[rogersavage]

60% of trips made by cars are less than 5 miles while 25% are less than 2 miles. In some areas as high as 71% of trips by cars are under 5 miles and 43% are less than 2. All these journeys would have been walked or cycled previous to the 1950s when car ownership became popular. Is it any wonder there is an ongoing obesity and congestion problem in towns?

Some journeys by car could indeed be done by foot or cycle. I choose to walk or cycle when I can for short journeys. However, some people actually have to transport heavy/valuable items or are unable to go on foot or by bike (e.g. disabled, elderly). To say that all these journeys would have been walked or cycled prior to the 1950s perhaps shows your overeliance on statistics and an ignorance of reality, my friend. It was also safer to walk or cycle in the '50s, because the reality or fear of crime was far less. As for obesity, it has nothing to do with transport choices and everything to do with diet. Congestion has more to do with poor council planning and their anti-car schemes - traffic volumes have not increased markedly.

It is myth that all trips generate GDP or contribute in some way to the wellbeing of society. While no one can deny that car travel has increased people’s liberty and mobility this has come at social cost. A little less car use might actually be beneficial, but the point is when you start looking at the figures of fuel consumption you soon begin to realise that is it a tall order to replace the fuel used by these vehicles by some other means. I’d be delighted if someone could come up with a sensible and sustainable plan to fuel increasing car usage and other heavy oil use (Eg airlines) but so far there is very little, if any evidence that this could be done, certainly in the timeframes being talked about, if at all.

All trips benefit Treasury coffers, but of course that money is wasted by New Labour on hair brained schemes and on transporting govt officials round by, ahem, car. How can you say that liberty and mobility have come at a cost - what cost exactly? Apart from the increasing cost to the individual to maintain liberty and mobility... As for 'sustainability' (if ever a word was overused, that's it!), where there's a genuine will, there's a way and technology advancements hold the key. Of course, some people (e.g. socialists masquerading as environmentalists) will try to make out there's no way forward for modern transport, simply because they have a quasi-Luddite agenda which involves restricting freedom of movement...

As for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.

I'm sorry, did I actually write that? No - and you're an idiot for typing it.

Your arguments hardly marry up very well, do they. On the one hand, you say there are too many cars for the resources we have available. On the other hand, there can never be too many people... Hardly very consistent, is it?

We must recognise that poverty and depletion of the world's resources hardly fit in with continued overpopulation (often in poor countries with fewer resources and even less money). Tackling overpopulation doesn't involve some Mugabe-like regime, you know...

One last request - think about the logic behind your arguments before you type.

Roger

[shakespear1]

Mass transport was destroyed in many US cities to such an extent that people prefer to drive a car for even the shortest of trips.

I used to live in Milwaukee and as a kid ( late 60's and early 70's ) I recall that there was an excellent bus system which people used a lot. It was run by the city.

Then it was privatized and slowly got worst and worst. Fewer buses, fewer routs and higher and higher price. At the same time freeway system was expending and people drove car more and the bus less. Suburbia was grow fast at this time.

Now in Milwaukee primarily the poor ride the bus

[Wildwell]

60% of trips made by cars are less than 5 miles while 25% are less than 2 miles. In some areas as high as 71% of trips by cars are under 5 miles and 43% are less than 2. All these journeys would have been walked or cycled previous to the 1950s when car ownership became popular. Is it any wonder there is an ongoing obesity and congestion problem in towns?

Some journeys by car could indeed be done by foot or cycle. I choose to walk or cycle when I can for short journeys. However, some people actually have to transport heavy/valuable items or are unable to go on foot or by bike (e.g. disabled, elderly). To say that all these journeys would have been walked or cycled prior to the 1950s perhaps shows your overeliance on statistics and an ignorance of reality, my friend. It was also safer to walk or cycle in the '50s, because the reality or fear of crime was far less. As for obesity, it has nothing to do with transport choices and everything to do with diet. Congestion has more to do with poor council planning and their anti-car schemes - traffic volumes have not increased markedly.

It is myth that all trips generate GDP or contribute in some way to the wellbeing of society. While no one can deny that car travel has increased people’s liberty and mobility this has come at social cost. A little less car use might actually be beneficial, but the point is when you start looking at the figures of fuel consumption you soon begin to realise that is it a tall order to replace the fuel used by these vehicles by some other means. I’d be delighted if someone could come up with a sensible and sustainable plan to fuel increasing car usage and other heavy oil use (Eg airlines) but so far there is very little, if any evidence that this could be done, certainly in the timeframes being talked about, if at all.

All trips benefit Treasury coffers, but of course that money is wasted by New Labour on hair brained schemes and on transporting govt officials round by, ahem, car. How can you say that liberty and mobility have come at a cost - what cost exactly? Apart from the increasing cost to the individual to maintain liberty and mobility... As for 'sustainability' (if ever a word was overused, that's it!), where there's a genuine will, there's a way and technology advancements hold the key. Of course, some people (e.g. socialists masquerading as environmentalists) will try to make out there's no way forward for modern transport, simply because they have a quasi-Luddite agenda which involves restricting freedom of movement...

As for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.

I'm sorry, did I actually write that? No - and you're an idiot for typing it.

Your arguments hardly marry up very well, do they. On the one hand, you say there are too many cars for the resources we have available. On the other hand, there can never be too many people... Hardly very consistent, is it?

We must recognise that poverty and depletion of the world's resources hardly fit in with continued overpopulation (often in poor countries with fewer resources and even less money). Tackling overpopulation doesn't involve some Mugabe-like regime, you know...

One last request - think about the logic behind your arguments before you type.

Roger

Of course most journeys in towns were walked or cycled prior to the 1950s, the average working person couldn’t afford a car until this time. The Morris Minor and Mini revolution changed all of that. It’s a basic fact. Moreover, if you are driving more instead or cycling (most car trips are under 5 miles) it stands to reason that less exercise means more weight gain. Okay, people in those days did far more manual work as a rule, but car reliance and office work means less exercise and potentially less calories burned and you would obviously put on weight.

Benefiting the treasury coffers is not the same as generating GDP. There are huge external costs of cars in terms of accidents, pollution and congestion. This means society as a whole is paying. There is also damage to the road to be considered. Are you aware, that HGVs do not pay their way in terms of damage they cause compared to the tax they pay? Most of the rest of the tax take is used to pay benefits.

New Labour does not have a policy of restricting movement. And no I’m not a supporter either.Are you aware they deduct loss of road tax when doing cost-benefit analysis of public transport schemes? They are not especially pro public transport if you care to look into the facts, creating a lot of red tape for the rail system and trying to swamp the system down through ridiculous, costly, H&S issues and badly regulating bus services.

There are basic mathematical and logistical facts why you cannot solve congestion in urban areas. Please look at some public planning and road engineering documents before coming out with such tabloid remarks. To give you an idea if the problem, if the 2 million people that travel into central London every morning by bus, tube and trains transferred to individual cars, those cars would stretch from London to York….New York. Moreover if each car has a buffer in order to drive along a highway of around 28 feet, in front and behind, those cars would stretch around the world. The only way you can do it is offering a bus service that can shift 7,000 people per lane per hour, or a rail service that can shift 30,000-75,000 people per hour per track packed in trains. This is why these forms of transport have a considerable modal share in urban areas. To shift 2 million people by individual cars in 90 minutes into central London you would have to build 10 new 50-74 lane roads. Those are facts.

People should be attracted out of cars by good quality fast and clean public transport or telecommuting to solve these problems, nobody in government or on these forums has suggested restricting movement.

There is no war against the motorist, the cost of motoring hasn’t changed for 30 years and motor traffic has at least doubled. Your remarks are irrelevant to this debate about energy depletion; you are referring to one which concerns congestion and pollution.

As for too many cars, are you aware transport uses 70% of oil based products? So it is very much a transport issue. I too hope technology can solve it, I’m glad you enjoy driving your car, but there may come a time where technology cannot solve basic facts about energy depletion – indeed technology usually creates more demand. If this is the case a plan B is needed and population reduction doesn’t happen very easily or quickly and certainly not overnight. And China is very much an issue, especially as they already have population reduction laws and currently uses 1/18 of the oil per capita the US and 1/12th of the oil the average European uses – rising fast, mainly to do with cars.

Keep the insults to yourself and please investigate the problem, it’s certainly nothing to do with any sort of machine smashing or communist agenda.

And finally, in the 'real world' as you like to put it we have based our entire way of life on a finite treasure chest of energy. Let's hope it can be replaced.

