| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 60872 | 2005-08-16 07:14:00 | Carless Days. | Elephant (599) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 381596 | 2005-08-16 13:19:00 | I think its time we constructed a better subway system!!! It wuld be quicker to use especially if we had it like that of the japanese ones! maybe carless days are a good idea. it will get people moving instead of sitting down the whole day. people would become skinnier!! |
white_lightning (8693) | ||
| 381597 | 2005-08-16 18:04:00 | The last carless days were a joke, I had mine on Sunday, in those days Sunday was dead anyway, What did we do then? had a life, none of this lets go shopping crap. Once you choose your day you could not change it, I would of changed the day and saved the country, as the scheme intended. Some people got two stickers on there cars somehow, they used the logic of still driving 7 days a week, my logic says it should be off the road 2 days a week. But what about in NZ citys were there are "rush hours" or should that be "queue hour" have a 9 hour day - work 9 days a fortnight week with a eight hour day in there somewhere, one could get a life on that day off with no real over-head, and if it worked there could be 10% less queue on the road (in theory). |
ERR (8231) | ||
| 381598 | 2005-08-16 22:08:00 | Carless days is a crap idea, not suited for todays busy lifestyles. Building more roads will just mean there will be more vehices on the road. What they need to do is remove roads or block them off in peek hour traffic, people will get so annoyed with a 3 hour drive home they will be pushed into public transport. |
Rob99 (151) | ||
| 381599 | 2005-08-16 22:46:00 | judgeing by the traffic over the last few months i guess noone cares about fuel cost, all high speed push and shove. | tweak'e (69) | ||
| 381600 | 2005-08-16 23:23:00 | The last time this fiasco (carless days) was implemented, I was in charge of a rural Police area, and as such had the enviable job of issuing "emergency" permits. Talk about a "no win" situation. The trouble people went to to get around the legislation was amazing. Many families have two vehicles now so can completely avoid being carless on any particular day. I don't think they'll dig this one out again if someone has the brains to properly assess what happened last time. | bazmeister (3216) | ||
| 381601 | 2005-08-16 23:53:00 | how on earth did farmers get on with out useing vechiles? a lot of farmers these days run muiltible farms and vechiles are a must to be able to go between farms and look after stock. you try telling SPCA you can't feed your stock because its a carless day ! | tweak'e (69) | ||
| 381602 | 2005-08-17 00:00:00 | how on earth did farmers get on with out useing vechiles? a lot of farmers these days run muiltible farms and vechiles are a must to be able to go between farms and look after stock. you try telling SPCA you can't feed your stock because its a carless day ! Get a horse and carriage :p And forget trains, they are an absolute piece of SHIRT |
bob_doe_nz (92) | ||
| 381603 | 2005-08-17 00:23:00 | There are two suggestions I've seen floating around, which relate to the issue of petrol consumption, though both are long-term approaches: a) Regulate the importation of vehicles by engine size b) Regulate the top speed of all vehicles Neither approach is even close to perfect, but they address two key issues which I haven't been able to fathom - why do you need a six cylinder 5 litre engine, or a car that can travel up to 300km an hour? There are plenty of reasons for both in terms of personal freedoms, but from an environmental perspective, and a safety perspective, there is no "fundamental necessity" for either, barring those emergency vehicles for whom the right to speed is enshrined in legislation and governed by specific provisions. For the general public, there should be a restriction on engine size and/or top speed, with exceptions administered for those emergency vehicles, and for other specific purposes (industrial and commercial transportation, military vehicles). The average joe bloggs is not trained to handle a vehicle travelling at more than 110km/hr, yet can buy a vehicle that has the potential to reach 250-300 km/hr. Any government regulation to this effect is unlikely, and would be quite repressive, but would recognise the appropriate value that should be placed on human and environmental saftey over the basic liberty principles which are so often abused to effect individual wants and desires with little benefit to the wider community. |
Lizard (2409) | ||
| 381604 | 2005-08-17 00:33:00 | Nothing wrong with biking a 15 minute car trip. I bike 20 mins to work in CHCH and it takes just as long to drive so can't see any probs with more people getting off their lazy bums and cycling. Sure, some people need transport and should be exempt - farmers, disabled etc. but there is a huge majority of people who really don't need to drive and could quite happily cycle or walk. | stevesumner (4849) | ||
| 381605 | 2005-08-17 01:42:00 | There are two suggestions I've seen floating around, which relate to the issue of petrol consumption, though both are long-term approaches: a) Regulate the importation of vehicles by engine size b) Regulate the top speed of all vehicles Neither approach is even close to perfect, but they address two key issues which I haven't been able to fathom - why do you need a six cylinder 5 litre engine, or a car that can travel up to 300km an hour? There are plenty of reasons for both in terms of personal freedoms, but from an environmental perspective, and a safety perspective, there is no "fundamental necessity" for either, barring those emergency vehicles for whom the right to speed is enshrined in legislation and governed by specific provisions. For the general public, there should be a restriction on engine size and/or top speed, with exceptions administered for those emergency vehicles, and for other specific purposes (industrial and commercial transportation, military vehicles). The average joe bloggs is not trained to handle a vehicle travelling at more than 110km/hr, yet can buy a vehicle that has the potential to reach 250-300 km/hr. Any government regulation to this effect is unlikely, and would be quite repressive, but would recognise the appropriate value that should be placed on human and environmental saftey over the basic liberty principles which are so often abused to effect individual wants and desires with little benefit to the wider community. The question should be, why should I not be allowed to have this? Last time I checked, capitalism was based on individualism. Lo. |
Lohsing (219) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||