As someone who drives a car in the UK, I’d like to point out that this is a load of old bollocks designed to drum up votes from Boomers ahead of what’s looking to be an absolute embarrassment of an election for the Tories in the next year or so.
Almost none of these promises have any actual substance to them, and are largely just meaningless slogans designed to rile up the Boomers* who have spent their lives being taught that public transport and bikes are what poor lefties do.
If Labour have been quiet on these issues, it’s because they know that their best election strategy at this point is to just let the Tories flap on, doling out enough rope with which to hang themselves.
*not all Boomers, obviously, but they really are the majority of Tory voters
Well I’m not a UK driver but all of those ideas sound good to me, because cars give people freedom to go wherever they want and help the economy keep going. Tons of people don’t have access to public transit and they do have cars, and they need them to get to work and the rest of the places they go to live their lives.
Sure, build more public transit to help out too, and create incentives for pollution reduction and all that. But if you want the regular people on your side you will have to stop trying to take their freedom to drive away.
I don’t care, I’m just scrolling the Lemmy World feed for entertainment and this one came up. Now you get to hear my “boomer” thoughts on the matter haha.
I mean, all power to you for having your opinions, and what you say about public transport is absolutely correct.
But here’s the thing; no one is taking people’s “freedom to drive” anywhere. At the very, very worst, some councils are making it more expensive to drive within their jurisdiction, because they want to insert a moment of friction to make people wonder whether the car journey they “have” to take could be taken with public transport instead. I drive places (much less than I used to), and I see that as a Good Thing. We had the same grumbles back when Ken Livingston’s council introduced the original scheme 20 years ago, but people very quickly adapted and got over it.
As for the 20mph zones; they just make sense in built up areas. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I live in an area that has 30mph limits in residential areas, but I’ve taken to traveling at 20mph anyway, because there are kids who live near me who have a tendency to run around without paying enough attention. Sure, I’d be legally in the clear if I hit one at 30 and seriously injured them, but that wouldn’t help my conscience one bit.
You’re a very typical US citizen that has bought into the “mah free dumbs” lie. There are 8 billion people on the planet and regulations are about those people (or some subset thereof) having a way to get along without buggering up someone else’s freedom. It’s all very well driving a car, but the asthma you cause in someone else necessitate regulation for many other people’s freedom. USA is one of the very few places on the planet that has Jay walking laws, because most countries recognise people’s freedom to walk in the street, ffs, it’s not rocket science, it’s a very basic freedom.
Nope, I’m far from typical. I’m a well educated successful American with a Zen-like level of contentment. I have the true freedom to do whatever I want in the USA, whether you believe it or not.
Oh dear god, that’s sad. You are the definition of typical. I’ve spent years working and travelling in the US, and you speak exactly like virtually everyone else over there. My dear friend, you don’t have control over anything. You don’t even have control over your own bowels, they will drive you to obey them. Everyone thinks they are free and in control, and you, like everyone else, control virtual nothing in your life. This is not some great conspiracy, its just the law of nature. So enjoy your free dumb, you poor fool, but try very hard not to fuck up someone else’s freedom in the process 😉 or accept that there is no such thing and go with the flow instead. You are soo American, it would be funny it it wasn’t so sad. Sorry.
Well everything you just wrote is absolutely wrong. Why don’t you go ahead and list anything that you think I don’t have the freedom to do? Put some substance into your hyperbole for a change.
I tell you what, I’ll go one better, that I hope illustrates my point. I told this to every American I ever met and, so far, only 1 learnt from it.
It’s OK to be hungry.
You have the “freedom to eat whenever you want, whereveryou want it”, but you can eat so much that you die. You can eat as little as you like, so little that you also die. Your freedom you eat whatever you want, whenever you want is an illusion, driven by outrageous commercialism.
You do not have the freedom to eat whatever you want, whenever you want. You think you do.
Edited for autocorrect, I don’t even have the freedom to type ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Way to dodge the question with a philosophical yarn. You probably just don’t have a real answer.
Everybody knows about the vices of excess consumption. That is not a useful metaphor relevant to individual freedom. Living a free life doing what you want does not require or even imply consuming an excess of anything.
Doesn’t hurt to bring a perspective from outside the bubble, does it? Otherwise communities are a circlejerk at best and consist mainly of “I do not understand why these reasonable goals can’t simply be implemented and accepted by everyone”-posts
Let me tell you how “dumb” I am so you can gloat over it some more, you bright shining ray of sunshine. I’m so dumb that I have 2 college degrees, a great career doing high-tech stuff for lots of money, and I own my own house and land where I have an offgrid solar panel system and a sweet garden.
