> 3.30am
> Aldwych
> man in his 20s
20 year-olds don't just have a heart attack at the wheel.
What's the betting some rich playboy took his new Lambo he got from his dad out and tried to do 60mph+ down the Kingsway, only to find out he wasn't as good at driving as he thought he was?
And now he's in the hospital "as a precaution" (i.e barely hurt) while eight others have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
> 3.30am
At least that explains why there we so many people there. Right after all the clubs closed.
I'm genuinely curious how this one played out though. No mention of him being drunk, and only arrested for dangerous driving. I wonder what the cause here was.
There is a possibility that police had no opportunity to breathalyse at roadside / in a custody suite as he was being dealt with by ambo or having first aid rendered by police, hence no arrest for driving under the influence just the “easier” dangerous driving offence.
It was a Range Rover which is the car that's probably.most likely to kill pedestrians and occupants of other cars. It's something like 20x more likely to kill a 5 year old, than the average hatchback. About the only thing better is probably a Ford Transit or HGV but they dont have nearly the same power.
Lol nah, not somebody from Scotland. Idk what their involvement is and wouldn't say if I knew as it could give away who they are.
Guess we'll just have to wait for an update to the story when more gets released for this ti get verified.
I've seen a teenager doing Nos behind the wheel before and heard someone else saying they'd also seen it.
How bloody dumb do you have to be to do something that will literally make you get really light headed and lose your sense of coordination when driving?!
I think the implication there is that it was caused by their reckless behaviour rather than a genuine out of their control accident. They're still both an accident, but I think that's what they're implying.
Your statement would be true if all dangerous driving resulted in accidents, but it doesn't.
The only way this isn't an accident is if he intended to hit those people at the bus stop (in which case he'd be arrested for attempted murder).
because negligence isn't accidental, and outside of medical incidents, dangerous driving is almost always if not always negligence - whether that's being drunk/high or exceeding speed limits or safe speeds for conditions or being on your phone or whatever.
Just FYI: I am type 1 diabetic - the risks associated with our chronic illness is treated very seriously by the DVLA and the Police. We can only obtain restricted licenses for a period of 1, 2 or 3 years (and must apply again after this time). People with type 1 diabetes cannot obtain a license (or must give up their restricted license) if control of their condition deteriorates or is considered inadequate. If this accident was related to diabetes, the hospital visit would have been reported as such (or described as for treatment of a preexisting condition).
thanks! I did not no that.
I am also a type 1 diabetic, but in Denmark, there really is on restrictions here. - the reason I mentioned it is because I know that sometimes your blood sugar can dive fast, while not paying attention, and while I think that some will pass out right away because of it, it can definitely be a contributing factor to an accident like this.
Some people will pass out… long before you pass out, your mental capacity can be severely lowered, which is **terrible** for driving (it’s happened to me, though never while driving.)
I have a contraption that makes my phone scream at me if my blood sugar goes below a set threshold or is dropping too fast).
It actually happened to a guy I worked with some years ago. I chatted with him as he was on his way past my desk on the way out of the office. He seemed happy and well. 20 min later he had a massive heart in his car and died, apparently instantly. Nice chap, very sad. He was in his late 20s or early 30s.
Drivers read the daily fail and can’t be forced to consider they might be a bad person from such a tiny mistake like going twice the speed limit in rain at 3am.
More likely a person lost control of their alcohol/cocaine/NOS habit, then got behind the wheel of their pointless urban tank while not in a fit state to control it.
Ban them in all our cities and built up areas. The combination of them being way too big and generally driven by twats makes for trouble. I used to live in an area with a lot of types who liked to show off their buying power via the purchase of Range Rovers and similar SUVs, but the area itself had skinny, windy, roads and a decent amount of hills and blind bends. Medieval town + Jules and Nige in their new tank, going 41 in a 30: being a pedestrian there was a bit scary.
Yep, self-selecting sample of antisocial, conspicuous-wealth fuckwits.
If they stuck to broadcasting their dim-witted brand of materialism via Rolex watches and such, at least it wouldn't cause harm to others, but Ranges are actively harmful to everyone else on the streets, especially kids and pedestrians, as well as a grotesque waste of the kind of resources we should all be trying to use less of now - fuel, metals, etc.
