Going carless

[Ganymede]

Our car failed it's MOT because we didn't use it enough - some part of the catalytic converter apparently. We were told we could fix it, and then make sure we used it regularly, or sell it and see how we got on without it. As we'd only used it six times in the previous year, we got rid. That was about five years ago, and we're still carless.

Ha! That's pretty cool. However, I use mine at least once a week so it's not quite so neglected. TBH I've never been a great one for washing my car anyway. I tend to just close the door and walk away without a backward glance, and not think about it until it's time to get back in it again. Possibly not the best policy!

 

[KneesUp]

Isn't the thing to do is to just leave the car on the drive as much as possible? If you make an effort not to use the car, and a conscious decision to not give in and make up poor excuses to justify using the car (there seems to be a lot of those in this thread), then maybe one day you might wake up to find the car has been on the drive unused for a month?

We might (at a pinch) not use ours for four weeks in the school holidays (supermarket a walk/ride away, park the same) but when it comes to going away there are few alternatives to a car when your 1980s tent (reduce/reuse/recycle) weighs (literally) as much as you do!

Would we die without a car - no.
Would our lives be much harder and less fun without a car - yes. (and we'd see family less too)

It's a ridiculous situation when owning, running and maintaining a car (albeit a 10 year old car - but everything works as it should and there is no rust) is cheaper than using public transport for a family of three, but that is what privatising 'public' transport has done - if more peope used it, we'd all benefit even if we didn't use it ourselves (less pollution, less traffic) - and if we all benefit we should all pay - i.e. it makes sense to subsidise it. It does not make sense to subsidise it and let companies make profit from it.

For example - return to my parents house 3 x bus fares (would get 1 x family day ticket) £5. 3 x train fares (best price about £25 return) another £5 family bus ticket at the other end because it's a different city = £35 and a journey that is less flexible, takes longer and involves putting up with other people (and not taking much luggage)

Or we can go in the car for £15.

 

[Ganymede]

We might (at a pinch) not use ours for four weeks in the school holidays (supermarket a walk/ride away, park the same) but when it comes to going away there are few alternatives to a car when your 1980s tent (reduce/reuse/recycle) weighs (literally) as much as you do!

Would we die without a car - no.
Would our lives be much harder and less fun without a car - yes. (and we'd see family less too)

It's a ridiculous situation when owning, running and maintaining a car (albeit a 10 year old car - but everything works as it should and there is no rust) is cheaper than using public transport for a family of three, but that is what privatising 'public' transport has done - if more peope used it, we'd all benefit even if we didn't use it ourselves (less pollution, less traffic) - and if we all benefit we should all pay - i.e. it makes sense to subsidise it. It does not make sense to subsidise it and let companies make profit from it.

For example - return to my parents house 3 x bus fares (would get 1 x family day ticket) £5. 3 x train fares (best price about £25 return) another £5 family bus ticket at the other end because it's a different city = £35 and a journey that is less flexible, takes longer and involves putting up with other people (and not taking much luggage)

Or we can go in the car for £15.

Too true, alas. I love the train....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If you want to go carless you have to make other lifestyle choices that support that decision. Where you live, where you work, where you socialise, where your important rellies live, how you travel, are all things you have to think about and take into account. But, and this is always the controversial assertion, it is about choice and recognising the choices you have to make to go carless and the choices you make to stay a car user.*

*someone will be along in a bit to say something along the lines of "but I have no choice I need a car".

 

[Ganymede]

If you want to go carless you have to make other lifestyle choices that support that decision. Where you live, where you work, where you socialise, where your important rellies live, how you travel, are all things you have to think about and take into account. But, and this is always the controversial assertion, it is about choice and recognising the choices you have to make to go carless and the choices you make to stay a car user.*

*someone will be along in a bit to say something along the lines of "but I have no choice I need a car".

