Maybe I’m Over reacting but…

[jowwy]

I think some people are doing this quite a lot now in this thread

View: https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LegalHalfIberianchiffchaff-max-1mb.gif

 

[Vantage]

The guns aren't dangerous, people are, argument doesn't really hold up I think. The gun lobby regularly trots this out. Cars are dangerous for all for the pollution caused making them as well as running them, this is undeniable. Adding tired unthinking people to the equation just adds to the misery. Traffic jams are just considered a part of life, they don't need to be if people were more socially responsible.

The problem with guns unlike cars is that their sole reason for existing is to kill. They have no other purpose. Handled correctly, they kill even better.
Cars were designed and built for transportation.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The problem with guns unlike cars is that their sole reason for existing is to kill. They have no other purpose. Handled correctly, they kill even better.
Cars were designed and built for transportation.

I think this makes cars far more difficult. We can just ban guns, we don't want to do that with cars. Or I don't, at least.

But cars are inherently hazardous, particularly to people who are not benefiting from their use.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

But cars are inherently hazardous, particularly to people who are not benefiting from their use.

No they are not, why is the car that is currently sat on our drive dangerous? I understand that it has the potential to be dangerous, just like a carving knife has the potential to be dangerous, but it in itself is not dangerous.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Now I'm going to have to admit the time I went to Croydon just to have a go on the tram.

I've also just remembered that earlier this year I went all the way to Wuppertal in Germany just in order to ride on the Schwebebahn.
Not to mention riding from Whitby to Pickering and back just for the hell of being on the choo choo train.
And making a highlight of a journey to Stourbridge a trip on the Parry People Mover on the Stourbridge Town branch line

I'm a complete hypocrite!

 

[DaveReading]

"Going for a drive" certainly used to be a thing when I was little.

Nowadays it just doesn't sound right.

 

[matticus]

No they are not, why is the car that is currently sat on our drive dangerous? I understand that it has the potential to be dangerous, just like a carving knife has the potential to be dangerous, but it in itself is not dangerous.

And yet you'd usually put a carving knife away in the presence of small people (or certain animals). But not - say - spoons.
Why is this, if the knife is not dangerous?

Perhaps it is the potential that is dangerous.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Cars were designed and built for transportation.

They were/are and wonderfully liberating they are too.

I'm old enough to remember when cars were rare in the street where I lived as a kid.

We very rarely went outside of our immediate neighbourhood and all the mum's (most males did sod all domestically back then) had to trudge to the 'local' shops, or bus stop if going to town, and then back again laden with heavy bags etc. Trips to Doctors/Dentists/Hospitals were an absolute nightmare. Ditto visits to far-flung relatives too.

Cars changed this and made life easier and opened up new horizons: and are now intrinsically interwoven into many people's social/work life.

For sure we need to cut down on pollution and bad driving but the impression I get is that some people want to see cars disappear forever - it's never happening imo.

For the vast majority of people bikes are an unattractive and non-viable option as a car alternative.

In our village we have 11 people who I would call proper regular cyclists and all have and use cars regularly. Not one is anti-car that I know of.

Ditto the other cyclists that I know who do not live in the village.

In all honesty there is very little anti-car rhetoric in my world - most of it that is is on this forum and the Jeremy Vine show.

The vast majority of people imo seem to appreciate the enabling nature of car ownership.

I don't even think this is a generational thing either: I would say that every older teenager and young adult that I know either has, or desperately wants, a car. Probably second on the list after an all singing all dancing iPhone. Even the ones who rabbit on to anyone who will listen that the Old Folk are screwing up their world are in the aforementioned category. People, young, old and in between like the utility of cars.

Banning is ludicrous, we just need to preserve the utility but do it better.

 

[matticus]

We very rarely went outside of our immediate neighbourhood and all the mum's (most males did sod all domestically back then) had to trudge to the 'local' shops, or bus stop if going to town, and then back again laden with heavy bags etc. Trips to Doctors/Dentists/Hospitals were an absolute nightmare. Ditto visits to far-flung relatives too.

Cars changed this and made life easier and opened up new horizons: and are now intrinsically interwoven into many people's social/work life.

But doesn't this justification all go up in smoke once people are
just going for a drive?

[I'd love to see more sensible car use - but everyone's got an excuse, so every Spokeydokey/Phaeton blocks any progress on this; so maybe bans and restrictions are the only answer? You've backed us into a corner!!! :P ]

 

[SpokeyDokey]

But doesn't this justification all go up in smoke once people are
just going for a drive?

[I'd love to see more sensible car use - but everyone's got an excuse, so every Spokeydokey/Phaeton blocks any progress on this; so maybe bans and restrictions are the only answer? You've backed us into a corner!!! :P ]

No, going for a drive is a valid use of a car in my opinion.

Same as any other fuel using recreational activity (motorbikes, cars, planes, going abroad on holiday). I could also include the calvacade that follows the TdF etc and the cyclists that zip of to Majorca or wherever to enjoy their cycling..

I'm not for returning to days of yor when cars were rare. As I said, we just need to do it better.

I'm not sure who 'us' is but I guess you are an 'us' and I respect your views but I think you will remain an 'us' for a long long time.

 

[Alex321]

And yet you'd usually put a carving knife away in the presence of small people (or certain animals). But not - say - spoons.
Why is this, if the knife is not dangerous?

Perhaps it is the potential that is dangerous.

You do that because it has the potential to be dangerous, if misused. And the small people are likely to misuse it.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Banning is ludicrous, we just need to preserve the utility but do it better.

Literally nobody here has suggested banning cars, so suggesting that they have is ludicrous.

 

[Poacher]

Do you mean citing dangerous roads, not "sighting dangerous roads"?

FFS, don't set him off again!

 

[matticus]

Literally nobody here has suggested banning cars, so suggesting that they have is ludicrous.

Point Of Order! I did use "ban" - after Spokey's post, in fact - but I meant in limited situations. Be that time, or geography, or both.
As you were

 

[matticus]

You do that because it has the potential to be dangerous, if misused. And the small people are likely to misuse it.

How are you defining this "potential" idea - a knife has either cut someone, or it hasn't. It doesn't really matter why it hasn't cut you yet - it's still dangerous. Calling it "potentially" dangerous doesn't seem to change much! You need to always treat the thing with respect - until someone blunts it, there is always the potential for harm. You just relax when the small people are in another room, or you can see the knife is shut in a drawer.

Are you familiar with COSHH regs? (They cover dangerous chemicals). No-one that deals them with say the substancess are not dangerous when they're in the right container etc - they're just less dangerous.