the school, by the way. The fault lies with the "planners", engineers, Dept. of Education and those parents who want to drive as close to the school as possible even if they are resident no more than 3 km away. The main access road has been pedestrian and cycle hostile since it was constructed about 15 years ago. The "planners" knew what the road was like, and still gave the go-ahead for a primary school without making provision for pedestrian and cycle access and without any intention to control car use.

paddyland

There is another angle to all of this, which I believe impacts on everything to do with cycling, roads, public transport, motoring, and anything to do with environmental planning. It impacts on why I am inclined to think all of these arguments are completely futile, and why the wrong question is being asked.

Motoring is an extremely lucrative revenue earner for the government of the day. You buy a car. You pay VRT. You fill it full of fuel. You pay fuel tax. You pay motor tax annually. Running a car encompasses a whole load of regular and occasional bills, small and large, most of which include VAT. The revenue income from private motoring is simply staggering.

Public transport, on the other hand, simply costs money. Practically every form of land transport, be it train or bus, requires some form of subvention in order to be viable at all. At best, availability of a decent bus reduces car usage, and thus motoring revenues. At worst, it actually takes money out of the exchequer.

Cycling, I suppose, could be considered cost neutral, other than the fact that every person cycling is a person not driving a car and contributing motoring revenues. This too, is why I believe there will never be a real emphasis on serious road traffic law enforcement, other than lucrative speed cameras. You don't want to bring the hammer of the law down on people who are pumping money into government coffers. Get them all out there driving, good, bad, or indifferent, whether they are licenced, or a hazard, or not.

My own area of interest would be in bus travel, driving the bloody things. But I can see where there is an enormous chasm in the effectiveness of buses given decades of atrocious, and dare I say it, deliberately obstructive environmental planning. I can also see where there are countless lost opportunities for a harmonious co-existence of more sustainable forms of transport.

Don't you see? It is NOT WANTED.

There is no point arguing about cycle lanes on roads, cycle lanes on footpaths, little bits of cycle lane here, little bits of bus lane there. I could redesign Dublin's bus lanes and get a bloody marvellous bus network for the city, almost doubling it's efficiency. And the first thing I would not do is let Dublin Bus within a mile of it.

I drive buses. I spend every day avoiding cyclists, and I think I do a bloody good job of it. I know where all the points of conflict and hazard are, and I'm sure I would have plenty of very good suggestions with regard to safe and effective cycle lanes.

We had a Green Party in power for a period of time. If ever we should have had this issue sorted, it was then. What happened? We got hundreds and hundreds of miles of expensive and wholly useless red and white lines, designed to give the Green Party their press coverage, and nothing else. Cycle lanes? My backside.

Don't you see? It is a waste of time saying cycle lanes should be this, bus lanes should be that. The fundamental question is one of government priorities regarding revenue streams. It is about money, and where can we bleed it from. Private motoring is one of the most lucrative cash cows in the state. And you want to reduce it??? It is not going to happen. Not in a million Dáil Éireann years. Traffic congestion? Bloody marvellous. They'll just have to pump more fuel into their cars. More revenue. Bring on the traffic jams.

So the question to ask, then, is how do we contrive to nullify the problem of lucrative revenue earning for the government from dictating public policy? And if you can answer that, then you are a genius.

Aard

@paddyland

Just a few short observations on your detailed post:

1 - The government has policies in place to reduce car use. Additionally it has policies in place to increase the cycling mode share. Our land-use and transportation planning could be much better integrated, but there are policies in place already such as increased residential densities close to public transport, as well as lowered parking maximums close to public transport. Just in contrast - in most parts of the US there are parking minimums where we have parking maximums. The availability of parking at a destination greatly determines travel mode.

2 - The Green Party weren't in power for a long time, and I think a lot of criticism levelled at them is after having unreasonable expectations, especially considering the state's economy was just heading into recession.

3 - Public transport requires subvention, but private transport gets subvention too. Specifically, because of lax residential density regulations up until the past decade or so, many suburbs are highly car-oriented. This has been accommodated in ongoing road infrastructure investment, which has often been to the exclusion or impediment of peds and cyclists. Public transport users may not contribute to the exchequer in the form of car-related VAT, excise duty, and VRT, but it's not like they keep all that "saved" money under the mattress never to be seen again. They'll just spend it on something else, likely in the form of more expensive accommodation.

