Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“We needed to act”: Parents set up unofficial guerrilla School Street after several near misses for children cycling on narrow road used as shortcut by motorists

But the local transport councillor criticised the campaigners for “taking the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road”

Parents of children attending a primary school in Worcester, where children riding their bikes have been put in danger by motorists using a narrow, nearby lane as a shortcut, have established their own guerilla School Street by blocking both ends of the road at school pick-up times, in response to the “horrendous” road safety conditions in the area.

However, the local county council’s cabinet member for transport has criticised the parents’ unofficial actions, which he claims has seen them take “the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission”.

Road safety issues have long been a source of frustration and concern for teachers and parents at St George’s Roman Catholic, a small primary school in Worcester. Tucked away, as one parent tells road.cc, on the corner “where a narrower road meets an even narrower lane”, the school has been the sight of numerous near misses involving motorists and children cycling and walking to school.

“There is no room for a pavement, pedestrians and bikes have to squeeze along the side wall to make way for a car, it’s even worse when a van passes,” Isabelle, a resident who has walked her children to school for many years along Thorneloe Walk, the scene of most of the road safety issues, and a volunteer with the school’s Bike Bus, tells road.cc.

“Vehicles reaching the corner of the Walk have to perform a three (or more) point manoeuvre there, which is also the main entrance to school for children on foot/bike/scooters. You can imagine the mayhem at school times!

“The brick wall opposite the school gate has been knocked down twice, and temporary boarding now makes the corner even narrower.”

> Student cycling to school knocked off bike after being hit by parent driving a car, suffers minor injuries

Isabelle says that there have been several attempts by the school to address the safety issues over the past decade, including weekly ‘bike to school’ initiatives, warnings to parents not to use Thorneloe Walk if travelling by car, and attempts to monitor parking and driving in the area by the council.

An attempt in 2020 to set up a School Street, an initiative adopted throughout Great Britain in recent years which restricts the use of motor vehicles outside schools at drop-off and pick-up times, applying to both school and through traffic, was met with a lacklustre response from Worcestershire County Council, which Isabelle says left parents “completely discouraged”.

> Councils across England ignoring government advice to roll out School Streets

After the brick wall on the lane was knocked down again last November, a petition to install bollards or create a School Street received over 200 signatures within a week – only for the petitioners to be told by the council that their expectations were “unrealistic”.

The issue again came to a head last week, when the closure of a main road next to the school, due to a burst water pipe, prompted many drivers to begin using Thorneloe Walk as a short cut.

“Within hours, the traffic through Thorneloe Walk, which is normally bad, became horrendous,” Isabelle, who posted a video on Twitter of the chaotic traffic situation as the Bike Bus attempted to make it to school, says.

“Lorries tried to squeeze through, then had to reverse, cars came head to head from both ends of the walk. All of this in the midst of children.

“It became evidence for us – the county council has not helped the community for over 10 years, the likelihood of an accident was at that point higher than ever. We needed to act and make our voices heard!”

On Monday, several parents, clad in hi-vis jackets, set up their own School Street on the lane, to allow their children to walk and cycle to and from school safely.

“It is quite simple to set up: you need a barrier, cones, people, hi-vis, a clipboard for that official look, some leaflets to explain your action and school streets principles, and a smiley face,” Isabelle says.

“We are lucky to have had support from our local city councillors and from Bike Worcester, which is a pressure group promoting active travel within the city.”

She continues: “The amount of positive feedback has been overwhelming. Parents and residents are thanking us every day for taking a stand. I was particularly touched by parents standing in solidarity with us and sharing their horror story of seeing their child nearly run over by the school.”

The parent’s action, the necessity of which was underlined yesterday morning when a lorry driver crashed into a wall on Thorneloe Road, adjacent to the makeshift School Street, has garnered support from several local politicians, including Green Party city councillor Karen Lewing.

“School Streets are popping up around the country, but the county council does not yet have a policy. They say they are working on one but they’re not working as fast as we would like,” she said this week.

