5 ms·

This is all band-aid style stuff. The real issue is that personal cars don't need to be driven in Inner London, petrol or diesel. It's simply unnecessary, publi

This is all band-aid style stuff. The real issue is that personal cars don't need to be driven in Inner London, petrol or diesel. It's simply unnecessary, public transport here is fantastic and more buses could easily pick up the slack. A blue-badge style disabled exemption, and more frequent inspections for things like emergency services / trade vehicles. Done. The diehards can use electric cars if they wish. Lewisham/Hither Green, where this girl lived, has frequent trains into Central London (15-20mins), buses all over the place, and Google Maps' current estimate to cycle in to London is 33 mins (vs 36 mins for driving).

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
So now you’ve changed from diesels should be taxed out of existence, unable to explain that position, to now include petrol and that no one should drive in London at all. Ok then.
- esotericn 7y ago
  People can drive in major cities if they wish, but they should pay for the externalities imposed on residents. Both petrol and diesel cars pollute above acceptable levels, I'm not willing to accept that a car with "reduced pollution" is clean when alternatives are readily available.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >I'm not willing to accept that a car with "reduced pollution" is clean when alternatives are readily available. That’s exactly what you just did when you said electric cars would be ‘ok’. In 2015 less than 25% of power was renewable generated in U.K. So pardon me, but my problem isn’t with your lack of understanding on the topic - it’s that you have strong and seemingly contradictory opinions that directly relate to what should and shouldn’t be “taxed out of existence”. I might be more forgiving if you say what you mean up front instead of moving goal posts. In this case, I think your original post you should have said “I think only rich people should be allowed to drive in London”.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      I support carbon taxes as well. Crazy how far steelmanning can get you.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        So by moving the goal posts, never being able to technically support your opinions, and being generally ignorant on the topic you have strong “everyone needs do as I say” opinions about... Has someone explained that to you as what a “steelman” argument is?
        esotericn 7y ago
        I don't think that people need do as I say at all. I think that the externalities of private ICE cars should be priced in. It is absurd that I can drive an ICE car about in London for an hour for less than the cost of a pint.
- pushpop 7y ago
  The GP was right. There is very little reason for most people to need to drive in central London. In fact most of my London based friends either don’t have a driving licence or do and keep their car in a location outside of London. Unless your job requires driving, there’s no incentive to drive in central London. It’s slower than public transport (slower than even waking on some streets), more expensive than public transport and more stressful than public transport.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > Unless your job requires driving, there’s no incentive to drive in central London. Then nobody does it?
    - esotericn 7y ago
      That's not quite how these things work. There's no incentive (other than a bit of ephemeral fun) for a person to drink until they pass out, but people do it anyway. Humans are not perfectly rational utilitarian beings - and we shouldn't be. There's nothing wrong with a bit of fun here and there. But when that fun negatively affects others (and tens of thousands of fume belching cars driving through your street as a rat run certainly falls in that camp) we should act.
      - kgwgk 7y ago
        What does the word “incentive” mean to you? People do drive in London, so they have their reasons (however unreasonable they may look to you). And probably “fun” is down on the list. Unless you think, Berra-style (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/29/too-crowded/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/29/too-crowded/), that nobody drives in London because it’s too congested. But in that case there would be no need for congestion zone charges to de-incentivize something that nobody was doing anyway.
        pushpop 7y ago
        I get your point but you’re also missing the fact that there will always be a need for private hire vehicles (taxis, Uber, chauffeurs, etc), buses, delivery drivers and other goods vehicles too. Some of the streets I’ve worked in were congested just with those types of traffic and the incentives there are pretty clear: they’re getting paid to driving in central London. Clearly there are going to be people who fall outside of that group and still choose to drive. As I said in my other post, you’ll always get statistical outliers. But for the vast majority of people who live and/or work in London, we will use public transport, bike, or walk. Some of us might drive into Greater London and pick up the Tube. But very few of us would contemplate driving into central London as part of our daily commute.