I’m so dumb that my life is great and you made me so sad about it.
To be honest, I could get behind fines for overrunning street works. Hell, go further: fines for any overrunning, underdelivering or overbudget public contracts. That would quickly resolve the mess that the torys have made giving out dodgy contracts to their mates.
Shout out to Frankie Boyle who decided that the important thing to pursue literally in the middle of Israel gunning down protesters with machine guns and the labour right openly sabotaging their own platform was Corbyn’s antisemitism. Frankie Boyle is a fucking coward, and I would say that to his face.
Even clarkson is smart enough to realize trains and planes make more sense for mass travel, he just likes cool and high end cars because they’re cool. He’s not out here advocating for everyone to sit in traffic in festivas all day
All of these comments seem crazy to me. Getting mad you’re allowed to go over 20mph? You want to pay rip off fines? I can understand that more parking has the potential to make roads unwalkable and unsafe, I’ve seen the videos about stroads, I totally agree. But the other points seem positive. Are people mad he’s focusing on cars while doing nothing for other bicycling and walkability? Because if this was part of a larger transportation project I think it would be positive, except for the parking issue.
They’re all encouraging more driving, which leads to more pollution and more pedestrian deaths. 20mph speed limits reduce collisions, reduce the severity when they do happen, decrease pollution, and barely has an effect on journey times.
The 20mph part is most infuriating. Obviously not paying ‘rip-off fines’ sounds great but I honestly don’t even know what he’s talking about. But 20mph is great, and from a driving experience perspective the difference to 30 is so arbitrary. How changing that back is letting drivers ‘live their lives’ I have no clue. What if I want to go at 35mph, Rishi?
I thought 20mph speed limits just resulted in cars speeding more and going significantly faster than they would otherwise. Drivers don’t really care about speed limits, they go as fast as they feel comfortable. Therefore we should make drivers as uncomfortable as possible.
All this supposed government overreach that is being railed against was instituted by the tories. Even if these were sincere, genuine, and good proposals the framing is both dishonest and hypocritical.
Further, low traffic neighborhoods are good actually. It’s GOOD that people can walk to places without getting hit by cars.
Bus lanes should not be occupied by normal cars, because then it’s not a fucking bus lane.
Fining local councils for street work taking a long time doesn’t actually make any fucking sense.
I like the sausage and egg mcmuffins, they are 2 for $5 before 10:30am edit: IDK why there’s a problem setting safe speeds around schools. I support public safety efforts
I’m a pedestrian. A car going over 20 mph isn’t getting me to my destination any faster, it’s putting my life at risk to get its driver somewhere faster.
sometimes, even on roads, you’ll find these un-vehicled, squishy beings who are not protected by 4000 pounds of steel. and when these small beings are hit by a large motor vehicle, they can get very hurt. the faster the vehicle is going, the more hurt they get. speed = ouchie. when a car going 20mphs hits them, they can get hurt and scared, but usually, they’ll be okay. but if the car is going very fast when it hits them, they can get a boo boo so bad that it can’t be fixed even by a doctor :(
How are you going to transport material goods without cars and trucks? How will doctors get to patients? I hope you pledge to never own or rent a car, and you never ride in someone else’s car because you think they should be illegal. Next time you are in someone’s car tell them you think they should be arrested for driving a car.
Yes cargo bikes are really cool and should gain popularity but this suggestion makes me realize that the people commenting here are not qualified and not capable of understanding infrastructure needs. Materials can weigh hundreds and thousands of pounds and need to be transported long distances. People’s lives depend on the ability to have food, shelter, and medical care. An army of cargo bikes won’t provide the bandwidth required to maintain society. People advocating against road vehicles should feel free to choice their opinion. But this discussion of prohibiting vehicles is not based in reality and could not realistically be considered.
Luckily, these are just the last desperate acts of an unelected Prime Minister, who only got the job because the last one crashed the economy inside a month (who only got the job because the last one was Boris Johnson). He knows that the party will be condemned to irrelevance next year and is anxious to find anything that could possibly resonate with enough voters
Ironically Rishi Sunak famously doesn't really drive, and once had to borrow someone else's car for a publicity stunt where he inadvertently demonstrated that he doesn't even know how to fill one up with petrol. Sadly he doesn't drive because hes a gazillionaire, not because he uses public transport
Have you seen the polls in the last two years? Or the that a majority of prominent Conservative MPs for the last ten years have already announced they won't run next year to avoid their own little portillo moments?
