I was recently having a conversation with someone that suggested that the general public should never have been allowed to drive cars. If the likes of Henry Ford had never been allowed to push their product at people then the Beeching closures may well have never gone through and the public transport network today would be much more extensive. Roads would likely still exist but would be restricted to commercial vehicles only.
-
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
I love my VW too much! 
Though I agree to some extent. The roads need a shake up, big time. A majority of the roads where I live are in poor condition following the heavy snow. The motorways themselves are far too congested. A friend of mine said that the major roads should have separate lanes for HGV's and families should only be limited to one car each. In some ways, I agree with him. There are far too many trucks on the A1(M), and perhaps if we limited the amount of cars that people could buy, it would encourage more people to take the train. The roads would be less congested and carbon emissions would be cut significantly.
Though I agree to some extent. The roads need a shake up, big time. A majority of the roads where I live are in poor condition following the heavy snow. The motorways themselves are far too congested. A friend of mine said that the major roads should have separate lanes for HGV's and families should only be limited to one car each. In some ways, I agree with him. There are far too many trucks on the A1(M), and perhaps if we limited the amount of cars that people could buy, it would encourage more people to take the train. The roads would be less congested and carbon emissions would be cut significantly.
I could probably write an essay on why roads are congested and what we could do to alleviate it (well, I just have actually). Main point is that building new roads does not help and that demand management should be one of the priorities. Instead of taxing people for how much petrol they use we should tax people for either the distance they drive or the place that they drive (i.e. higher charges for driving in city centres etc).
However, everything is interlinked so it is not only integrated transport, but town planning a nd other sectors which also need to be addressed.
However, everything is interlinked so it is not only integrated transport, but town planning a nd other sectors which also need to be addressed.
It depends what new roads. Bypasses of towns do help take traffic out of congested town centres and there are a few that could do with getting built. I'm not suggesting that complete new roads should be built but that the remaining gaps where you have a country lane joining two sections of high quality dual carriagway should be filled like they are doing with the A11 to Norwich. As for chargingpeople by distance, petrol tax actually does this as the more you drive the more petrol you have to buy. The issue with other forms is that you end up tracking all cars and there are privacy issues over this. Unless of course you limited the additional charges to driving into city centres. The issue with all of this though is that the people that can afford to drive the gas guzzlers into the city centres will likely still be able to afford it even if charges were introduced.
This thread though was more about how things could be different if the general public had never been allowed cars.
Bypasses to an extent do help, but for example here in York the Outer Ring Road doesn't do what is is supposed to do, for quite complex reasons. The problem with tax on petrol is that it is the same across the board - as I'm sure you know you get far more mpg on a motorway that in city centre driving, but most city centres have problems with congestion. Ideally all urban areas would have some sort of congestion charge, whereas other roads would be one fixed price. Privacy shouldn't be an issue now with new technology, but depends on what type of technology is used. There is a good paper on it by PT Blythe at Newcastle University if you can find it, Congestion charging: Technical options for the delivery of future Uk policy (2005). I agree that those who could afford it would still use a car, but at least that funding could be ploughed back into public transport, and the fee increased over a set period of time.
Getting back to the original post, I think we'd probably see the same problems on the railways as we see with roads if no-one had a car - high demand and a lack of capacity. So some sort of demand management would come into play (probably peak time fares being very high).
Getting back to the original post, I think we'd probably see the same problems on the railways as we see with roads if no-one had a car - high demand and a lack of capacity. So some sort of demand management would come into play (probably peak time fares being very high).
The only way I could see it working would be to use GPS tracking. This would allow the authorities to track everywhere you go. Also you say the charge could be increased year on year but I expect the rich would just continue to pay it and have uncongested roads all to themslves.
How about taxing by kerb weight? You know, like how much damage they actually do to the roads?
I think using one of the continentsal laws, that goods must only be sent by road as a last resort (and getting our loading guage to take iso shipping containers) so that roads are for people who are doing journeys inpractical by rail (lots of connections for short distances and stuff)
and Bring rail fares on a par with busses for journeys with competing services (like mansfield=> nottingham, 4.50 on the bus 5.50 on the train, the train is a little slower, and the pink prontos are really nice, leather seats, lots of legroom, big difference from a tired old 156's interior.)