[Novus]

Far more energy is used to power and heat homes, but nobody would argue that this is a necessity.

Roger

It is a chemical crime against humanity the way we waste energy with our cars. A single gallon of gasoline has nearly 1 billion BTUs of energy. That is enough energy to heat a modest home for a week. With our car commutes we waste several of these precious gallons every day and think nothing of it. There will come a time in the post peak world were every BTU will be numbered. During WWII gas and heating oil was rationed to two gallons a week. So what are we to do? Drive to work once or heat the home for a week?

[Wildwell]

I thought I’d post this since Rogersavage insists it’s all down to a government led conspiracy. He says road traffic has hardly changed, in fact since 1950 road traffic has gone up 9 times from just over 50 billion vehicle KMs to over 450 billion vehicle KMs.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 5789-1.gif

Source, Department of Transport.

Of course people here know people have to carry items and disabled/elderly people need mobility – although most of that latter group do not drive. The problem is fully realised. That isn’t the point, the issue is how are the problems of energy depletion solved? Rogersavage is clearly hoping for a technology fix, but offers no solutions himself or gives numbers.

Cars themselves have gone from 20 billion vehicle KMs (about half the bus travel now) to 370 billion in 1998, and over 400 now. In other words, car traffic has gone up 20 times.

Blindly posting that anyone here is to blame for the problems that have been created is the height of stupidity, even if it's just by silly insults. Indicating that there is a communist agenda to keep motorists off the road, when clearly everyone has failed 20 times over since 1950 is frankly moronic.

Note the graph ends in 1998, since then vehicle KMs have gone up another 50 billion or so. There are now more than 10 times the vehicles there was in 1950. Interestly Passenger KMs for rail have stayed about the same, despite there being half the network now compared to then and bus travel has fallen slightly.

Looks like a lot of increased car travel to me.

Notice the steep rise in traffic between 1982 and 1992. This correlates with the huge road building campaign by the conservative government at the time, which is where the idea of building roads generates more traffic comes from as well as measuring flow in a given area after improvements.

[rogersavage]

There is no war against the motorist, the cost of motoring hasn’t changed for 30 years and motor traffic has at least doubled. Your remarks are irrelevant to this debate about energy depletion; you are referring to one which concerns congestion and pollution.

Keep the insults to yourself and please investigate the problem, it’s certainly nothing to do with any sort of machine smashing or communist agenda.

I don't really know why I'm replying, because you've clearly got some mental 'issues'. Here's some evidence...

As for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.

This was your response in reply to myself putting forward the argument (I thought this was a debate) that the world is perhaps overpopulated. You clearly are unable to reply or debate in sane language, without twisting people's words. Aren't you therefore guilty of being insulting and offensive? You're a hypocrite of the worst type, my friend.

As for the cost of motoring being unchanged in 30 years, you're just plain wrong. Did we have to pay £5 to enter London *each day*? No. Fuel (and fuel duty) costs are higher than they've ever been too. Around £40bn is raised each year in motoring taxation and only around £8bn is spent on the roads annually (source: HM Treasury).

Are you aware, that HGVs do not pay their way in terms of damage they cause compared to the tax they pay? Most of the rest of the tax take is used to pay benefits.

Utter and total garbage, but I'm not surprised.

I thought I’d post this since Rogersavage insists it’s all down to a government led conspiracy. He says road traffic has hardly changed, in fact since 1950 road traffic has gone up 9 times from just over 50 billion vehicle KMs to over 450 billion vehicle KMs.

That's right, governments and politicians all work for the common good and never have any agendas. Have you taken your medication today?

I didn't say that road traffic had hardly changed, I said it hadn't risen markedly (and I meant recently - last decade or so - since when the congestion debate has really come to the fore). Using more up to date DfT figures (ONS Transport Statistics Bulletin, Q1 2003), you will find (although probably ignore) that urban traffic increased by only 5.8% between 1993 and 2002. The major growth in the same timeframe was on motorways, where traffic increased by 35.6%. Yet, traffic volume is measured in kms - but if you stop to think about it for a second, you could have five cars doing 10,000 miles a year, or one car doing 50,000 miles a year. It's not a perfect measurement and only an estimate at best. I drive 25K a year and I can tell you that the volume of cars has not increased much on the routes I drive (over the last 10 years). Where congestion results, it's due to traffic light changes (or placing them straight after urban roundabouts), slow traffic (including traffic calming schemes) and council road closures (some permanent) or lane closures for roadworks (often poorly planned). I report what I see and I don't just rely on government 'statistics' too heavily.

