Owning, & running, a car in Glasgow

[Josef]

I see your points, chaps, and they are fair ones; they just don't (in my mind) tip the social and environmental scales in their favour.

We shall agree to differ.

Well, I shall agree anyway .

[glasgowken]

I don't see anything "social" about riding with a bunch of pissed & fighting neds & sengas.

When there's a serious move to clean up the acts of some of our fellow "citizens" then i'll get all warm & fuzzy about present day public transport.

[Josef]

I don't see anything "social" about riding with a bunch of neds & sengas.

When there's a serious move to clean up the acts of some of our fellow "citizens" then i'll get all warm & fuzzy about present day public transport.

Oh, all right then, so you don't agree to differ .

We have been sold the notion of motoring equating to 'personal freedom'; in most cases this freedom equates to the ability to drive five miles to a supermarket/leisure centre/cineplex (add out-of town facility of your choice) to do what you previously could have done by just walking up the street.

There sometimes appears to me to be a disconnect between what we mourn the loss of on HG and our own personal behaviour. Local cinemas have closed down because people drive to their local megascreen; butchers, bakers and candlestickmakers because people prefer to buy bland and second-rate meat, bread and vegetables all in one go rather than go to three separate shops.

Public transport is peopled with neds (and me), for this reason. If people have been sold on the Thatcherite notion that 'only losers use public transport' then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The buses are dangerous because only the 'losers' don't have a car. The streets are 'dangerous' because only 'losers' walk them. The neds have gone from being an isolated minority to being the majority by default. The phrase 'strength in numbers' was never so appropriate.

Community spirit has vanished because people no longer have to interact with those around them; they walk out their door, hop in the car, drive to work, repeat in reverse. It is a rarity if they meet the person across the close to them. let alone the person in the next close. In this situation, everyone becomes a threat, because everyone is a stranger.

Road pricing is the 'serious move to clean up the acts of some of our fellow "citizens" '.

[glasgowken]

Oh blimey, the idea that "the good people wiil keep scum in check" doesn't work, I grew up in a housing estate where that was laid on in spades.
The scum simply drive the normal folk out, or into silence. Similar things have happened on public transport.

These charges will not force people out of cars, Even on crappy wages if most people had the choice to travel by a ned infested night bus, or car, what do you think they will choose ?
Even though I don't drink or smoke, it will be a struggle to keep a car, but i'm going to do it, damn the costs. I'm not doing this out of selfishness, but out of necessity, and the not unreasonable desire to feel a wee bit safer while traveling in the evening (cue somebody posting a list of accident stats ).

Road pricing would not make me give up a car, what may help is introducing extra staff on night buses with the balls to turf troublemakers off, a police force, & legal system, that actually gives a shit, and people actually acknowledging that these wee bastards are free to run riot. They rule the night, and it's just accepted as too difficult to deal with. A lot of this is done by under 16's who are percieved to be untouchable when it comes to the law.

Carrots always work better than sticks, improve the service conditions and many car drivers will use the bus.
The problems on buses are part of a much wider problem of zero respect or control that many people have. Troublemakers know that little or nothing will happen to them. When that is tackled then public transport will start to be more widely used by everybody.
The road pricing is an attack on the wrong people. But then the government (of any party) is well known for doing that.



News flash..........MPs want a 66% rise in pay
It seemed appropriate to throw this in to the thread

[Strike Team]

Go for it Ken, get yourself a wee Micra or similar, small, economical, low-pollution, relatively-cheap-to-run-car.

Personally I'm sick up to the back teeth of all this anti-car stuff. I have health problems which substantially restrict my ability to walk and stand. For most journeys my car is the only viable option. Unfortunately I can't get a disabled badge with all the subsidies and parking privilidges that comes with it, . The system assumes that you are either "unable or virtually unable to walk", or perfectly fit and healthy. Unfortunately I fall in between the two, and get no help whatever from government.

I suspect the posters who have expressed anti-car opinions in this thread have little concept of what it's like to struggle to carry out daily activities, and to have to carefully ration their very limited energy to get through the day. If, for example, I'm working for a few hours on Thursday, it means resting all day Wednesday and having Friday off to recover. My car helps me to make the best use of my extremely limited energy. I think the best interpretation I can put on those of you who advocate even more taxes and restrictions on car use is that you have totally failed to think through what your are saying.

Road tolls also take no account of ability to pay, which means that while the middle-class PC liberals and generously-paid politicians who demand road tolls can easily afford to pay them, many people on low incomes will be taxed off the road. Is that really fair?

We saw a massive backlash against the grossly unjust poll tax helped to kill off the Tories, I believe that many people will fight back against road tolls in the same way. The fuel protests were just the beginning.

[Apollo]

The last 3 posts seem to be an interesting combination, in order of posting:

1. All true, great in an ideal world, totally out of touch with reality

2. All true, sad reflection on the real world we all have to live in

3. Frighteningly true, the Blue Badge scheme is rightly reserved for worst cases, but I know many people who will never qualify, but have sufficient difficulty to be housebound when ill. They don't have great (if any) income, and are dependent on their little cars. I agree that those anti-car posters who are healthy and unaffected simply do not realise the difference.