The initiative was also praised on Twitter by broadcaster and cycling campaigner Jeremy Vine, who said that “we need to move away from the idea that people who own large metal boxes get priority over the rest of us just because they have an accelerator pedal. It’s nuts.”

> Mum compares school run to “going into battle” as Sustrans calls for School Streets to be introduced in Northern Ireland

However, not everyone is fully behind the unofficial School Street.

Councillor Mike Rouse, cabinet member with responsibility for Highways and Transport at Worcestershire County Council, criticised the parents and residents for taking matters into their own hands.

“I cannot condone campaigners taking the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission,” he tweeted. “We need to work together to effect change, not force our ideas onto communities without being certain that they’ve consented.”

He continued in a statement: “School Streets and similar initiatives need the support of the school and the local community together in order to become formalised and be successful in the long term.

“School Streets are just one way of encouraging active travel by walking and cycling to and from our schools, we have also achieved this in areas around the county by installing crossing points, and dropping nearby kerbs to allow easier access to do this.

“Where actions like [those at St George’s] have happened elsewhere we see a rise in community tensions, so we call on all those involved to work with us constructively and not to take the law and road safety into their own hands.”

> Children take to the barricades to save School Street

Nevertheless, Isabelle says the success of the makeshift School Street has led to talk that the county council will soon begin to actively promote the initiative, with guidance reportedly being prepared by the Highways department.

“We do hope that the safety of children and their families on the way to school will finally become a priority in Worcestershire,” she says.

Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

116 comments

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
0 likes
Adam Sutton wrote:

...
Heres the facts of my point.

EVs in the immediate term remove emmissions from where they do the most harm. Local community.

That's much of it, the detail is important:

EVs can help as part of our greenhouse gas emissions reduction, though that's all secondary to heating as I think you've mentioned. We'd get a lot of benefit by looking at ways to change our transport patterns (eg. not driving short journeys). But that's hard, whatever is fuelling our cars.

EVs in the immediate term remove *some* of the emissions from where they do harm. Since we've regulated on engine nitrogen oxides and particulates the other sources of particulate emissions are important - from tyres and braking. They're no different with electric cars.

EVs allow centralisation of power generation which means it's possible to make that cleaner and feed in more long-term (and less global-warming-o-genic) power generation sources. Of course it also hides where the power is generated and how.

Apart from emissions they don't change the other negatives of mass motoring e.g. *locally* - lots of cars and people not wanting to walk or cycle around them. Also that people don't walk or cycle because they already have their car.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to chrisonabike | 9 months ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

That's much of it, the detail is important: EVs can help as part of our greenhouse gas emissions reduction, though that's all secondary to heating as I think you've mentioned. We'd get a lot of benefit by looking at ways to change our transport patterns (eg. not driving short journeys). But that's hard, whatever is fuelling our cars. EVs in the immediate term remove *some* of the emissions from where they do harm. Since we've regulated on engine nitrogen oxides and particulates the other sources of particulate emissions are important - from tyres and braking. They're no different with electric cars. EVs allow centralisation of power generation which means it's possible to make that cleaner and feed in more long-term (and less global-warming-o-genic) power generation sources. Of course it also hides where the power is generated and how. Apart from emissions they don't change the other negatives of mass motoring e.g. *locally* - lots of cars and people not wanting to walk or cycle around them. Also that people don't walk or cycle because they already have their car.

Its not so much details as common sense as to where we are today.

The simple fact is also that cycling, as much as those here (myself included) love it and find it works. It just isn't viable for a large number, even the majority of people.

If you want to get people out of cars then the key is public transport, cheap, reliable and frequent public transport that works. But we don't have that, far from it.

Make that change and then people will likely migrate to using other transport, but as it stands that isn't going to happen. I probably cycle more miles than I drive in a year now, but public transport just doesn't work locally here and I am not even out in the back of beyond, so the car stays. 