Indicating that there is a communist agenda to keep motorists off the road, when clearly everyone has failed 20 times over since 1950 is frankly moronic.

What could be more communist than trying to drive everyone onto mass transportation (to which nobody genuinely can say is aspirational or desirable, especially with the yob culture Britain has now), by pricing them off the roads? Nobody has tried so hard to milk the motorist as New Labour - I'm talking about now, not the last 50+ years, by the way.

Notice the steep rise in traffic between 1982 and 1992. This correlates with the huge road building campaign by the conservative government at the time, which is where the idea of building roads generates more traffic comes from as well as measuring flow in a given area after improvements.

Roads don't generate more traffic (you called my comments moronic?) - traffic may shift from one road to another (e.g. bypasses), but they don't generate more traffic.

You can slag me off all you like (it's not worth me replying again) - at least you've proved to me where your real concerns lie (it's nothing to do with concern about energy supplies or finding a solution). You're simply another anti-car extremist who likes the sound of their own voice and tries (and fails) to score points off anyone with a differing viewpoint. It's just a pity that you don't admit it or realise how damaging ignorant people like yourself could be to the future of both Britain and the world at large.

Roger

[rockdoc123]

Maybe slightly OT but I had a recent eye opening experience. Europeans always seem to love to brag about how they are not tied to motor vehicle transportation...how they are far superior in attitude than North Americans because they use public transport. I was recently in the Netherlands and it just so happens there was a train strike on.....lots of cars on the roads. I asked my driver the question of whether the traffic (which was pretty bad) was exacerbated by the strike...he said that no...it is pretty much that bad every day...when there is a strike people who take transit often stay home. Not only was the traffic very heavy (we are talking M1 or Katy freeway in rush hour heavy) but I was astonished by the lack of smart cars and the prevalence of a). Land Rovers and b). Jeep Grand Cherokees.....all this at gas prices of about 1.3 Euro/litre. Further questioning told me that a goodly number of people who work in Amsterdam commute fair distances....definitely not as long as people might commute in Toronto, Houston or London but a substantial distance.
Perhaps the Netherlands is a bad example but it seems to me the problem isn't specific to North America.

[shakespear1]

Sounds like the Dutch like the Chinese have given up on the bicycle and just wan to enjoy the humm of the motor in a traffic jam.

Or perhaps it is the wealthy effect.

But on serious note, here in Poland it is the same. They have a good bus system ( in Warsaw ) but a hell of a lot of people use cars to go to work. To compound the problem the roads, streets etc were not designed for high vehicle traffic. Now they are hoping that EU will help them to modernize. OOPS. I guess maybe someone needs to tell them that there may be an oil shortage in the near future and they shouldn't give up on the bus.

[Wildwell]

There is no war against the motorist, the cost of motoring hasn’t changed for 30 years and motor traffic has at least doubled. Your remarks are irrelevant to this debate about energy depletion; you are referring to one which concerns congestion and pollution.

Keep the insults to yourself and please investigate the problem, it’s certainly nothing to do with any sort of machine smashing or communist agenda.

I don't really know why I'm replying, because you've clearly got some mental 'issues'. Here's some evidence...

As for population reduction, what do you suggest, shooting Chinese people in order for you to visit the supermarket by car instead of walking? I guess I’m not alone in finding that entirely unacceptable.

This was your response in reply to myself putting forward the argument (I thought this was a debate) that the world is perhaps overpopulated. You clearly are unable to reply or debate in sane language, without twisting people's words. Aren't you therefore guilty of being insulting and offensive? You're a hypocrite of the worst type, my friend.

As for the cost of motoring being unchanged in 30 years, you're just plain wrong. Did we have to pay £5 to enter London *each day*? No. Fuel (and fuel duty) costs are higher than they've ever been too. Around £40bn is raised each year in motoring taxation and only around £8bn is spent on the roads annually (source: HM Treasury).

Are you aware, that HGVs do not pay their way in terms of damage they cause compared to the tax they pay? Most of the rest of the tax take is used to pay benefits.

Utter and total garbage, but I'm not surprised.