I believe there might some changes of opinion if there was a way to impose a week or two's inability to get out and about, with no food in their house, and living on their own (no-on to send out for shopping). Something similar to the outfits that can be worn that can be worn to resrict mobility, eyesight and hearing to allow fit, young people to experience old-age, and take it into account when designing equipment.

That said, I do think the downright lazy and 'welded to their car' types should be discouraged. As to how, I've no idea, but I still find myself shaking my head in disbelief as one of my neighbours passes me on the the way to shops in her car - a distance of less than 100 m!

[Fossil]

T I still find myself shaking my head in disbelief as one of my neighbours passes me on the the way to shops in her car -

[Flyingscot]

Go for it Ken, get yourself a wee Micra or similar, small, economical, low-pollution, relatively-cheap-to-run-car.

Personally I'm sick up to the back teeth of all this anti-car stuff. I have health problems which substantially restrict my ability to walk and stand. For most journeys my car is the only viable option. Unfortunately I can't get a disabled badge with all the subsidies and parking privilidges that comes with it, . The system assumes that you are either "unable or virtually unable to walk", or perfectly fit and healthy. Unfortunately I fall in between the two, and get no help whatever from government.

I suspect the posters who have expressed anti-car opinions in this thread have little concept of what it's like to struggle to carry out daily activities, and to have to carefully ration their very limited energy to get through the day. If, for example, I'm working for a few hours on Thursday, it means resting all day Wednesday and having Friday off to recover. My car helps me to make the best use of my extremely limited energy. I think the best interpretation I can put on those of you who advocate even more taxes and restrictions on car use is that you have totally failed to think through what your are saying.

Road tolls also take no account of ability to pay, which means that while the middle-class PC liberals and generously-paid politicians who demand road tolls can easily afford to pay them, many people on low incomes will be taxed off the road. Is that really fair?

On the other hand life isn't fair- never has been never will be and the notion that it is fair is socialist deaming. It's always been the way that the richest people get most privaledges and always will be, thats society. In the 1970's it was the same, richest had cars- poorer didn't.

I'm very surprised that if you condition is as bad as you state that you cannot get a disabled badge. I've seen healthier people manage to get them, and I'm interested that you don't qualify. If you really struggle with energy you are deserving of one, so thats a stange one.

I can't believe people think road tolls, will happen however. Most people in traffic engineering read the stories, laugh and turn the page- the government is not going to get such a system to work on such a scale in by 2012 or whatever.

The real problem in society is the government- no idea of responsibility, we need to follow the Swiss political system where most polititions aren't wealthy spongers toeing party lines, but actually public servents.

On the subject of cars- the problem is people have been sold the dream and now people say "yeah other people should stop driving but not me"... A shift has to come- perhaps we've made the car too easy to use, and perhaps we need to stop people using them as much.

[Strike Team]

I'm very surprised that if you condition is as bad as you state that you cannot get a disabled badge. I've seen healthier people manage to get them, and I'm interested that you don't qualify. If you really struggle with energy you are deserving of one, so thats a stange one.

What are you trying to imply?

I've applied for a disabled badge via both routes - i.e. through Disability Living Allowance and direct to Social Services. In the first case I was turned down as I can cover more than the requisite 50 yards on a good day, and in the seccond case the Social Services reckoned that my health may improve in a few years.

The ugly truth is that there is a huge flaw in the disabled badge system, and disturbingly the disability charities and Disability Rights Commission are failing to make an issue out of it.

[Flyingscot]

I'm very surprised that if you condition is as bad as you state that you cannot get a disabled badge. I've seen healthier people manage to get them, and I'm interested that you don't qualify. If you really struggle with energy you are deserving of one, so thats a stange one.

What are you trying to imply?

I've applied for a disabled badge via both routes - i.e. through Disability Living Allowance and direct to Social Services. In the first case I was turned down as I can cover more than the requisite 50 yards on a good day, and in the seccond case the Social Services reckoned that my health may improve in a few years.

The ugly truth is that there is a huge flaw in the disabled badge system, and disturbingly the disability charities and Disability Rights Commission are failing to make an issue out of it.

What I'm trying to imply is that I see people who can walk 9 holes of golf on a good day with a disabled badge, and still qualify. If you have a disability or illness which means you have difficulty in walking, whether or not this is once a fortnight or once a week, you sould get an assessment and still qualify. I'm surprised Disability allowance saw you turned down, thats an automatic qualification. I managed to get one recently (for my uncle), was a simple process. My other uncle who isn't badly disabled (only hits him on certain days) was sent on an occupational therapist who did an assessment on him. I don't understand why you have been turned down, it isn't a difficult process although they tightened it due to bogus claims.

[Strike Team]

Someone who can walk 9 holes of golf on a good day shouldn't qualify for a disabled badge. Whether there's been as mistake made, or whether they've filled the form in on the basis of a bad day, I don't know.

