-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If the car didn't exist
- Thread starter Zoe
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Cars as we know them now wouldn't exist if legislation had been passed to prevent their use on public roads. As I said above there would have been no reason for the likes of Ford to produce them if there wasn't anywhere for them to be used.
How many roads would we have today? Most surely wouldn't exist if you couldn't drive cars on them.
How many would be paved? I presume that besides walking, we'd be using horse drawn carriages to get about. Cycling isn't going to get you from London to Manchester, or even some people to their local train station (trains do still exist in your example don't they?).
How many would be paved? I presume that besides walking, we'd be using horse drawn carriages to get about. Cycling isn't going to get you from London to Manchester, or even some people to their local train station (trains do still exist in your example don't they?).
Ford don't seem to be very popular today! Though at present time, cars, trucks, aeroplanes and the like are essential for business and industry. Whilst I believe that we need to start working harder to cut emissions and road congestion, cars will be here to stay. Developments are ongoing to create cars which are more eco-friendly, from hybrids to those which are electrically powered. You can now buy a supercar called the Tesla which runs on electricity.
GearJammer
Member
But is commuting to and from work classed as personal use or buiseness use? I mean how do i get my kit from home to the truck, such as bedding, lappy, tele, microwave, kettle, toaster, maps, food, drink...... not to mention all the other stuff we carry to be able to live through the week.
They don't? I though they were always in the top 5 on car sales, but admit I haven't looked in recent years (my work no longer involves writing about cars).
I think the new Ford Focus looks fantastic, and was always amazed at how good the original Focus was to drive back in 1998(?) even in the most basic 1.6 petrol guise.
Mind you, I no longer drive a Ford as I couldn't stand (or trust) their network of dealers and garages. Almost ever single problem I had with a Ford was made worse after letting their qualified, and overpaid, technicians near the car. Go in with an earthing problem on a headlight, come up with a split hose and coolant all over the road... just one of the many examples that made me say 'never again'.
They make great cars, but God help you if something small goes wrong!
ChrisCooper
Established Member
The fact that one of the few fictional societies at a technology level similar to ours where private car ownership does not exist for the vast majority is 1984 says a lot to me. It's a very communist idea, and I think we have learned that communism doesn't work. Those at the top would come up with excuses why they were different and still needed their cars (and planes, and helecopters), such as security or the need to be able to go anywhere anytime. Once again, everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.
One question. Where do buses come into this? No buses and everyone has to be within walking or cycling distance of a station. The georgraphy of the UK could not manage that without having railways all over the place. You'd still have lightly used sections that were hardly viable and serious bottlenecks. Would it be viable to have all the roads needed to run the required bus service just for buses? Like with the railways you get roads that are built and maintained for perhaps 1 bus an hour, and other roads that are very conjested (look at many city centres where even bus only areas can get very busy, then add on all the extra buses needed to take all the car passengers). Trams too would not be immune, you'd have trams coming in from lightly used tracks in the subburbs, all trying to funnel through the centre.
That said one thing we would unlikely have is urban sprawl, instead people would likely live in high density urban housing. It would be good for the countryside, but how many normal people would be able to visit it?
One question. Where do buses come into this? No buses and everyone has to be within walking or cycling distance of a station. The georgraphy of the UK could not manage that without having railways all over the place. You'd still have lightly used sections that were hardly viable and serious bottlenecks. Would it be viable to have all the roads needed to run the required bus service just for buses? Like with the railways you get roads that are built and maintained for perhaps 1 bus an hour, and other roads that are very conjested (look at many city centres where even bus only areas can get very busy, then add on all the extra buses needed to take all the car passengers). Trams too would not be immune, you'd have trams coming in from lightly used tracks in the subburbs, all trying to funnel through the centre.
That said one thing we would unlikely have is urban sprawl, instead people would likely live in high density urban housing. It would be good for the countryside, but how many normal people would be able to visit it?
I meant they weren't popular in the thread, not in terms of sales and popularity. Ford are an excellent company and always deserve to be up there in the list of top manufacturers. I agree about the reliability issues. Last week, my neighbors new Focus refused to start not one, not two, but four times in daily succession. I soon became very tired of having to push the damn thing so my friend could get it on the road!
Saw the 4x4 Ford in town yesterday (I think it's called the Kuga) and it looked pretty good. I've always been a Volkswagen addict myself though, so I won't be picking one up any time soon!
To be fair we will end up with the same result with capitalism. The average person won't be able to afford a car and they will be exclusively the domain of the rich.