You have a point GG but I think where you work is one of the most important factors and this is often the most difficult to have much power of choice over, particularly if supporting a family. A free choice in everything would be lovely. I speak as one whose work would involve a lot of travel wherever I lived, although less if I lived in London, and that's purely down to the nature of the industry. I could just give up work, I suppose...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

You have a point GG but I think where you work is one of the most important factors and this is often the most difficult to have much power of choice over, particularly if supporting a family. A free choice in everything would be lovely. I speak as one whose work would involve a lot of travel wherever I lived, although less if I lived in London, and that's purely down to the nature of the industry. I could just give up work, I suppose...

Did you not, at some point, choose to work in the industry you work in?

 

[Ganymede]

Did you not, at some point, choose to work in the industry you work in?

Yeah, when I was about 15... it's vocational.

I'm not disputing that people choose, and as I said, I could choose to give it up and do something else, but I still think that work is one of the least easy things to change if you have responsibilities (which I don't).

 

[Kookas]

@young Ed FYI



826 is not 87% of 1000, it's 82.6%


sorry, but that really got my goat

You rounded wrong, it would be 827.

Saying that, you'd be surprised at how often I see rounding errors in the answers on the mark schemes of Chemistry A-Level papers.

 

[Flying Dodo]

We might (at a pinch) not use ours for four weeks in the school holidays (supermarket a walk/ride away, park the same) but when it comes to going away there are few alternatives to a car when your 1980s tent (reduce/reuse/recycle) weighs (literally) as much as you do!

Would we die without a car - no.
Would our lives be much harder and less fun without a car - yes. (and we'd see family less too)

It's a ridiculous situation when owning, running and maintaining a car (albeit a 10 year old car - but everything works as it should and there is no rust) is cheaper than using public transport for a family of three, but that is what privatising 'public' transport has done - if more peope used it, we'd all benefit even if we didn't use it ourselves (less pollution, less traffic) - and if we all benefit we should all pay - i.e. it makes sense to subsidise it. It does not make sense to subsidise it and let companies make profit from it.

For example - return to my parents house 3 x bus fares (would get 1 x family day ticket) £5. 3 x train fares (best price about £25 return) another £5 family bus ticket at the other end because it's a different city = £35 and a journey that is less flexible, takes longer and involves putting up with other people (and not taking much luggage)

Or we can go in the car for £15.

Except £15 isn't the cost to take the car - that's only the fuel cost. You need to factor in all the fixed costs such as VED, insurance, depreciation, cost of car loan, repairs etc. Now if your car was sat on the drive for weeks without going anywhere, as mine was, due to me deliberately trying to use the bike as much as possible, and planning ahead to buy ridiculously cheap advance train fares, it makes it easier to realise you don't really need the car.

 

[KneesUp]

Except £15 isn't the cost to take the car - that's only the fuel cost. You need to factor in all the fixed costs such as VED, insurance, depreciation, cost of car loan, repairs etc. Now if your car was sat on the drive for weeks without going anywhere, as mine was, due to me deliberately trying to use the bike as much as possible, and planning ahead to buy ridiculously cheap advance train fares, it makes it easier to realise you don't really need the car.

If you'd read my previous posts you'd realise that my car doesn't meaningfully depreciate because I bought it as a fully serviced, fully functional, high mileage 9 year old car - so for £1200 I get a big boot, 40mpg, climate control, comfy seats and a full length sunroof.

As a worse case I can weigh it in for scrap and get £300 back - I think it's fair to assume it willl last at least another 6 months given it passed it's MOT with no advisories and runs very well - so worse case it will depreciate by £900 in 2 years, or £1.23 per day.

I paid cash for it, so there is no loan. It costs me about £300 per year in servicing and bits - wiper blades and so on - another 82p per day.

Car tax is 40p per day, and inusrance is another 96p.

I get that to a fixed cost of £3.41 per day. Diesel for the journey to my parents and back costs a bit over a tenner. Ergo a return trip for up to 5 people in my car to my parents is about £15. In total. Let's be generous and say I spend an extra £1500 a year on car bits that I've forgotten about - it's still less than £20 for that journey.