They know they're done and are holding on for either a miracle or something like this policy change to stick. Which isn't impossible, but that there's a good chance of him winning an election is what is wishful thinking. They're done.
VOTE EARLY VOTE OFTEN. And make sure your friends vote. Make sure you’ve all got voter ID - don’t get caught out by the Tories’ voter suppression tricks. VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE
I can afford a car. There’s plenty of parking where I live. But I’d much rather use my transport as an opportunity to use my bike, raise my fitness, and reduce my contribution to climate change, thanks. All of Sunak’s ideas here are bad news.
As someone forced to drive for their commute, who has frequently been made late by cyclists forcing emergency stopz, and who hates the way things are currently going on the roads, this isn’t going to win my vote.
The issue is that I’m forced to drive due to public transport being too expensive, unreliable, and, let me be frank, unsafe in some areas if you’re transporting a laptop after dark. Ever tried to move a box of teaching supplies around on a bike, ye god’s never again!
I don’t want freed up bus lanes, I want more buses with a guard on then after dark. The roadworks fines, I think everyone wants that sorted out because it hits buses really hard. As for parking - definitely - better parking for bikes outside local shops, and safe storage for people travelling on public transport with luggage or heavy loads.
Less popular but definitely needed - insurance for bike users and mandatory licenses (sorry but some folks out there are accidents waiting to happen on a bike).
Insurance and licencing for cyclists is a really terrible idea. Everywhere that has tried mandatory insurance has given up on it because it just isn’t worth the cost. If you want to do licenses how to you administer the tests? What age do you have to be to take it? And therefore how many children are you banning from cycling? The issues disappear once you have decent infrastructure for cyclists, which is a much better solution for both sides.
So in Germany for example, cyclists over the age of 13 (I believe) are required by law to use the road. And using the road, they should know the rules of the road.
In most places, some form of cycling classes is an integral part of the curriculum, with an actual exam in fourth grade. Though it’s all voluntary, no child is legally required to participate.
So the license kids get from that is not an official document and more symbolic than anything, but I think it’s quite nice for them to have actual classes and an exam they can take for it.
Education is great, but adding more barriers to entry isn’t. It’s the cars that cause the danger and we should be doing as much as possible to get people out of them.
Oh yeah, I just wanted to give some thoughts on it. That system as it is in Germany isn’t really a barrier, it’s just an optional thing kids can do, and I for one think that’s good.
But then again, I’d rather have bike lanes that are completely separate to reduce possible danger, instead of telling cyclists to share the road with some of those lunatics I’m encountering daily
Cyclist insurance is primarily so expensive (here) because cyclists here are fucking morons with no affinity for personal safety and responsibility.
I understand their plight as a motorcyclist (as well as other vulnerable travel methods) However, in my experience acting like shit and expecting everyone else to ensure YOUR safety is not a very appropriate way to stay safe.
I actively behave on the roads as if being targeted by a bit squad. I have had one accident in my entire driving life that could be considered my fault. Yet, when speaking with cyclists etc. All they have to talk about is their latest near fatality that most certainly wasn’t their fault! No sir they had absolutely no hand in it!
I agree, good luck getting it past even the most progressive government in my country. Nobody wants to pay their fair share of tax (and votes accordingly) and yet all expect the investment in infrastructure that comes with it.
When I bike here (Somewhere in Sweden) I barely ever have to interact with any cars because the car roads and bike lanes are entirely separate.
In the middle of the city you could make a case about lanes with pedestrians and bike lanes that often are only separated by a painted line.
The crossings have separate buttons for pedestrians and bikes. Traffic is very rarely ambiguous, at least in urban areas. It’s easy to bike “the right way”.
There are rules for biking, and some assholes break them, but that goes for everything.
Basically, I agree with the other commenter. Infrastructure is the answer.
I appreciate your comment and sentiment, could you come over and inform my country on how to build a city? As it stands, it’s more convenient, planned for, and infrastructure installed for cars. The only thing keeping me from using one of my smaller transportation methods to commute, remains safety. Safety of myself, but also safety of my ride.
I certainly don’t have enough good ideas to remedy this, but I sure hope someone else does.