That's only true if you ignore the fact that over the past several centuries capitalism has delivered more wealth for everyone (granted not equally) than any other system in history so really I think that statement is bogus. The only attempts at socialism have all failed to deliver wealth creation on a scale anywhere near capitalism, and left their peoples far far behind what those in the west would consider normal. Your working class westerner had far more material goods and was wealthier generally than a working class person in say Eastern Europe during the 1980s.
Now unmoderated capitalism might end up in the scenario you suggest but no state (not even the US) allows completely unmoderated capitalism.
If the cost of fuel continues to rise as it has been doing then it's inevitable that the average person won't be able to afford a car.
You may well think that but it's quite simply capitalism. Demand is more than supply so high prices are inevitable.
SS4
Established Member
Not that high, if anything demand has fallen from the man in the street. It's possible that the rise is due to investor speculation from when the banks looked dodgy back in 2008, you only have to look at the price of gold to see investors going for commodities instead of money and this demand is pushing up the price rather than increased usage (edit) which actually renders your first sentence true...
I can see the ordinary person being priced out of cars at some point but that's really beyond the scope of the topic.
Fuel has gone up loads over the last 10-15 years, BUT cars are now available that consume very little fuel, and you have hybrids and electric-only cars that are slowly becoming viable (for the short commuting/shopping journeys that many of us make most of the time).
So, I think that cars will remain cheap and we will have alternative fuels. I think it's planes that need to find alternative, cleaner, fuel and that's a bit trickier. Maybe instead of thinking cars will disappear, or become driverless, we should look at how aviation will change in the next 20-30 years. I want to be able to fly abroad, and worry about it becoming far too expensive.
I am not particularly worried about road transportation, or even using public transport.
So, I think that cars will remain cheap and we will have alternative fuels. I think it's planes that need to find alternative, cleaner, fuel and that's a bit trickier. Maybe instead of thinking cars will disappear, or become driverless, we should look at how aviation will change in the next 20-30 years. I want to be able to fly abroad, and worry about it becoming far too expensive.
I am not particularly worried about road transportation, or even using public transport.
BrummyBoy
Member
Cars should not be taken off the road at all, just need to be powered by something else (excluding electric which is usually impratical).
justinsteam
Member
If the car didn't exist, my job wouldn't exist and I'd be doing something else to earn a living!
It's getting less so as time goes on. Once you can charge a car quickly, and it will have a good range, it should work fine. Mind you, the prices need to come down!
Eight hours to charge is silly... hmm, low on 'fuel', let's pull in to Welcome Break and wait eight hours... No, that's not going to convince the very people who drive a lot - and are the ones who need to change more than those doing the school run and about 2,000 miles a year.
We now have fast chargers that can charge to xx% in a (relatively) short time, so it's possible you may park up, charge and go for a meal/rest. But, you still need the range to stop you having to do that too often as it would grate after a while, tempting you back to the gas guzzler.
Ideally, I like the electric car with an electric motor, but also a small petrol/diesel engine that can be used 'in emergencies' to charge the batteries/power the motor when you can't wait. To do this, you'll pay a high price for fuel but if you were driving from Plymouth to Scotland, or through to Germany from London via Eurotunnel, it would be the only way to do it without simply keeping a normal car that can fill up quickly and easily on the way.
I'd definitely switch if I had the fossil-fuel backup, as in the vast majority of cases you'd probably be fine with just electric - but don't need to worry.
Last edited:
90019
Established Member
You'll have to steal it from Top Gear! The cars name is Geoff, another masterpiece by Clarkson and co!
Existing engines could be converted to run on Hydrogen but due to the energy needed to split the Hydrogen from water it isn't a practical solution as even though you'd have zero CO2 emissions from the exhaust you'd have high CO2 emissions from the power plants.
Depending on how it's done. Hydrogen would be a by-product of Deuterium extraction for fusion reactors, assuming that fusion ever gets going. The reactors would provide power for the electrolysis plants as well as the electricity grid, and possibly ever breed their own Tritium from Lithium if necessary. You just need to have a big enough reactor that does not take too much energy to start up. If you could sell the waste-Hydrogen (and possibly waste-Helium from the reactor if it was safe) then that would be a useful sideline. Waste-Oxygen would just be vented to the atmosphere.
BrummyBoy
Member
New Hydrogen engines should be developed in my opinion, seems to give a better range than electric cars as well as being more pratical.
- Status