ProxCoques 7y ago
I'd love to know what sorts of reasons are given for driving a private car inside the congestion zone. I've been this close to tapping on a window of some dude in a BMW stuck in traffic in Soho or some place ask them why the hell they're there. - I've driven in from Leeds and am going to Brighton and it's cheaper than the train? - I could go by bus but it would be 50 mins as opposed to 20? - I just want to drive my car and I don't care? - I've got a case of champagne I need to get to a friend? - Something else? It's pretty mysterious. Mind you these days it's hard to tell if a car's a taxi or not with Uber and things but I wonder if the Mayor's office has any data on reasons for vehicle use?
- esotericn 7y ago
  There really doesn't need to be a reason other than "because I want to", because the incremental impact of one car is low enough that no-one really thinks about it. If you think of people who drive cars as some sort of careless demons you've missed the point really - it's purely an economics problem. I own a car and have used it to drive in on occasion just because I can. It's fun to roll about the streets and do stuff like drive down Shaftesbury Avenue. This is precisely why taxation is necessary, because people don't realise that what they're doing is an issue in aggregate. If you had to pay the cost of a taxi to get to the local supermarket then people would figure out alternatives like cycling/taking the bus fairly quickly (and the supermarkets would adjust their business models, you'd see smaller ones more dispersed). I think part of the issue is that people can't seem to juggle the concept of something being fun and good but ultimately damaging. I might enjoy a pint every now and then, but I'm fairly happy about the fact that we tax it.
- alimw 7y ago
  I don't understand this comment. You've thought up some good reasons, so why the mystery?
benj111 7y ago
"A blue-badge style disabled exemption" Why? Why not change motability so that it only includes electric vehicles? Or are you suggesting banning all vehicles? In that case what's wrong with public transport/mobility scooters?
- esotericn 7y ago
  The former would work too. Primarily that's just me recognizing that obviously there are some people that have reason to be driving. I'm not sure that mobility scooters / wheelchairs would be adequately handled by all public transport at the moment even in London, there would probably be a lot of repressed demand, or people would just stay indoors. A 60-person bus might have one or two wheelchair spots; a mobility scooter won't go on them at all; I very rarely see either on the trains despite it being technically possible. A lot of tube stations are not step-free. I'm not suggesting banning vehicles; I'm suggesting taxing them appropriate to the damage they cause so that fewer people see "go for a drive through tons of residential streets" as a normal / accepted thing to do.
frereubu 7y ago
I agree with your premise, but peak-time trains on those lines are horrifically overcrowded. Unless you can somehow magic more capacity on the same lines - which was tried recently by tweaking timetables to add a very small amount of extra capacity, which was an utter disaster - you're getting into trying to add lines and / or longer stations in one of the most crowded parts of the UK, with a NIMBY culture like no other. I don't mean to just talk down your ideas, but I don't see the practical fix here in infrastructure terms.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Sure, but it's definitely not the case that Lewisham only has an issue with people driving at peak time, and trains are not the only answer either (if someone is driving over taking the train, then it can't be impossible to design bus routes that would work for them even if perhaps slightly less optimal). Basically any hour of the day people will be rattling up and down the South Circular, up and down the rat runs, etc. I used to live near a long arterial road. I would do things like count the cars whilst waiting for the bus. It had buses every 15 minutes, and between each bus you'd have way more cars than the number of people that would fit on a bus. Unless we say they just wouldn't make that journey otherwise, increasing taxes on private cars can help with the transition that could make that bus every 7 minutes instead (which would eventually be self fulfilling due to fare intake).
  - frereubu 7y ago
    Peak time is when the vast majority of people travel though. If that doesn't change, it feels a bit like tinkering around the edges. You're right about the buses and passenger number, but I don't think they'll easily replace fast rail routes. I used to live in Forest Hill, which has the south circular running through it. I tried taking buses into the centre of town but it took ages, although I suppose you might be able to run "express" buses with fewer stops if there was more space on the road. I just hope that whoever the mayor is during the next few administrations uses the ULEV to exponentially ratchet up the pressure on cars, so there's a breathing space that can be filled by public transport before people jump to electric cars and we end up with both cleaner air and less congested roads.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