WestCoast
Established Member
I think you'll find that is the exception rather than the rule, my local Stagecoach buses are dearer, slower and less comfortable than the competing train services, and considering some of the rail services are pacers.....
Last edited:
DavidBrown
Member
You want to back that up? I would say that in certain situations building a new road is the best option.
Take Barnstaple - it was known for its traffic jams across the region, with the local radio station even producing car stickers saying 'Barnstaple - home of the traffic jam'. To put it into some sort of scale, it would often take an hour to travel two miles. So a new bypass and bridge, linking the North Devon Link Road and the main road to Ilfracombe was built, and opened in 2007, cosing £42 million. Ever since, traffic has been free flowing, with the same two mile journey now taking no more than 5 to 10 minutes. You could even argue that public transport is now a more viable option - Barnstaple Station is now much easier to get to and has a much larger car park and better bus links than it ever did before the bypass - something it could have never had before due to the old road layout.
Of course, for balance, you do have the failures - the M6 Toll may take some long distance traffic off the main M6 through Brum, but it doesn't take away any of the local 'junction hopping' traffic, and so is still congested, and indeed is having lots more money spent on installing Active Traffic Management.
The point is that different problems require different solutions. Road building can, and does work if applied correctly.
As for the original question, I think the answer is that we'd still be on horses and carts. People forget that even before cars were invented, congestion in towns and cities was terrible - you could even potentially argue that horses were our slaves. Certaintly the world was a worse place.
That would be one way of doing it, along with how polluting it is. However would need to do a lot of tests to find out how damaging a certain type of car is to the road and how much it pollutes.
For congestion charging, if we did use GPS it would takes ages to retrofit every car with the technology. At least with ANPR it would be easier to install at certain locations - although would still be costly.
The main problem with using fuel tax as a disincentive is that it doesn't work for those who travel into the UK from overseas i.e. international haulage firms, who can fill up in Calais and travel around here for "free". Plus many motorists still see road use as free at the point of entry in the UK.
SS4
Established Member
The local roads would need upgrading to get the junction hoppers off the M6. The A41 between Handsworth (Soho Road) and West Bromwich at least is always full from noon until well after 5pm sometimes later if West Brom are at home and that's probably the main alternative from Birmingham to the Black Country to the M6/M5 (notoriously bad)
GPS in every car is not something that we should even be considering, it's little better than the ID cards scrapped in the early days of the Coalition. For haulage it's different because it's the company's vehicle and it's their job but for private users freedom of movement is paramount without the government knowing where you are at any given moment.
A pollution tax would be a better idea IMO since you have classes of cars tested when new and old cars can have emissions measured at MOT time or even ban cars from city centres and make them pedestrianised with suitable parking on the edge.
Once more from a civil liberties point of view a free country like ours cannot ban cars altogether and I strongly suspect that cars would have been derived from military vehicles. Hypothetically though:
Back on topic though if there were no cars I suspect there would have been more light rail such as tramways. In part I must admit I am glad there are cars because it gives a nicer ride on public transport. A journey shouldn't just be getting from A to B but rather being able to get there without being stressed and where possible through nice scenery
Didn't see this when I replied before.
I agree that in certain situations, new road building can be the only viable and feasible option. However amongst the vast majority of planners, new road building cannot and will never be the answer to congestion. Thankfully we have moved away from the 'predict and provide' method of the 60s (although it has taken its time and still continues to an extent). What we should be questionning is why is there a need to travel in the first place, and could the journey be done by another means.
Dennis
Established Member
If the car wasn't invented we might all still be going around on horses and McDonalds horse parks would be used at at night for burning horeshoes and showing off pimped up neddies.
Look at pictures of city centres around 1900 to see the congestion caused by horses and horse drawn vehicles, hardly a car in sight. Imagine the pong in the sumer.
Look at pictures of city centres around 1900 to see the congestion caused by horses and horse drawn vehicles, hardly a car in sight. Imagine the pong in the sumer.