Its fine to harp on about the "other negatives" but lets not forget that like it or not there are positives to the car, it just needs to be used appropriatly.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
0 likes
Adam Sutton wrote:

Its not so much details as common sense as to where we are today.

The simple fact is also that cycling, as much as those here (myself included) love it and find it works. It just isn't viable for a large number, even the majority of people.

I differ in the question of "how long" and "what changes can we hope to influence".  Nothing is "viable" without change at some point.  We drive cars to the extent we do because of choices - lots of them political choices (it wasn't just "the market").  It's clearly possible that a much larger fraction of the (mostly short) journeys could be cycled.  People do choose to do it en-mass and transport choices can be changed within a decade.  People even do it in small but increasing numbers in places in the UK - where we make it convenient.

Cars will be with us for decades, but choices we make now can change whether we get the same number or more - or less.

I think we should focus on more than simply swapping the power supply of cars (which seems to be about as far as government planning goes).

Adam Sutton wrote:

If you want to get people out of cars then the key is public transport, cheap, reliable and frequent public transport that works. But we don't have that, far from it.

Make that change and then people will likely migrate to using other transport, but as it stands that isn't going to happen. I probably cycle more miles than I drive in a year now, but public transport just doesn't work locally here and I am not even out in the back of beyond, so the car stays.

Yes - one thing we could do here is pick up on the synergy between public transport and cycling (or electric scootering etc).  However in the UK better public transport alone won't be enough to get many people to switch journey modes.  It needs a push as well as a pull.  But that would mean we need to change / we can't keep our routines the same...

Adam Sutton wrote:

Its fine to harp on about the "other negatives" but lets not forget that like it or not there are positives to the car, it just needs to be used appropriatly.

Agree - but that last point is the tricky bit!  Many people are happy with "taming the car" - just as long as it isn't their car, their essential journey, their freedom.

What do you think appropriate use is?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
2 likes

All harm minimisation of sorts and as you say if we centralise generation that can allow economies of efficiency.  Lower global-warming methods can be added without the consumer doing anything.

"Agnostic" cuts both ways though.  Currently it allows people to point at their vehicles and appliances and say "look no emissions" (and they do) and think or act no further.  Of course they're just somewhere we don't know or care about.  Humans don't learn or change if the negative effects happen at distance - or not for some time.  That's part of the reason we're were we are.

On less dependancy on imports - are we growing our own nuclear fuel now?

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to chrisonabike | 9 months ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

On less dependancy on imports - are we growing our own nuclear fuel now?

In terms of imports the point is we are literally importing generated power from the continent at great cost. As well as this there have already been issues with these cables, so this is another risk to the UK energy security.

Drop the disengenous crap, of course we don't "grow our own nuclear fuel" but it is energy dense and produces clean power, the waste is far less of an issue as well.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
0 likes
Adam Sutton wrote:

In terms of imports the point is we are literally importing generated power from the continent at great cost. As well as this there have already been issues with these cables, so this is another risk to the UK energy security.

Drop the disengenous crap, of course we don't "grow our own nuclear fuel" but it is energy dense and produces clean power, the waste is far less of an issue as well.

I think you're right that a massive increase in nuclear is what we will go for. We've been trying to increase capacity for some time. It's currently proving to be slow to get plants built and in an effort to make this happen we've already signed up to contracts which will make the electricity expensive when it does come on-stream.

It's still relying on fuel imports from places further away though - places which we may not have as good relations with as with our neighbours. So it's not a fuel security panacea.

If you're thinking long- term the nuclear waste (and decommissioning plants) is certainly that. Again though it shifts the problem domain - we know we've got to slash the greenhouse gas emissions pronto, here or on our behalf elsewhere.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 9 months ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

I think you're right that a massive increase in nuclear is what we will go for. We've been trying to increase capacity for some time. It's currently proving to be slow to get plants built and in an effort to make this happen we've already signed up to contracts which will make the electricity expensive when it does come on-stream. It's still relying on fuel imports from places further away though - places which we may not have as good relations with as with our neighbours. So it's not a fuel security panacea. If you're thinking long- term the nuclear waste (and decommissioning plants) is certainly that. Again though it shifts the problem domain - we know we've got to slash the greenhouse gas emissions pronto, here or on our behalf elsewhere.