I think your post may have been true at a point in the past, but given current legislation and local authority development plans, things have definitely changed.

SeanW

AltAccount wrote: »

I dunno, what you actually said seemed to be "I think there's a solution but I bet you'll have a problem with it" in a very attack the poster manner.

Was I wrong? I knew very well from the OPs posting history (all of it motorist-hostile) that he would not be in favour of a mutually inclusive solution of any kind, and I think I've been proven correct. What's worse, his view appears to be unanimous among the cyclists or at least very strongly representative.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You couldn't know this, presumably, but in the situation pictured above the school was "planned" with a drop-off and pick-up area inside the grounds. For reasons best known to themselves the school management decided to close the gates and abandon the originally approved design.

Sounds like the school was originally planned properly to me.

The problem is not the absence of parking but the "over-use" of cars. Rabble rabble rabble, rabble rabble rabble.

The solution, in my view, is to eliminate excessive car use by whatever means necessary.

Who the hell are you to determine what is "excessive?" And how far are you prepared to go with "eliminate whatever means necessary?" No wonder you despise libertarians - "I'm entitled to your money" and "you live as I design" are obviously more compatible with totalitarianism.

The "planners" knew what the road was like, and still gave the go-ahead for a primary school ... without any intention to control car use.

huh? I'm sorry, I thought schools were places children went to learn ... not places to push radical agendas (religions aside).

Aard wrote: »

but private transport gets subvention too.

That is flat out wrong. Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring and much, much more, through unparalelled rates of VRT and road tax (car tax is anywhere from 2-5 times what it is in the UK for example, and VRT exists nowhere else in Europe except Denmark), motorway tolls, fuel duty, carbon tax, VAT on NCT costs and miscellaneous items needed, the Quinn levy on compulsory insurance, licensing costs, speed fines etc.

If Iwannahurl had his way, motorists would spend all this money on a car that spends most of its time sitting in parking space 2 houses over from where the motorist lived, and only ever be used rarely because there's f-all parking anywhere and then subject to minefield of over the top, punitive regulations in every other aspect.

So please, lets dispense with this falsehood that motorists don't pay their way.

Public transport users may not contribute to the exchequer in the form of car-related VAT, excise duty, and VRT.

Which is fine, so long as that fact is recognised. Ditto for cycling. Motorists pay. Cyclists and PT users take. That's perfectly fine, but a bit of gratitude from the latter would go a long way.

Aard

@SeanW

You plucked out one convenient quote from my post, and I think you missed the essence of my third point. I am not getting into a car-related taxes discussion; it's been done to death, and at any rate I don't hold particularly strong views on it either way. My point was that private transport has been historically accommodated to a far greater extent than public transport and "soft" modes (walking, cycling).

Owning and running a car is generally affordable, as evidenced by the fact that half of the working and student population gets to their destination by car. In many cases it is necessary, or at least most convenient to travel by car due to the extreme decentralisation of housing since the 1950s. Granted, there was no such thing as "planning" until 1963, but credible planning legislation never came in until 2000. That leaves an entire generation whose values in relation to urban development centre entirely around the car. But values change over time, and they are changing in relation to car-ownership and vehicle-miles-travelled. In the meantime we have legacy road infrastructure from the 60s/70s/80s/90s that once was largely mono-use and fit for purpose, but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

You mentioned that public transport users should be grateful to motorists. How laughable. If anyone should be grateful, it is motorists who have had the red carpet laid down for them all over the country for the best part of fifty years. The tide is changing and young people are moving away from private transport. The heyday of the car has reached its peak, and I expect there will be many more clashes of values in relation to car-oriented urban development for the next decade or two.

SeanW

Aard wrote: »

@SeanW

You plucked out one convenient quote from my post, and I think you missed the essence of my third point. I am not getting into a car-related taxes discussion; it's been done to death, and at any rate I don't hold particularly strong views on it either way. My point was that private transport has been historically accommodated to a far greater extent than public transport and "soft" modes (walking, cycling).

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that the fact that motorists pay their way, including the lions share of transport related taxes was clearly understood.