You clearly don't understand the system, the criterion is that the applicant is "unable or virtually unable to walk". This is interpreted in almost all cases as being unable to walk 50 yards without suffering severe discomfort, or risking serious damage to health.

It may be you've just got lucky with your relatives. Your experience has been very different to mine. From what I can gather the system is more reasonable to those with musculo-skeletal disorders than those like myself who have metabolic disorders.

The system for assessing disability benefits is anything but fair. When I was sent for a medical examination for Incapacity Benefit, I was examined by a very unplesant foreign doctor who spoke poor English. His report was complete nonsense, he grossly misrepresented many of the things I said, and even claimed that I have children and that I live in a 3-storey house (it actually has 2 storeys), so as to imply that I have no difficulty with stairs (difficulty with stairs is one of the criteria used to assess IB claims). Some of the report was complete gibberish, with statements such as "this is not comprised in continence problems". Now you tell me what that sentence means. When I appealed the tribunal reinstated my benefit, and stated that the doctor's credibility was highly questionable. The panel assesed my walking distance as being 200 yards.

Yes it's true that there's a fair bit of cheating, but from my experience, and the experiences of friends and acquaintances, many genuine claimants get treated very badly. Unfortunately the anti-car policies - removing parking spaces, 300% tax on fuel, etc. bring in a strong incentive to cheat the system.

[Flyingscot]

Someone who can walk 9 holes of golf on a good day shouldn't qualify for a disabled badge. Whether there's been as mistake made, or whether they've filled the form in on the basis of a bad day, I don't know.

You clearly don't understand the system, the criterion is that the applicant is "unable or virtually unable to walk". This is interpreted in almost all cases as being unable to walk 50 yards without suffering severe discomfort, or risking serious damage to health.

It may be you've just got lucky with your relatives. Your experience has been very different to mine. From what I can gather the system is more reasonable to those with musculo-skeletal disorders than those like myself who have metabolic disorders.

The system for assessing disability benefits is anything but fair. When I was sent for a medical examination for Incapacity Benefit, I was examined by a very unplesant foreign doctor who spoke poor English. His report was complete nonsense, he grossly misrepresented many of the things I said, and even claimed that I have children and that I live in a 3-storey house (it actually has 2 storeys), so as to imply that I have no difficulty with stairs (difficulty with stairs is one of the criteria used to assess IB claims). Some of the report was complete gibberish, with statements such as "this is not comprised in continence problems". Now you tell me what that sentence means. When I appealed the tribunal reinstated my benefit, and stated that the doctor's credibility was highly questionable. The panel assesed my walking distance as being 200 yards.

Yes it's true that there's a fair bit of cheating, but from my experience, and the experiences of friends and acquaintances, many genuine claimants get treated very badly. Unfortunately the anti-car policies - removing parking spaces, 300% tax on fuel, etc. bring in a strong incentive to cheat the system.

Having read over the criteria again I tend to think the majority of people shouldn't have them, but then depends on the reading of it! Perhaps different councils have different policies and apply discressionary criteria differently to cope with people who may have difficultly on bad days? Or perhaps outside the metropolis of Glasgow they give them out more freely as more cash in the meters, and park illegally more cash to the council's coffers....

On the other hand the problem is people being shown the dream of private vehicles and the government now need to try and reverse that. The anti-car policies are 100% spot on the problem is unlike the netherlands our government is too spineless to admit they see the motorist as a moving cash machine. The Anti-Car policies are fair enough-without them people would drive too much and it would be chaos. Lets face it the world would be a better place if people loosed the grib on the steering wheel and I am not a green manic lefty! Personally I hate places like Braehead that charge nothing for parking, simply sends all the people to shopping centres like that, and kills the local centres where you can't park as there is no parking due to the volume of traffic heading to said centres!

The issue of blue badges is a difficult one, personally I prefer the English system, of the clock. It may helf discourage the people who have them in the suburbs to simply park for free in the City to go to their jobs. The same is true to the red free travel passes. Totally abused system. I personally dislike how blue badges can park all day on a double yellow where other folk aren't able to anything but load for 15 minutes. There should be a maximum of say 15 minutes, or even only on single yellows and marked bays. The number of times I've seen criminal parking from people with blue badges is shocking and parking attendants walk by-luckily the police did book them for obstruction. The 'free' parking issue sparks some resentment with a degree general public, the public do understand those who can't walk far or work and need to park close by but believe that they should still pay an amount albeit a discounted rate. I'm not sure, but I can see where they are coming from with the Scottish System.

It's a system that hasn't managed to adapt with modern day lack of morals.

[onyirtodd]

An interesting side effect of the introduction of parking controls in the west of the city (I can only speak for the Park area) is the number of vehicles which previously simply parked for free which are now brandishing disabled permits.

There seems to be an unusual correlation in that the more expensive the car the greater the chance of it having a blue badge.

Anyone know how much the fakes cost nowadays?