You're from an anti-car city
This is a deeply foolish statement, frankly: London has had traffic problems since before the motor car even existed. A car sized vehicle (motor or horse powered) is an inefficient use of space, something in short upply in cities. London is famous for inventing underground trains as a way of tackling traffic before cars even existed.
and you're complaining about the state of driving in it? Yeah, that's what happens when you're in an anti-car city.
No it's what happens if you're in a vaguely pro-people city. Funny that the car-brained assume that pro people is anti car.
Even in London, I just picked two random locations. By car 30 minutes, by bike 40, by public transit 68 minutes, and by walking, 2 hours. I'll do this as many times as you'd like, it'll almost always come up that way.
I clicked on your link and it said: car 58 minutes, public transport: 49 minutes, walking 2hr17 minutes, cycling 40 minutes. So... I don't think your link say what you think it says. And as regular user of such services, I find the time by car is usually an underestimate and the time by public transport an over estimate.
Your average European city's public transit commute times are worse than Los Angeles's, a city whose transit is famous for traffic.
Cool story.
Yes, cars are faster. And it's not remotely shocking that they are.
And yet you posted a link to me where car are slower. Why'd you do that, then?
Cars are only faster if they are provided with truly colossal amounts of infrastructure. At their busiest points, the Lizzie line transports in a single direction the combined capacity of the widest section of the infamous HWY 401.
You think everyone in a city lives at a hospital? *eyeroll*
What are you talking about? Do you think I've had difficulty getting to the local hospital? Do you think my elderly relative (who can no longer drive) does?
Per kilometer, cycling injury rates are much higher than car rates even if you take bike-car collisions out of the equation (also, injuries are disproportionally among the inebriated, just like car accidents).
So 75% for cars, 2% for bicycles...
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
I can't even be arsed with your first so-called fact. So far literally everything you've posted has been wrong, including somehow direct links to travel times.
Ooh, a new route to check! Car 51 minutes, rail 93 minutes, cycling 3h 13 minutes, walking 11 hours. I'm sorry, you were saying?
Again what the actual fuck are talking about. It's a half hour ride on the train. Oh yeah and my memory was correct. I clicked your link. 33 minutes by train, 1 hour 25 by car.
I love the astonishing arrogance you have around cars: you appear to believe you know more about living in a city you don't live in than a native.
Look, cars created the suburbs.
Look, no they didn't. I grew up in Suburban London. The suburb and its railway station predates the rise of the motor car. If you're talking about American style 'burbs? Then... well you can keep those.
First off beyond continuously returning to your restrictive definition of cars,
You mean the common one? No one here calls vans, lorries or motorbikes "cars". I like how you shifted the goal posts from freight to commercial traffic then whined at me about how I didn't address a point you didn't make then listed many jobs. Many of which don't use cars, incidentally.
Grocery delivery is almost always done here in vans with chiller units, for example, etc.
it's all the same infrastructure that they use. The lower the utilization rate, the more expensive construction and mainetance becomes per unit traffic.
And yet congestion is also considered to cost the economy a lot of money.
False. Driving is about as represented in the disabled as the general population (60-80% of trips), but is essential to large classes.
False. TFL publish this data. Disabled Londoners have less access to cars than non disabled. You literally can't drive if you are blind or have a variety of other medical conditions.
The largest disabled demographic has trouble walking or standing. A bus trip (let alone a walk) requires walking to the stop, waiting outdoors in variable weather (sometimes without a bench or shelter), boarding and getting seated, and walking from the final stop to the destination.
Yes, and? Ignoring that London provides extra services for disabled people (we are having to ignore a lot of stuff). My elderly relative does all that, and has trouble walking and standing. Though I suppose trouble by London standards maybe not by car culture standards. His trip require all of those things, though he does own a coat so you know he's had to make sacrifices.
The alternative is never going anywhere because he can't drive any more.
For neurodivergent people or those with traumatic brain injury
And yet my elderly relative take the bus and train.
A trip is full of uncertainty - broken bus ramps,
I suppose you have numbers on how frequent that is... or are you jut inventing problems? I also like your implicit assumption that cars also never break down. That was neat.
Cars deliver door-to-door, with climate control
I kind of forgot how deeply wussified the car addicted are! Climate control!
and offer an immediate place to rest.
Oh yeah I forgot it's impossible to it down when you're on foot.
https://www.medicalsupplies.co...
Note that website does not exists and all the products are fake because cars.
Bikes are flat out for the vast majority of the disabled.
There's a chap round my way who rides a trike. He' got a hi viz vest announcing to anyone behind that he has epilepsy.
I don't really know why you're obsessing about bikes quite so heavily. They're only something suitable for, say, 90% of the population.
The biggest difference with the disabled is the driver/passenger split. In the US, for example, 84% of car trips are as the driver. For disabled adults, it's just over 60% - double the odds of being a passenger.
So the solution is to be rich enough to be chauffeured everywhere and/or have no independence? Yikes! This is your pro car argument?
