Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Surely being relatively sealed within a metal and glass box (eg. a car) is effectively social distancing whilst walking/cycling in the open air isn't. And the only reason why relatively increased car use might cause "gridlock" is because they've already taken away much of the previously available road space.

Good, some hard measures to end the love affair with the car. Gets my support. Been great having the street virtually traffic free and the families playing out there.


Those petrol heads who strongly object can self isolate in their cars until the cows come home.


There is of course a balance to achieve but the counter argument reminds me of those against hard interventions against smoking. Can you imagine a world where people smoke in restaurants, in front of kids, in the office......?

It's an opportunity to change how we work. Many of us that can will work from home much more now than before. Offices won't be as full. Those that do travel to work should be given opportunities to get there in different ways from cars as well as public transport - including walking and cycling/scooters/ebikes/mekon board.


Pointless going through all of this if permanent change doesn't happen.

It?s worth remembering that some drivers are needed - deliveries, plumbers, builders, some NHS nurses on rounds, etc. Most journeys in our area are unnecessary as they could be done on foot or cycle but most of us will think ?well, just this once? and the gridlock and pollution and noise will continue. (I have no motor vehicle and haven?t for twenty years. I manage well, others won?t find it as easy with no car, I know.)

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

    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
    • That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 
    • TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves.  I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)? https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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