Current Events > Do you think the world is overpopulated?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkDoc posted...

You just gotta look at somewhere like Birmingham. I considered living there at one point, but on a visit I realised exactly how bad the city centre was when compared to somewhere like Manchester.

But on your point - that's basically the whole of the USA. When you stop and ask for directions, they immediately start talking about stoplights - they simply can't fathom that you might actually be on foot.

Then you have something like the Vegas strip, completely impossible to cross something like that. I once remember in Lake Tahoe, trying to cross what was basically motorway, and the pedestrian light having a 10-second countdown to cross something like 6 lanes, lol.

Yeah, the guy who's channel I linked above has another video where he said he was struggling to make an 800m trip from his hotel to a bag shop in Houston because the pedestrian infrastructure just didn't exist. Anything other than motor vehicles are an afterthought.

Crazy thing is that car owners should be in favour of many of these measures too. Buses and bicycles allow for way more people to be transported than private cars, which means less traffic. The goal isn't to get rid of all cars, it's to get rid of the necessity of owning a car.

All along I've been thinking you're Dutch, now I'm realising that you're probably not...

Nope, born and raised in the home counties. The Netherlands are well documented for their infrastructure and I've been there several times so can also add in first hand experiences. It's also a fairly recent change in attitudes from only a few decades ago. Before that, they were 100% on the same path as the USA.

Yeah, more or less, apart from in the south, busses are just for poor people.

That attitude is the problem tbh, not that I'm accusing you of this.

Just "unemployed" though? That's just false spin.

Per gov figures published in Dec 2023, "in 2022, 22% of working age people in England, Scotland and Wales were economically inactive".

In other words, 9,278,000 people. Last month. Not including children and pensioners.

Do you have the breakdown of these figures? I'm pretty sure that number includes students, stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled people and of course unemployed people.

Thinking more about that video - it won't work in the UK because most of our roads simply aren't wide enough. You won't be able to give up a lane of traffic without a massive increase in congestion.

Not to mention that, knowing how much contractors charge, we simply can't afford it.

Like, that's the reason everyone hates "net zero" - a decision was made without asking anybody if they wanted it, and it's on its way to making the country bankrupt. Literally. Six local authorities in England have declared bankruptcy since 2021. Many more to follow.

reincarnator07 posted...

I also think a car lane on each side is a massive chunk of room for bikes when one of the advantages is the smaller footprint. It also sounds like your buses don't have bus lanes. You said there's a roundabout and traffic lights at each end, do they actually go anywhere? If not, it sounds like the cycle path was put there without any real goal beyond "Have a cycle path".

Yeah, they could have just given up one lane of traffic, didn't need to lose 2 of them. No bus lane. I'm so sick of people who don't drive or cycle being in charge of the roads. 20mph speed limits everywhere, speed bumps on bends or where you're going to be changing gear.

Latest thing in Wales is they want to allow busses to break the speed limit (ie overtake cars and cyclists) in the 20 zones, FFS.

And yeah, I think a lot of it is just mindlessly meeting a quota. A friend in Sydney tells of how they struggled to meet their cycle lane target, so they just went out into the desert and painted a white line along 150 km of motorway.

reincarnator07 posted...

A big fallacy honestly is the idea that you can just put in a cycle lane or 2 and call it a day. It can't be an afterthought, it needs to be planned from the ground up.

Yeah. But surely at that point, instead of duplicating everything, it's just cheaper to build a new town from scratch?

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah, the guy who's channel I linked above has another video where he said he was struggling to make an 800m trip from his hotel to a bag shop in Houston because the pedestrian infrastructure just didn't exist. Anything other than motor vehicles are an afterthought.

Exactly. I've got a friend who was even questioned by the police for walking around on his lunch break.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "pedestrian infrastructure". Do you mean a pavement?

reincarnator07 posted...

Crazy thing is that car owners should be in favour of many of these measures too. Buses and bicycles allow for way more people to be transported than private cars, which means less traffic.

But if the road is too narrow, you end up stuck behind one as it starts and stops...

reincarnator07 posted...

Nope, born and raised in the home counties. The Netherlands are well documented for their infrastructure

Ah, ok. Makes sense now

But I think it does weaken your argument somewhat if every example is just "look at the Netherlands". Seems to be a one-off.

reincarnator07 posted...

That attitude is the problem tbh, not that I'm accusing you of this.

The thinking works the same the other way too. "Electric cars are only for rich people because they cost 9k per year to insure".

reincarnator07 posted...

Do you have the breakdown of these figures? I'm pretty sure that number includes students, stay-at-home parents, carers, disabled people and of course unemployed people.

Not a breakdown. But from two different official sources. Just Google economically inactive and you might find something more detailed.

But yeah, it should include those groups. In my view, you're either employed or you're not. Saying "we did a great job and unemployment is only 3%" is just a flat-out lie when 22% of people are not employed.

DarkDoc posted...

Thinking more about that video - it won't work in the UK because most of our roads simply aren't wide enough. You won't be able to give up a lane of traffic without a massive increase in congestion.

Not to mention that, knowing how much contractors charge, we simply can't afford it.

Like, that's the reason everyone hates "net zero" - a decision was made without asking anybody if they wanted it, and it's on its way to making the country bankrupt. Literally. Six local authorities in England have declared bankruptcy since 2021. Many more to follow.

We can't really afford not to do it. Car dependency is not financially sustainable for cities, the land starts costing more to sustain than it generates in revenue.

Yeah, they could have just given up one lane of traffic, didn't need to lose 2 of them. No bus lane. I'm so sick of people who don't drive or cycle being in charge of the roads. 20mph speed limits everywhere, speed bumps on bends or where you're going to be changing gear.

Latest thing in Wales is they want to allow busses to break the speed limit (ie overtake cars and cyclists) in the 20 zones, FFS.

And yeah, I think a lot of it is just mindlessly meeting a quota. A friend in Sydney tells of how they struggled to meet their cycle lane target, so they just went out into the desert and painted a white line along 150 km of motorway.

20MPH speed limits do actually make sense in city centres and residential areas. The root issue is that these shouldn't be designed as high speed roads in the first place, yet that often is what happens. If people are going excessively fast, the actual solution is to redesign the road in a way that slows traffic, not to just arbitrarily tell people to go slower.

Yeah. But surely at that point, instead of duplicating everything, it's just cheaper to build a new town from scratch?

I don't understand what you mean here by duplicating everything.

Exactly. I've got a friend who was even questioned by the police for walking around on his lunch break.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "pedestrian infrastructure". Do you mean a pavement?

Pavements, but also crossings and actual pedestrian access to buildings. Sounds really basic, but particularly North America seems to struggle with this...

But if the road is too narrow, you end up stuck behind one as it starts and stops...

When designed properly, you don't share a road with cyclists in the first place.

Ah, ok. Makes sense now

But I think it does weaken your argument somewhat if every example is just "look at the Netherlands". Seems to be a one-off.

The Netherlands is a glowing example, but it's not just there. Much of Western Europe has succeeded here, as have places like Japan. Netherlands just has the benefit of me actually having visited, so I can add first hand observations.

Not a breakdown. But from two different official sources. Just Google economically inactive and you might find something more detailed.

But yeah, it should include those groups. In my view, you're either employed or you're not. Saying "we did a great job and unemployment is only 3%" is just a flat-out lie when 22% of people are not employed.

The problem is that these aren't all just people sitting at home lazy, many of them have very justifiable reasons why they aren't working. People with severe disabilities aren't suddenly gonna be able to hold down normal jobs no matter how much the government threatens them. Stay at home parents aren't suddenly able to afford to offload their parenting. Carers are doing more work than many full time jobs yet aren't getting paid for it.

The other thing is that this is how it's been measured for ages. It's a good thing to have alternate measurements as they can offer different lenses to see these issues through, but you can't just drop them without context.

reincarnator07 posted...

We can't really afford not to do it. Car dependency is not financially sustainable for cities, the land starts costing more to sustain than it generates in revenue.

I mean there is a real, genuine risk of the country going bankrupt. Literally having no money - meaning no police, no nurses, no state pension, etc. We can all agree how disastrous that would be.

Being net zero - especially when no other countries are going it - is simply a nice to have.

reincarnator07 posted...

20MPH speed limits do actually make sense in city centres and residential areas. The root issue is that these shouldn't be designed as high speed roads in the first place,

Yeah, my street has a nice S-curve to it. Plus it's not a through route. The only people who pass my house are those that live further down. Works really well, regardless of the street signs.

But if you think about my parents' street, there's a 20mph main road, then you turn into a 30mph side street with a children's playground. It's just nonsense. They can go on a 15-minute drive and never actually leave a 20 zone. Ridiculous. It's got to the stage where I've considered not going to watch my sports team any more, because the journey is just too aggravating.

reincarnator07 posted...

I don't understand what you mean here by duplicating everything.

Like, 2 sets of curbs, 2 sets of lights, 2 sets of signs, twice as many white lines. As seen in that video you posted.

Suddenly a 100k junction costs a quarter of a million.

reincarnator07 posted...

Pavements, but also crossings and actual pedestrian access to buildings. Sounds really basic, but particularly North America seems to struggle with this...

Ah. Got you. Yeah.

But yeah, they don't do busses, don't do trains, don't do walking and don't do cycling. Even though they get hit by hurricanes every year, lol.

reincarnator07 posted...

The Netherlands is a glowing example, but it's not just there. Much of Western Europe has succeeded here, as have places like Japan. Netherlands just has the benefit of me actually having visited, so I can add first hand observations.

I see

reincarnator07 posted...

The problem is that these aren't all just people sitting at home lazy, many of them have very justifiable reasons why they aren't working.

I didn't bring it up so I could pass a moral judgement on them. In the context of this thread, ie overpopulation, the UK has 9-10 million people of working age who don't have jobs. Whether they want to work doesn't matter, the fact is they don't. That means we have 9-10 million people more than we have jobs available. If the jobs aren't there, then they aren't there.

DarkDoc posted...

I mean there is a real, genuine risk of the country going bankrupt. Literally having no money - meaning no police, no nurses, no state pension, etc. We can all agree how disastrous that would be.

Being net zero - especially when no other countries are going it - is simply a nice to have.

Apologies, I should have clarified I meant that we need to move away from car dependency. It would help with going net zero too as it would reduce the amount of car trips, but it's not the primary goal. When you need to drive everywhere, you also need to create space for people to drive everywhere along with the parking. This forces everything to be spread further out, pushes up maintenance costs, reduces the effectiveness of alternate transport and feeds back into making more car dependent areas. At the very end of it all, you're struggling to generate enough tax revenue to actually fund the maintenance.

Yeah, my street has a nice S-curve to it. Plus it's not a through route. The only people who pass my house are those that live further down. Works really well, regardless of the street signs.

But if you think about my parents' street, there's a 20mph main road, then you turn into a 30mph side street with a children's playground. It's just nonsense. They can go on a 15-minute drive and never actually leave a 20 zone. Ridiculous. It's got to the stage where I've considered not going to watch my sports team any more, because the journey is just too aggravating.

