The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Car madness! > Comments

Car madness! : Comments

By Rob Moodie, published 15/6/2006

We need to be eased out of our cars, onto our feet or bicycles, and onto public transport.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
I find the theme or subtext that I detect in several posts here, that transport planning is primarily a matter of preserving personal choice, rather strange. There are undeniably areas of society and governance where personal choice must be curbed in the pursuit of 'the greater good'. There comes a point in urban transport planning where the supremacy of the private motor vehicle has to be reduced because its side-effects become too damaging. We are rapidly reaching that point, and despite the cycnicism and resistance of some, I see signs that governments are beginning to realise it.
Posted by PK, Saturday, 17 June 2006 10:31:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once everyone seems to more or less agree. Alternative transport Good. Cars baaad. How to get P.T. up to scratch? Only the detail gets debated.

Sarnian I think has spotted the likely answer to reducing congestion, which is increased running costs. Pericles pointed out that government at any level won't solve the problem anytime soon. NSW not long ago halved the budget for building & maintaining cycleways in the state, particularly in Sydney where antagonism between motorists & cyclists grows. Mirdanda Devine is a dimwit but she's not the only one who thinks cars rule.

As a committed and long-suffering cyclist I'd be overjoyed to see petrol costs increase to the point alternative transport is more than a quaint idea.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 18 June 2006 3:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian “The traffic problem WILL be solved and quite soon as the price of oil continues to climb.”

That is so true.

The “market” should determine the popularity of car transport.

Fuddy state or federal governments should not attempt to manipulate those market trends, as they have done in the past, by subsidising public transport with funds form private transport.

Ultimately, petrol prices will have to exceed $10 litre before I would think of converting to public transport (it is not that I love cars, more that the cost per hour of my TIME means cars will almost always “win” and public transport always be a poor 99th (2 to 98 being cheaper cars or motorcycles).

I guess a lot of mum’s, driving kids to play group, will hit the wall of economic necessity along time before me but that is their market decision too, I had to walk to school when I was a kid and childhood obesity is a current problem, not something which was around when I was in primary school.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 18 June 2006 7:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with your ultra-capitalist stance on this Col is that it denies any value to any form of government assistance, in any form.

>>Fuddy state or federal governments should not attempt to manipulate those market trends, as they have done in the past, by subsidising public transport with funds form private transport.<<

Under this banner governments would presumably not be allowed to a) tax the young and healthy to subsidise the sick and elderly, b) tax the smart to subsidise education for the dim, c) tax the pacifists to subsidise the armed forces, d) tax the law-abiding citizen to fund a police force etc. etc.

In short, you are saying that government has no right to interfere in any aspect of our lives, and should be abolished tomorrow.

I can and do disagree with government strategy on public transport, but the concept of "user pays, live with it" is a symptom of the failure of the system as a whole.

And before PK jumps in to remind me of my own apparent complacency in the face of such ills, there is a world of difference between accepting that the world has fundamentally changed, and being an apologist for the iniquities that change has wrought.

Adapting to a system that is heavily loaded against you is a necessary pre-condition to changing it. Think of the life of a dissident writer in the old Soviet Union, or a freethinking teacher under Mao; first they had to survive, to stay alive long enough to ultimately influence the system.

We are in the same situation. Governments who are supposed to work on behalf of the citizenry instead consistently and universally work for themselves and their dependents. They do so under the twin banners of rampant capitalism (with Col supporting them to the hilt) and democracy, which is the least worst system yet devised.

Both have been intellectually devalued to the point of unrecognizability, but we are still asked to salute them. At some point, a more acceptable system must become apparent, but until then we will need patience.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 June 2006 9:13:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

There is no comparison between a health system, there to support all and thus there to be paid for by all. As for subsidising education for the “dim”, as you put it, that is like wasting money, education for the smart will produce some merit but not for the “dim” (your words).

As for “In short, you are saying that government has no right to interfere in any aspect of our lives, and should be abolished tomorrow.”

In short, government should involve themselves in our lives as little as possible because we should know (I certainly do) what is best for us as individuals and be assured, government does not. That does not presume we should abolish it forewith or even anytime soon. Please do not try to put words in my mouth which I clearly did not state.

Sarnian was perfectly correct, regarding market forces. People like me will pay for our private transport because, when I work out the cost of relying on public transport, relative to the value or price I place on my time, public transport does not deliver a “viable cost alternative”.

That is not “Ultra-Capitalistic” it is common sense. I am sorry you need a government to act as your wet nurse, the ultra-socialists are compelled to seek a co-dependent lifestyle where someone else carries them through life from cradle to grave, ensuring that no harm or even effort is required. Us “”Ultra-Capitalists” believe life is to be enriching experience and not directed by a bunch of government paid bureaucrats who tell us we will get to and from work on a government funded transport network which runs to a timetable which does not suit us.

That is not “living” that is “enslavement to the state” and I want none of it..

As for “Governments who are supposed to work on behalf of the citizenry instead consistently and universally work for themselves and their dependents.”

“Ultra-Capitalists”, like me are demanding centralised governmental power should be diminished. You would seem to be demanding similar. Which strangely contradicts your initial statements and criticism
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 19 June 2006 1:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clear I hit a spot, if your over-reaction and selective listening is anything to go by.

>>I am sorry you need a government to act as your wet nurse<<

For the record, I believe that the smaller the government, the more likely we are to get value for our tax dollar.

But my analogy was specific. You suggested that the government has no business "subsidising public transport with funds form private transport", as if this were the only source of revenue that supports public transport. I pointed out that if you believe that taxation should not be used in this manner, you must equally believe the same conditions apply to all government programmes.

Well, do you, or don't you?

If you don't, perhaps you could be a little more specific about which services you believe are "there to support all and thus there to be paid for by all".

I await your list of “must haves” with interest.

I suspect it will contain the usual armed forces and police, because generally speaking we prefer others to do the dirty work of protecting us and our freedom. But if you include education, you also have to justify the presence or absence of private education. If you include health, you have to justify the existence - and, most importantly, the scope - of private healthcare.

And if you exclude public transport from the “must have” column, you might like to enlighten us on the government's role in selling off to private enterprise the infrastructure built with its citizens' money. Is it justified on the basis that they have no business interfering with the laws of supply and demand? Or is it a simple case of grand larceny, practised on a powerless community, fervently supported by those who use other people's money to get around?

Waiting until economic forces tip the balance from one mode of transport to another only ensures that by then, the price will be too high for the vast majority of the citizenry. It may be logical to you, but only because you can afford it.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 19 June 2006 2:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy