London Banter - View Single Post

Robin9 · December 1st 15, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by

In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:13:28 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;152175 Wrote:
Not many pedestrians on the M25.

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

Their ultimate goal is quite obviously to get rid of the private car
altogether. They seem to think that because they're fit and healthy and
live only a few hundred metres from a tube station in their organic fair
trade right-on ghetto in London and never go anywhere outside the M25
unless they're in an aircraft, then everyone else must be in a
similar situation. I guess if you're old or infirm and live in an
area that poor or no PT so rely on your car to go anywhere, you can
just go **** off and die.

As my mother found when age required her to give up driving at age 89, she
could rely on online shopping and hire cars (arthritis made the step up to
London-type cabs too difficult).

She could have used the tube longer if her nearest tube station, East
Putney, wasn't one of the least accessible on the system (no other means of
accessing platforms but long steep staircases).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I know some elderly people who cannot step up onto a bus
and who use minicabs instead.

Spud's supposition is correct except that I doubt if the
anti-motor car bigots believe everyone else is the same as
they are. I don't think they care either way.

The irony is that without motorists paying vast amounts of
money into the Exchequer each year, public transport on a
large scale would not be possible. If motorists did give up
their cars, there would be a huge increase in demand for
public transport and the subsidy from the taxpayer at exactly
the moment revenue collapsed.

When the anti-motor car brigade talk about "a sustainable
transport policy" they should ponder for a few moments on
what is financially sustainable.