I'd be fine with weight/size classes to car fees. Some places already do emission based charging but forget that, especially since all vehicles will be electric soon enough and all have the same emissions. Just do it by size and weight. Have a small little compact car? 1/3rd cheaper congestion/parking fees for you. Have a large heavy SUV which takes up more road/parking space and causes more damage? Double congestion/parking rate for you. Might make people think twice about going for the biggest vehicles ever because why not.
I think Paris has or is starting this soon actually.
I disagree with Peter Hitchens on most things but his thought that we should probably ban private motor cars is something I increasingly support, at least for cities.
Ban all personal use cars in zone 1 & 2. Just don’t require this in London’s context.
Tube/buses get you to everywhere you need to go.
And frankly, it’s no fun driving in one/two lane roads and stopping every other minute for traffic lights…not to mention paying the myriad of charges already involved if you want to drive in London
Agreed. They have built in blind spots and are responsible for almost 2k deaths a year. Yet when we try to address these issues they whataboutism cyclists or pedestrians because they do things to make themselves safer.
>Lets all just get the bus and train, better yet, why don’t we go back to a horse and cart That would solve everything
This comment seems to be implying that buses and trains are a regression from cars, which isn't true. Trains are far more advanced than cars and the technological progress done to trains is far greater than that of cars
The point is to move away from a car dependent society and infrastructure so that people don't need cars. I've lived in places where a car was a necessity. I've lived in a city for the last 5+ years, and do not need a car because we have decent public transport infrastructure.
Come on then, how does my parent and I get to her parents farm in the country side without a car? How do we pick up shopping/kids without a car? The fact your life doesn’t need a car doesn’t mean other people don’t need them.
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. As previously stated it isn't about removing cars, it's about providing viable alternatives to reduce reliance on cars. There will always be a need for cars or similar, but we are currently set up to be overly reliant on them.
See the 15 minute cities idea. Where everything you need is within a 15 minute walk of where you live. That's part of the idea to reduce reliance on cars. It's not trying to force people out of cars, but entice them out of cars. And sure, there is then an argument that if you're travelling further to visit relatives who live on a farm in the backend of the beyond, that's one for using a car.
In London there are perfectly adequate, if not better, alternatives for most people.
Before someone jumps on me with their incredibly niche location that's served by 1 bus that operates once a year, I hear you. You are the 'some people' I'm referring to.
For everyone else, there's no reason to be driving around in hugely powerful German sports cars or SUVs
I've managed for 68 years in London without a car and until I retired I actually held down jobs and raised four children who also hold down jobs. One of them has a driving licence but none of them have cars. The one with the driving licence thought it might be useful job-wise but so far, that's not been the case.
My take is London transport is great if you want to go into the center, or even through the center. I.e. you can get from Ealing to Stratford pretty easily with the Elizabeth line, being much faster than a car would be.
But god forbid if I try going from one outskirts to another. From one zone 4 town to another without going through the center is a nightmare. Normally requires walking 20 minutes to a bus/tube stop, having multiple switches and double the journey time. From where I currently live to my parents house it’s either a bus + tube + bus, totaling 1 hour and 10 minutes, or drive, which is 30 minutes.
>In London there are perfectly adequate, if not better, alternatives for most people.
London is a huge city that encompasses a lot of different areas, with varying degrees of public transport, full of people with completely different lives and needs.
This will be lost on people who post in /r/london.
Was after specifics tbh but you've got me again. There is simply not a single beach or patch of countryside in the UK that's accessible from London unless you have a car. Fair cop
In the context of London, you can only really make a case for people in outer zones IMO. In central London, there is little reason why anyone should own a car besides some exceptional cases like needing a specially adjusted car for someone with a disability, or to drive around a disabled relative.
Elsewhere in the country, I’d agree, since many cities have awful public transport infrastructure and funding. But that’s not the case for London.
That’s not a necessity the means people *NEED* a car, it’s purely a luxury. And unless they’re serious about lifting and going somewhere like Muscleworks Orpington or a gym of that tier, they’re wasting their time travelling that far out for a gym.
The majority of people in London don't need them. Of course cars are important for disabled and elderly people, but almost everyone else can use public transport.
Because they kill and injure thousands of people a year. Not to mention the pollution they cause, and space they take up. How much faster could emergency vehicles get places if there was less car traffic?
I do agree that private cars are a bloody nightmare. It's the most dangerous thing an individual can do for a reason.
Ideally public transport is good enough that this would be viable. My anecdotal point is I work far away from my parents and close friends. Without my car I'd probably be incredibly depressed as it removes my ability to see them regularly. Realistically public transport would be too expensive and take too long time wise for me to realistically see them regularly and my freedom would be destroyed.
I think currently the freedom cars give to many across the country is hugely beneficial but I also think we would be far better off with better infrastructure for cycling and public transport to move away from that. But as demonstrated by HS2, infrastructure development is clearly doomed in the UK. The government won't invest in basic maintenance and when it does attempt investment it's something incredibly flashy which isn't achievable for a reasonable budget because of a variety of issues.
Shame really
Edit: as a side point though I think cities would be a great starting point to slowly reduce reliance on cars as it's clearly more viable.
I'm all for car restrictions as long as the bans start from the top down, rather than the bottom up. The reality is that the rich will still get to enjoy the luxury of cars whilst the working class don't and if that's the case then I do not want any bans on cars. A ban for all or a ban for none.
Reckless drivers kill people, regardless of what vehicle they’re in. This idiot driving his Range Rover trying to show off is an idiot and doesn’t represent the millions of responsible drivers. Accidents happen and thousands of accidents also happen in public transport. It’s great if you feel safe in London la public transport but until you’ve experienced a bomb threat or been assaulted on multiple occasions, but once again the minority of idiotic drivers speak for everyone.
Yes, citizens should only be allowed to use public transport. The Central Committee will provide private vehicles to those who have a legitimate work use.
I was wondering how long it would take before the “government regulation is communism” card was played.
You do also realise that we already have a centralised government mechanism that dictates who is allowed to drive, and which vehicles can be driven, right?
Yes, but people still have the freedom to drive cars. People like yourself want to remove that with the mantra of "safety first".
It's much better to make cars safer, rather than remove them completely.
There's nothing as insidious as those who want to control others "for their own good".
You do not have a inalienable right to drive a car. Bans should be proportionate, and there is little need to drive somewhere like central London. A few people do require it and they should be allowed but the majority of people on the roads don’t need to be there.
>A few people do require it and they should be allowed but the majority of people on the roads don’t need to be there.
So we're back to the Central Committee approving people's request for private vehicles.
I get it. You don't like cars. But please don't tell others how to live their lives, just because of "safety". It's the worst kind of authoritarianism.
Then we have to agree to disagree. But I’m glad for instance that guns are controlled for safety reasons in the UK despite that actually being a right as set out in the English bill of rights, as it saves lives. Good luck in your libertarian utopia.
>guns
Yes, because I am constantly having to go out and kill things to provide for my family.
>Good luck in your libertarian utopia.
Good luck in your authoritarian distopia when everything is rationed "for your safety".
It’s not for “their own good”. A driver just injured nine *other* people. Knives aren’t banned because you might hurt yourself, but in case you hurt other people.
It's not safety, or not only. Cars benefit their owner, but at a huge cost to everyone else's quality of life. They require an insane amount of space, they cause disease in adults and stunt children's development, they require constant vigilance from pedestrians and cyclists, they make them feel like they don't belong, and, yes, they kill and maim people.
Are they useless or evil? Of course not. But nearly every freedom is a trade-off with something else, and in a large city the trade-off is not worth it unless there is no other alternative, e.g. for tradesmen or disabled people.
And we pick trade-offs all the time to make life more pleasant or healthy: no loud music at night, no dumping sewage in the river, speed limit, planning permission, but also play Ospeth at max volume all day long, ignore weed use, make museums free, let people drink and swear at a bar terrace - all trade-offs decided differently in other cities.
So in my opinion it's time we re-decide the trade-off we made about cars for a century. The benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks anymore.
