h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dave,

"Well, if you don't think it a valid argument, perhaps you would like to counter it?"

I kind of thought I did...

"Can you explain why anyone today should *need* a car?"

To get places. How would someone who didn't live in a city or big town with public transport get around without one? What about someone with a large family living in a town which only has an out of town supermarket? Sure, you can survive without these things, just as you can (mostly) survive without electricity, penicillin or universal suffrage, but that doesn't mean we don't need those things.

"If by "police state" you mean enforcement of the rules ..."

I was responding to Fanny's post. But, FWIW, I take 'police state' to mean an authoritarian state where police and the executive exercise power without oversight, regulation or restrictions. Fanny said that in cases where people could get hurt, we need to go further than 'nanny state' and become a bit more like 'police state'.

SWL,

"However, even if this is put aside and we debate from the assumption that cars are seized and immediately crushed, it is in effect a penalty on a sliding scale anyway."

I'd guess that it was less than proportionate, although I could well be wrong. But even if so, it's about more than just the value of the car as a percentage of your income, it's about what you can afford to replace. Wealthier people tend to have more of a safety net to deal with unexpected costs like this.

I'm also interested in this:

SWL: "So Mr Evil Moneybags gets his £40,000 BMW crushed whilst Mr Saintly Poorperson loses a 15 yr old Fiesta."

and

Dave: "Tell you what, instead of crushing the cars - which really doesn't fit well with the new recycling regulations anyway - we just take them away and give them to poor people. Then everyone is happy. Or everyone that matters, anyway."

Why does the idea of being more concerned about people who are more vulnerable irritate you both so much?

>> Why does the idea of being more concerned about people who are more vulnerable irritate you both so much? <<

Because they're lazy good-for-nothing thieves and slackers who sponge off the state, perhaps?

RF

You're asking for special treatment for people on the strength of their bank balances.

Does a judge consider the effect the loss of a wage-earner might have on a family when he sentences a rapist or a murderer? Why not? The loss of a wage-earner for a poor household could be said to have more of an impact than on a wealthy household.

Crime is a personal choice. If the penalties affect one segment of society more than another, perhaps that's more of an incentive for criminals from that section of society to desist.

And perhaps it is properly targeted. Is it too outrageous to suggest that poorer people are more likely to drive whilst uninsured?

I actually have no sympathy whatsoever for drivers who drive whilst uninsured. I don't care if it's Lord Mucky-muck with his priceless 1953 Mercedes or Wayne with his 15 yr old Fiesta. Personally, I would just take the car straight to the crusher and not bother with fines or the like.

I've just received my car insurance renewal.
This includes the information that 'the UK has an estimated one in twenty cars being driven without proper insurance cover..... resulting in honest motorists paying on average an aditional £30 on their premium to compensate innocent victims of uninsured drivers'

'To help combat this there is a Motor Insurance Database, accessible by the police - combined with automatic number plate recognition technology, helps the police act swiftly & effectively.'

I was just thinking that (if there isn't already) there should be an obligation to show insurance & licence when purchasing a vehicle. If an uninsured driver doesn't own the car they're caught driving, perhaps the owner (unless the car is taken without permission) should receive a penalty too?

>>
The answer is clear - build more roads. I've never seen a convincing argument against road-building anyway.
<<

There's those small matters of climate change and peak oil

>>
Incidentally, we've only had cars for the last 0.05% of our 200,000-year history. In the rest of that time nearly *everyone* lived remotely, there were no buses, trains or Tesco-online-grocery delivery vans, no internet and no phones. Anyone who claims that they *need* a car is just not trying hard enough.
<<

The reason that people in the past could live without a car is because society was structured differently. You could walk or ride to work because there were jobs locally. Your food was local as were your family and friends. It's completely different now, and to suggest that anyone could live like it was pre the industrial revolution is ridiculous.

In the past most people didn't live remotely. They lived in the middle of the their village or town or tribe, which was where pretty much everything they needed was (with the obvious exception of nomadic peoples who moved around but, still, essentially what they needed at their doorstep).