I thought I’d post this since Rogersavage insists it’s all down to a government led conspiracy. He says road traffic has hardly changed, in fact since 1950 road traffic has gone up 9 times from just over 50 billion vehicle KMs to over 450 billion vehicle KMs.

That's right, governments and politicians all work for the common good and never have any agendas. Have you taken your medication today?

I didn't say that road traffic had hardly changed, I said it hadn't risen markedly (and I meant recently - last decade or so - since when the congestion debate has really come to the fore). Using more up to date DfT figures (ONS Transport Statistics Bulletin, Q1 2003), you will find (although probably ignore) that urban traffic increased by only 5.8% between 1993 and 2002. The major growth in the same timeframe was on motorways, where traffic increased by 35.6%. Yet, traffic volume is measured in kms - but if you stop to think about it for a second, you could have five cars doing 10,000 miles a year, or one car doing 50,000 miles a year. It's not a perfect measurement and only an estimate at best. I drive 25K a year and I can tell you that the volume of cars has not increased much on the routes I drive (over the last 10 years). Where congestion results, it's due to traffic light changes (or placing them straight after urban roundabouts), slow traffic (including traffic calming schemes) and council road closures (some permanent) or lane closures for roadworks (often poorly planned). I report what I see and I don't just rely on government 'statistics' too heavily.

Indicating that there is a communist agenda to keep motorists off the road, when clearly everyone has failed 20 times over since 1950 is frankly moronic.

What could be more communist than trying to drive everyone onto mass transportation (to which nobody genuinely can say is aspirational or desirable, especially with the yob culture Britain has now), by pricing them off the roads? Nobody has tried so hard to milk the motorist as New Labour - I'm talking about now, not the last 50+ years, by the way.

Notice the steep rise in traffic between 1982 and 1992. This correlates with the huge road building campaign by the conservative government at the time, which is where the idea of building roads generates more traffic comes from as well as measuring flow in a given area after improvements.

Roads don't generate more traffic (you called my comments moronic?) - traffic may shift from one road to another (e.g. bypasses), but they don't generate more traffic.

You can slag me off all you like (it's not worth me replying again) - at least you've proved to me where your real concerns lie (it's nothing to do with concern about energy supplies or finding a solution). You're simply another anti-car extremist who likes the sound of their own voice and tries (and fails) to score points off anyone with a differing viewpoint. It's just a pity that you don't admit it or realise how damaging ignorant people like yourself could be to the future of both Britain and the world at large.

Roger

Right lets cut through some of the delusion and rhetoric shall we..

1. Overpopulation. The countries that use the most oil are developed modern democratic nations, where if you take out immigration the population is fairly static. However, now that countries like India and China are getting richer, and buying cars, oil use is shooting up, causing much of the rise in the cost of fuel we see today – nothing to do with a new labour agenda. Indeed they have put off rises in fuel duty twice. This is a finite resource, what do we do? You have offered no solutions. Your response reminds me of a child that wants its parents to give it something they cannot afford.
2. The tax of the motorist (VAT on cars, fuel duty etc) is general taxation and not allocated to road spending. If the government did not raise it through this method they would raise it through general taxation, a greater proportion would be paid by people that cannot afford cars. Do you think that’s fair? While true £8bn is spend on roads, the rest of the money is spent on healthcare, benefits, defence, education and other transport projects, many of which reduce the number of cars and help motorists.
3. The real cost of motoring. Cars are cheaper than they once were and more efficient. And don’t forget the inflation. Here’s the real evidence, as you can see it hasn’t changed much.

http://www.sustainable-development.gov. ... /04t04.htm

4. Report by independent consultants on HGV use. Even the Freight transport association didn’t deny it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/936692.stm

5. I’m not aware people are being driven onto mass transportation. We certainly have some of the highest rail and bus fares in the world. The reason people use it is mainly because it can be quicker or more convenient for their needs. As for aspirational, sounds like you’ve just proven the point I’ve made many times that many drivers are egotists and their vehicles is an extension of their genitals. Personally, I prefer to use the method of transport that best suits my needs and that isn’t always cars, although they are useful. I’ve already explained the basic mathematics behind the congestion problem - you obviously have chosen to ignore it or don’t understand it. Again you offer no suggestions. The reason the congestion charge was applied was because the cost of congestion is an externality which costs business money, the money raised is used to improve transport for everyone. The model share of cars in central London is very small in any case, having driven around there a number of times, cars are just not the best way to move about.