Yeah those are some great examples of good and bad road design. Speed limits should be set by the roads, not by laws.

Like, 2 sets of curbs, 2 sets of lights, 2 sets of signs, twice as many white lines. As seen in that video you posted.

Suddenly a 100k junction costs a quarter of a million.

There should already be more curbs in the sense that busy roads should have islands for pedestrians to be able to partially cross. I'd also personally like to see continuous sidewalks become far more widespread where possible, they're fantastic for safety. Traffic lights are overused and should be removed where possible. My town actually removed several traffic lights from town centre and traffic and safety improved.

All of this should be seen as an investment, although I appreciate that's a hard sell to councils facing budget issues. The focus shouldn't necessarily be on replacing everything for now, just when building new infrastructure or when major works are required anyway.

Ah. Got you. Yeah.

But yeah, they don't do busses, don't do trains, don't do walking and don't do cycling. Even though they get hit by hurricanes every year, lol.

Worst part is at the start of the 1900s, they legit had some of the best public transport in the world. The country was literally built by the railroad and they chose to abandon that for an inferior solution.

I didn't bring it up so I could pass a moral judgement on them. In the context of this thread, ie overpopulation, the UK has 9-10 million people of working age who don't have jobs. Whether they want to work doesn't matter, the fact is they don't. That means we have 9-10 million people more than we have jobs available. If the jobs aren't there, then they aren't there.

Not all of them should be in work. Do you think that students, disabled people, carers and stay at home parents should be looking for jobs? The metric is unsuitable for judging whether we have enough jobs.

The notion of overpopulation is part of oppression of the working class. Now that 0.1% own 99% of the wealth, we are all working class.

Beware that by believing in overpopulation you are shooting yourself in the foot and you have fallen prey to a scam.

Elitism, racism, ..., all mind fogs to fight instead of getting stuff done.

'Overpopulation' implies some humans need to be terminated. Does anyone who theorizes that there is overpopulation believe that he is in the excess?

CobraGT posted...

The notion of overpopulation is part of oppression of the working class. Now that 0.1% own 99% of the wealth, we are all working class.

Beware that by believing in overpopulation you are shooting yourself in the foot and you have fallen prey to a scam.

Elitism, racism, ..., all mind fogs to fight instead of getting stuff done.

'Overpopulation' implies some humans need to be terminated. Does anyone who theorizes that there is overpopulation believe that he is in the excess?

You dont need to terminate anyone, people just need to get less kids and certain places need to be stricter with migration policies, not only because said countries are way too full already but also to rip off the band aid and look for solutions to the population crisis today instead of tomorrow. Here in The Netherlands we import cheap slaves (that is legit what they are, not a hyperbole, lmk if you want some disgusting articles on that) instead of paying people a good salary. Once the countries we get these people from are developed enough to not have its population look for work otherwise we are beyond fucked if we continue on the current course, the population ratio will crash and the economy will go with it immediately.

Zwijn posted...

You dont need to terminate anyone, people just need to get less kids and certain places need to be stricter with migration policies, not only because said countries are way too full already but also to rip off the band aid and look for solutions to the population crisis today instead of tomorrow. Here in The Netherlands we import cheap slaves (that is legit what they are, not a hyperbole, lmk if you want some disgusting articles on that) instead of paying people a good salary. Once the countries we get these people from are developed enough to not have its population look for work otherwise we are beyond fucked if we continue on the current course, the population ratio will crash and the economy will go with it immediately.

Without migration, there are some severe issues on the horizon with aging populations in most developed nations. I hate the phrasing, but births among "native" people in a lot of western nations are low.

reincarnator07 posted...

Without migration, there are some severe issues on the horizon with aging populations in most developed nations. I hate the phrasing, but births among "native" people in a lot of western nations are low.

We made it an issue by booming hard and having a certain system in place. In many other things this countrys population dwindling would be pretty nice. We literally dont have space for nature, like we basically do not have anything that isnt artificial. Its just people, megafarms and distribution centers.

Zwijn posted...

We made it an issue by booming hard and having a certain system in place. In many other things this countrys population dwindling would be pretty nice. We literally dont have space for nature, like we basically do not have anything that isnt artificial. Its just people, megafarms and distribution centers.

The issue is without immigrants, you'd be stuck with a disproportionately old population. You'd have fewer workers (generating taxes) and more people requiring assistance from the state. It wouldn't just be the same as new but fewer people.

reincarnator07 posted...

The issue is without immigrants, you'd be stuck with a disproportionately old population. You'd have fewer workers (generating taxes) and more people requiring assistance from the state. It wouldn't just be the same as new but fewer people.

They should have thought of this before instead of trying to bandaid stuff. Eastern Europe isnt going to provide us with greenhouse workers forever (an industry we dont even need) and we cant keep getting away with human trafficking nurses from Asia, so were going to get to this issue eventually anyway.

Zwijn posted...

They should have thought of this before instead of trying to bandaid stuff. Eastern Europe isnt going to provide us with greenhouse workers forever (an industry we dont even need) and we cant keep getting away with human trafficking nurses from Asia, so were going to get to this issue eventually anyway.

Absolutely, the growth was not sustainable and the effects should have been considered. That doesn't change the current state of things.

Its mostly China and India causing it. Combined they make up up 35% of world population

kage_53 posted...

Its mostly China and India causing it. Combined they make up up 35% of world population

really? did not know it was that high. In last 20 yrs or so china's pop. growth has slowed down extremely

UT1999 posted...

really? did not know it was that high. In last 20 yrs or so china's pop. growth has slowed down extremely

The growth has slowed down, but they both still have over 1.4b people each.

Those places wont take as long to develop and have a dwindling population as the west did though. They are going through the population cycle in a time where they can boom and develop fast and plateau much earlier relatively than for example Great Britain during the Industrial Revolution.

I think ultimately you don't live where you want to live, so no not really

reincarnator07 posted...

Apologies, I should have clarified I meant that we need to move away from car dependency.

Oh, I'd agree that we should. I'm just saying it's not easy. In some places it's practically impossible.

Question - if you live on an island, are we categorising that as "plane dependency"?

reincarnator07 posted...

When you need to drive everywhere, you also need to create space for people to drive everywhere along with the parking.

aka they don't build enough car parks (or, equivalently, we have too many people for the number of car parks we have).

This is an area where the UK is particularly bad - we have nowhere near the number of underground carparks as Germany, Switzerland etc. Stands to reason, if you're building a 5-storey apartment or office block, you also need to dig down 5 floors for all their cars.

And if you don't, then you just placed a restriction on how many people can live/work/shop in that area. These days, I basically refuse to pay for parking - and they just introduced a lot of parking charges near me. Guess what? It means I don't go to those pubs, don't stay at those hotels and don't go in those shops. Hence all the headlines about the dying town centres. Doesn't bother me, I'm not the one trying to make a living running a shop...

reincarnator07 posted...

At the very end of it all, you're struggling to generate enough tax revenue to actually fund the maintenance.

I'm not sure I buy that. But when you talk about things being spread out, eventually you get to the point where it's defined as overpopulated (ie you had to spread out too much).

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah those are some great examples of good and bad road design. Speed limits should be set by the roads, not by laws.

The way I'd set the speed limit on a new street, is you take a car, cover up the speedo with black tape so nobody can see it, then get 10 people to drive down the street at what they think is a sensible speed. Then you take the average of the 10 and there you go.

If you can't drive then you have no fucking right to be working in a position where you set speed limits.

reincarnator07 posted...

There should already be more curbs in the sense that busy roads should have islands for pedestrians to be able to partially cross

Like, a few years ago we went through this phase of them taking out all that stuff. "Street furniture" as they used to call it. In the name of safety.

Are we saying that was just a fad?

reincarnator07 posted...

I'd also personally like to see continuous sidewalks become far more widespread where possible, they're fantastic for safety.

Not sure I've seen these. I last drove in Amsterdam about 3 months ago, and don't remember seeing those, but I guess you're always driving more cautiously when you don't know the roads, and everything looks unfamiliar.

reincarnator07 posted...

All of this should be seen as an investment, although I appreciate that's a hard sell to councils facing budget issues. The focus shouldn't necessarily be on replacing everything for now, just when building new infrastructure or when major works are required anyway.

Yeah, exactly. To be honest, all this stuff needs to go on the backburner until we can afford it.

DarkDoc posted...

Oh, I'd agree that we should. I'm just saying it's not easy. In some places it's practically impossible.

Question - if you live on an island, are we categorising that as "plane dependency"?

If you have to take planes to get everywhere because other viable options haven't been invested in, yes. In most of the developed world, it's not at all impossible to move from car dependency, you just have to actually make the choice and put the effort in.

aka they don't build enough car parks (or, equivalently, we have too many people for the number of car parks we have).

This is an area where the UK is particularly bad - we have nowhere near the number of underground carparks as Germany, Switzerland etc. Stands to reason, if you're building a 5-storey apartment or office block, you also need to dig down 5 floors for all their cars.

And if you don't, then you just placed a restriction on how many people can live/work/shop in that area. These days, I basically refuse to pay for parking - and they just introduced a lot of parking charges near me. Guess what? It means I don't go to those pubs, don't stay at those hotels and don't go in those shops. Hence all the headlines about the dying town centres. Doesn't bother me, I'm not the one trying to make a living running a shop...

Counter-intuitively, giant car parks are also a part of the problem. They take up tons of space, but generate very little money. They also hurt walkability. Underground car parks are a solution, but they're also expensive, so this is a non starter if budget is an issue.

Would you visit these places if it was feasible and convenient to leave your car at home?

I'm not sure I buy that. But when you talk about things being spread out, eventually you get to the point where it's defined as overpopulated (ie you had to spread out too much).

Don't take my word for it, here's a real world example and explanation: https://youtu.be/7Nw6qyyrTeI?si=5VjyzyuB9RA3z8oO

The way I'd set the speed limit on a new street, is you take a car, cover up the speedo with black tape so nobody can see it, then get 10 people to drive down the street at what they think is a sensible speed. Then you take the average of the 10 and there you go.

If you can't drive then you have no fucking right to be working in a position where you set speed limits.

That's actually how it's done in some places. Issue is that this approach doesn't take into account the intended use of the road, only how it is currently designed. You said in an earlier post that your parents live by a 20mph main road and there's a side street with a playground that's 30mph. That sounds exactly like limits that aren't considering the intended use.

Ability to drive is irrelevant because traffic and road safety are sciences. A lot of improvements are counter-intuitive. Ultimately, the best way to reduce traffic is to reduce the number of car trips in the first place, but I can see why drivers may oppose this method...

Like, a few years ago we went through this phase of them taking out all that stuff. "Street furniture" as they used to call it. In the name of safety.

Are we saying that was just a fad?