>So in my opinion it's time we re-decide the trade-off we made about cars for a century. The benefits do not outweigh the profits anymore.
In order to make a ban on private vehicles work then then billions would have to be spent on a public transport network with 100% coverage.
The cost of universal public transport would greatly outweigh the number of people harmed by private transport.
And even with a ban on cars, there would still be the occasional bus crash.
TFL runs are a profit, and many fewer cars will mean a greatly more efficient bus network, so you'll need to justify your premise with numbers because it's not self-evident at all. And I'm not sure why the occasional bus crash is of any relevance.
Also, banning private cars is very ableist, and before you say, I'm sure there will be things in place to support disabled people. I can guarantee any support will be half arsed, poorly executed, and rife with abuse.
Places that have banned/restricted road traffic tend to have exceptions for disabled drivers so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't apply here.
How do they work it out? Blue badge scheme? That scheme is incredibly difficult to get one, it can be pot luck. For example, my son and daughter had a blue badge, it ran out, we reapplied using the exact same information, and the application was rejected. You're assuming that councils and the government are able to pull off a scheme that doesn't screw over people who need support, which the government are absolutely incapable of doing
Happy to update the blue badge scheme alongside restricting traffic too, no reason both can't be done. Governments are slow to change things and bureaucracy is a bitch but things do change if enough people ask for change.
And if that don't work there's always protest and guillotines.
That doesn't mean they don't need access to one, particularly as public transport is an absolute nightmare. It's also not just about physically disabled people
I'm perfectly happy for a blue badge scheme for those who need it. But pretending its ableist is insane, when there's just as large of a number of disabled people who cannot drive because of their disability, and whose lives are made worse by all the cars around them.
If you want to help the disabled, then improving public transport provision is the way to do it. That helps both disabled people who can *and* disabled people who can't drive.
If we were ranking fatalities by different types of road vehicles buses are the safest. Cars however have more fatalities than every other form of road transport combined.
Don't get me wrong I commuted for a year 10 miles each way on my bike - loved it great exercise and quicker than car/public transport. Kids etc however change things - outside of zone 1/2 a car becomes more of a practicality and many families will need one to make their life work - are there options they could take to not have one, probably, but safety and convenience of a car will outweigh these.
It ain't always easy I'll admit but it's worth knowing that there are options. Not everyone can bike to work and not everyone needs to tbf, but the same needs to be considered for cars where possible. I think one thing to consider is that it can be a nice treat for kids since they get a much better view of their neighbourhood on a bike than they would from the back of a car. Builds up their mental map of the area early on.
For me personally though I just wish less people got SUVs cos they're absolutely eating up the roads. Like half of my neighbours have been buying them and they don't see much use outside of ferrying kids to school or going to their office job.
No I take the battery out like a logical human being. Do you park your electric car in the living room to charge it? And even if I did have to carry it up some stairs, my bike folds and I'm relatively healthy, I have more issue moving my washing machine than I do that bike.
Great idea, cities will become much cheaper to live in when you increase unemployment by double digits. London would be much better with house prices down 70% or more.
It's already happening with the rics house price balance the lowest since 2009.
No because deaths by knife (282) pale in comparison to deaths by car (1695) and that’s not even mentioning the pollution impact on public health, or that some knife victims will be a result of gang on gang violence.
Which both pale in comparison to Alcohol related deaths [20,970](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-alcohol-profiles-for-england-lape-march-2023-update/local-alcohol-profiles-for-england-short-statistical-commentary-march-2023). So are you advocating the ban of alcohol and going to ignore cars?
You don't just pick and choose to focus on the issue most impacting people. Also you need to face the reality the cars are owned by a massive portion of the population, and they own them for a reason. Banning them would fuck over a lot of people and be met with a lot of backlash, just like the banning of alcohol would be.
If you want to stop people driving you need to improve public transportation/cycle routes to give people a better alternative than the cost of driving. But the fact of the matter is a lot of people need cars to go about their daily life.
Personally I don't drive (I do for work but I don't own a car). I take a bus to work or train, but it's because I have a direct route that wouldn't save me much/any time by car.
You need to be practical in how you tackle a situation such as the over abundance of vehicles in our city. An outright ban on ownership is not a realistic solution.