6. Improving any form of transport will generate more traffic as a rule, this includes roads and that has been the conclusion of academic studies.


Finally, you clearly do not understand the peak oil issue and believe you have a right for fuel over and above anyone else. Many countries already cannot afford the basic cost of fuel to pay for basic needs like growing food now causing problems for them and misery. As a driver, you are quite willing to see the price driven up as supply falls away, which will bankrupt business and airlines and cause world starvation. This is nothing to do with being anti-car, the reason I have made arguments in favour for cutting back unnecessary use is to ensure we don’t go demanding the impossible and end up in direct confrontation with other nations. There’s nothing more pro Britain than that.

You can call me ignorant and moronic all you like, the fact is your arguments are pure rhetoric and anecdotal. If you really cannot get out of your car if and when an energy crisis hits and insist that your needs, and the needs to drive are more important that anything else, you may well have a fall back to reality. I’m not anti-car - I’m merely accepting that they do have downsides because unlike you I have the ability not to see things from my own selfish point of view. If and when you accept they have a downside as well as an up you might post some less delusional nonsense.

[Wildwell]

Maybe slightly OT but I had a recent eye opening experience. Europeans always seem to love to brag about how they are not tied to motor vehicle transportation...how they are far superior in attitude than North Americans because they use public transport. I was recently in the Netherlands and it just so happens there was a train strike on.....lots of cars on the roads. I asked my driver the question of whether the traffic (which was pretty bad) was exacerbated by the strike...he said that no...it is pretty much that bad every day...when there is a strike people who take transit often stay home. Not only was the traffic very heavy (we are talking M1 or Katy freeway in rush hour heavy) but I was astonished by the lack of smart cars and the prevalence of a). Land Rovers and b). Jeep Grand Cherokees.....all this at gas prices of about 1.3 Euro/litre. Further questioning told me that a goodly number of people who work in Amsterdam commute fair distances....definitely not as long as people might commute in Toronto, Houston or London but a substantial distance.
Perhaps the Netherlands is a bad example but it seems to me the problem isn't specific to North America.

You are quite correct - all western countries are car reliant. However, it is possible to still move around European countries with a fair degree of ease without one, something even most Americans accept isn't the case in much of the States.

[Wildwell]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/s ... ?vlnk=5690

For the benefit of Roger, who is in the business of 'Well you cannot believe government statistics', which are compiled by the civil service, not the government in any case, here are the lists of industries that are most fossil fuel dependent.

Roger, if you can't be bothered to offer any real evidence and prefer to get your methods of thinking from 'The Sun', 'Daily mail' and ABD please don't bother posting. We all know cars can be useful, but let's move on from this business of thinking they don't have any consequences and weigh up the reality of the situation. We will always have cars; many people might not be able to afford them, like you I’m hoping most people can and use them sensibly. However, nothing is life is guaranteed, especially when based on a finite fuel source, especially when it’s the largest user of that source.

We’ve had 50 continuous years of road building in this country, starting off with dual carriageways in the 1950s, such as the A1, and the Preston bypass and part of the M1 in the late 1950s. Apart from killing 3,500 people a year and injuring the equivalent population of Plymouth (for which any other form of transport would be shut down) drivers now want the rest of the country tarmaced over demolishing people’s homes. There are huge costs in terms of social division, sprawl, pollution, crime and accidents. Most of these roads remain empty from late evening on through until dawn and are not that congested in during the day in many places.

We’ve got enough damn roads, what we haven’t got is decent alternatives in many cases and ways to cure the ‘school run’ and needless trips made by many that just cannot get off their arse.

I do not wish to see the end of motoring believe it or not, but I do wish to see the end of this nonsense that cars are wonderful and everything should be based around them. For a start, we haven’t got the space in this country, especially urban areas to keep building. We have the twin spectres of Peak oil and Climate change. And I know you road lobbyists conveniently ignore all this, but this stuff isn’t funny any more, it could well be China and Asia will be on a collision course with the rest of the world for the resources to run these vehicles. The decisions that are being made now are critical, absolutely critical. Why would any government want to get people out of cars when they are a useful way of raising tax? To really consider all councils and officials are in on some way to create congestion and make life hell to get people on buses is just nonsense. Congestion makes towns and cities unattractive for business, especially foreign business to invest it. I’ve already explained, cars are not a very efficient way of moving people. This is not anti car, this is just plain realism. Sensible use of all transport and proper consideration for sustainability is absolutely reasonable.

