Safe Speed Forums

But cars are bad for the environment....

So are bikes. so is walking unless done naked...errm....in fact any human activty is bad for the enviroment..................Kill your self now.............Oh F%*K that would be bad enviroment........ oh god.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

I have moved this to here as it was inappropriate for the 'About our visitors' forum.

Please note - this discussion is likely to be highly volatile, please keep it clean and to the point, and 'attack' the comments NEVER the poster. Check with the Forum Rules if you are unsure, and ask if anything is unclear.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I think the first place to start a serious discussion, of this nature is to first establish 'what is the environment', as you perceive it ?

Is is carbon emissions - in which case is this 'an issue' ?
Is is immediate atmospheric or noise 'pollution' and define precisely, what that is?
If you approve of unleaded fuel, is it better or worse for the local atmosphere?
Is the ozone layer a real issue or a convenient tool that the government has spun to it's own benefit illusion to the detriment of the motorist?
Is the cost of electronic or other alternative energy cars really saving the waste to the environment or as in the cas eof battery cars actually far far worse?

then ...
what is actually better ? and why ? and how?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

if the train and bus network had the coverage of the road network and personal transport system, would the impact on the environment be any different? Our cars, bikes and LGV's are on standby 24 hours a day 365 days a year and can deliver people and goods door to door. You could argue that private transportation is more effecient, because it will go directly to the point of destination, where as public transport has to go via hubs and their various routes, which is often quite literally all around the houses.

I have read about this argument many a time, although the thread title is so what misleading I thought you were going to open a debate about asking whether cars do make such a difference to the environment as we are lead to believe. In the London Science museum it says that cars account for 15% of emissions globally which is a small price to pay for all the benefits and enjoyment they provide; heck even if it was a third then it would still be a good deal. In Britain they account for 13%:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environment ... /DG_064428

So the question is, if the government really cared about the environment so much, then why are they focusing on the source of 13% of the emissions rather than those which account for 87%? I am sure there are a lot of inefficient government facilities as a result of endless bureaucracy that could be stream lined if they put their minds to it. Their public information announcements make it seem that cars are the cause of all the emissions

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

Sorry to confuse

I am not sure that I believe those figures ....
I bet they have done their not compared like with like anyway - BUT I have not checked ... if anyone else can shed any light...
However many reports and programs that I have seen, show that the globe has been warming for millions of years. This is a blip, we are still in an ice age and icebergs melting en-mass is a spring phenomenon scientists wanted to withdraw from the papers that the government put forward as they took out so much to 'show' their point that the scientists felt it was no longer telling the truth.

If you compare a volcanic eruption, with the entire global output, the volcano makes up 99% and the 'world' 1%. to me this brings it into perspective.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

What really does make a difference is the increasing engineered congestion and enforced stops and starts on the roads.

I can drive my economically on most older trunk roads, but the recent habit of introducing roundabouts where there would have been grade separated junctons, and traffic lights on roundabouts must increase my fuel overall consumption by between 10 and 20 %

Agreed. It's one of the main things which shows that the government's opposition to cars (and "Friends" of the Earth's for that matter) is nothing to do with the environment; they only "care" about the environment when they think they can use it to make things worse for drivers.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

That's not the least of it.
To get from Windermere via the A5284, into Maude Street Google Map linky You have to turn into Sandes Avenue, drive via Station Road to the junction with Longpool, go all the way around the roundabout there, back the way you came, and straight on into Maude Street!
Along the way you will encounter a set of traffic lights, and two pedestrian controlled crossings... in each direction!!!

And that is just ONE destination in Kendal!
Needless to say huge queues build up at busy times!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!