I understand, while I live in Sweden, I didn’t grow up here. I wish I could convince people back in my home country that reducing cars is a worthwhile goal, and certainly better people than me have tried. I’m not arguing for you to simply bike and take the risks, I didn’t and I wouldn’t.
Reducing car reliance would be a big project even if everyone agreed. I don’t take it for granted here. Even in Sweden we’re also facing risks of reduced public transportation and favoring cars, and that worries me. It’s like finding a little piece of a well working system and watching it become underappreciated and potentially destroyed.
I both drive and cycle for commuting, and having experience with both it’s hard to imagine what practical use mandatory insurance would be for cyclists, given that only third-party insurance is mandatory for drivers, and it’s largely to cover the huge amount of physical damage someone can create with a 2-tonne block of metal propelled by an engine, something that really isn’t comparable to ~10kg powered only by one person’s legs.
and yeah sure hypothetically a cyclist could make a mistake that indirectly causes a car to cause an accident but this relatively very rare compared to the hundreds of accidents directly caused by drivers every day, and even rarer that the accident would be solely the fault of one party (ie. if a cyclist in front of a driver did a bad maneuver and the driver had to do an emergency stop, the driver was probably far too close to the cyclist)
at the end of the day, calls for cyclists to have insurance or licence plates usually come from people who are less invested in whether or not these are practical solutions, and more from car drivers who irrationally just want cyclists to suffer from the same inconveniences they have to deal with
As someone whose aunt was hospitalised because a young (early 20s) cyclist hit her on the pavement and sped off, I disagree.
Never caught, she ended up with a fractured hip. While it’s easy to believe “all cyclists are good people like me”, the reality is that every group of transit users has its problem members.
I do agree, cars can cause a lot more damage (and injuries are almost always MUCH more serious), which is why you’d set a lower premium rate for cyclists. They’re covered, so you are covered.
If I am ever in a position to cycle in to work, I’d feel a lot more comfortable knowing that if someone hits me and damages my bike, I won’t be relying on their goodwill or just footing the bill.
Sure, that’s why I qualified that harmful accidents do happen, though relatively rarely compared to car accidents, and relatively rarely anywhere near as harmful as a similar incident if it was caused by a car.
Similar anecdotal incident - I know someone who was hospitalised and got multiple fractures while riding his bike on a cycle path because someone was walking their dog without a lead and the dog ran in front of his bike. These things can and do happen, they’re not unusual - but it’s also a weak argument for, say, mandating that all dog owners get liability insurance for their pets.
You’re not campaigning to increase the number of dogs on the road, you are aiming to increase the number of cyclists.
At the moment, the main worry is car/cycle interactions and car/person; however let us say all cars vanish and everyone who drove now cycles. You’re now going to have a LOT more cycle/cycle and cycle/person interactions. Indeed, without the requirements of formal road training (I.e. a license) you’re going to see injuries from cycle incidents in every city daily. It’s a matter of probability, more so an increasing one.
Then again, “dog causes 50 person pile up” might well mandate stronger laws for dog owners, with cyclists pushing for it. So perhaps it isn’t so much apples Vs oranges and more failing to appreciate scale - that the issue isn’t the apples and oranges, but the sheer number of them!
You’re really hitting the nail on the head with this analogy. If you replaced all the cars with cyclists then yes you’d increase the number of cycle accidents, but no one of those cyclists would be capable of causing anywhere even remotely near the level of carnage one car driver can cause. In fact, the amount of damage a single cyclist can cause would decrease with fewer cars on the road, given that at present the worst damage a cyclist can cause is by indirectly causing a car driver to crash.
We’d see more minor injuries (remember, all commuters are tired cyclists, so they’re more likely to have minor bumps), but many less majore ones (at least among young cyclists, older ones in collisions I do not know enough about to comment reliably).
Let’s not forget, pedestrians exist as well, and are just as unobservant as cyclists (pedestrians usually have right of way, though no cyclist I know respects that!).
At the moment each carpark on the UK can use any app it likes on mobile to pay, so you end up with every place having its own. Dozens of apps on phones to pay for parking, having to remember which one is right for the one you’re in today.
The proposal is to have a single app and have different car parks sign up to it so it’s easier for people to pay.
I say proposal. It’s not a plan is it. Idea? Dream? Fantasy? I dunno how much they can do before they are forced to call an election and get kicked out.
Letting people travel “how they want” he says while cancelling new train lines for those who wants to use that. The blokes a disengenuious wanker who we can’t be rid of quick enough.
