Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's a cost/benefit issue - not a fixed argument.


For some people cost may be defined merely in financial terms, or in convenience terms; for others it may be defined in social terms or environmental terms.


Likewise benefits may be classed in emotional, financial, temporal or other terms.


I disagree with DJKQ that someone may have 'no other option but to own a car', but I agree that there are situations where the benefits of owning a car would likely enormously outwiegh the perceived cost - especially for those who are physically disabled by age or infirmity, for those with extended family responsibilities and so on.


Even in those situations there are alternatives - and they will find themselves in the spotlight when the cost of the resources to run a car starts to escalate (for example the price of oil), or the efficiency of car ownership decreases (for example through gridlock).


Likewise having points on your license doesn't mean you MUST buy a car, it just means that if you want a car, you can't use a carclub.

Talking of costs and benefits - in my last bit of research I found lots of evidence linking car use negatively with physical activity. Those who used cars less had higher levels of active travel/ physical activity, lower BMIs (body mass index), rates of obesity etc. And all these bits of physical activity have strong health implications. Do you think that if people were aware of the health costs of car use and benefits of short walks e.g to bus stops etc - this would change their attitude towards car use? i.e, increase awareness of costs of car use relative to benefits?

It would probably be preaching to the converted.


It's another example of carclubs failing to hit the mark in identifying the motives of those who could use carclubs but don't.


Exchanging a privately owned personal transport for a shared-ownership one can't possibly campaign on the basis that the 3 min walk to the car is going to increase their health.

Tbh right now I'd find use of a car club cheaper than keeping my own car but I have 6 points on my licence (due to expire August) and no car club will let me join because of that. I do wherever cheaper/ easier use bicycle/ bus etc but there are times where only a car will suffice.
I wasn't thinking about it in relation to car club at all - I was just wondering whether thinking about benefits to ones own health etc would be a better motivational factor in reducing car use than the environment has been...I certainly wasn't imagining car club promoters pushing that one...

I don't think so, because it's too rational. Car ownership is predicated upon irrational convictions.


You could achieve it by running campaigns with fat losers behind the wheel of a car, doing fat loser things and dying young.


You'd get hauled over the coals for it, but at the moment car ads are full of young pretty people doing successful things with a promise about sex at the end. It's just as distorting.

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Following on from this I have been running a survey in the lounge. Just in case anyone who participated in the discussion hasn't filled in the survey - here it is.

Click here to take survey


For each completed survey money will be donated to something worthwhile (ALD Life, St Christopher's Hospice or one of the local schools listed - you choose which).


Thanks

Belinda

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...