Wibbs wrote: » Cycling's great for kids, or for sport, or pastime, largely a pain in the arse for transport beyond a couple of miles and beyond useless if you have to carry any equipment for work or pleasure(buses aren't much cop here either actually).
Thelonious Monk wrote: » planning towns and cities so that we aren't reliant on cars? I was on Capel st last night and it's barely walkable/cycleable/driveable with the amount of parked cars on both sides of quite a narrow st. If they got rid of the parking they could have contra flow bike lanes and wider footpaths. I don't know why priority is given to cars on streets. I'm nearly 40 and have never owned a car, so it isn't necessary always.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Well sorry but you don't know what you're talking about obviously.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I'm nearly 40 and have never owned a car, so it isn't necessary always.
My commute is 10k each way and it's barely strenuous at all. Anyone able bodied who lives within the M50 and works in the centre of Dublin should be able to commute by bicycle. There's nothing quite like the feeling of whizzing by long snakes of traffic.
Wibbs wrote: » WTF? He said he lives and works in the country. And what's this nonsense about "choice". I dunno, here's a mad thought; maybe he was born and bred in a rural area and god forbid wants to stay there. What would you have him do, sell up and move to a small flat in Dublin or Cork and walk to his work cubicle? And you "have to put up with people"? Ah you poor thing. :rolleyes: You must live an extremely sheltered life if you think people chose to live many miles away from work, sitting in rush hour traffic in car or bus(surrounded by the too often unwashed). I hate to break it to you, but 9 times outa 10 it's because that's the only bloody place they could afford to rent or buy.
PGE1970 wrote: » Do you realise how ridiculous and sanctimonious this sounds? I''m thinking that you are just on a wind-up. This is in AH and not motors thread after all.
Tacitus Kilgore wrote: » Come down and live with me for a bit, see how good life is without a car.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Yes some people need cars for work but many dont and they should be encouraged to use other methods to get to work. Otherwise air pollution will just continue to get worse and gridlock will worsen too. What do you suggest we do, continue to encourage more people to drive everywhere whether its necessary or not?
Tacitus Kilgore wrote: » I suggest someone comes up with a decent working alternative instead of just flaming against the car all of the time and telling people it's their choice to own a car - it is a choice, same way breathing and eating are a choice. I own a rake of cars - they are my hobby, I would prefer not to have to drive one of a daily basis because I get no joy from polluting the world on the way to work and do my shopping but there are absolutely no workable alternatives for me. (except of course moving into Dublin city :rolleyes:) "JuSt MoVe To a CiTy" is absolute scutter.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Well i wouldnt live somewhere that required me to own a car so no thanks
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Youve no alternatives, grand. Many who live in cities do though and continue to drive and clog the place up. I would like a less congested cleaner city that is nicer to walk and cycle around much like many of our european counterparts. I hope we are going in that direction.
Tacitus Kilgore wrote: » and to be fair yourself and the OP have done my work for me.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » But in Dublin for e.g., we could have way better public transport if we had less cars on the road and a way safer infrastructure for cyclists, and scooters too why not.
tjhook wrote: » You have it backwards. If more/better public transport was made available, it would be used, and there would be less traffic as a result.
Ray Palmer wrote: » The fact is you chose to live rural and away from work.
biko wrote: » **** off back to Sweden Greta
Tacitus Kilgore wrote: » :pac: excellent retort. Absolutely, those people should walk/cycle/public transport & scoot where possible, I am merely trying to highlight the enormous flaws in the crusade against the motor car, and to be fair yourself and the OP have done my work for me.
maccored wrote: » not this old chestnut again. The answer IS NOT move to a city,
Ray Palmer wrote: » There is your problem right there, it isn't a crusade. You are already assuming that pointing out real concerns as me trying to ban cars. I never said they should be banned or close to it. Pointing out how wasteful cars are and their problems is not a crusade. The fact you are raging over this just shows you have the issue and can't discuss the subject. Why should cars be sold that can go 50% over the speed limit?
Ray Palmer wrote: » If somebody is saying they need a car because of where they live what is the problem with questioning why they chose to live there when it requires a car? Why is the answer not to live close to work and transport?
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Also what is a hairshirt?
Ray Palmer wrote: » Why should cars be sold that can go 50% over the speed limit?
biko wrote: » It's rare to get a glimpse into the mind of someone from the Green Party
guyfo wrote: » Because race tracks exist... so do autobahns... and so do people like myself who thoroughly enjoy the sensation of driving. Your arguments on this are just bizzare. If public transport was better than cars people would use it, but it's not so they don't.. simple
maccored wrote: » Really? Do you have to have it explained to you that people A) might find their niche job outside a city, theres nowhere to rent at reasonable rates in somewhere like Dublin and their employer mightnt be based in a city The problem with 'questioning why they chose to live there when it requires a car' is that its a pretty naive question
sunny2004 wrote: » A thread with those without cars complaining about those with cars.
Ray Palmer wrote: » allowances that are currently there to remain.