... but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

Also fair enough, I'm all for providing for other classes of road user, but what is being promoted is an intentional removal of facilites or intentional failure to provide facilities for motorist for no absolutely no other reason than to cause difficulties for motorists and to "discourage" (i.e. make it hell) the so-called "excessive" use of a car.

That has absolutely nothing to do with afforing other users the same courtesy. If you would be happy to have good quality cycle lanes and footpaths ALONGSIDE plentiful car parking, motorways etc, I'd be much more sympathetic.

It's the "all for me and nothing but disrespect for you" mutually exclusive attitude that I find reprehensible and one of the reasons (other than walking in Dublin City most days) I have a really foul impression of cyclists.

You mentioned that public transport users should be grateful to motorists. How laughable.

Oops I meant to say "the former" i.e. cyclists. Boarding a train doesn't seem to be the same political statement of "we hate motorists and think they should PAY and suffer" the same way getting on a bike does.

Chinasea

In a country that boasts the highest population growth in Europe , we most surely win the price of most short sighted also. cyclists are hated, roads are chock a block with one manned cars, public transport is seriously lacking, and if we were simply to provide a safe and half decent infrastructure for cyclist s we could all get around in a much healthier and sustainable manner. Excluding the inner city and town foot paths, most foot paths are under utilized, (every one in their cars) and with proper markings and change of selfish mindset, the foot paths could easily be shared.

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

That is flat out wrong. Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring and much, much more, through unparalelled rates of VRT and road tax (car tax is anywhere from 2-5 times what it is in the UK for example, and VRT exists nowhere else in Europe except Denmark), motorway tolls, fuel duty, carbon tax, VAT on NCT costs and miscellaneous items needed, the Quinn levy on compulsory insurance, licensing costs, speed fines etc.

I'm not sure about that. Can you please point me towards a source?

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

Owning and running a car is generally affordable, as evidenced by the fact that half of the working and student population gets to their destination by car. In many cases it is necessary, or at least most convenient to travel by car due to the extreme decentralisation of housing since the 1950s. Granted, there was no such thing as "planning" until 1963, but credible planning legislation never came in until 2000. That leaves an entire generation whose values in relation to urban development centre entirely around the car. But values change over time, and they are changing in relation to car-ownership and vehicle-miles-travelled. In the meantime we have legacy road infrastructure from the 60s/70s/80s/90s that once was largely mono-use and fit for purpose, but that is now seeing greater demand from users other than car-drivers. Retrofitting these roads is necessary if we are to afford other road users the same courtesy that was extended to car-drivers in the latter half of the twentieth century. And just to bring it back on topic, that extends to segregating pedestrians, cyclists, and cars where appropriate, and not bundling the former two together just because it is convenient.

In the latter half of the 20th century, the main transport bodies made a dogs breakfast of (what was at the time) a very extensive public transport network. Let's start off with CIE. Up to the 1960s, our country had a vast heavy rail network. Towns as small as Schull in County Cork and Letterkenny in Donegal had train stations. Back then, they were privately run with better names like The Great Southern Railway etc. These rail routes had been open for decades which would indicate that they were viable. If not, they would have ceased operations after a few years. Even further back, there were plans to connect Harcourt Street Station with Broadstone Station. In the early 1900s, Dublin's tram network, as far as I know, was one of the most extensive in Europe. Enter CIE and the subsequent nationalization of the public transport network. Since then, a very sophisticated rail and tram network was dismantled, leaving with it, disconnected towns. At a time when popularity of the private car began to soar, CIE effectively caused a disincentive for public transport use and thus, resulting in many would-be commuters resorting to the car.

NIMBYism and over-prioritization of architecture in many suburbs, towns and cities in Ireland resulted in uncontrolled and poorly guided residential and commercial development culminating in the urban sprawl we see today. We should have built upwards instead of outwards and placed more of an emphasis on consolidating population growth within a short range of existing train stations. Instead, we have elasticized the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) through decentralization creating unnecessary dependency on the car. For example, new developments such as City West and Cherrywood where initially built well away from any decent transport system. Since then, the LUAS has been extended to serve them. Had they been mooted for areas like Castleknock, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock or Dalkey which are equipped with rail connections, the architecture police (NIMBYs) would have slated them. Consequently, they end up being built in areas that are only reachable by car. Again, this adds more weight to car dependency in Dublin and other similar situations nationwide.

