Are world leaders "delusional" when it comes to active travel? COP26 discussed, plus how to layer up for winter riding on episode 12 of the road.cc Podcast

Rich_cb wrote:

I think we should see electric cars as a transition technology. How long did it take the Netherlands to move from a car centric society to its current situation? Decades I believe. We are much further down the road of car dependency than they were when they started the transition to active travel. It will take a long time to wean society off cars and some degree of car dependency is now likely permanent. This is even more true in the US. As we begin the transition away from cars we need to rapidly minimise the carbon intensity of car use in the interim. Electrification is one part of that.

Transition to what?

So we're going to replace cars with cars. Maybe they have more lights / are quieter / are "smarter" - but still cars with current tech in the next 5 - 10 years I'd say.

Then what? "You had cars before and over the last 20 years you switched to cars. So now we'd like you not to have cars"?

I do agree that we seem to be stuck ATM. Electric cars is sort of harm minimization - or at least changing a few of the problem domains (now we need lots of rare earth metals / have to fix what we do when they're old etc.) It's frustrating because there are examples from the continent (and not just the Dutch) of how we might start to make changes towards a reduced car future. But it may just not be possible to move UK society much from where we are. (Yes - our leaders definitely did push us further and faster down the path of cars before so it seems they can have some effect).

Personally I think driverless cars will render the whole discussion moot.

Prior to the invention of the car horse manure was one of the most pressing problems for urban planners. Many felt it almost insurmountable.

I think we'll look back on all the problems associated with private car ownership in the same way.

Rich_cb wrote:

Personally I think driverless cars will render the whole discussion moot. Prior to the invention of the car horse manure was one of the most pressing problems for urban planners. Many felt it almost insurmountable. I think we'll look back on all the problems associated with private car ownership in the same way.

Well, if you're comparing private car ownership with piles of horse manure, then I'd have to agree.

Rich_cb wrote:

Personally I think driverless cars will render the whole discussion moot. Prior to the invention of the car horse manure was one of the most pressing problems for urban planners. Many felt it almost insurmountable. I think we'll look back on all the problems associated with private car ownership in the same way.

I hope so, but if we aren't doing anything until they sort out the issues with driverless cars, it will be far too late.

Ho do driverless cars reduce congestion if everyone currently driving switches to a driverless car? The reduce the need for parking and the amount of resources going into car manufacture but they don't reduce journeys, in fact they likely increase journeys as the driverless car goes from a to b to c to d instaead of car 1 going a to b and car 2 going c to d.

Then there is the issue of where they go during off peak times, do they trundle off to some massive yard, or just spend the day circuling the city awaiting customers?

Additionally self driving cars will be so much cheaper than taxis that they will increase the number of people willing and able to pay for singe occupancy tansport.

And all this with them being so far away from making them able to function in anything but the most simple environments.

They reduce congestion by increasing car occupancy.

Average car occupancy is about 1.1 I believe. Get that to 2 and you've virtually halved the cars on the road.

If the cars are designed as several private pods there will be little incentive to pay more for exclusive use. Taxation could also be used to make this option much more expensive.

When not in use they can go to the same places cars go now, the only difference is there will be far fewer of them so a greater percentage can be parked in multistories etc freeing up road space even further.

They're really not that far away from readiness. A completely driverless taxi service is in operation in Phoenix, Arizona and in trial stages in San Francisco. Munich is slated for a launch next year. By 2030 I expect them to be a common sight in most major cities.

Rich_cb wrote:

Average car occupancy is about 1.1 I believe. Get that to 2 and you've virtually halved the cars on the road.

If the cars are designed as several private pods there will be little incentive to pay more for exclusive use. Taxation could also be used to make this option much more expensive.

The private pod thing is a good idea. Some people I know, who have had a bad experience of COVID, have refused to use public transport since and just drive for all journeys above about a mile. This would help them.

Nothing we can do on climate change will be a silver bullet and so we have to use a range of mitigants. Personally, I'd suggest making urban bus and train travel free, with major investment in electrification or hydrogen for the buses. I'd also like to see a big expansion of e-bike usage and legalised e-scooters, which could be more practical than folding bikes for a lot of people.

Many people who are unable or unwilling to use their feet (walk or cycle) for local transport could reduce car usage with such measures.

The rate of car ownership in the Netherlands is on par with other nations, and they have the most dense road network in Europe.They are still quite car centric, but not car dependent. What I see that separated them is the policy of making roads safety-centric not on personal convenience. They weren't seeking to substitute cars but make it possible to walk or cycle safely in an environment dominated by cars; but in doing so they make alternatives to cars an attractive and convenient option.

Having compact cities and towns with mixed use developments also played a role in that success. Countries like the USA and Australia which adopted Euclidean zoning and low density housing resulting in massive urban sprawl will have a much harder time trying to adapt and will be far more difficult to get citizens to give up car dependency.

Unfortunately, the bicycle industry doesn't create the high number of well paying jobs that the automotive industry does.

That is all that our government and every other government globally will be concerned about. That the environment loses out is of little concern to them.

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Unfortunately, the bicycle industry doesn't create the high number of well paying jobs that the automotive industry does.

That is all that our government and every other government globally will be concerned about. That the environment loses out is of little concern to them.

You're exactly right. Yet 25,000 new jobs in London alone by 2030: https://road.cc/content/news/report-london-bicycle-economy-could-hit-ps5....

I know that the opportunities for dung shovellers have reduced since Karl Benz unleashed his car in 1885, but there are an awful lot of other things that need doing and whilst we will need to be better at the transition than we have been in the past (e.g. ex coal mining villages), we can't not do it.

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Unfortunately, the bicycle industry doesn't create the high number of well paying jobs that the automotive industry does.

That is all that our government and every other government globally will be concerned about. That the environment loses out is of little concern to them.

I keep looking at the departure point for other countries that have done a bit better on mass cycling *. There are of course lots of factors, but in The Netherlands (aside from still having lots of cyclists) fatalities affecting the families of influential people and fuel shortages plus the other manifest problems of cars e.g. congestion. Not so sure on the others but Copenhagen also seems to have been inspired by fuel issues and widespread environmental protests. Seville is a bit different and seems to owe this to some political horse-trading.

A cynical opinion that the main way things happen (top down) is via money. Cycling and walking are cheap. The fact that they are and use a fraction of the resources needed for motor vehicles is the attaction. I think that this is also the reason why they have little political / organisational support. Backing bikes - even though they may be overall a better financial choice than cars (also here)- is going to look like voting against money. Or at least telling lots of people they can't have the big sum of money now.

So I think one of the better hopes is for for more ministers, MPs and councillors to be stuck in traffic regularly, to be told their loved ones have been "in an accident" while cycling / walking, for their children to be asthmatic. For us all to have an interruption in the fuel supplies.  It needs to be a long one too as the traffic changes during of the Covid lockdown seem to have been forgotten.

* I'm assuming most others think that would be a good idea - after all it's low-cost widely useable private individual door-to-door transport which ticks lots of other positive boxes. Apart from a couple of posters of course who for reasons of contrarianism, car-fancying or cyclist elitism express the opposite.