I would need some examples to say for sure, but it sounds like stuff was removed for the convenience of drivers to the detriment of everyone else

Not sure I've seen these. I last drove in Amsterdam about 3 months ago, and don't remember seeing those, but I guess you're always driving more cautiously when you don't know the roads, and everything looks unfamiliar.

From a driver's perspective, it just looks like a speed bump when turning onto some of the larger roads. I imagine you went over them without even noticing, which is the ideal sort of infrastructure.

Yeah, exactly. To be honest, all this stuff needs to go on the backburner until we can afford it.

Absolutely not, it needs to be in consideration pretty much whenever we're looking at building pretty much anything new or refitting existing infrastructure. A lot of this isn't particularly expensive if you're building from scratch either, so it should be done now rather than later.

reincarnator07 posted...

Worst part is at the start of the 1900s, they legit had some of the best public transport in the world. The country was literally built by the railroad and they chose to abandon that for an inferior solution.

Interesting way of looking at it. All about convenience I guess. And until they reach a point with widespread gridlock, or fuel as expensive as the UK, there's probably no incentive to change.

reincarnator07 posted...

Not all of them should be in work. Do you think that students, disabled people, carers and stay at home parents should be looking for jobs? The metric is unsuitable for judging whether we have enough jobs.

I worked in a bar when I was a student. The ironic thing is that I was a student for 9 years, and once I finished, I spent the next 18 months unemployed. There were literally no jobs in my field, anywhere in the country.

And yeah, of course disabled people should work. Just because you have one thing wrong with you it doesn't mean you're unsuitable for all jobs.

Like, modern working patterns (ie sit at home on a computer) are perfectly suited to those with limited mobility, as well as carers and stay at home parents. If they're not looking then that's what makes it unsustainable.

And as I said a few pages back, I commuted for many years. Eventually I got sick of it being SO expensive, SO unreliable, and having my face squashed into someone's armpit on the tube for hours every day. Not to mention getting harassed by newspaper distributors to the point of violence, and teenagers with loud music on their phones, also to the point of violence. At that point I decided never again, it's the car for me.

Zwijn posted...

You dont need to terminate anyone, people just need to get less kids and certain places need to be stricter with migration policies

Exactly.

UT1999 posted...

really? did not know it was that high. In last 20 yrs or so china's pop. growth has slowed down extremely

It's legit. In my head I had India at 1.1 and China at 1.4.

2.5 / 7.0 = 0.35

Granted, I'm perhaps 3 years out of date, but if you increase all those numbers a bit you get the same result.

reincarnator07 posted...

If you have to take planes to get everywhere because other viable options haven't been invested in, yes.

That's what I was getting at. Japan and the UK are islands. Actually a very high proportion of flights are over water. My parents took a ship across the Atlantic - I think it took them 10 days.

If you wanted to travel from Sydney to Darwin or Perth, in a car/bus/train, it's gonna take you around 44 hours. Plane is literally the only option.

reincarnator07 posted...

In most of the developed world, it's not at all impossible to move from car dependency, you just have to actually make the choice and put the effort in..

It's not necessarily "car dependency". Back when I was a student, in Scotland, I had to fly back to see family in London because I literally couldn't afford the train (at the time 30 to fly vs over 100 by train), and bus (which I took about twice) took an entire day.

reincarnator07 posted...

Counter-intuitively, giant car parks are also a part of the problem. They take up tons of space, but generate very little money.

So does a kids football field. And to be honest, that's not my problem. I don't own any land downtown. It's not my job to generate money for each square metre of the city. People need to get used to the fact that they're not gonna be able to generate millions just by owning land. I pay more than enough in taxes for them to sweep my street and power the streetlights.

DarkDoc posted...

Interesting way of looking at it. All about convenience I guess. And until they reach a point with widespread gridlock, or fuel as expensive as the UK, there's probably no incentive to change.

It's not convenient, that's the entire problem. A 10 min dart to the supermarket on foot now requires driving several miles. Your children just going to school now needs an adult to take time and drive them.

I worked in a bar when I was a student. The ironic thing is that I was a student for 9 years, and once I finished, I spent the next 18 months unemployed. There were literally no jobs in my field, anywhere in the country.

Students having to work alongside their studies correlates pretty hard with reduced academic achievement, so ideally we shouldn't be requiring students to work just to continue their studies.

And yeah, of course disabled people should work. Just because you have one thing wrong with you it doesn't mean you're unsuitable for all jobs.

Like, modern working patterns (ie sit at home on a computer) are perfectly suited to those with limited mobility, as well as carers and stay at home parents. If they're not looking then that's what makes it unsustainable.

How many of those jobs do you think there are? What about disabilities that really to make them unsuitable to regular employment? I have friend with such severe anxiety that he's literally barely able to leave his home and talk to anyone outside of his friend group. What should he do for work?

And as I said a few pages back, I commuted for many years. Eventually I got sick of it being SO expensive, SO unreliable, and having my face squashed into someone's armpit on the tube for hours every day. Not to mention getting harassed by newspaper distributors to the point of violence, and teenagers with loud music on their phones, also to the point of violence. At that point I decided never again, it's the car for me.

The problem is that the public transport is unreliable and expensive. That isn't the default for public transport, that's a failing system.

That's what I was getting at. Japan and the UK are islands. Actually a very high proportion of flights are over water. My parents took a ship across the Atlantic - I think it took them 10 days.

If you wanted to travel from Sydney to Darwin or Perth, in a car/bus/train, it's gonna take you around 44 hours. Plane is literally the only option.

How often are you doing such trips? When talking about the concept of car dependency, we're talking every day trips.

It's not necessarily "car dependency". Back when I was a student, in Scotland, I had to fly back to see family in London because I literally couldn't afford the train (at the time 30 to fly vs over 100 by train), and bus (which I took about twice) took an entire day.

Again, how often do you do this? Is this is a regular trip, I'd question why you'd study so far from your family.

So does a kids football field. And to be honest, that's not my problem. I don't own any land downtown. It's not my job to generate money for each square metre of the city. People need to get used to the fact that they're not gonna be able to generate millions just by owning land. I pay more than enough in taxes for them to sweep my street and power the streetlights.

Difference is you don't need tons of children's football fields to accommodate a city that chooses to make cars a requirement. Also when I say generating money, I don't mean for property owners, I mean for the government that has to maintain the area. Considering you were talking earlier about councils going bankrupt and then being unable to afford any improved infrastructure for anyone, yeah it is your problem. Car dependency is not economically sustainable. Best case scenario you can keep building new suburbs to subsidise the old ones, but that only works until you run out of land to develop.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Nahhh too many Americans. They're the most obnoxious, resource hoarding group of people. We need less of them and more people like the Chinese who contribute more to society than the average American and they use up less resources.

reincarnator07 posted...

Would you visit these places if it was feasible and convenient to leave your car at home?

Like, I don't need to. I'm the customer. If you own a hotel/pub/cinema/ice rink, it's your job to persuade me to come to your establishment. You do this by making it cheap and convenient. I don't care if you go bankrupt or not.

But to answer your question, yes, probably. I'm not against leaving the car behind. On the rare occasion I go to London, I don't even attempt to drive into the centre. That would be crazy.

reincarnator07 posted...

Don't take my word for it, here's a real world example and explanation:

Interesting video. But ultimately it's just charts. Interesting if you're in that academic field, but not of use to anybody else.

The only issue drivers care about is potholes, and road tax is more than enough to cover that. Although, interesting story, I got fed up with the potholes near my gf's mum, so I literally bought a bag of cement and fixed them myself.

reincarnator07 posted...

You said in an earlier post that your parents live by a 20mph main road and there's a side street with a playground that's 30mph. That sounds exactly like limits that aren't considering the intended use.

Exactly. It's a dead-end road, pensioners and children everywhere - ironic that this side street is 30 when you've just been driving in a 20. Swap them and it would make more sense.

reincarnator07 posted...

Ability to drive is irrelevant because traffic and road safety are sciences.

No - it you want people actually to obey the speed limit, it's much more about psychology. If you make dumb decisions, people simply won't respect it (meaning both drivers and the police will ignore it).

Just because somebody can't drive that doesn't mean they should be allowed to push an anti-car agenda onto the public. I'd REQUIRE everybody in that department to hold a driving license as a condition of employment.

reincarnator07 posted...

I would need some examples to say for sure, but it sounds like stuff was removed for the convenience of drivers to the detriment of everyone else

Hans Monderman seems to be the keyword.

It's the complete opposite. Goes to show there isn't a right, scientific answer. It's all just people trying to claim their design is better

reincarnator07 posted...

From a driver's perspective, it just looks like a speed bump when turning onto some of the larger roads. I imagine you went over them without even noticing, which is the ideal sort of infrastructure.

I guess that was it. I'll have a look next time I'm over. Although ironically, next time I'm probably gonna get the train from Amsterdam because I'll be on my own (we hired a car when there were 2 of us).

reincarnator07 posted...

Absolutely not, it needs to be in consideration pretty much whenever we're looking at building pretty much anything new or refitting existing infrastructure. A lot of this isn't particularly expensive if you're building from scratch either, so it should be done now rather than later.

That's what I mean. When does the UK ever build anything from scratch? HS2? Mersey Gateway? Elizabeth line? None of these are success stories. What else is there?

The number of drivers in the UK is gonna stay constant (it literally can't grow). Where you need to be applying all this stuff is China, Indonesia, Turkey and Nigeria. Each of those is gonna have hundreds of millions of SUVs a decade or two from now. Even Angola is gonna dwarf the UK...

DarkDoc posted...

Like, I don't need to. I'm the customer. If you own a hotel/pub/cinema/ice rink, it's your job to persuade me to come to your establishment. You do this by making it cheap and convenient. I don't care if you go bankrupt or not.

But to answer your question, yes, probably. I'm not against leaving the car behind. On the rare occasion I go to London, I don't even attempt to drive into the centre. That would be crazy.

Businesses don't build infrastructure, the state does. Businesses are pretty limited in the influence they can have here.

I appreciate your answer though. It backs up the idea that what is needed is cheap and convenient ways to access businesses. That doesn't have to involve driving, although obviously some businesses will place more value on vehicle traffic than others.

Interesting video. But ultimately it's just charts. Interesting if you're in that academic field, but not of use to anybody else.

The only issue drivers care about is potholes, and road tax is more than enough to cover that. Although, interesting story, I got fed up with the potholes near my gf's mum, so I literally bought a bag of cement and fixed them myself.

It's of use to anyone who wishes to live in an area that doesn't suck for everyone to get around.

You're also dead wrong about drivers only caring about potholes and you yourself have disproven that in this topic. Traffic, parking, congestion, accessibility, safety, these are all things that have been mentioned in this topic. In addition, it's not just cars that get around.

Exactly. It's a dead-end road, pensioners and children everywhere - ironic that this side street is 30 when you've just been driving in a 20. Swap them and it would make more sense.

No - it you want people actually to obey the speed limit, it's much more about psychology. If you make dumb decisions, people simply won't respect it (meaning both drivers and the police will ignore it).