So now you’ve changed from diesels should be taxed out of existence, unable to explain that position, to now include petrol and that no one should drive in London at all. Ok then.

esotericn 7y ago
People can drive in major cities if they wish, but they should pay for the externalities imposed on residents. Both petrol and diesel cars pollute above acceptable levels, I'm not willing to accept that a car with "reduced pollution" is clean when alternatives are readily available.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >I'm not willing to accept that a car with "reduced pollution" is clean when alternatives are readily available. That’s exactly what you just did when you said electric cars would be ‘ok’. In 2015 less than 25% of power was renewable generated in U.K. So pardon me, but my problem isn’t with your lack of understanding on the topic - it’s that you have strong and seemingly contradictory opinions that directly relate to what should and shouldn’t be “taxed out of existence”. I might be more forgiving if you say what you mean up front instead of moving goal posts. In this case, I think your original post you should have said “I think only rich people should be allowed to drive in London”.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    I support carbon taxes as well. Crazy how far steelmanning can get you.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      So by moving the goal posts, never being able to technically support your opinions, and being generally ignorant on the topic you have strong “everyone needs do as I say” opinions about... Has someone explained that to you as what a “steelman” argument is?
      - esotericn 7y ago
        I don't think that people need do as I say at all. I think that the externalities of private ICE cars should be priced in. It is absurd that I can drive an ICE car about in London for an hour for less than the cost of a pint.
pushpop 7y ago
The GP was right. There is very little reason for most people to need to drive in central London. In fact most of my London based friends either don’t have a driving licence or do and keep their car in a location outside of London. Unless your job requires driving, there’s no incentive to drive in central London. It’s slower than public transport (slower than even waking on some streets), more expensive than public transport and more stressful than public transport.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > Unless your job requires driving, there’s no incentive to drive in central London. Then nobody does it?
  - esotericn 7y ago
    That's not quite how these things work. There's no incentive (other than a bit of ephemeral fun) for a person to drink until they pass out, but people do it anyway. Humans are not perfectly rational utilitarian beings - and we shouldn't be. There's nothing wrong with a bit of fun here and there. But when that fun negatively affects others (and tens of thousands of fume belching cars driving through your street as a rat run certainly falls in that camp) we should act.
    - kgwgk 7y ago
      What does the word “incentive” mean to you? People do drive in London, so they have their reasons (however unreasonable they may look to you). And probably “fun” is down on the list. Unless you think, Berra-style (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/29/too-crowded/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/29/too-crowded/), that nobody drives in London because it’s too congested. But in that case there would be no need for congestion zone charges to de-incentivize something that nobody was doing anyway.
      - pushpop 7y ago
        I get your point but you’re also missing the fact that there will always be a need for private hire vehicles (taxis, Uber, chauffeurs, etc), buses, delivery drivers and other goods vehicles too. Some of the streets I’ve worked in were congested just with those types of traffic and the incentives there are pretty clear: they’re getting paid to driving in central London. Clearly there are going to be people who fall outside of that group and still choose to drive. As I said in my other post, you’ll always get statistical outliers. But for the vast majority of people who live and/or work in London, we will use public transport, bike, or walk. Some of us might drive into Greater London and pick up the Tube. But very few of us would contemplate driving into central London as part of our daily commute.