I've just checked on the trainline and the cheapest return rail fare (for 2 adults and a child) is £45.75. And we'd need bus tickets each end - another £10 - total cost of a slower, less convenient, less flexible and in my experience less reliable mode of transport = £55.75.

You will also note that I didn't say we would die without the car. I said it would make life less enjoyable and/or more expensive.

 

[Alun]

Not many people complain that running their car is too cheap, good for you KneesUp!

 

[Sara_H]

If you want to go carless you have to make other lifestyle choices that support that decision. Where you live, where you work, where you socialise, where your important rellies live, how you travel, are all things you have to think about and take into account. But, and this is always the controversial assertion, it is about choice and recognising the choices you have to make to go carless and the choices you make to stay a car user.*

*someone will be along in a bit to say something along the lines of "but I have no choice I need a car".

You're absolutely right. About 18 months ago I was in the midst of applying for a job outside Sheffield that was going to mean massive changes to my lifestyle. I may have had to buy a car, or I may have managed a bike/train/bike commute, I'm not sure. As luck would would have it I missed the interview as I was in hospital!
For the first time a couple of years ago my son and I went on a cycle camping holiday, and despite all the exotic holidays he's had in his little life, he rates those few days riding and camping in Derbyshire as the best holiday ever.
This year we're going to Robin Hoods Bay (our favourite place in the world. Train to bike and train to Scarborough then ride along the disused railway line from Scarborough to Robin Hood's Bay. Can't wait!

 

[KneesUp]

Not many people complain that running their car is too cheap, good for you KneesUp!

Oi cheeky!

My complaint is that public transport is a public good - i.e. it's something we all benefit from, whether we use it or not. This means we should all pay for it and it should be run in the public's interest - not in the interests of shareholders.

Public transport will rarely be the fastest option for any journey unless you are going from a station to a station - in my example the city centre to city centre part of the journey to my parents is faster by train than car, but because neither my parents nor I live actually in the station, the journey from house to house is quicker by car.

It will rarely be the most comfortable option either - in my car I can set the temperature (to the nearest half a degree if the dash is to be believed) and I get to choose the music whilst getting a guaranteed window seat that has never had a strangers boots rested on it, sitting with people I like.

It will never be the most convenient because my car stops outside my front door and goes wherever I like. Even the bus stop is a 10 minute walk over a hill - the train is that walk plus a walk from the bus depot to the train station - which is at least covered by a roof now. Apart from the bit that isn't. And of course if I want to take the bikes I have to book them on in advance by phone - and then if I miss the train they're booked on I just have to give up.

In short, if you own a car there is little to persuade you to use public transport, and yet in other countries people do use it - because there it is cheap.

I used to get the bus home a few days a week before I had my bike, because we only run one car and it saved my partner having to come and collect me - but what is a 15 minute jounrey by car took 66% longer by bus - plus there was a 15 minute wait for the bus at the start and a 10 minute walk at the other which turned what would be a 15 minute jounrney costing about 40p in diesel into a 50 minute journey on a smelly bus that cost £1.70. In summer I used to just walk, but some people don't have that choice.

Public transport needs to be cheaper so people use it in greater numbers. This will benefit all of us. When I lived in Europe everyone used the tram - sure it was a bit less convenient than the car, but the trams stopped all over, and becuase so many people used them they ran realy frequently so you never had to wait long, and the cost per day if you bought a quarterly pass was a matter of pence - so even if people had cars they didn't use them to go on local journeys.

 

[Ganymede]

Oi cheeky!

My complaint is that public transport is a public good - i.e. it's something we all benefit from, whether we use it or not. This means we should all pay for it and it should be run in the public's interest - not in the interests of shareholders.

Public transport will rarely be the fastest option for any journey unless you are going from a station to a station - in my example the city centre to city centre part of the journey to my parents is faster by train than car, but because neither my parents nor I live actually in the station, the journey from house to house is quicker by car.