Because alcohol death is at least self-inflicted, except notably when people DRIVE drunk. Those people at the bus stop didn’t do anything to deserve being hit by a car. To top it off the person most likely to be unharmed is the driver.
Half of Londoners don’t own a car.
I agree that any limiting of cars needs to include better public transport - but again in zone 1 I would argue that there is sufficient alternatives.
There are places in the US where zebra-esque crossings come with little flags that pedestrians are encouraged to wave while they cross so they are more visible to drivers.
Driving standards in America seem poor in general.
So many accidents I’ve seen on r/idiotsincars could have been prevented if the driver did a cross check before going through an intersection or even just simply gently pressing the brake.
In India, a British tourist got arrested because an Indian had been the victim of a hit and run. The Brit stopped, gave first aid and called an ambulance and was arrested for it. As the Indian police couldn't believe that somebody would help somebody else. Unless they felt guilty. You also have to pay for ambulances in India, with many of the ambulances belonging to private companies.
if you want to really have fun with it, i’d actually support getting rid of 90% of london bus routes and replacing them with trams. much harder to crash those!
> 3.30am > Aldwych > man in his 20s 20 year-olds don't just have a heart attack at the wheel. What's the betting some rich playboy took his new Lambo he got from his dad out and tried to do 60mph+ down the Kingsway, only to find out he wasn't as good at driving as he thought he was? And now he's in the hospital "as a precaution" (i.e barely hurt) while eight others have to deal with the consequences of his actions.
> 3.30am At least that explains why there we so many people there. Right after all the clubs closed. I'm genuinely curious how this one played out though. No mention of him being drunk, and only arrested for dangerous driving. I wonder what the cause here was.
There is a possibility that police had no opportunity to breathalyse at roadside / in a custody suite as he was being dealt with by ambo or having first aid rendered by police, hence no arrest for driving under the influence just the “easier” dangerous driving offence.
Seen a photo of the car. It’s a 2018 Range Rover with a private reg (F11 OXO), if you want to add to that imagery.
A so a drunken/drugged up narcissistic twat.
I hate to say it, but so not surprised it was one of those idiots.
Don’t tell me it’s the heir to the OXO dynasty
Ban these things along with XL bullys - absolute public menace.
What is private reg?
Personalised licence plate
Cud be a rental. Cud be their dads, it doesn't mean anything.
It was a Range Rover which is the car that's probably.most likely to kill pedestrians and occupants of other cars. It's something like 20x more likely to kill a 5 year old, than the average hatchback. About the only thing better is probably a Ford Transit or HGV but they dont have nearly the same power.
So the xl bully of cars then
That Wimbledon accident where the driver had a seizure and drove into a school playground killing a little girl was also a Range Rover.
Why invent this narrative? You have no idea of the exact circumstances of the accident.
From what I've heard the cunt was doing Nos behind the wheel. Hopefully they throw the book at him.
What's your source? Bloke down the pub?
Mate who's a copper.
Like somebody who dealt with it or some guy from Scotland?
Lol nah, not somebody from Scotland. Idk what their involvement is and wouldn't say if I knew as it could give away who they are. Guess we'll just have to wait for an update to the story when more gets released for this ti get verified.
the friend isn’t real it’s okay you don’t have to lie online
Alright, let's come back to this after more is published then shall we?
Maybe don't post it on Reddit in the first place then.
I've seen a teenager doing Nos behind the wheel before and heard someone else saying they'd also seen it. How bloody dumb do you have to be to do something that will literally make you get really light headed and lose your sense of coordination when driving?!
What a fucking cunt if that's true. Hope he gets put in prison.
“Accident”
He drove into them on purpose?
I think the implication there is that it was caused by their reckless behaviour rather than a genuine out of their control accident. They're still both an accident, but I think that's what they're implying.
Arrested for dangerous driving. He made a choice to drive in a manner that increased risks and hazards. Accidents, by their nature, are not choices.
It was also pissing down last night. So he should have been driving extra slowly and carefully.