ProxCoques 7y ago

I'd love to know what sorts of reasons are given for driving a private car inside the congestion zone. I've been this close to tapping on a window of some dude in a BMW stuck in traffic in Soho or some place ask them why the hell they're there. - I've driven in from Leeds and am going to Brighton and it's cheaper than the train? - I could go by bus but it would be 50 mins as opposed to 20? - I just want to drive my car and I don't care? - I've got a case of champagne I need to get to a friend? - Something else? It's pretty mysterious. Mind you these days it's hard to tell if a car's a taxi or not with Uber and things but I wonder if the Mayor's office has any data on reasons for vehicle use?

esotericn 7y ago
There really doesn't need to be a reason other than "because I want to", because the incremental impact of one car is low enough that no-one really thinks about it. If you think of people who drive cars as some sort of careless demons you've missed the point really - it's purely an economics problem. I own a car and have used it to drive in on occasion just because I can. It's fun to roll about the streets and do stuff like drive down Shaftesbury Avenue. This is precisely why taxation is necessary, because people don't realise that what they're doing is an issue in aggregate. If you had to pay the cost of a taxi to get to the local supermarket then people would figure out alternatives like cycling/taking the bus fairly quickly (and the supermarkets would adjust their business models, you'd see smaller ones more dispersed). I think part of the issue is that people can't seem to juggle the concept of something being fun and good but ultimately damaging. I might enjoy a pint every now and then, but I'm fairly happy about the fact that we tax it.
alimw 7y ago
I don't understand this comment. You've thought up some good reasons, so why the mystery?

benj111 7y ago

"A blue-badge style disabled exemption" Why? Why not change motability so that it only includes electric vehicles? Or are you suggesting banning all vehicles? In that case what's wrong with public transport/mobility scooters?

esotericn 7y ago
The former would work too. Primarily that's just me recognizing that obviously there are some people that have reason to be driving. I'm not sure that mobility scooters / wheelchairs would be adequately handled by all public transport at the moment even in London, there would probably be a lot of repressed demand, or people would just stay indoors. A 60-person bus might have one or two wheelchair spots; a mobility scooter won't go on them at all; I very rarely see either on the trains despite it being technically possible. A lot of tube stations are not step-free. I'm not suggesting banning vehicles; I'm suggesting taxing them appropriate to the damage they cause so that fewer people see "go for a drive through tons of residential streets" as a normal / accepted thing to do.

frereubu 7y ago

I agree with your premise, but peak-time trains on those lines are horrifically overcrowded. Unless you can somehow magic more capacity on the same lines - which was tried recently by tweaking timetables to add a very small amount of extra capacity, which was an utter disaster - you're getting into trying to add lines and / or longer stations in one of the most crowded parts of the UK, with a NIMBY culture like no other. I don't mean to just talk down your ideas, but I don't see the practical fix here in infrastructure terms.

esotericn 7y ago
Sure, but it's definitely not the case that Lewisham only has an issue with people driving at peak time, and trains are not the only answer either (if someone is driving over taking the train, then it can't be impossible to design bus routes that would work for them even if perhaps slightly less optimal). Basically any hour of the day people will be rattling up and down the South Circular, up and down the rat runs, etc. I used to live near a long arterial road. I would do things like count the cars whilst waiting for the bus. It had buses every 15 minutes, and between each bus you'd have way more cars than the number of people that would fit on a bus. Unless we say they just wouldn't make that journey otherwise, increasing taxes on private cars can help with the transition that could make that bus every 7 minutes instead (which would eventually be self fulfilling due to fare intake).
- frereubu 7y ago
  Peak time is when the vast majority of people travel though. If that doesn't change, it feels a bit like tinkering around the edges. You're right about the buses and passenger number, but I don't think they'll easily replace fast rail routes. I used to live in Forest Hill, which has the south circular running through it. I tried taking buses into the centre of town but it took ages, although I suppose you might be able to run "express" buses with fewer stops if there was more space on the road. I just hope that whoever the mayor is during the next few administrations uses the ULEV to exponentially ratchet up the pressure on cars, so there's a breathing space that can be filled by public transport before people jump to electric cars and we end up with both cleaner air and less congested roads.