Exactly. You don't just tell people to drive at arbitrary speeds, you design the roads in such a way that people are comfortable going at the intended speed and uncomfortable going above that.

Just because somebody can't drive that doesn't mean they should be allowed to push an anti-car agenda onto the public. I'd REQUIRE everybody in that department to hold a driving license as a condition of employment.

It's not anti car, it's anti car dependency. Cars aren't going anywhere, nor should they. However, most people aren't die hard drivers, they just wanna get around. If a different method of transport comes that is cheaper and/or more convenient, people will take it. That alternative needs to actually exist though.

Those who are honour bound to their cars will benefit too, as the best way to effectively reduce traffic is to reduce the number of car trips required in the first place.

Hans Monderman seems to be the keyword.

It's the complete opposite. Goes to show there isn't a right, scientific answer. It's all just people trying to claim their design is better

I haven't got time, but I will look at that later. However, there are absolutely proven ways to design roads better.

That's what I mean. When does the UK ever build anything from scratch? HS2? Mersey Gateway? Elizabeth line? None of these are success stories. What else is there?

The number of drivers in the UK is gonna stay constant (it literally can't grow). Where you need to be applying all this stuff is China, Indonesia, Turkey and Nigeria. Each of those is gonna have hundreds of millions of SUVs a decade or two from now. Even Angola is gonna dwarf the UK...

The ever continuing expansion of cities? Not being funny but the business park I work in is barely 20 years old and the village that has sprung up around it only starting having homes available in 2016, with more still being built. I'm not talking just about megaprojects, I mean any development.

The number of drivers in the UK has risen by nearly 10 million people since I was born. That said, traffic is more a result of density and and road design than the sheer number of people. Most people don't leave their town regularly. For example, Barbados has terrible traffic and is a tiny island of less than half a million people. Most American towns and cities have bad traffic and no alternative methods of transport due to terrible urban design, despite being relatively low density compared to similarly developed nations.

I'm not saying this because of climate reasons (although that also is a benefit), it's for the benefit of people living in these places. Car dependency is bad for citizens quality of life.

DarkDoc posted...

Hans Monderman seems to be the keyword.

It's the complete opposite. Goes to show there isn't a right, scientific answer. It's all just people trying to claim their design is better

Had a chance to have a look, were you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

If so, I believe you have misunderstood the concept. In particular, it's not a universal approach to all roads. It can work well in the right environment, but it shouldn't be everywhere. In my experience, it only works in city centers where quite frankly you don't want tons of cars in the first place. It's also pretty bad for people with sight or hearing related disabilities.

Ultimately it will depend on whether you're dealing with a street or a road, assuming they're properly designated in the first place. If it's a road, it's supposed to be from getting people from A to B efficiently. This is where cars should be moving at speed. However, that generally means that cyclists shouldn't be sharing the space here as they move at very different speeds. They also shouldn't really be sharing with pedestrians either for the same reason.

In contrast, a street is a destination in its own right where you access the buildings on said street. Speeds must be lower for safety reasons and everyone is already interacting with each other. It's far more feasible for people to share the space here, although I personally think pedestrians should be kept separate as their speeds are still significantly different from cars and bikes.

reincarnator07 posted...

It's not convenient, that's the entire problem. A 10 min dart to the supermarket on foot now requires driving several miles. Your children just going to school now needs an adult to take time and drive them.

I think kids going to school in a car is ridiculous. All it does is create pollution and a visibility hazard. I always walked/bus in my day, and they should/could do the same now. It's just the fear of kidnapping, which is way overstated anyway. Nothing to do with road design or traffic.

Regardless, Americans (or anybody else) could be forced to change. We're seeing this with the insurance ripoff with electric cars. If they could only make annual road tax 10k for SUVs the problem would be solved before Christmas.

reincarnator07 posted...

Students having to work alongside their studies correlates pretty hard with reduced academic achievement, so ideally we shouldn't be requiring students to work just to continue their studies.

I don't see that 1-2 shifts in a bar or restaurant does any harm, but yeah, I could go with that.

But either way, they are of working age - in a way, if they weren't studying they would need a job (eh they dropped out tomorrow). But there aren't any jobs...

reincarnator07 posted...

How many of those jobs do you think there are? What about disabilities that really to make them unsuitable to regular employment? I have friend with such severe anxiety that he's literally barely able to leave his home and talk to anyone outside of his friend group. What should he do for work?

What?! Millions of them. Actually millions.

Can't read very well? Try sorting materials at the recycling centre.
Don't wanna meet people? Work from home on a computer doing coding or graphic design or something.
Can't walk? Give online piano lessons.
Can't see? Be a taste tester for the local tea factory.
Can't hear? Try gardening.

There's no such thing as regular employment. There are literally more types of job now than there have been at any point in history. More variety, requiring whatever skillset and whatever personality type and whatever physical limitations that anybody might have.

These days, being disabled doesn't mean you've been written off. There's even laws that prevent discrimination. Just gotta think positively instead of being a defeatist.

reincarnator07 posted...

The problem is that the public transport is unreliable and expensive. That isn't the default for public transport, that's a failing system.

I think you'd be hard-pushed to find somebody who's got a good word to say about any sort of public transport. Whether it's crowded tubes, infrequent rural busses, the wrong type of snow/leaves, or the guy in September who took 11 hours to get from London to Edinburgh by train.

reincarnator07 posted...

How often are you doing such trips? When talking about the concept of car dependency, we're talking every day trips.

If you're gonna limit it that much, then you're literally just talking about work and nothing else.

People generally only go to the supermarket once a week, maybe a night out is about once every 2 weeks, other trips less than that...

In my case, I'm just about walking distance from my town centre, but I've walked there a handful of times in 5 years. More often, I will pass a shop on the way home from work and I'll pop in. Couldn't really do that by train. To say nothing of carrying all the tins of cat food.

reincarnator07 posted...

Again, how often do you do this? Is this is a regular trip, I'd question why you'd study so far from your family.

When I was a student, I was going back at the end of each term (2 terms per year), and occasionally for half-term

I deliberately picked somewhere 400+ miles away so that my parents wouldn't just turn up without arranging first, lol. I figured if you were gonna live independently, away from home, you might as well do it properly. Interestingly - I'd been driving for about a year before I went to uni, however I did not take my car with me, so I spent over a decade without a car.

reincarnator07 posted...

Difference is you don't need tons of children's football fields to accommodate a city that chooses to make cars a requirement. Also when I say generating money, I don't mean for property owners, I mean for the government that has to maintain the area.

On your car park example - most of these things are optional activities. I don't need to go to a bar. I don't need to go bowling. I don't need to go to the shops in a city centre. I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and whatever I don't want. If I don't wanna use those places, I won't. I'm not gonna be made to feel bad for those businesses failing. If they want me to go there, they will make it convenient for me to go there. Again, it's fine if they don't want to.

Does the council have a responsibility to prevent companies going bankrupt? I dunno. Not really.

When you say "maintain" I assume you mean potholes. Road sweeping. Cutting grass? I'm struggling to think of anything else that needs doing, or would take significant funds.

Again, I'm not alive for the sole purpose of making sure the council has enough money. That's literally the furthest thing from mind. If something is generally unsustainable, then it will die out. Whether that's cars or whether it's Laserquest.

DarkDoc posted...

I think kids going to school in a car is ridiculous. All it does is create pollution and a visibility hazard. I always walked/bus in my day, and they should/could do the same now. It's just the fear of kidnapping, which is way overstated anyway. Nothing to do with road design or traffic.

I agree, but what if you live several miles away from your school and there isn't useful public transport? What if the school isn't in walking/bus distance? That is the reality in most of America. That's the bad future if we aren't considering proper urban planning.

I don't see that 1-2 shifts in a bar or restaurant does any harm, but yeah, I could go with that.

But either way, they are of working age - in a way, if they weren't studying they would need a job (eh they dropped out tomorrow). But there aren't any jobs...

It's directly correlated with lesser academic success. I'm obviously not saying that you can't have academic success while working, but there is an extra barrier there.

What?! Millions of them. Actually millions.

Can't read very well? Try sorting materials at the recycling centre.
Don't wanna meet people? Work from home on a computer doing coding or graphic design or something.
Can't walk? Give online piano lessons.
Can't see? Be a taste tester for the local tea factory.
Can't hear? Try gardening.

There's no such thing as regular employment. There are literally more types of job now than there have been at any point in history. More variety, requiring whatever skillset and whatever personality type and whatever physical limitations that anybody might have.

These days, being disabled doesn't mean you've been written off. There's even laws that prevent discrimination. Just gotta think positively instead of being a defeatist.

Yeah, how many of those jobs exist? I ask because only recently a cabinet member made a similar claim with regards to work from home jobs for those who were housebound only for them to be told there were nowhere near enough jobs. If you check DWP, there are 6,313 work from home jobs at time of writing. There are certainly more than stated there, but I think you'll find there simply aren't enough of those jobs.

Also, as a non white person, you know outlawing discrimination doesn't mean it doesn't happen right?

I think you'd be hard-pushed to find somebody who's got a good word to say about any sort of public transport. Whether it's crowded tubes, infrequent rural busses, the wrong type of snow/leaves, or the guy in September who took 11 hours to get from London to Edinburgh by train.

I'll be that somebody then. I legit never learned to drive because there's just no need around here. Buses are frequent and cover everywhere. Some of those buses even run 24/7. I've gone on a night out on Saturday and been able to get a bus home after 3 on a Sunday morning. Even the business park I work in has a regular dedicated bus as well as a second one that passes through on its way to a village and another 3 routes that are close. Most importantly, it's significantly cheaper than car ownership.

This is to say nothing of Dutch public transport, which is some next level shit in terms of punctuality, coverage and integration between different forms of transport.

If you're gonna limit it that much, then you're literally just talking about work and nothing else.

People generally only go to the supermarket once a week, maybe a night out is about once every 2 weeks, other trips less than that...

In my case, I'm just about walking distance from my town centre, but I've walked there a handful of times in 5 years. More often, I will pass a shop on the way home from work and I'll pop in. Couldn't really do that by train. To say nothing of carrying all the tins of cat food.

It's not a giant limitation, most people literally do not leave their town on a regular basis. Even in America, something like 45% of trips are under 3 miles. That's in a country significantly more spread out than the UK and Europe.

If you're in walking distance of your town centre, no one would seriously suggest taking a train.

When I was a student, I was going back at the end of each term (2 terms per year), and occasionally for half-term

I deliberately picked somewhere 400+ miles away so that my parents wouldn't just turn up without arranging first, lol. I figured if you were gonna live independently, away from home, you might as well do it properly. Interestingly - I'd been driving for about a year before I went to uni, however I did not take my car with me, so I spent over a decade without a car.

I respect that, but I don't think I'd consider a trip made a handful of times a year as a regular trip. In a world where we didn't privatise our railways, that absolutely should be a train journey though, that's kind tailor made for high speed rail. Alas, that'll be a dream that needs to be fulfilled by other countries :(

On your car park example - most of these things are optional activities. I don't need to go to a bar. I don't need to go bowling. I don't need to go to the shops in a city centre. I have the freedom to do whatever I want, and whatever I don't want. If I don't wanna use those places, I won't. I'm not gonna be made to feel bad for those businesses failing. If they want me to go there, they will make it convenient for me to go there. Again, it's fine if they don't want to.

Does the council have a responsibility to prevent companies going bankrupt? I dunno. Not really.

When you say "maintain" I assume you mean potholes. Road sweeping. Cutting grass? I'm struggling to think of anything else that needs doing, or would take significant funds.

Again, I'm not alive for the sole purpose of making sure the council has enough money. That's literally the furthest thing from mind. If something is generally unsustainable, then it will die out. Whether that's cars or whether it's Laserquest.

I don't think you're understanding me here. Businesses have nothing to do with urban design. You aren't supposed to feel bad for businesses failing and I have never suggested as such. However, if it's a widespread issue then you will feel the impact. Decreased revenue from a lack of businesses kills a town centre and forces the council to cut spending too, which absolutely presents a problem for you even though you literally did nothing to cause it.

The council has a responsibility to serve the interests of the people they represent. They can best do that by helping to make the area prosperous. There's obviously a lot that goes into that, but step one would be not intentionally designing areas in a way that is bound to fail. It's not your fault if businesses are inconvenient to access and you're not expected to bail them out, but it does become your problem over time as a resident of your council.

reincarnator07 posted...

Businesses don't build infrastructure, the state does. Businesses are pretty limited in the influence they can have here.

I figure a pub is in control of whether they have a car park or not. At the very least because they're the ones who choose whether they move in to the premises or not.

But to put it another way - if you're saying it's the council's job to make the businesses thrive, then they should be responsible for making sure access is cheap and convenient, because it's in their own interests. The council should be afraid of fucking things up, because once a few shops close down, it snowballs and the rest follow suit.

reincarnator07 posted...

I appreciate your answer though. It backs up the idea that what is needed is cheap and convenient ways to access businesses.

Exactly. Like, when I moved out of London, my #1 goal was to cut my commute to the bare minimum. So I chose to live in the city centre. I could literally walk everywhere, shops, bars etc. that was highly convenient. And as I said, I spent something like 11 years without a car. It was important to drive for me as a teenager, with the things I was doing. Then in my 20s it wasn't important. Then in my 30s and 40s it was again. It all depends on where you live and what you're doing at the time.

reincarnator07 posted...

It's of use to anyone who wishes to live in an area that doesn't suck for everyone to get around.

Outside of London, and in many other countries, cars work well. It's easy to get around. It's not a problem that necessarily needs fixing.

reincarnator07 posted...

You're also dead wrong about drivers only caring about potholes and you yourself have disproven that in this topic. Traffic, parking, congestion, accessibility, safety, these are all things that have been mentioned in this topic.

This takes us back to where we started. With less population, there is less traffic, less parking issues, less congestion, less crashes, less potholes, etc. The problem is population, there's nothing inherently wrong with cars. The problem is too many cars. Just like the problem in London is too many people on the tube and too many people walking about.

Random example: my dad was a carpenter. When he went to work, on any given day he would take his own body weight in supplies, plus his own body weight in tools. Anything aside from driving was completely out of the question. Same for a tiler or plumber or bricklayer. They are 100% dependent on cars/vans.

reincarnator07 posted...

Exactly. You don't just tell people to drive at arbitrary speeds, you design the roads in such a way that people are comfortable going at the intended speed and uncomfortable going above that.

Indeed.

It just seems that nowadays people just see cars as a way to generate money via speeding fines. And they seem to want to make motorists lives as inconvenient as possible. Exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.

reincarnator07 posted...

Those who are honour bound to their cars will benefit too, as the best way to effectively reduce traffic is to reduce the number of car trips required in the first place.

Agree with that. Hence me posting in a topic about overpopulation.

reincarnator07 posted...

The ever continuing expansion of cities? Not being funny but the business park I work in is barely 20 years old and the village that has sprung up around it only starting having homes available in 2016, with more still being built. I'm not talking just about megaprojects, I mean any development.

My last house was in a road of 15 houses. My parents are in a road of 20 houses. Both are new builds on a very small estate, and both work well. They also both have good amenities and good transport.

As I said before, I moved house 5 years ago. I looked at a very wide range of new build estates with 200 houses. I also looked at estates with 2000 houses. The main issue with the bigger ones was the lack of pub/corner shop, and the jams to get out in the morning. These were all pretty big factors in why I rejected them.

I'm forgetting the point I was trying to make, but basically building really big estates is a bad thing. Not least because you'd be living on a building site for 10 years and would receive very impersonal service, but just because we don't actually need that many new houses. We just need less people to live in the houses we've got.

DarkDoc posted...

I figure a pub is in control of whether they have a car park or not. At the very least because they're the ones who choose whether they move in to the premises or not.

But to put it another way - if you're saying it's the council's job to make the businesses thrive, then they should be responsible for making sure access is cheap and convenient, because it's in their own interests. The council should be afraid of fucking things up, because once a few shops close down, it snowballs and the rest follow suit.

Yes, that's my exact point. No business can succeed if people can't access that business and whoever is responsible for zoning and urban planning has by far the biggest impact on that. The council also has the most to lose.

Exactly. Like, when I moved out of London, my #1 goal was to cut my commute to the bare minimum. So I chose to live in the city centre. I could literally walk everywhere, shops, bars etc. that was highly convenient. And as I said, I spent something like 11 years without a car. It was important to drive for me as a teenager, with the things I was doing. Then in my 20s it wasn't important. Then in my 30s and 40s it was again. It all depends on where you live and what you're doing at the time.

Ideally, where you live shouldn't be a factor here, just what you're doing. It's possible to design areas in such a way where cars are optional, whether that's a rural village or the largest cities in the country. There are obviously trades and lifestyles where cars are optimal or required, but that's not the default.

Outside of London, and in many other countries, cars work well. It's easy to get around. It's not a problem that necessarily needs fixing.

Define working pretty well. Traffic and commute times and distances are awful in car dependent places. There's obviously environmental issues too as well as a larger financial burden which disproportionately affects poorer people. I'm at a point where I can afford to drive now, but I actively choose not to because it would be way more costly than using public transport.

This takes us back to where we started. With less population, there is less traffic, less parking issues, less congestion, less crashes, less potholes, etc. The problem is population, there's nothing inherently wrong with cars. The problem is too many cars. Just like the problem in London is too many people on the tube and too many people walking about.

This is mostly untrue. Population has relatively little effect on congestion and traffic safety. The major factor is urban planning and having alternatives to driving. To go back to the Netherlands again, it's one of the most densely populated countries in the world (especially when you ignore city states) yet traffic flows pretty smoothly. In contrast, the Bahamas has terrible traffic and ranks 151st in population density while having less people than Amsterdam alone. The actual solution is proper urban planning and viable alternatives to driving.

Random example: my dad was a carpenter. When he went to work, on any given day he would take his own body weight in supplies, plus his own body weight in tools. Anything aside from driving was completely out of the question. Same for a tiler or plumber or bricklayer. They are 100% dependent on cars/vans.

And? Most people aren't tradespeople carrying tons of parts and tools. I work for a utility company doing the scheduling for our technicians, I assure you I am aware of professionals that need a van.

I need you to understand that the goal isn't to eliminate cars, it's to eliminate car dependency.

Indeed.

It just seems that nowadays people just see cars as a way to generate money via speeding fines. And they seem to want to make motorists lives as inconvenient as possible. Exactly the opposite of what they should be doing.

Not that I support going out of the way to inconvenience motorists, but so much infrastructure is designed for cars at the expense of literally everyone else. Car dependency is making the lives of non motorists as inconvenient as possible.

My last house was in a road of 15 houses. My parents are in a road of 20 houses. Both are new builds on a very small estate, and both work well. They also both have good amenities and good transport.

As I said before, I moved house 5 years ago. I looked at a very wide range of new build estates with 200 houses. I also looked at estates with 2000 houses. The main issue with the bigger ones was the lack of pub/corner shop, and the jams to get out in the morning. These were all pretty big factors in why I rejected them.

I'm forgetting the point I was trying to make, but basically building really big estates is a bad thing. Not least because you'd be living on a building site for 10 years and would receive very impersonal service, but just because we don't actually need that many new houses. We just need less people to live in the houses we've got.

Building larger developments isn't inherently a terrible thing and strangely has the benefit of forcing considerations for things that may otherwise be left for the future if you're only adding a few homes at a time.

The village near where I work wasn't even here 10 years ago, but now has over 700 homes with nearly double that planned for a future expansion. It also has a primary school, a village centre with a bunch of shops and food places, a care home, a medium sized supermarket, 2 regular bus routes, a train station and connection to the cycle routes that take you to the local city and the surrounding villages and towns. Despite sharing a lot of access with the business park I work in, I have literally never seen bad traffic there. The rest of my town wishes that traffic could flow so well. I will concede that a pub would be nice there, but that's the only real complaint I have.

The reason this has worked is because alternatives to driving are available, therefore the only people driving are the ones who really need to drive or those who are dedicated to their cars. This isn't far from the motorway, so I assure you that if all the residents and workers needed to drive then it would be pure chaos.

reincarnator07 posted...

The number of drivers in the UK has risen by nearly 10 million people since I was born. That said, traffic is more a result opf density and and road design than the sheer number of people.

And I'm sure train journeys went up by a similar about.

Also, to be honest, I can't think of any design of Oxford St that wouldn't result in it being gridlocked 24/7.

reincarnator07 posted...

Most people don't leave their town regularly.

Fair enough. That's still not a reason why trains are more expensive than flying.

reincarnator07 posted...

Most American towns and cities have bad traffic and no alternative methods of transport due to terrible urban design, despite being relatively low density compared to similarly developed nations.

Agreed they're low density, but I'm gonna dispute that they have bad traffic. I've been to around 25 different states, and driven in perhaps half of those. Cumulative total maybe 5000 miles. It's only really LA that has traffic, I guess also NY. Granted, I'm not commuting in rush-hour, but I really only remember severe jams on a couple of isolated occasions (ie the Atlanta bridge collapse).

Nobody else seems to be replying any more, I dunno if Americans wanna chime in.

reincarnator07 posted...

Had a chance to have a look, were you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

If so, I believe you have misunderstood the concept. In particular, it's not a universal approach to all roads. It can work well in the right environment, but it shouldn't be everywhere. In my experience, it only works in city centers where quite frankly you don't want tons of cars in the first place. It's also pretty bad for people with sight or hearing related disabilities.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Just an example of two people claiming to have come up with completely different solutions to the same problem. It's just opinion.

Sure, it's only for a city centre - but then, you can't exactly redesign a motorway. It's a straight line joining two places.

Bad for disabled? Sure, but let's be clear: I could come up with a long list of faults for EVERY idea.

reincarnator07 posted...

In contrast, a street is a destination in its own right where you access the buildings on said street. Speeds must be lower for safety reasons and everyone is already interacting with each other. It's far more feasible for people to share the space here, although I personally think pedestrians should be kept separate as their speeds are still significantly different from cars and bikes.

In my experience cyclists couldn't care less about rules, they'll just run red lights, go on the pavement, etc. And with deliveries against the clock it seems to be getting worse.

Like, given the rise in popularity of online shopping/banking/streaming/JustEat, maybe your distinction between street and road is a moot point. The public has demonstrated they no longer care to access physical businesses. Maybe in another 5 years we won't have a destination.

reincarnator07 posted...

I agree, but what if you live several miles away from your school and there isn't useful public transport? What if the school isn't in walking/bus distance? That is the reality in most of America.

It's simple. You shouldn't be attending a school that's so far away.

The Americans seem to do pretty well with school busses. For some strange reason (and to our discredit) those are much rarer in the UK.

According to the housing industry, being near a good school is universally one of the top criteria when moving. It's just irresponsible parenting to deliberately choose to be miles away, and then driving a kid to school in a car every day.

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah, how many of those jobs exist?

I'm not saying enough jobs exist. In fact, the opposite - I'm saying there are too many people for the number of jobs available.

I'm just saying your point is false - disabled people CAN get jobs, should get jobs, and therefore they should be counted in the unemployment figures.

DarkDoc posted...

And I'm sure train journeys went up by a similar about.

Also, to be honest, I can't think of any design of Oxford St that wouldn't result in it being gridlocked 24/7.

Fair enough. That's still not a reason why trains are more expensive than flying.

Oh, the reason for British trains sucking as bad as they do is 100% down to privatisation. We as a country chose to let them fail. There's a very good reason no other country has our system, same as how no developed country has the same healthcare system as the USA: It literally doesn't work.

Agreed they're low density, but I'm gonna dispute that they have bad traffic. I've been to around 25 different states, and driven in perhaps half of those. Cumulative total maybe 5000 miles. It's only really LA that has traffic, I guess also NY. Granted, I'm not commuting in rush-hour, but I really only remember severe jams on a couple of isolated occasions (ie the Atlanta bridge collapse).

Nobody else seems to be replying any more, I dunno if Americans wanna chime in.

My visits were primarily to Phoenix AZ and around Columbus OH. The traffic wasn't great and it was a nightmare to walk to pretty much anywhere, partially due to American intersections being really shit but mostly because nowhere was in walking distance.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Just an example of two people claiming to have come up with completely different solutions to the same problem. It's just opinion.

Sure, it's only for a city centre - but then, you can't exactly redesign a motorway. It's a straight line joining two places.

Bad for disabled? Sure, but let's be clear: I could come up with a long list of faults for EVERY idea.

It's not just opinion, we have real world data from pretty much all over the world. The Netherlands has been a particularly good example because their urban planning was also shitty only a few decades ago, but you can look at a lot of Europe for various approaches to urban design and its effectiveness.

No one is asking for motorways to be redesigned, the only issues on motorways generally rear their heads at intersections (which have been improved in our lives actually). However, this is purely because they're designed for a single purpose: Moving as many motor vehicles between 2 locations as efficiently as possible.

In my experience cyclists couldn't care less about rules, they'll just run red lights, go on the pavement, etc. And with deliveries against the clock it seems to be getting worse.

Like, given the rise in popularity of online shopping/banking/streaming/JustEat, maybe your distinction between street and road is a moot point. The public has demonstrated they no longer care to access physical businesses. Maybe in another 5 years we won't have a destination.

In the UK, I'd agree and it really bugs me. So long as cyclists are road users, it's perfectly reasonable for them to have to follow the rules of the road, especially because many of these are for safety.

The distinction between roads and streets isn't just mine. The names vary depending on where you are, but road hierarchy is a fundamental concept of urban planning. Access is important so long as the building is used by anyone. It's not just the public, it's also workers and third parties interacting with the premises, such as delivery drivers. To use an example of takeaway, my local Burger King pretty much always delivery riders going in and out. It's not an issue because the street rarely hits 20mph due to all the buses, but if those speeds were double then it would be both dangerous and disruptive to access the business. Multiply that for every business on a street and you can hopefully see why this should be designed differently to a road.

It's simple. You shouldn't be attending a school that's so far away.

The Americans seem to do pretty well with school busses. For some strange reason (and to our discredit) those are much rarer in the UK.

According to the housing industry, being near a good school is universally one of the top criteria when moving. It's just irresponsible parenting to deliberately choose to be miles away, and then driving a kid to school in a car every day.

It's literally not an option in places. It's also not like all children are planned, life happens sometimes.

I'm not saying enough jobs exist. In fact, the opposite - I'm saying there are too many people for the number of jobs available.

I'm just saying your point is false - disabled people CAN get jobs, should get jobs, and therefore they should be counted in the unemployment figures.

Some disabled people can get some jobs, I do not dispute this. However, there will never be enough specific jobs for those with specific needs even if you cut the population in half. Some unemployment is a feature of capitalism. So long as we have capitalism, we will have unemployment.

reincarnator07 posted...

I ask because only recently a cabinet member made a similar claim with regards to work from home jobs for those who were housebound only for them to be told there were nowhere near enough jobs.

That's my point. Although it's not that the number of jobs is too low, it's that the number of people is too high.

As much as the politicians don't want to admit it, the UK has 9 million people without jobs. True fact.

reincarnator07 posted...

I'll be that somebody then. I legit never learned to drive because there's just no need around here. Buses are frequent and cover everywhere. Some of those buses even run 24/7.

Yeah, I used to live directly on the route of a London night bus. There was one every 30 minutes, even at 4am. I could get on at Trafalgar square, fall asleep for an hour, get off the bus and walk a hundred metres to my house.

But the fact remains, sometimes you wanna go out and buy a new subwoofer that weighs 30 kg. Sometimes you wanna go somewhere very remote. And sometimes you have to go directly to the hospital in an emergency.

reincarnator07 posted...

This is to say nothing of Dutch public transport, which is some next level shit in terms of punctuality, coverage and integration between different forms of transport.

Yeah, agree. I've taken long train journeys in Switzerland and Germany, and both are fantastic. You really can set your watch by them.

Conversely, I've taken. 2 long train journeys in different parts of the US. You can guess how those turned out. It brings an episode of BBT to mind.

reincarnator07 posted...

I respect that, but I don't think I'd consider a trip made a handful of times a year as a regular trip. In a world where we didn't privatise our railways, that absolutely should be a train journey though, that's kind tailor made for high speed rail. Alas, that'll be a dream that needs to be fulfilled by other countries :(

I think that sort of distance is on the limit of whether you would or not (if the cheaper option takes 1 hour, vs the more expensive one taking 5 hours, I wouldn't entertain the longer one even if they were the same price).

And as it turns out, trains are not as eco-friendly as most people think - in some cases flying saves the environment.

reincarnator07 posted...

Decreased revenue from a lack of businesses kills a town centre and forces the council to cut spending too, which absolutely presents a problem for you even though you literally did nothing to cause it.

Those parcels don't deliver themselves. Maybe a big Amazon warehouse gets built and they simply generate the revenue somewhere else instead.

reincarnator07 posted...

Define working pretty well.

Providing convenient and cheap travel to the point where 10 million additional people have taken up driving since you were born.

Like, I just looked up the price of a season ticket from Chelmsford (used to work with somebody who commuted from there). It's 4976. Wtf. There's absolutely no excuse for that. And running my car for a year doesn't come anywhere close.

You cannot begin to think about phasing out cars until you fix that mess.

reincarnator07 posted...

This is mostly untrue. Population has relatively little effect on congestion and traffic safety

I'm sure if you plotted road deaths per city vs population, the correlation would be striking.

Like, I was at a rock festival where some people got crushed to death. No cars within a 3km radius. It's the sheer number of people that did it.

DarkDoc posted...

That's my point. Although it's not that the number of jobs is too low, it's that the number of people is too high.

As much as the politicians don't want to admit it, the UK has 9 million people without jobs. True fact.

This is the same claim with different spin. Not every single person of working age can reasonably be expected to work. This is how the economy has worked basically since capitalism.

But the fact remains, sometimes you wanna go out and buy a new subwoofer that weighs 30 kg. Sometimes you wanna go somewhere very remote. And sometimes you have to go directly to the hospital in an emergency.

If I'm going directly to the hospital in an emergency, I'm taking an ambulance. For the others, yeah cars are handy for those. So what? Those aren't exactly common journeys.

I need you to understand this. The goal is not to get rid of cars. Private cars can and should still exist. The goal is to end car dependency. You shouldn't need a car for every journey, there should be viable alternatives available.

Yeah, agree. I've taken long train journeys in Switzerland and Germany, and both are fantastic. You really can set your watch by them.

Conversely, I've taken. 2 long train journeys in different parts of the US. You can guess how those turned out. It brings an episode of BBT to mind.

I think that sort of distance is on the limit of whether you would or not (if the cheaper option takes 1 hour, vs the more expensive one taking 5 hours, I wouldn't entertain the longer one even if they were the same price).

And as it turns out, trains are not as eco-friendly as most people think - in some cases flying saves the environment.

Yeah, convenience is a big thing. When one option takes 1/5 of the time as the other while having a similar cost, you don't really have another option. This is the actual reason poor public transport is underutilised, it's just not a viable alternative to spend several times the time travelling.

Trains are statistically way more eco friendly than flying. They're the most carbon efficient way of moving large numbers of people up to medium distances. If you're travelling within a country, this should be the premier option of getting between cities without cars, at least if the state properly invests in it.

Those parcels don't deliver themselves. Maybe a big Amazon warehouse gets built and they simply generate the revenue somewhere else instead.

An Amazon warehouse isn't exactly comparable to a thriving city centre...

Providing convenient and cheap travel to the point where 10 million additional people have taken up driving since you were born.

Like, I just looked up the price of a season ticket from Chelmsford (used to work with somebody who commuted from there). It's 4976. Wtf. There's absolutely no excuse for that. And running my car for a year doesn't come anywhere close.

You cannot begin to think about phasing out cars until you fix that mess.

Totally agree. Just to reiterate, I'm not in favour of blanket banning cars, there needs to be viable alternatives. When public transport is affordable and as convenient as driving, people will voluntarily drive less. An affordable and functional nation rail network is a key part of that.

I'm sure if you plotted road deaths per city vs population, the correlation would be striking.

Like, I was at a rock festival where some people got crushed to death. No cars within a 3km radius. It's the sheer number of people that did it.

Aight bet: https://tinyurl.com/mr2x895d (worldpopulationreview). The USA is way out in front.

I think the amount of pollution generated by the current population is a concern.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah maybe if we lived like cavemen, but we dont. The planet suffers a lot and energy needs per person are only going to increase.

reincarnator07 posted...

I need you to understand that the goal isn't to eliminate cars, it's to eliminate car dependency.

Yeah, you've said it a couple of times. It's a simple concept. I'm just saying it's almost impossible to do.

We've barely even touched on other conveniences of cars, like not getting wet, being able to set your own temperature, listen to your own choice of music. I'm sick of having to beat the shit out of a teenager when they won't turn their loud music off, it's a hassle I don't need.

reincarnator07 posted...

Car dependency is making the lives of non motorists as inconvenient as possible.

This is a point worth discussing. Do you have any personal examples?

I'd argue that a busy city centre can be just as inconvenient with pedestrians everywhere.

reincarnator07 posted...

The village near where I work wasn't even here 10 years ago, but now has over 700 homes with nearly double that planned for a future expansion. It also has a primary school, a village centre with a bunch of shops and food places, a care home, a medium sized supermarket

Yeah, a few of the big estates I looked at didn't have very good answers for questions about amenities. You ask them about a corner shop and they try to tell you you don't need one "who still buys a paper?" Then they start spreading rumors like "they're probably going to build a school and train station". Plus they ignore the fact that there's a derilect pub nearby that closed down 2 years ago, etc.

But I still think setting a build target isn't the right thing to do. The more you build, the more you will need. Better just to admit there are too many people and that we don't need any more.

reincarnator07 posted...

Oh, the reason for British trains sucking as bad as they do is 100% down to privatisation. We as a country chose to let them fail.

The other thing that annoys me is the sheer complexity of the ticketing. Buy a single for 3.80 or a return for 3.90? What nonsense. I'm not gonna use any business that treats me like a count.

There was a time where I used to buy a ticket for about 5 stops further than I wanted to go, simply because it was cheaper. Seriously? And all the while they're trying to fine you for buying the wrong thing. Again, life is short - and travelling by train is just too aggravating for me to waste my time on.

reincarnator07 posted...

My visits were primarily to Phoenix AZ and around Columbus OH. The traffic wasn't great and it was a nightmare to walk to pretty much anywhere, partially due to American intersections being really shit but mostly because nowhere was in walking distance.

We spent about 10 days going round the grand canyon (although didn't go through Phoenix itself), and on a different trip we drove from one side of Ohio to the other. Didn't have trouble with traffic on either occasion, but yeah, maybe as a pedestrian we would have had trouble. Finding specific locations was the only real issue.

reincarnator07 posted...

It's not just opinion, we have real world data from pretty much all over the world. The Netherlands has been a particularly good example because their urban planning was also shitty only a few decades ago, but you can look at a lot of Europe for various approaches to urban design and its effectiveness.

All I'm saying is we seem to be going from one fad to the other. Some people say let's combine everything, others are saying let's separate everything. You never know which is the right approach for a particular location until after you've spent 100 million on it.

reincarnator07 posted...

To use an example of takeaway, my local Burger King pretty much always delivery riders going in and out. It's not an issue because the street rarely hits 20mph due to all the buses, but if those speeds were double then it would be both dangerous and disruptive to access the business.

Just sidestepping slightly - most of the takeaways near me are drive-through, and/or are on out-of-town retail outlets. My nearest one is a McDonald's that opened about 6 months ago - I think the road is a 40 or 50 mph. I think you do get bikes delivering from there, but the restaurant has clearly been built around cars. The app even asks you what number parking space you're in.

DarkDoc posted...

Yeah, you've said it a couple of times. It's a simple concept. I'm just saying it's almost impossible to do.

Not only has this been done in many places in the current year, it was literally how things were prior to the proliferation of the automobile. As a non driver, it's easy to get from my town to in and around London with a mixture of walking and public transport. You can get pretty much anywhere in the Netherlands with a mixture of walking, cycling and public transport.

We've barely even touched on other conveniences of cars, like not getting wet, being able to set your own temperature, listen to your own choice of music. I'm sick of having to beat the shit out of a teenager when they won't turn their loud music off, it's a hassle I don't need.

If you don't want to get wet while walking, an umbrella sorts that right out. I'll give you setting your temperature, although longer distance forms of public transport are generally cooled/heated to a reasonable temp. You can listen to your own music whenever you want, you can basically spend whatever you want on headphones.

This is a point worth discussing. Do you have any personal examples?

I'd argue that a busy city centre can be just as inconvenient with pedestrians everywhere.

The one that sticks out to me most is an intersection near a cinema on the outskirts of town. The cinema is clearly intended to drive to, but there is a regular bus service too. However, it's an absolute nightmare to cross the road to/from the bus stops because the intersection is very unfriendly to pedestrians. You basically have to take the long way around if you don't want a significant chance of getting hit by a car, even though it should on paper be as simple as crossing a couple of lanes. This could be rectified by just having a smarter intersection, which would actually also benefit drivers by allowing a greater throughput of vehicles.

When I visited my friends in Phoenix, he had the luxury of living only a couple of blocks from a Walmart. However, it took forever for us to get there because those intersections are horrific to try and cross. Bonus points for being able to turn right on red, which is one of the most horrifically unsafe things you could do for pedestrians.

Yeah, a few of the big estates I looked at didn't have very good answers for questions about amenities. You ask them about a corner shop and they try to tell you you don't need one "who still buys a paper?" Then they start spreading rumors like "they're probably going to build a school and train station". Plus they ignore the fact that there's a derilect pub nearby that closed down 2 years ago, etc.

But I still think setting a build target isn't the right thing to do. The more you build, the more you will need. Better just to admit there are too many people and that we don't need any more.

I think it's less of a target and more of a plan, at least at the local level. There should certainly be a target at the national level, but the UK has had the awful combo of selling off tons of homes to private investors while not building more to replace them.

I completely agree on amenities. It's not optional when building new properties, you need to add in these things.

The other thing that annoys me is the sheer complexity of the ticketing. Buy a single for 3.80 or a return for 3.90? What nonsense. I'm not gonna use any business that treats me like a count.

There was a time where I used to buy a ticket for about 5 stops further than I wanted to go, simply because it was cheaper. Seriously? And all the while they're trying to fine you for buying the wrong thing. Again, life is short - and travelling by train is just too aggravating for me to waste my time on.

Yep, totally agree. It's like this on purpose and as a country we should be ashamed for letting it get this bad.

All I'm saying is we seem to be going from one fad to the other. Some people say let's combine everything, others are saying let's separate everything. You never know which is the right approach for a particular location until after you've spent 100 million on it.

It really depends on the intent for the road. It's also not a static thing, things will change based on what else has been built around and the habits of residents. That said, it's not fads or guesses. Traffic is a science, there are proven ways to make traffic better and safer. If intended speeds are high, vehicles shouldn't be sharing space with cyclists and pedestrians. If speeds are low, you can get by with sharing the road, although pedestrians really should be on pavements pretty much universally.

Just sidestepping slightly - most of the takeaways near me are drive-through, and/or are on out-of-town retail outlets. My nearest one is a McDonald's that opened about 6 months ago - I think the road is a 40 or 50 mph. I think you do get bikes delivering from there, but the restaurant has clearly been built around cars. The app even asks you what number parking space you're in.

We have some food places in retail parks further outside town, but other than that it's the opposite here. If it's in town centre, there generally won't be any parking, although there's probably bike racks nearby. Go a little further out and there might be a couple of shared parking spots, but that's it. If you're getting takeaway here, you're usually walking, cycling or having it delivered.

Zwijn posted...

Yeah maybe if we lived like cavemen, but we dont. The planet suffers a lot and energy needs per person are only going to increase.

You honestly look at the world today, at the whole of it mind you, and think it's evidence that the only way the energy needs of 8 billion human beings on Earth can be met is if they live like "cavemen". Really.

paerarru posted...

You honestly look at the world today, at the whole of it mind you, and think it's evidence that the only way the energy needs of 8 billion human beings on Earth can be met is if they live like "cavemen". Really.

Yes, really, since the standards of living and energy needs of people in developed countries are constantly increasing and we will get to a point where most if not all countries reach that point. This has severe consequences for the planet itself. My country is literally poisoning itself to death, we have no real nature, people cant even move out because there are more people than can be built housing for unless we throw all the environment laws aside. You could easily have 20 billion people, but the environment will collapse if we live like we do now, and even if we lived like many, many decades ago.

Zwijn posted...

You could easily have 20 billion people, but the environment will collapse if we live like we do now, and even if we lived like many, many decades ago.

But that's not what I asked. I completely agree that the environment will collapse if we continue on living like some sort of planetary cancer parasite species. Let's stop putting up this stupid strawman.

So okay, now it's many, many decades ago. Say a full century? So if human civilization, if progress and technology and most importantly industry were somehow reverted back to 1920s level then we would have, well I don't want to say no problem but say sustaining as much as 20 billion people would be well within the realm of possibility. That's what you're saying right?

Or else how far back do we need to go? Or is it just not possible for 20 billion human beings to live on Earth at some level of civilization? I mean after all isn't part of the purpose of civilization that MORE people can live at a BETTER standard with it than without? But of course we have to manage our resources and our waste... at any level! So could it be maybe that we don't have to go that far back, heck maybe even move forward in some respects, except that we just need to change some things? Better management. MUCH better management. Which understandably looks like a daunting task when you consider not only the extent of change but the scale of change that's needed. But still possible, right? So that it's not so much that our entire way of life has to be radically, essentially downgraded... just changed. Or are you saying that this is impossible, that to be human ESSENTIALLY means to live in the way that human beings live today? No, right, there are less cancerous, parasitic ways for human beings to exist... right??

I think it's a lot more than 20 billion by the way but alright, let's deal with 8 or so first. I mean think about it... obviously it's not really the amount of people that's the problem (you already admitted as much!) but what those people do, the way that those people live. So at least you're looking at it the right way. That's always a good first step.

paerarru posted...

But that's not what I asked. I completely agree that the environment will collapse if we continue on living like some sort of planetary cancer parasite species. Let's stop putting up this stupid strawman.

So okay, now it's many, many decades ago. Say a full century? So if human civilization, if progress and technology and most importantly industry were somehow reverted back to 1920s level then we would have, well I don't want to say no problem but say sustaining as much as 20 billion people would be well within the realm of possibility. That's what you're saying right?

Or else how far back do we need to go? Or is it just not possible for 20 billion human beings to live on Earth at some level of civilization? I mean after all isn't part of the purpose of civilization that MORE people can live at a BETTER standard with it than without? But of course we have to manage our resources and our waste... at any level! So could it be maybe that we don't have to go that far back, heck maybe even move forward in some respects, except that we just need to change some things? Better management. MUCH better management. Which understandably looks like a daunting task when you consider not only the extent of change but the scale of change that's needed. But still possible, right? So that it's not so much that our entire way of life has to be radically, essentially downgraded... just changed. Or are you saying that this is impossible, that to be human ESSENTIALLY means to live in the way that human beings live today? No, right, there are less cancerous, parasitic ways for human beings to exist... right??

I think it's a lot more than 20 billion by the way but alright, let's deal with 8 or so first. I mean think about it... obviously it's not really the amount of people that's the problem (you already admitted as much!) but what those people do, the way that those people live. So at least you're looking at it the right way. That's always a good first step.

Yeah Im not saying its not possible, just not possible at the rate our civilization is growing with us. There are ways to achieve a good level of comfort with many more people while also being respectful to the environment but thats something I just dont ever see happening, I think our brains simply dont work that way when it comes to long term thinking. The only thing that I think is feasible is having less people since I dont think people are willing to revert to pre-modern life and we will always want short term gains.

NoxObscuras posted...

Not by a long shot. There are some major cities that have become overpopulated because people flock there, but there's a lot of unused land in the world.

Just because land is unused doesn't mean we need to occupy it. What are we gonna keep going until there is no forests open fields etc?

Zwijn posted...

Yeah Im not saying its not possible, just not possible at the rate our civilization is growing with us. There are ways to achieve a good level of comfort with many more people while also being respectful to the environment but thats something I just dont ever see happening, I think our brains simply dont work that way when it comes to long term thinking. The only thing that I think is feasible is having less people since I dont think people are willing to revert to pre-modern life and we will always want short term gains.

I see. Again I don't think so, but if I thought you were right then I'd even agree, the Earth would be overpopulated. Because when you say overpopulated what you actually mean is that there are too many human-parasites on it. And if that was what human beings were after all then yeah, there would already be far too many of them.

reincarnator07 posted...

It's literally not an option in places. It's also not like all children are planned, life happens sometimes.

But this results in literally millions of superfluous car journeys every day... The option is either (1) live closer to a school, which you seem unwilling to accept, or (2) lower the population.

reincarnator07 posted...

Some disabled people can get some jobs, I do not dispute this. However, there will never be enough specific jobs for those with specific needs even if you cut the population in half

Like, the whole western world is pushing towards a service economy. Less and less people do anything physical, with a huge number being desk-based/internet-based. Even before the pandemic I had a mate who used to work from his couch in his underwear, chatting to bingo-players. At this point, it doesn't matter if you're disabled or not.

Are you sure you're not just talking about lazy people that claim to be disabled?

reincarnator07 posted...

This is the same claim with different spin. Not every single person of working age can reasonably be expected to work.

Isn't that the definition of overpopulated? Or at the very least unsustainable population?

reincarnator07 posted...

Yeah, convenience is a big thing. When one option takes 1/5 of the time as the other while having a similar cost, you don't really have another option. This is the actual reason poor public transport is underutilised, it's just not a viable alternative to spend several times the time travelling.

That's what I meant. I'm not gonna take a train to work just to make German shareholders rich. They're gonna need to up their game. But they can do whatever they want - doesn't bother me if they improve or not.

When I moved about 5 years ago, one minor requirement that was in the back of my mind was to be within reach of a station, just so that I could get to work if there was an unexpected problem with the car. It would take 59 mins by train, plus 10 mins walk (vs 30 mins driving), which I could tolerate as a one-off. But that's all the train is good for. And I've never had to use it yet.

reincarnator07 posted...

Trains are statistically way more eco friendly than flying. They're the most carbon efficient way of moving large numbers of people up to medium distances. If you're travelling within a country, this should be the premier option of getting between cities without cars, at least if the state properly invests in it.

I once had letter of the day in the Metro, perhaps in about 2008. Doubt I can find it now, but I was responding to an article the previous day about how trains were worse than planes under certain circumstances.

There's also analysis like the following:

https://sustainablefootprint.org/train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane/

reincarnator07 posted...

An Amazon warehouse isn't exactly comparable to a thriving city centre...

Huh? My girlfriend spends 500-1000 every month on Amazon. If she's representative of the whole country, then people spend more on Amazon than on the whole highstreet combined.

Like, I doubt I even spend 50 per year on the highstreet, excluding supermarkets.

reincarnator07 posted...

When public transport is affordable and as convenient as driving, people will voluntarily drive less. An affordable and functional nation rail network is a key part of that.

We keep turning this into a discussion about planning/priorities. All I'm saying is we're overpopulated for the way we're trying to do things now.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=o9Xg7ui5mLA

DarkDoc posted...

But this results in literally millions of superfluous car journeys every day... The option is either (1) live closer to a school, which you seem unwilling to accept, or (2) lower the population.

I believe some wires have gotten crossed here. The ideal is that people should be within either walking distance of basic amenities or at least have access to viable non car methods of transport to make the journey. I don't oppose this at all, I'm just saying that due to poor urban planning, this is not universal. This has little to do with the size of the population and everything to do with proper urban planning.

Like, the whole western world is pushing towards a service economy. Less and less people do anything physical, with a huge number being desk-based/internet-based. Even before the pandemic I had a mate who used to work from his couch in his underwear, chatting to bingo-players. At this point, it doesn't matter if you're disabled or not.

Are you sure you're not just talking about lazy people that claim to be disabled?

My current job is a hybrid role, I spend the majority of my work week in PJs from my desk at home. I'm all for those with disabilities getting jobs and I think it's a great sign when employers are willing to work around disabilities, it shows they actually care about their workers. However, there simply aren't enough of those jobs. On top of that there are some people who are literally unable to work normal jobs due to the severity of their disabilities.

Also not being funny but those on benefits for disability get paid fuck all. It's not a great existence and I'm confident in saying that they would much rather get a job than have to depend on the state.

Isn't that the definition of overpopulated? Or at the very least unsustainable population?

No. As I said earlier, this figure includes disabled people, students, carers and stay at home parents, although I'm sure I'm missing some other groups. The latter 2 of those in particular carry out vital work and get basically nothing for it. I have a couple of friends in each position and for both of them, it's far more sensible for them to do the caring rather than paying for someone else to do them. These are roles that have existed in society since before civilisation as we know it. They aren't tied to the size of the population, although the age distribution does have an effect on how many of each will be needed.

I once had letter of the day in the Metro, perhaps in about 2008. Doubt I can find it now, but I was responding to an article the previous day about how trains were worse than planes under certain circumstances.

There's also analysis like the following:

https://sustainablefootprint.org/train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane/

That was an interesting read and I think it does raise a really good point for trains: They're only as useful as what you can access with them. Far too often in North America specifically are the stations built in the middle of nowhere, requiring at least a bus to get anywhere if not outright needing a car trip at each end. In contrast as I'm sure you're aware, stations in the rest of the world are usually well connected and in the middle of town. The main station of my town is almost smack dab in the middle of town and you can get to literally all of the bus routes within a 5 min walk from the station.

If the trains aren't connected to anything and they're inconvenient to the point that few people take them, I think you'll probably be right in saying that planes would be more eco friendly. I also like that it pointed out that electric trains (and vehicles in general) are only as eco friendly as the power used to run them.

Huh? My girlfriend spends 500-1000 every month on Amazon. If she's representative of the whole country, then people spend more on Amazon than on the whole highstreet combined.

Like, I doubt I even spend 50 per year on the highstreet, excluding supermarkets.

Going by the people I interact with, she spends far more than the average and is not entirely representative.

We keep turning this into a discussion about planning/priorities. All I'm saying is we're overpopulated for the way we're trying to do things now.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=o9Xg7ui5mLA

I keep bringing up planning because almost all of the things you're attributing to overpopulation are explained and exacerbated by poor planning. Somewhere like the Netherlands with a combination of an extremely dense population and the lifestyles of a highly developed country should be a nightmare if the issue is overpopulation, while somewhere like America should be doing much better as although they have a lot of people, the density is rather low. Instead, we see the opposite.

Our population isn't at a point where we mathematically don't have the resources for it because we could feed and house everyone if we wanted to, but for quality of life we're overpopulated. I want a more chill, smaller global society that makes technological progress slower and more sustainably instead of this frantic rush to compete with each other by any means necessary. I still want to live modern, but let's slow the hell down and not destroy the planet.

In terms of available space? No, not even close.

Our problem is that our logistical, economic, and societal infrastructure is not built to scale or in the interest of increasing population or anything like that. It's built to make a line go up. A line that only matters because society has agreed that it matters.

We could provide for, house, and generally support several times the people without much difficulty, in excess, even. We don't because it does not make a profit/not enough of a profit to be deemed expedient. The metric being observed is money, not a happy/healthy/fulfilled society

But point that out and you get lectured over fridges and other nonsense

No, its far from over populated and many developed nations are already set to decline in population.

reincarnator07 posted...

USA is way out in front.

I meant data at city level. ie London has more deaths than Exeter or whatever.

But if you're going on a national level, the top two (by traffic-related death rate) are India and China. Hmm. Brazil, USA, Nigeria and Indonesia all very high...

reincarnator07 posted...

As a non driver, it's easy to get from my town to in and around London with a mixture of walking and public transport.

But it's the exception rather than the rule...

reincarnator07 posted...

The one that sticks out to me most is an intersection near a cinema on the outskirts of town. The cinema is clearly intended to drive to, but there is a regular bus service too. However, it's an absolute nightmare to cross the road to/from the bus stops because the intersection is very unfriendly to pedestrians. You basically have to take the long way around if you don't want a significant chance of getting hit by a car, even though it should on paper be as simple as crossing a couple of lanes.

Yeah, sounds simple. Lights, a bridge or tunnel come to mind. Maybe they didn't put one of those in because it's all about how many people would use it? Or simply cost.

reincarnator07 posted...

When I visited my friends in Phoenix, he had the luxury of living only a couple of blocks from a Walmart. However, it took forever for us to get there because those intersections are horrific to try and cross. Bonus points for being able to turn right on red, which is one of the most horrifically unsafe things you could do for pedestrians.

You've just reminded me if a time I was trying to get to Tower Records in San Francisco. We must have driven around the thing at least 4 times. Couldn't actually get there because of the one-way system.

reincarnator07 posted...

I think it's less of a target and more of a plan, at least at the local level. There should certainly be a target at the national level, but the UK has had the awful combo of selling off tons of homes to private investors while not building more to replace them.

Or just, blindly building an ever increasing number of new homes isn't wise because it doesn't solve the problem of overpopulation.

Also, what you're describing about "private investors" isn't a problem related to whether there are sufficient properties or not, because it doesn't change the number. Logic being one family will live in one home no matter who owns it.

reincarnator07 posted...

I completely agree on amenities. It's not optional when building new properties, you need to add in these things.

But then, who's going to pay for it? Builders are on tight margins. It's all about profit per square metre. They can't suddenly find an extra 800 million just to build something they can't sell.

If there was enough money to build all these extra schools and hospitals, you'd probably have grounds to say we weren't overpopulated. But there simply isn't. ie if you can't afford to build, then don't build.

reincarnator07 posted...

Yep, totally agree. It's like this on purpose and as a country we should be ashamed for letting it get this bad.

We should. Or then again, another way to think about it is that I'm not a manager or a shareholder in the railways. I don't care if they make a profit or not, and it's not my job to fix them. If the rail companies want to fuck themselves over, then they can go ahead.