Nuxx:D5ee0e08-a6ca-4589-b9f3-cde50d78c5fa@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Newsflash: Bullying Motorists DOESN'T WORK Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 102 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.154.123.12 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1240670196 21646 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2009 14:36:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:36:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.154.123.12; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.9) Gecko/2009040821 Firefox/3.0.9 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6642 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:697936

What a surprise. Cars are so useful that when drivers are faced with anti-motorist measures such as reduced speed limits and higher charges, they don't drive any less, they just make other sacrifices, and of course get pissed off with the government's anti-motorist ways (and the interfering minority who support them).

When are the car-hating crowd going to get the message that simply making things more unpleasant for motorists doesn't stop them driving? Anyone who is really that hellbent on getting people out of their cars would be much better off working on providing a decent alternative to the car which drivers would actually choose over their cars. But of course the carrot approach doesn't come easily to the majority of car-haters, who are generally spiteful, unpleasant, bullying, dishonest individuals (e.g. Chapman) who much prefer the stick approach.

Which may well explain why we're *still* getting all these anti- motorist measures despite their evident lack of effectiveness in preventing the terrible crime of driving, and the fact that motorists often have NO CHOICE because the car is the only remotely effective way for them to get around. What is the point of trying to bludgeon someone into not doing something that they have no alternative but to do?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/a= rticle6128614.ece

Busy roads, slower speeds, extra taxes =96 but we'll carry on driving Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Britain is more dependent than ever on cars, according to a study published today. Even the poorest families are increasingly reliant on them, and when motoring costs rise they prefer to sacrifice other household spending rather than stop driving.

The number of cars has grown seven times faster than the population. There are 29.6 million cars, up 30 per cent from a decade ago. Over the same period the population has grown by 4 per cent to 60.6 million.

The RAC Foundation commissioned a team of academics from Oxford University, Imperial College and University College London to investigate how reliant Britons were on their cars. They found that people opted for them even for journeys that could easily be walked or cycled and were used for 78 per cent of journeys of two to three miles. Just over three quarters of homes had a car and ownership had grown fastest among the poorest fifth of households, up from 35 per cent in 2000 to 49 per cent in 2006.

The foundation said that government policies purporting to reduce car use =97 such as raising fuel duty and road tax =97 could increase social exclusion by penalising poor families. The researchers found a significant fall in the number of homes within easy walking distance of a grocer or chemist.

In addition to analysing Department for Transport data, the team gathered evidence from focus groups and found scepticism about the potential for replacing car trips with public transport. One 75-year- old participant said: =93You can get to town [by bus] all right, but Sainsbury=92s is a mile and a half that way, Tesco=92s is a mile and half the other way. There=92s no supermarket in the centre of town.=94

The team detected the beginning of a generational divide in attitudes to car travel, with growing use among the over-70s but falling use among those aged 16 to 29. However, the fall in young people=92s car use was partly due to their taking longer to obtain driving licences. Once qualified, they become as reliant on cars as older generations.

The average distance travelled by car per person has stabilised in recent years despite the big increase in ownership. The average car travelled 152 miles a week in 1996 but only 132 miles in 2006. The report said that congestion had caused average speed of trips to fall from 25.7 miles per hour in 1995 to 24.6mph in 2006, possibly discouraging people from making more journeys. However, many drivers preferred to queue in their cars even when they knew that public transport would be quicker. The report quoted a recent Department for Transport study that concluded: =93Sitting in congested traffic conditions was seen as being more comfortable than waiting for a train or bus and drivers felt more in control. Drivers also saw the benefits of time alone, safety and independence.=94

Women are slightly more dependent on cars than men, using them for about 77 per cent of the total distance they travel, compared with 74 per cent for men.

Professor Stephen Glaister, the foundation=92s director, said: =93More than four out of five people say they would find it difficult to use their cars less. It is a myth to claim public transport is the magic answer. The Government=92s emphasis on high-speed rail ignores the reality of most people=92s lives.

=93The car is the bedrock of our society and our economy. It has democratised this country. There is no question of getting rid of cars. Instead we must change the type of cars we use =97 smaller, lighter, more fuel-efficient models with less CO2 emissions.=94

He said it would be fairer to tax people for the number of miles they travelled than for owning a car. =93The Chancellor should shift emphasis away from taxing people on what they own to what they use. This is likely to be through national road pricing. The trade-off for drivers would be the abolition of road tax and fuel duty, and more spending on the road network.=94