[rogersavage]

Roger, if you can't be bothered to offer any real evidence and prefer to get your methods of thinking from 'The Sun', 'Daily mail' and ABD please don't bother posting.

Don't worry, I won't bother posting again after this one. It's not a question of evidence - it's more a case of futility debating with someone who's got their head so far up their own backside that they can't see the wood for the trees. You even believe govt propaganda, for flips sake.

I do not wish to see the end of motoring believe it or not

You've made several statements like this. Keep repeating it and someone might even believe you!

Solutions (if you want them)...

Congestion: could be solved by removing the barriers that have been put in the way of motorists - bus lanes, road closures, traffic 'management' (e.g. speed bumps) that discourage people from using legitimate shortcuts along residential streets, that also happen to be part of the road network.

Climate change: no solution. The climate has changed (hotter and colder) since the beginning of our time on earth. Fact. Nothing we do to reduce fossil fuel emissions will have any impact on the weather now or in the future. Climate change theory simply exists as a way of controlling the masses through fear (historically, using fear of something is a classic way to control/brainwash people - e.g. Hitler and fear of the Jews)

Maintaining our way of life: as I said before, you can run vehicles on virtually anything and this is most certainly scaleable to maintain our current way of life. The barriers that exist to this include oil companies and environmentalists who want to ban any form of personal transportation because it doesn't fit in with their socialist ideals. The Green Party, for example, wants everyone to live, work and socialise in a tiny area - removing the need for travel, as they put it. Check out their website - the info is there.

There are many injustices in the world and also many different agendas, dressed up as something they're not. Everything is not as black and white as Wildwell chooses to believe and surprisingly, reducing usage of personal transportation will cause more damage than good.

Wildwell believes that govt statistics and reports offer nothing but facts and truth. I pity him really. Perhaps one day he'll see the bigger picture...

Goodbye!

Roger

[Wildwell]

The reason speed bumps and traffic management is put in is to stop idiots knocking over kids playing around or near the street, but I don’t suppose you have much sympathy with them, unless it was one of your kids then you would want everything done.

I’ve already explained, bus lanes can shift 7000 people per hour compared to mixed traffic lanes which shift around 800-1400 per hour on street. I don‘t make the plans for traffic, take it up with your area road engineer and get him to explain it.

Well if you don’t believe climate change that’s up to you, the evidence is there for and against, that’s your decision.

Look, nobody is on about banning personal transportation – although there may come a time when fuel is rationed. There are some people here that believe in die off and I frequently get in trouble for not following their way of thinking – I’m an optimist. I don’t believe it because there is a lot of slack in the system and ways of cutting out waste. You carry on driving your car, I don’t want to stop you, but there may come a time when you cannot afford to do it or there are more pressing needs, like getting food on the table.

There are many, many ‘truths’. Roger, you seem like a paranoid delusion individual that thinks people like me are getting at you. Don’t shoot the messenger. My crime is I don't think cars are as wonderful as you do, how dare I point out the downside eh? There's nothing in it for me if you have to travel by bus, I'm just educating you why we cannot pander to the private car all the time. And why should we? A lot of people don't own one or wish to use faster methods of transport to get places or prefer not to drive.

I'll expalin the maths of the 2 million people using cars problem. The average car is what, 9.6 feet? 9.6 x 2,000,000 = 19,200,000 feet.

19200000 feet = 3,636.3 miles. London to New york is 3500 miles.

Of course they need 30 feet or so in front and behind to drive along, so that's 69.6 feet x 2,000,000 = 139200000 feet or 26,363.6 miles, pretty much around the world to get into central London in 90 minutes or so, a few square miles.

http://www.archive2.official-documents. ... td2205.pdf

That's a road engineering document, it quotes 1800 VPH per lane on a grade seperated road (motorway etc). And think about it, if you have a car every two seconds that's 30x60=1800 per hour. The average car load is 1.56, but let's say just one person uses the car to get to work. In 90 minutes we can shift 1800+900=2700 vehicles. To shift 2 million, you would need 2,000,000/2700 = 740 lanes, or 10 x 74 lane roads in one direction or 20 x 74 roads in reality for traffic going both directions. Now do you see?