I have my doubts about the practicality of nuclear power for electricity generation compared to renewables. There's this 25 year study: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible (research published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3).

I think the much quicker turnaround of solar will end up making a big difference as people/companies can invest money into solar and have it being productive almost immediately as the construction is a lot easier. Nuclear requires a whole industry based around it and there's a significant lead time between investment and getting energy out of it. Also, we don't have feasible small scale nuclear, so it's not like people can decide to start generating their own power that way, but solar is trivial for people to buy and deploy and has minimal upkeep (I've heard that's why it's very popular with automated irrigation systems for growing drugs in some countries).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 9 months ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Nuclear requires a whole industry based around it and there's a significant lead time between investment and getting energy out of it.

Oh yes, it's not a quick fix. Also it's an intensely centralising technology - which has good and bad sides (eg. promotes long term stability of the managing authorities and wider cooperation, but also requires same). It displaces some of the problems even further into the future.

The debate seems to be about whether anything other than "like-for -like" replacement (in terms of how end users experience it) is possible and about the timescales. Solar can be speedier to roll out but even optimistically I don't think it can allow us all to keep using the same amounts of energy. Handy for the solar-powered helmet applications though.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to hawkinspeter | 9 months ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:
chrisonatrike wrote:

I think you're right that a massive increase in nuclear is what we will go for. We've been trying to increase capacity for some time. It's currently proving to be slow to get plants built and in an effort to make this happen we've already signed up to contracts which will make the electricity expensive when it does come on-stream. It's still relying on fuel imports from places further away though - places which we may not have as good relations with as with our neighbours. So it's not a fuel security panacea. If you're thinking long- term the nuclear waste (and decommissioning plants) is certainly that. Again though it shifts the problem domain - we know we've got to slash the greenhouse gas emissions pronto, here or on our behalf elsewhere.

I have my doubts about the practicality of nuclear power for electricity generation compared to renewables. There's this 25 year study: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible (research published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3).

I think the much quicker turnaround of solar will end up making a big difference as people/companies can invest money into solar and have it being productive almost immediately as the construction is a lot easier. Nuclear requires a whole industry based around it and there's a significant lead time between investment and getting energy out of it. Also, we don't have feasible small scale nuclear, so it's not like people can decide to start generating their own power that way, but solar is trivial for people to buy and deploy and has minimal upkeep (I've heard that's why it's very popular with automated irrigation systems for growing drugs in some countries).

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2022/the-potentia...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
1 like
Adam Sutton wrote:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2022/the-potentia...

That looks like off-the-shelf nuclear plants which would be a good step forwards. I still think that the speed, ease and cheapness of solar is going to be hard to compete with as nuclear still involves locking away your money for a while until the thing can be built and operated.

Ultimately, we should be aiming for a mixture of technologies as there's a mix of pros and cons for most energy production.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to hawkinspeter | 9 months ago
1 like

We absolutely need a mix of tech as they all have pros and cons, but coupled together can provide a fairly comprehensive solution (long term). I think for solar it should work in a different way, large scale is a problem in terms of space required. (edit for rendells benefit, as I thought of sometheing else) Though there are plenty of places where deployment on a larger scale can work. Last year we visited the crossness pumping station, fascinating if smelly, and obviously being sewage works there is a lot of land that is unusable, but this now had quite a large solar array on it.

