In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:

Christian Wolmar has written ...

They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.

Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:


Christian Wolmar has written ...


They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.


Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")

I agree. It's the sheer stupidity of driving *any* private vehicle
around London that needs to be addressed.

Dan

Dan Gravell wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:26:00
on Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Mike remarked:


Christian Wolmar has written ...



They are gas guzzling monsters which are difficult to drive and
park, and take up far more space than conventional vehicles.



Maybe he should stick to writing about trains. Yes, they can use more
fuel than a car, but are not more difficult to drive, nor do they take
up *any* more space (let alone *far* more space).

eg: LR Disco 14'10" x 5'11"
Ford Mondeo 15' 5" x 5'11"
Merc E series 15' 9" x 6' 5" A foot longer and 6" wider!!!

The latter being very much the "City executive's car of choice")


I agree. It's the sheer stupidity of driving *any* private vehicle
around London that needs to be addressed.

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those
who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those
who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland going,
part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the utilisation of
road space in London. The car is clearly massively overused for simple
journeys in London, and I just cannot understand what goes through
people's minds when they make the conscious decision to use one.

"Dan Gravell" wrote in message
...
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation. There
are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle into
London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.

However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving. If it
hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...

The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by those who
buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland going,
part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the utilisation of
road space in London. The car is clearly massively overused for simple
journeys in London, and I just cannot understand what goes through
people's minds when they make the conscious decision to use one.

Perhaps that's where the real problem lies? It's not a fully conscious
decision, at least they're not thinking the situation through.

In message , at
08:27:49 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Dave Arquati wrote:

I'm not exactly pro-car but that's a bit of a gross generalisation.
There are sometimes legitimate reasons for driving a private vehicle
into London - carrying heavy/bulky goods being one of them.
However, when it comes to large 4x4s, I'm probably less forgiving.
If it hasn't got mud on it, it probably shouldn't be here...
The stupidity that a less safe car is perceived as more safe by
those who buy these cars should definitely be addressed.


Of course, I understand that. Part of me is wanting to get Roland
going, part of me is thinking of the frustration I have with the
utilisation of road space in London. The car is clearly massively
overused for simple journeys in London, and I just cannot understand
what goes through people's minds when they make the conscious decision
to use one.

Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on
a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't
practical to get a train.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the public transport system can support that figure is because it is
more scalable. The issue is that some individuals still appear to
consider the private motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or
anywhere near it, a good way to get around London. A feel your statistic
proves my point.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did on
a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it wasn't
practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

Dan

In message , at
11:07:15 on Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Dan Gravell
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so
the remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good
reason. Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had
very bad experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they
need the extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the public transport system can support that figure is because it is
more scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a *very* good reason.

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for
a good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

I used to travel to London from Cambridge 3 or 4 days a week, for a
couple of years, and in that time I used the train except for perhaps
half a dozen times when I went by car because I had lots of
luggage/items-to-deliver to cope with. And most of those trips I did
on a Sunday. And one time I knew I was going to be very late and it
wasn't practical to get a train.

That's wonderful for you, I wish everyone were so considerate.

Self preservation, more like.

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would
regularly drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde
Park), or perhaps at one of the car parks in the squares north of
Oxford Street. There was never very much of a problem, traffic-wise,
and as the nearest sensible railway station to my home in rural
Oxfordshire was more than halfway into London (at the edge of the
Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just felt "right" to carry on,
having got that far.

I am referring to anywhere that is densely populated, not just central
London. I cannot recall the development density index where car use
becomes difficult, but I would think zones 1-6 are past it.

M4, Westway, then Marble Arch via Paddington aren't particularly
congested most of the day.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.

What part of rural Oxfordshire was that? I can think of parts of it that
it would've been more practical to drive via the M40 than take the
train, but none where the M4 would've been better.

In message , at 13:23:24 on
Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:
Of course, it depends what you call London. Years ago, I would regularly
drive down the M4 and park at Marble Arch (under Hyde Park), or perhaps
at one of the car parks in the squares north of Oxford Street. There was
never very much of a problem, traffic-wise, and as the nearest sensible
railway station to my home in rural Oxfordshire was more than halfway
into London (at the edge of the Metropolitan), a lot of the time it just
felt "right" to carry on, having got that far.

What part of rural Oxfordshire was that? I can think of parts of it that
it would've been more practical to drive via the M40 than take the
train, but none where the M4 would've been better.

Sorry, I did mean the M40.
--
Roland Perry