Mucco

No Pants wrote: »

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists pay for all the costs of private motoring.

I'm not sure about that. Can you please point me towards a source?

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

Iwannahurl

It's a nonsense for anyone to suggest that motorists pay for all the externalities of car use and car dependence.

Everyone pays one way or another for the congestion, air pollution, CO2 emissions, road deaths, noise and sprawl caused by private motorised transport.

Motorists and some others (such as out-of-town retailers perhaps) gain more from the increased mobility a car offers than they lose in terms of downsides like increased congestion and less cash in their pocket, but all of us bear the externalised costs.

The photo below (taken on "National Cycle to School & Work Day" in 2011) is a simple illustration of the way car users gain more from driving than not driving. Each individual driver is gaining more than they are losing from using the car, even in congested conditions, which is why they keep doing the same thing day after day, year after year. Not only that, but more and more people keep doing it over the years, which is why successive Census records show the number of children being driven to school has increased substantially over decades, while the number of children walking and cycling has plummeted. The manner in which vehicles are parked compounds the problem in an immediate and palpable way: motorists are effectively taxing pedestrians.

SeanW

Mucco wrote: »

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

There are plenty of reasons to dispute this, starting with who commissioned it:

which was commissioned by the Green group in the European parliament:

The methodology is suspect too - it frames the question as one of "Motorists vs. society" yet there are multiple key omissions:

1. Accidents are covered by compulsory motor insurance, including accidents involving uninsured motorists (at least in Ireland) in many cases regardless of whether the motorist involved caused the accident.
2. From the article: "The figures deliberately do not offset motoring-connected taxes unless they are specifically ringfenced for car use, for example a motorway toll where the money is set aside for highway maintenance. The authors argue that other motoring levies form part of the general tax pot and are no more reserved for the impact of cars than alcohol duties are reserved for healthcare or policing drink-fuelled disorder."
   
   But they've framed the study as "motorists vs. society" so the fact that the money is not ring-fenced should be irrelevant. It's money taken from motorists by society (if you look at it that way) and so should be balanced against the supposed costs imposed by motorists on society.
3. It most likely does not include other costs imposed on motorists by society, such as theft and vandalism. Theft adds significantly to TPFT insurance, and vandalism - ranging from a broken side mirror to total destruction by arson - are a matter of routine in the United Kingdom.
4. Are the costs of environmental regulation deducted from that? Cars now have to have super sensitive engines, diesel cars now have to have diesel particulate filters, all of this makes cars less reliable and dramatically more expensive to repair. When the cost of the car includes a €3000 DPF (and it will have to be replaced within 10 years) are those costs, plus the repair costs deducted against the figures?
5. It most likely does not include the societal benefits. For example, if half the working population uses a car to get to work (as Aard posted) that's a societal benefit - 50% of workers can reach their jobs because of cars. Doubly so when a couple share a car from their common home to two jobs in the same general area, or when a child is carried to school (saving them time) en-route.
6. Irelands motoring taxes are much more severe than those in the UK, taking the figure of £600 per year, most motorists here would only start paying at that.
   Vehicle registration tax does not exist in the UK and I think it adds about a third to the cost of a car. So that could be €10,000 right there, which assuming £600=€800, is the lifetime cost for a car that will run for about 12 years or so. My car, an old, poverty spec saloon from 1999, costs €800 a year to tax, that's the "external" cost doubled. Throw in compulsory insurance (not a tax but a mandated cost all the same) NCT costs, fuel taxes, it can add up to several thousand, per motorist, per year.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Motorists and some others (such as out-of-town retailers perhaps) gain more from the increased mobility a car offers than they lose in terms of downsides like increased congestion and less cash in their pocket, but all of us bear the externalised costs.

Only true in full if you assume that motorists are not part of society. Otherwise, the benefits accruing to motorists must also be considered, pro-rata, to be societal benefits.

motorists are effectively taxing pedestrians.

tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax?s=t

Methinks you would do well to invest in a dictionary. At minimum.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

Methinks you would do well to invest in a dictionary. At minimum.

Please cut out the sniping or you will be carded again.

No Pants

Mucco wrote: »

Both of you might be interested in the TU Dresden report out last year and accompanying newspaper article:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accidents-eu?view=mobile
The headline reads: "Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year.'
Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers"

I was reading a piece on copenhagenize.com that said that "In Denmark almost 4000 people die each year from pollution from cars. That number is ten times higher than those who are killed IN the traffic."

That's a frightening idea.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

[*]Are the costs of environmental regulation deducted from that? Cars now have to have super sensitive engines, diesel cars now have to have diesel particulate filters, all of this makes cars less reliable and dramatically more expensive to repair. When the cost of the car includes a €3000 DPF (and it will have to be replaced within 10 years) are those costs, plus the repair costs deducted against the figures?

those item lower the pollution impact of cars slightly but do not eliminate it by any means and certainly should not be deducted, no more than the cost of fuel or tyre or brakes pads should be.

[*]It most likely does not include the societal benefits. For example, if half the working population uses a car to get to work (as Aard posted) that's a societal benefit - 50% of workers can reach their jobs because of cars. Doubly so when a couple share a car from their common home to two jobs in the same general area, or when a child is carried to school (saving them time) en-route.

That's arguably not a benefit as many (most) car journeys are over a short distance and easily achievable by other methods in way more efficient and healthy manners (walking / cycling / PT). All those cars also add to traffic reducing the benefit to society; causing traffic, increasing pollution, loosing productivity etc.

bambergbike

No Pants wrote: »

I was reading a piece on copenhagenize.com that said that "In Denmark almost 4000 people die each year from pollution from cars. That number is ten times higher than those who are killed IN the traffic."

That's a frightening idea.

It is frightening. But it's not remotely surprising. It ties in perfectly with what we already know about air pollution (not all of this is transported-related, but much of it is.) It accounts for up to 9% of deaths in London and is probably among the top 10 causes of mortality in the UK (according to the BBC)

On a human level, what transport pollution does to families can look like this.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

those item lower the pollution impact of cars slightly but do not eliminate it by any means and certainly should not be deducted, no more than the cost of fuel or tyre or brakes pads should be.

You need tyres, brake pads, a working engine etc to use a car to go someplace. Those are internal costs, as is fuel, to the extent that you are paying for the fuel and not in the multitude of fuel taxes.

The environmental regulations demanding DPFs and fragile engines that have more maintenance costs and shorter lifespans are not internal costs, they're costs imposed from outside on motorists. Key difference.

Even if I assume for the sake of argument that the figures in that paper are correct, it is totally misleading because it only presents one side of the equation. "Motorists imposing costs on society" and intentionally excluded the "Society imposing costs on motorists" which, in Ireland and Europe with taxes and charges, various motoring regulations, vandalism etc eclipse the former by a large margin.

It would be like taking a wedge of cash out of the ATM with your credit card and saying "oh look, I just made all this money, I'm €500 (or whatever) better off now."

That's arguably not a benefit as many (most) car journeys are over a short distance and easily achievable by other methods in way more efficient and healthy manners (walking / cycling / PT). All those cars also add to traffic reducing the benefit to society; causing traffic, increasing pollution, loosing productivity etc.

50% of our nations' workforce would disagree with you there. Evidently the car has a massively positive influence on the owners quality of life or theres no way in hell all this nonsense would be put up with on such a large scale.

bambergbike wrote: »

On a human level, what transport pollution does to families can look like this.

Wow, you lost on the facts so you take the Greenpeace approach which is to go for the heartstrings with a "please think of the children" article from a blog that has an obvious radical eco-left agenda.

Classy.

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

radical eco-left agenda.

Huh?

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

Huh?

Just from the front page of that blog:

1. He admits to predicting the end of civilisation as we know it, and that all his associates regard him as "the resident weirdo." This puts him on par with a passionate Glenn Beck fan or a hardcore Alex Jones show listener, I watched one of GBs shows where he admitted his wife told him one day of his doom-mongering "We're going to a party, please try not to make everyone cry."
2. He admits he let his 6 year old child out on the roads on a bike on his own without knowing the rules of the road. Kid causes an accident, but it's the motorists fault 1: because, being a motorist, its automatically your fault regardless of circumstances and 2: the motorist was "speeding" above the limit of ... wait for it ... FOUR MILES PER HOUR.
3. He claims to be studying to be a carpenter, but he doesn't want to know about the tools of modern carpentry, like CnC machines. One of the machines at his institution had a botched software update and he referred to it (or the company that made it, I'm not sure which) as - and I quote "the capitalist-industrial machine".