Dont get me wrong Kea, I think people can see where you're coming from, but feel that these changes havent happened all of a sudden and while some people are through no fault of their own (and I include them having made efforts to make what changes they can to ensure it doesnt happen) out of touch and have difficulties, but the huge majority have had choices and can or could have made changes that allow them to manage fine.

Personally I still maintain that being able to drive (ownership of a car is another matter) is a priviledge, not a right... And if you cannot achieve any of the requirements then you should not drive, and this includes material issues as well as medical or mental ones...

My mum's partner has a car share with a friend, they share the cost of running a single car. It's not convenient, but is more convenient than having no car at all which would cause them both MAJOR issues, one would have little or no physical contact with his daughter and the other would have trouble shopping and geting to jobs. If they couldnt share, both would go without as they dont see it as a choice. Cant do, dont do. It's pretty simple, right?

"How would someone who didn't live in a city or big town with public transport get around without one? What about someone with a large family living in a town which only has an out of town supermarket?"

Dunno. Walk, get the bus, shop locally, order online, move house, grow their own food, starve to the point where the welfare system kicks in to help out? How did they do it in the past? How do they cope when they can't afford a car, or have their licence taken away? Lots of people manage fine without cars.

"Sure, you can survive without these things, just as you can (mostly) survive without electricity, penicillin or universal suffrage, but that doesn't mean we don't need those things."

There is a difference. Universal suffrage is a right in this country, withholding drugs would be considered immoral and against the HRA. Dunno about electricity, but I guess the state still reserves the right to stop you having any if you have a history of abusing it.

Use of a car does not, and should not, fall into these categories. As many have pointed out it is a privilege, not a right, regardless of how many people would like to think otherwise. The definition of a right and a privilege is written into law; it is not a matter for individual citizens to decide based on how far they choose to live from the nearest supermarket, or any other lifestyle choice for that matter.

Robyn, I'm actually in favour of less cars, mainly for environmental reasons, but also for social ones. But I still don't think it's valid to say that everyone could easily do without a car if they were to lose it overnight. I think it needs societal changes, even if they have to be forced on people.

I'm not saying car owning is a right. I'm saying that people who think that everyone can easily do without one are ignorant of the realities of alot of people. It's all a bit sanctimonious.

If I really had to live without a car I could. But until you know the realities of my life your not in a position to say that I could do without a car as if that would be merely an inconvenience. Since I've had a disability, I have lived without a car for 6 months, and it was a bloody disaster. Simple things like getting groceries or getting to the doctor became major expeditions. Because those things took so much time and energy, it degraded the overall quality of my life (and made my disability worse). So, sure, it didn't kill me, but it wasn't like living in a society that was designed to be carless either.

What should be done? Random driving tests.

As in randomly selected, not tests to improve your random driving

What should be done about what?


*

There is some debate here about the proposed raising of the age you can get your licence. The AA are opposing raising it from 15 to 16. Because of our graduated licence system they feel it will leave a year of teens who have left school without a way of getting to work. I find this quite strange because when I got my licence as a teen most teens couldn't afford a car. It was only in the 90s when we got cheap Jap imports that it became normal for everyone to own a car.

Kea, I have never said (though others may have implied) that people can just get by 'easily' without a car (or has someone said that? I dunno...). I certainly dont think so. I am able, I live in a city. It takes me maximum twenty minutes to drive to work. If I catch a bus, I have to use two buses, costing me over £5 and it takes me a minimum of an hour and a half... So there we go, I'm hardly a person who would claim that life without a car is easy.

But it's STILL a priviledge.

Society has been allowed to grow into the state it's in regarding transport, it's gonna hurt but something needs to change!

