Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Restaurant damaged by car.
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 21 May 2010 11:26 On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:14:47 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> What is convenient about having to drive miles to buy a few groceries? > >Since no-one has to, the question has no obvious sensible answer. agreed, you do not have to. However I find it perfectly convenient to do a shop either in Bromley, Bluewater or Borough Market, its only half an hour or less to any of them. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 21 May 2010 11:28 On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:15:46 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Central London is a great place to shop, you go by train. Bluewater is >> souless, you have to worry about drink driving if you do more than >> shop. Sadly all our bigger shops have decamped to Bluewater so the >> local high streets are dying. Then when it comes to bank holidays and >> pre Christmas the motorways round the two places gridlock with >> shoppers. I understand the centres of many US cities have died due to >> the out of town mall. > >Over the last few decades, do you think councils have handled car-borne >shoppers as well as they should have? I do not think shopping in central London by car makes a lot of sense except in unusual circumstances, I go in by train usually. I of course do not buy things like sacks of potatoes. There are car parks and at the weekend there's no congestion charge. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 21 May 2010 11:30 On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:57:59 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> does anybody in the 21st century actually believe that anybody in the >> labour party or anywhere sees cars as a class issue? The whole reason >> politicians try to discourage car use is precisely because everybody >> has one. The idea Blair and Brown did not know that is ridiculous. > >To an extent, you are right. For the Labour Party, it is true that >car-ownership and use isn't *only* a class issue. > >But it *is* a class issue for them how can it be when poor people generally have cars? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: mileburner on 21 May 2010 11:36 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:097dv59v1bsnd0rbk343d1l9duthubv7kl(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:39:33 +0100, "mileburner" > <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>It usually manifests itself in the notion "I have to drive to work, as >>it's >>the only way I can get there" or "I live in the country and I cannot get >>around by any other means". What these people seem to overlook is that >>they >>could work somewhere else, or live somewhere else. > > I see, you think people should forgo where they want to live and job > opportunities to not use a car. Are you surprised few do? I am merely pointing out the difference between "have to" and "want to". Many people seem to get these two confused.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 21 May 2010 11:37
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:29:34 +0100, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Central >> London. > >Agreed. > >But try getting home 40+ miles by PT at 23:30. depends where to, but the further out you are the earlier you must leave. If you are 40 miles out is it reasonable to expect all night services? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |