London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent · October 15th 03, 10:18 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.transport

wrote:

Paul Weaver wrote:

Most people dont consider other options and just go for the
car automatically.

I think that is at the crux of the problems.

Problems or problem? And whose problem(s)?

Most people are so wedded to their car that they have become blind to
alternatives, so much so that they feel under threat when ideas are
put to them. Note some of the responses by the most obsessed
petrolheads who accuse anyone who dares hint at other options as
being anti-car. Ride a bike, walk, take a bus or a train and you are
immediately branded as the arch demon out to purge the world of
peoples freedoms

That's unfair because it is inaccurate.

Those who do those things present no "threat" (at least, not just by doing
them, though the manner in which some of them are sometimes done by some
people may present problems).

The "threat" is perceived when attempts are made to coax, cajole, threaten
or force others into doing the same thing (or perhaps to travel less), even
though they simply don't want go along with such "suggestions".

For [ those ] living in the middle of the heavenly public transport
system that is London - night busses, mass transit every few minutes
etc. ... the car is unneccersary for many journeys. For the majority
of people that dont live in London, the car is essential.

They often mistakenly _believe_ that it is essential to own a private
car. So long as they do not affect my life style then that is their
choice. Unfortunately, many of their resultant activities do.

...which of course, brings us right back to the kernel of many of the
arguments here and in ukt:

You suggest that *they* have no right to "affect [your] life style", but
seemingly fail to see that you are trying to affect *theirs*.

I'm sure I don't need to labour that point - do I?