The government rollbacks of incentives on solar was a mistake, as to me it makes sense on a local level. The majority of households now are efficent enough with regards electricity consumption (most of the time) that even a small solar system on the roof would provide close to, if not 100% of a household energy need a lot of the time. We generally tick-over at around 300W with lights and TV on in a detached house. Both working from home is still less than 500W and my other half runs a lot of test equipment while working.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
2 likes
Adam Sutton wrote:

We absolutely need a mix of tech as they all have pros and cons, but coupled together can provide a fairly comprehensive solution (long term). I think for solar it should work in a different way, large scale is a problem in terms of space required. (edit for rendells benefit, as I thought of sometheing else) Though there are plenty of places where deployment on a larger scale can work. Last year we visited the crossness pumping station, fascinating if smelly, and obviously being sewage works there is a lot of land that is unusable, but this now had quite a large solar array on it.

The government rollbacks of incentives on solar was a mistake, as to me it makes sense on a local level. The majority of households now are efficent enough with regards electricity consumption (most of the time) that even a small solar system on the roof would provide close to, if not 100% of a household energy need a lot of the time. We generally tick-over at around 300W with lights and TV on in a detached house. Both working from home is still less than 500W and my other half runs a lot of test equipment while working.

Car parks would be a great place for solar installations - shade/rain protection for the vehicles and a nice revenue stream too.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to hawkinspeter | 9 months ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Car parks would be a great place for solar installations - shade/rain protection for the vehicles and a nice revenue stream too.

Plenty of public buildngs are big enough, and it could be used to provide cheaper services of whatever they provide to the customer.

Couple the car park idea with places like shopping centers and you can cut the energy consumption of a place that likely draws a substantial amount of power from the grid.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 9 months ago
1 like

What about just putting the solar panels on the cars?  Cut out the middleman.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to chrisonabike | 9 months ago
1 like

Rolls Royce have tabled small modular reactors. These would be quicker to build and be in the 500MW range, would use proven technology from their work with nuclear subs and create jobs too. I think this would be far more workable than planning large scale, as has been the case so far. As I've said elsewhere it's about ensuring a baseload to work with that unstable renewables can then add into.

Avatar
TheBillder replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
2 likes
Adam Sutton wrote:

Rolls Royce have tabled small modular reactors. These would be quicker to build and be in the 500MW range, would use proven technology from their work with nuclear subs and create jobs too. I think this would be far more workable than planning large scale, as has been the case so far. As I've said elsewhere it's about ensuring a baseload to work with that unstable renewables can then add into.

A lot of "would" in there. RR have not "tabled" SMRs; they have floated the idea of getting a large subsidy for having a go at making some.

We do need baseload capacity, but the nuclear industry has been confident that the next amazing technology has been just around the corner since before I was born, and I'm not young. Thorium, fast breeder and fusion reactors were all going to be transforming lives when "the year 2000" still seemed far away and exotic.

The SMR concept will also need lots of communities to accept a reactor close by, and that's a really tough sell.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to TheBillder | 9 months ago
0 likes

Undoubtedly will have its own set of challenges, but also undoubteldy would be a lot quicker to get up and running than somewhere like Hinley point C, and won't be beholden to foreign companies and governements like Hinkley is with EDF.

Avatar
peted76 | 9 months ago
1 like

I feel a bit sorry for Councillor Mike Rouse.. I reckon he's getting a bad rap here.. I mean I don't know the fella but looking at his twitter feed he looks pretty legit in favour of active travel 'n' stuff.. obvs there's the elephant in the room is that there's a problem which the locals have 'fixed' quickly and with common sense.. but this is 'councils' we're dealing with here.. and they are rubbish. In his position he should be responsible for (e.g. stopping that rat run) but things are rarely as clean cut as we think.. and y'know.. councils.. where people who have nothing better (elected folks) to do with their lives meet people who want to do nothing with their lives (office based council workers).  

Avatar
brooksby | 9 months ago
10 likes

That reaolly doesn't look like motor vehicles should be allowed through...  It looks like a footway, although I can't see any problem with letting cyclists through too.  But motor cars (and skip lorries!)?  That's a definite no from me.