I disagree. Aside from privately owned Brightline who already owns the land around their stations, owns their tracks, and has a lot of incentive to expand their coverage, I have not heard of a single other piece of privatized infrastructure that actually benefits the users or actively engages in expansion
Privatized public transportation rarely works. At most you’ll find some success stories of companies that partnered with a government to jointly service a transportation line.
In France, nationalized transport worked for decades before rail was opened to private compagnies circa 2014 (would have to check exactly). Since then, no one has been able to afford a train ticket. You have no idea what you’re talking about
Japan literally has privatized roads and it’s kind of a nightmare. You have to pay tolls for nearly all highway transportation because it’s owned by 3 companies.
Privatized railways are mostly failures most of the time. Besides Brightline, and I think a bunch of the Japanese railway companies, no nation really has privatized passenger rail. But I think the Japanese system has a weird setup.
Actually, I think Italy and Germany have started allowing private companies to operate on their railways, but I think they need to fit it between the nationalized services. I could be wrong about that tho.
Absolutely fucking not. Privatisation is literally the worst thing you could do. Do we really want some random assholes to own something we rely on and try to squeeze it for as much profit as possible? I don’t, fuck capitalism
It’s straight out of the American conservative talking points book. Somehow, driving has been equated with freedom and not fully embracing driving over all other firms of transportation taking away individual freedom.
How is it freedom to be forced to own a car, pay for gas and maintenance, and waste your life in car traffic every single day?
Labour are shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of proposing a tax on the ultra wealthy to try and subsidize buying less polluting cars. They are forcing the poor to buy cars they can’t afford in cities where public transport is both not complete and expensive. They have lost touch with the working class. Alienating them against climate action. And driving them to the arms of the Tories.
Labour could literally anything and the Tories would react in as far the opposite way as possible. That says nothing about Labour, and everything about the Tories entire platform being “The Opposite Of Labour”, despite literally being the party in power of government, able to make whatever decisions they want, but being completely devoid of any useful ideas that aren’t just ‘Tax breaks for rich cunts’.
Honestly Labour has been quiet about the Tories panic promises leading up to the election next year. We know they have been swapping approaches and going back on their own manifesto. The Green party has been making decent promises, however, unlike the Labour party.
Labour Vs Green
🔴No wealth tax 🟢£70bn Wealth Tax
🔴Tuition Fees 🟢Free Tuition
🔴Private NHS 🟢Nationalise NHS
🔴£10 p/h+ 🟢£15 p/h+
🔴Pro-Trident v 🟢Anti-Trident
🔴Privatised Energy 🟢Public Energy
🔴No UBI 🟢 Pro UBI
🔴Migrant Crackdown 🟢Refugees welcome
🔴No promise to building council housing 🟢500,000 council homes
I’d probably vote green if they had any chance of winning, but their opposition to HS2 annoys me. They support building a new north south rail link, but not the one we’re already building.
Honestly, since Corbyn isn’t in the Labour party, there is no redeeming quality of them deserving a vote. They just became red Tories with a few members being socialist or reformist. I have critical support for the Green party, not only because of their policy promises but because they seem to lean towards socialism far more than Labour is. I still advocate for my own party that we have up here in Scotland but we need to gain major traction still, although a full on revolution of the proles would be ideal at this point like 1919 Battle of George Square but successful.
Sadly though, at the moment it’s very unlikely any other opposition could beat the Tories. Tory supporters are often stubborn so are unlikely to sway. So the best chance is anti tories have is to go for the lesser of the two evils this time around and vote labour just to get them the fuck out. Then we can hope for bigger change afterwards.
You might hate it but freedom to travel is a vote winner, unless you can push similar messages about making people’s lives better and freer then it’s going to be hard getting people on board.
@Meowoem@mondoman712 All the more reason to clamp down on cars, which really do limit people's freedom to travel, especially those who don't use cars.
For those how have experienced travelling in places with high quality public transport and active travel infrastructure, the freedom from motorised congestion IS a real vote winner. Hardly anyone wants to go back to the noise, congestion & pollution of the car... Only those who have never experienced real freedom, think it is the car
Also when you live in the city and need to do anything that involves more than just a small backpack, got a tool box and a couple of bits of wood? Enjoy the bus lol
In all the car commercials they show cars sitting at a stop in city traffic while ‘Midnight city’ by m83 plays, not zooming around NYC/Tokyo without another car in sight like they are the last man on earth.
Add comment