So you have to use urban rail (75,000 people per hour, per track) or surface rail (30,000 people per hour, per track) or bus lanes, around 7,000 people per hour. It's space constraints, not an agenda.

Parking is also a problem for cars, you need between 15-20 square metres per car. Let's call it 15 x 2,000,000 = 30 million square metres or 11.5 square miles, in other words the whole of central london as a car park.

The truth is nearly 50% of oil use is cars. If we can replace that fuel then great and if we can’t then things are going to get more expensive and difficult choices are going to have to be made whether you like it or not.

You accuse me of having my head up my backside, but it seems to be that your driving needs should be catered for at any cost. You seem like an unreasonable individual that cannot see both sides of the story, and yes I can see yours. However, you argue that we should sod the noise, pollution, deaths and injury…if we need the oil lets go and kill people to get it (you don’t say it, of course, but there might not be any choice). You won’t accept that traffic grows every year and you think it’s because people are out to get you to use a bus, despite the facts presented to you. I’m merely pointing out the downside to your way of thinking, if you cannot see it then more fool you.

Hydrogen: 100,000 windmills are needed or 100 nuclear stations for this country alone. We would need to erect 10 turbines a day for the next 27 years to get anywhere near that figure. Trouble is, you’re just the sort of person to object to these things on your doorstep. Then there’s gas depletion.

Biofuels. A partial solution but there simply isn’t enough land to grow the stuff. You need gas for the fertilisers.

Don’t worry Roger, keep driving your car if that what matters. I’m hoping it can be sorted out as much as you - I want to drive and keep everyone safe too. Trouble is we’re in a minority, 90% of people here think that your going to get dragged out of you car and have the shit kicked out of you as society collapses, if only to get some food or blame someone.

[advancedatheist]

I don't see how BP came up with that figure, however, because I get 0.5 percent growth from the data in this table:
Oil (.pdf)

[Twilight]

I wouldn't sweat 0.1%. It could easily be a rounding error or some inconsistency from different slices of the pie being calculated independently.

[pup55]

http://peakoil.com/fortopic29869.html

A couple of highlights:

About 51% of the oil was produced by 29 countries that produced less in 2006 than in 2005.

Turkmenistan had the biggest decrease in production, 14%. Saudi had a 2.9% decrease. Other decliners: UK 9.6%, Norway, 6.9% , mexico 2.1% and the US only declined .5%, note that 2005 was the Katrina year so basically we got back up to where we were.

Although oil consumption increased globally by .7% or whatever, this was not distributed equally: Belarus increased 19%, Qatar 16%, Saudi about 6%. China 6.7%. The main decliners: Indonesia, -11%, Azerbaijan, -10.7%, Kuwait, -10.4%, Iceland, -5.5%, Turkey, -4.7%, Hong Kong -4.3%, Finland, -4%, Japan 3.8%, and the USA -1.5%.

Saudi Arabia, as they have for the last several years, has claimed 264gb as their reserves.

Mexico's reserves have declined 71% since 1996. Indonesia 's reserves have declined 13%, Malaysia 11%. UK 22%. most of the lucky middle eastern countries claim to have just as much underground as they did 10 years ago.

All in all, an entertaining report, as usual.

[shortonoil]

The ERoEI of world oil, dropped .47% last year. If BP is right, we are losing ground. Since the percentage loss grows geometrically as the ERoEI falls, next year will be worse.

[Troyboy1208]

The ERoEI of world oil, dropped .47% last year. If BP is right, we are losing ground. Since the percentage loss grows geometrically as the ERoEI falls, next year will be worse.

So what does this mean in terms of everyday life in America? More refinery explosions? Higher gas prices?

[advancedatheist]

The ERoEI of world oil, dropped .47% last year.

Okay, how did you come up with that figure?

[shortonoil]

Y=20*(exp(-x-25)/10+2)+1);
the best fit for a curve from Cleveland & Kaufmans calculations of US oil’s ERoEI from 1954 to 1997 plus the generally accepted point of 100:1 for 1930. The .47% number is the slope of the straight line that best fits this equation from 2000 to 2030, extrapolated to world production, by comparison of points on its corresponding Logistics Curve.