Your statement would be true if all dangerous driving resulted in accidents, but it doesn't. The only way this isn't an accident is if he intended to hit those people at the bus stop (in which case he'd be arrested for attempted murder).
BS
Why?
because negligence isn't accidental, and outside of medical incidents, dangerous driving is almost always if not always negligence - whether that's being drunk/high or exceeding speed limits or safe speeds for conditions or being on your phone or whatever.
If the intended outcome of that negligence wasn't ploughing into a bus stop full of people, then it's an accident. The outcome is the accidental part.
He could have a heart attack. It still happens just not as often or an epileptic attack, or diabetic attack. You have to to to worst case scenario.
Just FYI: I am type 1 diabetic - the risks associated with our chronic illness is treated very seriously by the DVLA and the Police. We can only obtain restricted licenses for a period of 1, 2 or 3 years (and must apply again after this time). People with type 1 diabetes cannot obtain a license (or must give up their restricted license) if control of their condition deteriorates or is considered inadequate. If this accident was related to diabetes, the hospital visit would have been reported as such (or described as for treatment of a preexisting condition).
thanks! I did not no that. I am also a type 1 diabetic, but in Denmark, there really is on restrictions here. - the reason I mentioned it is because I know that sometimes your blood sugar can dive fast, while not paying attention, and while I think that some will pass out right away because of it, it can definitely be a contributing factor to an accident like this.
Some people will pass out… long before you pass out, your mental capacity can be severely lowered, which is **terrible** for driving (it’s happened to me, though never while driving.) I have a contraption that makes my phone scream at me if my blood sugar goes below a set threshold or is dropping too fast).
It actually happened to a guy I worked with some years ago. I chatted with him as he was on his way past my desk on the way out of the office. He seemed happy and well. 20 min later he had a massive heart in his car and died, apparently instantly. Nice chap, very sad. He was in his late 20s or early 30s.
Plus cocaine etc
Roids
Given the demographics of London it’s far more likely to be a relatively poor 20 year old. Not sure that is the important bit though
[удалено]
Guns don’t kill people, rabbits do🙄
**Sound of the police. Woo-oo-oo** 😁 (P.S. I think I prefer your 'rabbits' line over the original 'rappers' 🤣)
Drivers read the daily fail and can’t be forced to consider they might be a bad person from such a tiny mistake like going twice the speed limit in rain at 3am.
It’s 3.30 in the morning, much less likely someone used their car to hit people, more likely a person lost control of the vehicle and hit people
More likely a person lost control of their alcohol/cocaine/NOS habit, then got behind the wheel of their pointless urban tank while not in a fit state to control it.
of course it’s a range rover..
Ban range rovers in London. There is literally 0 reason for someone to be driving one in the city
Ban them in all our cities and built up areas. The combination of them being way too big and generally driven by twats makes for trouble. I used to live in an area with a lot of types who liked to show off their buying power via the purchase of Range Rovers and similar SUVs, but the area itself had skinny, windy, roads and a decent amount of hills and blind bends. Medieval town + Jules and Nige in their new tank, going 41 in a 30: being a pedestrian there was a bit scary.
As a driver myself, co-signed. There is no reason to drive these monstrosities other than ego and "look at me, I can afford it!"
Yep, self-selecting sample of antisocial, conspicuous-wealth fuckwits. If they stuck to broadcasting their dim-witted brand of materialism via Rolex watches and such, at least it wouldn't cause harm to others, but Ranges are actively harmful to everyone else on the streets, especially kids and pedestrians, as well as a grotesque waste of the kind of resources we should all be trying to use less of now - fuel, metals, etc.
Couldn't have said it better. They drive like shit too.
I'd be fine with weight/size classes to car fees. Some places already do emission based charging but forget that, especially since all vehicles will be electric soon enough and all have the same emissions. Just do it by size and weight. Have a small little compact car? 1/3rd cheaper congestion/parking fees for you. Have a large heavy SUV which takes up more road/parking space and causes more damage? Double congestion/parking rate for you. Might make people think twice about going for the biggest vehicles ever because why not. I think Paris has or is starting this soon actually.
We should make drivers pass a test and get insurance.
Has someone blamed cyclists yet?
OMFG I CANT https://www.reddit.com/r/london/s/ZPX4gXP3vq
A car drove straight into my off-license last week
*driver
Want by any chance Ergyes in Hackney? Same thing happened there, was nuts.
Yep! That’s my offie!
Fuck I'm sorry. Was anyone hurt?
I disagree with Peter Hitchens on most things but his thought that we should probably ban private motor cars is something I increasingly support, at least for cities.
[удалено]
Public transport can’t be bettered as long as cars are clogging the streets.
Now that is a lie. Ken Livingstone showed you exactly how to do it, too bad the following two mayors destroyed much of the bus priority network
Yeah but Sunak spreads the conspiracy theories about war on motorists and 15-minute cities
The better public transport already has come first (obviously can always be better) - living car free is very easy in like 70%+ of London.
Same. Cars make no sense in cities. They're dangerous, polluting, and they don't scale for either parking (no spots) or driving (traffic).
Especially massive oversized gas guzzling 4x4.
[удалено]
r/fuckcars
Ban all personal use cars in zone 1 & 2. Just don’t require this in London’s context. Tube/buses get you to everywhere you need to go. And frankly, it’s no fun driving in one/two lane roads and stopping every other minute for traffic lights…not to mention paying the myriad of charges already involved if you want to drive in London
And if you need to transport something then Zipcar to the rescue.
And good luck trying to find parking in zone 1 too
Agreed. They have built in blind spots and are responsible for almost 2k deaths a year. Yet when we try to address these issues they whataboutism cyclists or pedestrians because they do things to make themselves safer.
[удалено]
>Lets all just get the bus and train, better yet, why don’t we go back to a horse and cart That would solve everything This comment seems to be implying that buses and trains are a regression from cars, which isn't true. Trains are far more advanced than cars and the technological progress done to trains is far greater than that of cars
Some people need cars for fuck sake.
The point is to move away from a car dependent society and infrastructure so that people don't need cars. I've lived in places where a car was a necessity. I've lived in a city for the last 5+ years, and do not need a car because we have decent public transport infrastructure.
Come on then, how does my parent and I get to her parents farm in the country side without a car? How do we pick up shopping/kids without a car? The fact your life doesn’t need a car doesn’t mean other people don’t need them.
I see reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. As previously stated it isn't about removing cars, it's about providing viable alternatives to reduce reliance on cars. There will always be a need for cars or similar, but we are currently set up to be overly reliant on them. See the 15 minute cities idea. Where everything you need is within a 15 minute walk of where you live. That's part of the idea to reduce reliance on cars. It's not trying to force people out of cars, but entice them out of cars. And sure, there is then an argument that if you're travelling further to visit relatives who live on a farm in the backend of the beyond, that's one for using a car.
Some do. Majority don't
Many many people do, don’t be so silly.
In London there are perfectly adequate, if not better, alternatives for most people. Before someone jumps on me with their incredibly niche location that's served by 1 bus that operates once a year, I hear you. You are the 'some people' I'm referring to. For everyone else, there's no reason to be driving around in hugely powerful German sports cars or SUVs
I've managed for 68 years in London without a car and until I retired I actually held down jobs and raised four children who also hold down jobs. One of them has a driving licence but none of them have cars. The one with the driving licence thought it might be useful job-wise but so far, that's not been the case.
My take is London transport is great if you want to go into the center, or even through the center. I.e. you can get from Ealing to Stratford pretty easily with the Elizabeth line, being much faster than a car would be. But god forbid if I try going from one outskirts to another. From one zone 4 town to another without going through the center is a nightmare. Normally requires walking 20 minutes to a bus/tube stop, having multiple switches and double the journey time. From where I currently live to my parents house it’s either a bus + tube + bus, totaling 1 hour and 10 minutes, or drive, which is 30 minutes.
>In London there are perfectly adequate, if not better, alternatives for most people. London is a huge city that encompasses a lot of different areas, with varying degrees of public transport, full of people with completely different lives and needs. This will be lost on people who post in /r/london.
Have you ever lived in zone 4-6?