   If you need me, I’ll be sawing dovetails while awaiting the inevitable collapse of civilisation.

   Well if that don't beat all.

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

He admits he let his 6 year old child out on the roads on a bike on his own without knowing the rules of the road. Kid causes an accident, but it's the motorists fault 1: because, being a motorist, its automatically your fault regardless of circumstances and 2: the motorist was "speeding" above the limit of ... wait for it ... FOUR MILES PER HOUR.

I'm not going to bother reading the blog as I'm not that emotionally invested in it, but I'm confused by the above. Surely that's the law and nothing to do with the author. Besides, it only says what the speed limit is, not what speed the driver was doing.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

You need tyres, brake pads, a working engine etc to use a car to go someplace. Those are internal costs, as is fuel, to the extent that you are paying for the fuel and not in the multitude of fuel taxes.

The environmental regulations demanding DPFs and fragile engines that have more maintenance costs and shorter lifespans are not internal costs, they're costs imposed from outside on motorists. Key difference.

so where do you draw the line is what is and is an enforced cost because of 'environmentalism'? should we all go back to using 85 RON fuel as it's cheaper to produce, leaded petrol, asbestos insulation?

All you need to do is compare the EURO I-VI emission limits to see the massive pollution reduction and resultant benefits as a result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_Large_Goods_Vehicles

50% of our nations' workforce would disagree with you there. Evidently the car has a massively positive influence on the owners quality of life or theres no way in hell all this nonsense would be put up with on such a large scale.

People are lazy and will drive simply because it's the easiest thing to do rather than the cheapest, cleanest, healthiest, quickest, what-have-you. where's your evidence for this massive quality of life influence if it's so obvious?

Iwannahurl

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

People are lazy and will drive simply because it's the easiest thing to do rather than the cheapest, cleanest, healthiest, quickest, what-have-you. where's your evidence for this massive quality of life influence if it's so obvious?

As stated previously, many of the costs of car use and especially car dependence are externalised and are not being met by motorists.

The costs of car dependence are borne by all of us, whether we drive habitually or not, whereas each individual motorist still gains something which is why they keep doing what they are doing.

It's a well known, and routinely ignored, phenomenon: ie the tragedy of the (unregulated) commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The ultimate commons is planet Earth itself (and climate change perhaps the ultimate tragedy, unless serious preventative measures are taken). Here's what the EU Commission has to say about CO2 emissions from the transport sector:

Transport is responsible for around a quarter of EU greenhouse gas emissions making it the second biggest greenhouse gas emitting sector after energy. Road transport alone contributes about one-fifth of the EU's total emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas. While emissions from other sectors are generally falling, those from transport have increased 36% since 1990.

CO2 emissions in Ireland's transport sector increased by 113% between 1990 and 2012. However, that aggregate figure also includes a 25% lower level of emissions in 2012 compared to 2007, a reduction at least partly due to the economic downturn. Transport-related CO2 emissions in 2006 were 168% higher than those in 1990, an average annual growth rate of 6.4%. (Sources: EPA & SEAI).

Spook_ie

So we need to kill off some of the cows then seeing as agriculture produces 8.2% more greenhouse gas than ALL transport
http://www.epa.ie/climate/communicatingclimatescience/whatisclimatechange/whatareirelandsgreenhousegasemissionslike/#.Uue2V_tFB0s

Iwannahurl

Spook_ie wrote: »

So we need to kill off some of the cows then seeing as agriculture produces 8.2% more greenhouse gas than ALL transport
http://www.epa.ie/climate/communicatingclimatescience/whatisclimatechange/whatareirelandsgreenhousegasemissionslike/#.Uue2V_tFB0s

Much of what humans currently do is unsustainable one way or another, unfortunately. No surprise there.

Perhaps, in the interests of balance and rational argument, we should factor into the CO2 budget the humans "killed off" by road crashes every year, 36000 of them in the EU and an estimated 1.24 million worldwide.

Alias G

Spook_ie wrote: »

So we need to kill off some of the cows then seeing as agriculture produces 8.2% more greenhouse gas than ALL transport
http://www.epa.ie/climate/communicatingclimatescience/whatisclimatechange/whatareirelandsgreenhousegasemissionslike/#.Uue2V_tFB0s

Yes the world would benefit if people turned to more plant based diets. Not sure why this is relevent here though.

Spook_ie

Alias G wrote: »

Yes the world would benefit if people turned to more plant based diets. Not sure why this is relevent here though.

It's relevent because skimming through a few posts it would seem that vehicle exhausts are being blamed to the the exclusion of everything else, where as even the EPA tell us that agriculture is prodcing more, I assume excluding particulates , therefore why not kill off some cows to reduce the pollution.

Iwannahurl

When the congestion and environmental degradation caused by single-occupant cars driven by cows reaches the same ridiculous level as that caused by human-occupied cars, perhaps Commuting & Transport might be a suitable forum for such, ahem, ruminations.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

So we need to kill off some of the cows then seeing as agriculture produces 8.2% more greenhouse gas than ALL transport
http://www.epa.ie/climate/communicatingclimatescience/whatisclimatechange/whatareirelandsgreenhousegasemissionslike/#.Uue2V_tFB0s

agriculture is different, firstly there's two types of emmissions

1) oil based from equipment, processing etc which is just as unsustainable

2) emmisions from animals / biomass which is a short term cycle rather than the extreme long term cycle of oil. Still problematic but much less so than oil based emmissions

Alias G

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's relevent because skimming through a few posts it would seem that vehicle exhausts are being blamed to the the exclusion of everything else, where as even the EPA tell us that agriculture is prodcing more, I assume excluding particulates , therefore why not kill off some cows to reduce the pollution.

No-one is blaming vehicle exhausts to the exclusion of everything else, merely that vehicle exhausts are relevent to this thread...not cows flatulence.

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's relevent because skimming through a few posts it would seem that vehicle exhausts are being blamed to the the exclusion of everything else, where as even the EPA tell us that agriculture is prodcing more, I assume excluding particulates , therefore why not kill off some cows to reduce the pollution.

Because we eat to survive and beef tastes good. Cars are not necessary.

bambergbike

To drive this back from cows to transport: I bought a pair of leather shoes the other day, was overtaken by the large shoe shop delivery truck on the way home, and decided that that delivering a few thousand pairs of shoes to a shop is probably a valid excuse to use an internal combustion engine. It's not green, but it's an efficient use of resources.

What made less sense was that I seemed to be the only person in the entire out-of-town retail complex who had got there by human-powered transport. People weren't, by and large, buying anything they couldn't easily have carried home on foot or by bike (or had delivered, of course.) So they were using hundreds of cars basically just to haul their own bodies a few miles. That's not an efficient use of resources. Some of these retail developments are new builds, so it seems that my local authority has recently granted planning permission for a series of developments that incentivize people to use resources inefficiently by making it easy for them to shop by car (loads of free parking for cars) and making it difficult for them to shop on foot (there was no footpath coherently connecting one shop to the next without people first having to trek through car parks to get back onto the road and then trek through another carkpark to get into the next retailer.)

Iwannahurl

^^^Irish "planning" summed up in one post.

There a retail park in Galway where you can be clamped if you have the audacity to leave your car and walk rather than drive across the road to another shopping centre.

No Pants

What a weird sign. You can park here for three hours and walk around the car park, but if you go into any shops, your car may be clamped. What is the car park for then?

Seweryn

Iwannahurl wrote: »

^^^Irish "planning" summed up in one post.

There a retail park in Galway where you can be clamped if you have the audacity to leave your car and walk rather than drive across the road to another shopping centre.

Well, leaving the car park means going to shops, I would think .

This is one of the most stupid sign post I have seen recently.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

^^^Irish "planning" summed up in one post.

There a retail park in Galway where you can be clamped if you have the audacity to leave your car and walk rather than drive across the road to another shopping centre.

Because Ireland is the only country in the world where shopping centres have provided parking for their customers :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

Seweryn wrote: »

Well, leaving the car park means going to shops, I would think .

This is one of the most stupid sign post I have seen recently.

The signs are in a retail park, and are clearly aimed at people who would park their car there for whatever reason (including going to the shops within the retail park) and then walk across to the other shopping centre on the opposite side of the same road.