Here, a young person can get a provisional licence at 16 which allows them to pass a basic motorbike test and ride a restricted 50cc motorcycle with L plates, and can start lessons (i.e. drive with someone who, if I remember correctly, has had a full licence for 3 years) at 17. (the details could be sketchy, you may be able to drive under some condtions at 16). You cannot hold a full licence until you are 17. (and until you've passed your test and got your licence you cannot drive on a motorway).


Unfortunately there is no requirement, after that, for you to recheck your rules and regs etc... Which is why people get into complacent bad habits. Young people are inexperienced and impetuous. Older people get complacent. In every gender and class grouping there are people with a bad attitude... Without being draconian in certain cases, I cant see a 'cure'.

No-one ever said it would be *easy* for someone to lose the use of car overnight. The sheer number of people who continue to drive while banned is testament to that. But it is possible.

It's a non-argument anyway; people who are unfit to drive - and yes even those who are only "unfit" because they have no insurance, tax or MoT - should not drive. To think otherwise is tacit acceptance that people will die unnecessarily, and no-one's lifestyle is worth a life. I think the state should do whatever it needs to do to stop them.

However, it's difficult for me to be objective on this issue, so I shall return to hurriedly writing vitriolic rants and not posting them.

Kea - Peak Oil????

That theory has been thoroughly discredited by this world authority -

"Peak Oil Debunked in 4 Minutes"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JW0ERdgkwBA&mode=related&search=


How could you possibly argue with that?

One thing about rural Ireland (and, I think, Britain) is that it's impossible to walk anywhere. You either cross farmer's fields (bulls, crops, and tresspassing) and plantation woods (just about impossible to force your way through a pine forest) or walk on the roads, which just aren't safe. Many Irish rural roads don't even have hard sholders, and have a speed limit of 80 km/h. Unless you're prepared to jump into the ditch every two minutes ....

TRiG.

(Actually, my bike was stolen a couple of months ago: I'm a pedestrian now.)

Do they not have official public footpaths in Ireland Trig? In England the whole landscape is criss crossed with public footpaths that anyone can use. By law farmers are not allowed to block them and I think they are responsible to a degree for their upkeep. The 'Ramblers Association' spend a lot of their spare time walking along these paths and making sure of their continued upkeep, and to stop them becomming over grown with weeds and stuff.

In Ireland, the footpaths have landmines

footpaths aren't always easy to walk along - I think TRiG is referring to the fact that there are roads connecting towns/villages (we even have them over here) but that they are just that - a strip of tarmac with no provision for anything except a 4 wheeled vehicle. I can't send my Gruesomes to school on their bikes because I'm so worried about SWLs BMW drivers (and we have those over here in spades)

I'd love to see a vast improvement in the infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. And then I'd be a very enthusiastic supporter of car crushing for every minor infringement of traffic regulations.

BTW: I think everyone speeds except me. We have a village that I drive through on my way to and from work. Over here, when you get to a built up area, the name of the town/village is shown on a yellow sign. This automatically means - unless otherwise indicated - a speed limit of 50kph (by schools etc it is clearly marked as 30kph). This village has recently had its boundary extended because some car showrooms have been built with a roundabout instead of a junction almost at the end of the village. The yellow sign was moved to the far side of the roundabout. No signs or anything have ever been put up to warn motorists that this stretch of road has gone from a 70 zone to a 50 zone. The simple fact of moving the sign has been deemed, by TPTB, as enough.

And of course everyone speeds down this stretch. With the result that people like me, who know about the speed limit (and need our licences) who drive at 50 are flashed at, honked at and otherwise tailgated until the BMWs can go round us after the end of the village.(just when we are accelerating away, to make it even more stupid)

And so... there is now often a speed camera, pointing one way in the mornings, the other way in the evenings. And I know that some people have been caught twice on the same day...

To the point of this. On my way home the other day, I was approaching the speed camera (at a shade over 50kph) and all oncoming cars were flashing me a warning about the speed trap. Everyone, without exception, assumed that all other cars were speeding.

how mental is that?

Burning oil for Jeeeeezus Shame on you SWL for using the great master to support your argument