| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Reducing our reliance on cars | |
| Posted by: | Richard Carter | |
| Date/Time: | 13/02/19 23:09:00 |
| Only thing in your post, Ivonne, that I would challenge is the statement that "The first thing that people say is ban cars." Actually, I don't think anyone has said that (certainly not here on the forum), what we're arguing for - it's even on the heading - is that we need to reduce our reliance on the car. As Ruth says, the way the car is dominating our lives is horrendous; a small example: have a look at a photo of a typical town street from, say, the 1950s and compare it with one taken today (I've seen such comparisons but I can't put a finger on one just now): the way cars have taken over the road space is devastating. The car has brought great benefits - but at a terrible price in reduced health and life generally. Actually, another point about PHS: you say, rightly, that to stop cars going through PHS would merely displace them elsewhere, so that our benefit would be gained at the expense of people where the traffic was displaced to. The answer, though, is to reduce flows through PHS *and other areas too* in a parallel exercise in traffic reduction. It's commonly argued that if you reduce traffic in some ares it will merely crop up somewhere else, but that makes the basic error of assuming the the volume of traffic is fixed. It isn't: levels are dynamic, and if it's more difficult to drive then some will be put off, depending on the level of difficulty. That's why the traditional solution of making it flow more quickly is so wrong, because if you improve the flow it only encourages those presently deterred from joining the road and thus reproducing pollution as before, but with more cars. That's why an overall solution is needed (road pricing is one way of reducing the number of vehicles on the roads) but the big if is whether governments have the guts to confront the car lobby, and so far none have, not here anyway. |