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 9 months ago
19 likes

“I cannot condone campaigners taking the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission,” he tweeted. “We need to work together to effect change, not force our ideas onto communities without being certain that they’ve consented.”

where to begin? Every billion that is spent on a road junction, road widening, by - pass, car park, out of town retail centre . . . Where is the consent? Yet every little LTN or cycle lane has to go through months of consultation, backlash and media hysteria. 

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 9 months ago
7 likes

With a growing population, expaning developments and housing you are of course going to need infrastructure to support it and this will include road expansion and reworks, it's a given. The problem is when there is no joined up thinking about provisioning beyond roads, expanding public transport and taking the opportunity when spending those millions/billions on roads to integrate cycling facilities to give the option for reducing the traffic by supporting active travel. 

I currently have an ongoing discussion with a local councillor about the poor infrastructure around here, and lack of foresight when building new housing over the last 10 years or so to provide cycling facilities beyond "shared paths", this started after she lauded the addition of the white line past a school in the attached photo. She has suggested getting together to discuss, so lets see if anything comes of it. Currently collating various video of the challenges and indeed dangers of the local cycle infrastructure to pass on.

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
10 likes

"will include road expansion and reworks, it's a given"

No it's not. Not if you don't consider motorised transport as the be-all and end-all of mobility. I think you should reflect on this if you've got the chance to speak about mobility with a politician.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to marmotte27 | 9 months ago
0 likes

LMAO! And people wonder why so many have a dim view of "cyclists"

Back in the real world, yes it does. Unless you expect buses to fly for starters.

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
3 likes

Yes, road widening etc. happens mostly for buses, a well known fact.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to marmotte27 | 9 months ago
1 like

Actually around here yes. A fastrack bus network was put in, one of the issues though and one I have raised is that cyclists are not allowed to use these bus lanes, and instead are expected to use the pavement alongside which has just been designated shared use. In the broader picture though buses need roads, and are the means for a lot of people to get around locally, and a means to reduce car use locally also.

Avatar
Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
7 likes

Of course the irony is some of, if not the worse driving, comes from parents dropping their crotch goblins off at school.

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
6 likes

That's part of the whole problem of people not being able to see the common good, only their own immediate advantage. But these people have at least the excuse of caring about the safety of their children (to use a more civilised term), even if it is extremely shortsighted.

Someone who should know better though is a "County Councillor for Highways and Transport", especially since the complaints about that place are not a recent phenomenon. For him acting for the common good is not optional.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to marmotte27 | 9 months ago
5 likes

When it comes to parents there is more selfishness than any common good. Our local school has had to install CCTV after a number of kids have been injured by other parents driving. Near to my parents the road becomes outright dangerous at home time as there are two schools along the road. The pavement and junctions are blocked by parents parked up and the main road narrowed to the point of gridlock if anything like a bus tries to get throgh.

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to Adam Sutton | 9 months ago
6 likes

As cyclists we know better than most that this "selfishness" is hugely compounded by expressing itself through 2 tonne (and more) metal boxes driven at high speeds.

But that is so normalised that even you consider it "a given" (see your latest comment above and my answer to it).

That's why we here, having most of us the advantage of being quite well informed on these matters, have got to recognise the *systemic* nature of the problems riddling our mobility. Individual daily assessments of (percieved) risk and the immediate answer to them (most of the time: use a car) are just the outcome of far larger dynamics at play. In a society were car use (and in a larger context, fossil fuel use) is just totally baked in, it is that fact and the dire consequences stemming from it that needs to be at the forefront of every discussion.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to marmotte27 | 9 months ago
0 likes

It is a "given" beacause in reality, in the real world, for many public transport is not an option, nor is cycling. You can pretend all you like that that isn't the case but it simply is. The issue is when roads for cars alone is the sole focus. I think you are confusing being "informed" with "bias" and an unrelenting myopic view.

The fossil fuel arguement, especial with respect to cars is largely moot since there is an increasing shift towards elctrification. Audi plan to be seeling EVs only in 2026, Alfa in 2027 as an example. Two brands steeped in motorsport and tradition.

Pages

Latest Comments