The shopping centre opposite does not do the same, thankfully.

Therefore, in order to avoid the risk of being clamped, shoppers travelling by car will feel compelled to drive to the other shopping centre, even though it's only about 200 metres away as the crow flies.

Such urban design, which clearly does not occur by chance, is known as "planning" in Galway City.

No Pants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The signs are in a retail park, and are clearly aimed at people who would park their car there for whatever reason (including going to the shops within the retail park) and then walk across to the other shopping centre on the opposite side of the same road.

But the sign doesn't say that they won't be clamped if they go to the shops at the retail park. It's a really dumb sign.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so where do you draw the line is what is and is an enforced cost because of 'environmentalism'? should we all go back to using 85 RON fuel as it's cheaper to produce, leaded petrol, asbestos insulation?

I am not saying these things should be reversed, but rather that their costs should be accounted for.

From what I can tell, the conversion to unleaded petrol added little or nothing to the cost of a car, certainly added nothing to the cost of used cars.

Indeed, even today, a person with limited resources can go get a 10 year old Toyota or Nissan something and get a car for around a thousand or so, i.e. residual value, and providing some due diligence is applied, can expect to have reasonably cost-effective, hassle free motoring. Until recently, you could also do the same with diesel cars.

The reason for this is that cars were until recently made of relatively inexpensive, reliable (depending on the manufacturer) parts. But in recent years, that has changed because of environmental regulations.

The ability of a person to pick up a cheap, reliable diesel car is gone now, or very soon will be, because of the particulate filtration requirements add massively to the cost and complexity of the cars systems. DPFs alone are major source of complexity, and no matter how well run the car, they are guaranteed to fail regularly costing €2000+ each time. Throw in more fuel efficient (but more frail and sensitive, with near guaranteed shorter lifespan) engines, and anyone that's looking to buy a 10 year old diesel in a few years time would need to have their head examined.

The same thing, if I understand correctly, is now happening in petrol cars.

The end effect of this I suspect will be to undo the democratisation of car travel, to drive poor people off the road. Maybe some people think this is a good thing. I don't.

where's your evidence for this massive quality of life influence if it's so obvious?

There's an old saying out here "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" which basically means that the merit of something is revealed when it is tried. I.E. very simply all these people are driving, because they clearly understand themselves to be benefitting very significantly by doing so.

And unless you are claiming that being a motorist disqualifies one from being considered a first class citizen and full member of society, or that a person becomes an un-person when they get behind the wheel, then those benefits accruing to large numbers of people must be considered, to an extent, societal benefits. As must all of the taxes and charges they pay.

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

undo the democratisation of car travel, to drive poor people off the road.

I know, it's not right. Poor people should be able to poison us all too. It's class warfare.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

I know, it's not right. Poor people should be able to poison us all too. It's class warfare.

So you agree that the end result of all this regulation is to drive poor people off the road, and you believe it to be a positive?

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

So you agree that the end result of all this regulation is to drive poor people off the road, and you believe it to be a positive?

No, I think your argument is horse****.

Note to self: must use more emoticons.

Chris_5339762

I always find this one hilarious.

http://goo.gl/maps/fBcKy

Two car parks and two shopping centers right next to each other. The first one had a stub of road put in so you could get to the future second one.

The second one built a wall to stop this and elevated the entire center so you have to walk about a kilometer... or just drive between the two. Madness.

http://goo.gl/maps/ITt4g

Iwannahurl

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

I always find this one hilarious.

http://goo.gl/maps/fBcKy

Two car parks and two shopping centers right next to each other. The first one had a stub of road put in so you could get to the future second one.

The second one built a wall to stop this and elevated the entire center so you have to walk about a kilometer... or just drive between the two. Madness.

http://goo.gl/maps/ITt4g

All approved by the local "planners", presumably, and who knows maybe even by An Bord Pleanala.

SeanW

No Pants wrote: »

No, I think your argument is horse****.

Note to self: must use more emoticons.

Fine then, you should have no trouble explaining why my analysis is incorrect?

No Pants

SeanW wrote: »

Fine then, you should have no trouble explaining why my analysis is incorrect?

I can't be ****ing bothered. You go right on thinking that cars are great or whatever and that people who don't like exhaust fumes secretly hate the poor.