It will rarely be the most comfortable option either - in my car I can set the temperature (to the nearest half a degree if the dash is to be believed) and I get to choose the music whilst getting a guaranteed window seat that has never had a strangers boots rested on it, sitting with people I like.

It will never be the most convenient because my car stops outside my front door and goes wherever I like. Even the bus stop is a 10 minute walk over a hill - the train is that walk plus a walk from the bus depot to the train station - which is at least covered by a roof now. Apart from the bit that isn't. And of course if I want to take the bikes I have to book them on in advance by phone - and then if I miss the train they're booked on I just have to give up.

In short, if you own a car there is little to persuade you to use public transport, and yet in other countries people do use it - because there it is cheap.

I used to get the bus home a few days a week before I had my bike, because we only run one car and it saved my partner having to come and collect me - but what is a 15 minute jounrey by car took 66% longer by bus - plus there was a 15 minute wait for the bus at the start and a 10 minute walk at the other which turned what would be a 15 minute jounrney costing about 40p in diesel into a 50 minute journey on a smelly bus that cost £1.70. In summer I used to just walk, but some people don't have that choice.

Public transport needs to be cheaper so people use it in greater numbers. This will benefit all of us. When I lived in Europe everyone used the tram - sure it was a bit less convenient than the car, but the trams stopped all over, and becuase so many people used them they ran realy frequently so you never had to wait long, and the cost per day if you bought a quarterly pass was a matter of pence - so even if people had cars they didn't use them to go on local journeys.

A million recommends to you, KneesUp.

 

[Sara_H]

Oi cheeky!

My complaint is that public transport is a public good - i.e. it's something we all benefit from, whether we use it or not. This means we should all pay for it and it should be run in the public's interest - not in the interests of shareholders.

Public transport will rarely be the fastest option for any journey unless you are going from a station to a station - in my example the city centre to city centre part of the journey to my parents is faster by train than car, but because neither my parents nor I live actually in the station, the journey from house to house is quicker by car.

It will rarely be the most comfortable option either - in my car I can set the temperature (to the nearest half a degree if the dash is to be believed) and I get to choose the music whilst getting a guaranteed window seat that has never had a strangers boots rested on it, sitting with people I like.

It will never be the most convenient because my car stops outside my front door and goes wherever I like. Even the bus stop is a 10 minute walk over a hill - the train is that walk plus a walk from the bus depot to the train station - which is at least covered by a roof now. Apart from the bit that isn't. And of course if I want to take the bikes I have to book them on in advance by phone - and then if I miss the train they're booked on I just have to give up.

In short, if you own a car there is little to persuade you to use public transport, and yet in other countries people do use it - because there it is cheap.

I used to get the bus home a few days a week before I had my bike, because we only run one car and it saved my partner having to come and collect me - but what is a 15 minute jounrey by car took 66% longer by bus - plus there was a 15 minute wait for the bus at the start and a 10 minute walk at the other which turned what would be a 15 minute jounrney costing about 40p in diesel into a 50 minute journey on a smelly bus that cost £1.70. In summer I used to just walk, but some people don't have that choice.

Public transport needs to be cheaper so people use it in greater numbers. This will benefit all of us. When I lived in Europe everyone used the tram - sure it was a bit less convenient than the car, but the trams stopped all over, and becuase so many people used them they ran realy frequently so you never had to wait long, and the cost per day if you bought a quarterly pass was a matter of pence - so even if people had cars they didn't use them to go on local journeys.

Interesting when comparing car and public transport that one of the positives for the car is its door to door properties. But how often do you drive somewhere that you can't park close to where you're going and end up walking 15 minutes after you've parked? This was why I started riding.
No staff parking and very limited on street parking meant circling the area for an undefined length of time, then a long walk to/from the workplace, through some places that weren't all that nice to walk through at night at the end of a shift!