Sun Chariot
Established Member
Hmmm, interesting one. Human movement and migration - at a micro and a macro level - has, over the past 100 years, been hugely influenced through access to a practical and flexible means of personal transport.
We would probably still live, work and depend on more insulated local communities. There would be significantly less integration between urban and rural demographic populations.
There would be no Formula 1 racing on TV. And there would be no awful orange Citroën Saxo deathtraps pumping music and big-bore exhausts in our town centres at night...
F1 would still be possible. It's just the general public that wouldn't be allowed to drive cars.
Given the number of cars running around which are currently untaxed / uninsured or being driven by unqualified / banned drivers, what do we realistically think the odds are of successfully installing tracking equipment in every vehicle in the UK actually are? Let alone the cost and privacy arguments.
Somebody else mentioned the M6 Toll road - have you been on it lately? It's pretty much deserted - not because it doesn't go where people want it to, but because of the cost (£5 each way I think). I only use it when I'm on business so somebody else is paying.
The simple reality is rail is not the answer to the vast majority of journeys people make, but rail is highly practical for getting large numbers of people into city centres or from city centre to city centre. Get that right and rail's credibility will go up in many people's eyes. Trying to get rail to provide a service for the majority of people's journey requirements is impractical and would cost far more than any benefit gained.
ACE1888
Member
personally the ONLY way forward was integrated transport systems, not competitive ones, car ownership could have been so much more 'controlled' this way? Just my opinion of course...
Sun Chariot
Established Member
But, unless racing drivers are being reared on a Top Gear Stig farm, our general public youngsters of today can't be our F1 potential drivers of tomorrow - because they're not allowed to drive.
They do. But it surely hasn't escaped your notice that you need a car to get to most kart circuits?
:roll:
It's bad enough taking a small amount of luggage on a train - I can just see your average TOC's response when somebody turns up with a kart, the kit needed and fuel to transport......
CarterUSM
Established Member
I don't think i would care to live in this country, seems a little over bearing. Can i have a motorcycle instead though?
No congestion charge on taxis, remember the Lambo that was a registered taxi, just to avoid it?
Just build some big park and rides on the outskirts of london.. Like waaaay out there, next to existing rail routes into london, new station, and get some rolling stock on them. Then make it cheaper than parking in london, and ideally quicker (maybe link it to the underground system) London traffic sorted.
Unless you're related to Ayrton Senna or some big name in the F1 industry, the only way you'll realistically get near an F1 car is by going karting. Win the races in town, win in the county, head out to Europe, and if you've got the skill, you might just get signed up by a GP2 team. GP2 cars are very similar to F1, but you'll have to triumph in this as well if you want a good chance of getting your ticket to Formula 1 itself. You'll probably be stuck as a test driver for the best part of a year, but if you really do have the skill, they'll give you a contract, your own race crew and stick you on the grid in Bahrain. And that's where F1 starts!
GearJammer
Member
Who/what do you count as 'General public' ? When i drive my car im just a member of the General public, but when i drive my truck, im a professional, does that mean im allowed a car?
You'd have been allowed to drive your truck for business use. For this you would have been given professional training and regular reassesments. You would not be allowed a car for personal use.
I said that there are predicitons that cars may be driverless within ten years. I expect that the technology will be available in ten years but it could take longer to introduce them. Driverless cars most certainly would not have been available in the 1950s and before though when the public were starting to own cars. The question is if things would be much better now in terms of transport if the general public had not been allowed cars. In theory we would still have a much more extensive rail network but it's also possible that lines may still have been closed and replaced by buses.
You're backtracking now, and you could apply the same argument about so many things.
Imagine if we didn't have TV.
Imagine if we hadn't got access to the Internet.
Imagine if we didn't have access to planes, or cheap and affordable air travel, such that people couldn't realistically expect to travel abroad - except by boat or being extremely rich.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Imagine if we didn't have TV.
Imagine if we hadn't got access to the Internet.
Imagine if we didn't have access to planes, or cheap and affordable air travel, such that people couldn't realistically expect to travel abroad - except by boat or being extremely rich.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
That was the point if this thread though. Would things be better now if the general public had never been allowed cars?
- Status