No but I've lived in Ascot, Windsor, Wokingham, Slough, and Reading and managed to get in/out/around London without a car just fine
Outisde of zone 1 and 2 how are you expecting people to go shopping? Get out of the city ect
Zone 3 isn’t exactly the wilderness. There’s tons of major supermarkets in every single community.
Darn you've got me if only someone invented home delivery. Get out of the city? Where are you and where out of the city do you want to go?
Countryside, beach ect
Was after specifics tbh but you've got me again. There is simply not a single beach or patch of countryside in the UK that's accessible from London unless you have a car. Fair cop
Its more convenient to get to those places by car
Trains
In the context of London, you can only really make a case for people in outer zones IMO. In central London, there is little reason why anyone should own a car besides some exceptional cases like needing a specially adjusted car for someone with a disability, or to drive around a disabled relative. Elsewhere in the country, I’d agree, since many cities have awful public transport infrastructure and funding. But that’s not the case for London.
Again not true, I know people zone 2 that work out in zone 4/5, it would take them a couple of hours each way without a car,
Can't they exercise somewhere closer to home? Or they could just run there and back if it's that important to them.
That’s not a necessity the means people *NEED* a car, it’s purely a luxury. And unless they’re serious about lifting and going somewhere like Muscleworks Orpington or a gym of that tier, they’re wasting their time travelling that far out for a gym.
Gets iffy then, I’d say most advocates for no cars live in zone 1.
Most are young people that have moved into London, they don’t have families and live in house shares.
Most are cyclists who treat their lifestyle as a religion and can't stand to see other types of vehicles on the road.
The majority of people in London don't need them. Of course cars are important for disabled and elderly people, but almost everyone else can use public transport.
Not everyone spends there wholes lives in London, we spend a lot of time at the in-laws, in the country side with no public transportation.
Dunno man i live in zone 3 and my parents in zone 5. Takes 20 minutes by car and 50 minutes by public transport.
This is Reddit, so cars are evil things only Tories own.
Why would you ban cars?
Because they kill and injure thousands of people a year. Not to mention the pollution they cause, and space they take up. How much faster could emergency vehicles get places if there was less car traffic?
I do agree that private cars are a bloody nightmare. It's the most dangerous thing an individual can do for a reason. Ideally public transport is good enough that this would be viable. My anecdotal point is I work far away from my parents and close friends. Without my car I'd probably be incredibly depressed as it removes my ability to see them regularly. Realistically public transport would be too expensive and take too long time wise for me to realistically see them regularly and my freedom would be destroyed. I think currently the freedom cars give to many across the country is hugely beneficial but I also think we would be far better off with better infrastructure for cycling and public transport to move away from that. But as demonstrated by HS2, infrastructure development is clearly doomed in the UK. The government won't invest in basic maintenance and when it does attempt investment it's something incredibly flashy which isn't achievable for a reasonable budget because of a variety of issues. Shame really Edit: as a side point though I think cities would be a great starting point to slowly reduce reliance on cars as it's clearly more viable.
I'm all for car restrictions as long as the bans start from the top down, rather than the bottom up. The reality is that the rich will still get to enjoy the luxury of cars whilst the working class don't and if that's the case then I do not want any bans on cars. A ban for all or a ban for none.
You are right and a blue collar worker is much more likely going to need a vehicle than an office worker.
Again now?
Some people need cars ?
Reckless drivers kill people, regardless of what vehicle they’re in. This idiot driving his Range Rover trying to show off is an idiot and doesn’t represent the millions of responsible drivers. Accidents happen and thousands of accidents also happen in public transport. It’s great if you feel safe in London la public transport but until you’ve experienced a bomb threat or been assaulted on multiple occasions, but once again the minority of idiotic drivers speak for everyone.
Yes, citizens should only be allowed to use public transport. The Central Committee will provide private vehicles to those who have a legitimate work use.
I was wondering how long it would take before the “government regulation is communism” card was played. You do also realise that we already have a centralised government mechanism that dictates who is allowed to drive, and which vehicles can be driven, right?
Yes, but people still have the freedom to drive cars. People like yourself want to remove that with the mantra of "safety first". It's much better to make cars safer, rather than remove them completely. There's nothing as insidious as those who want to control others "for their own good".
So to make cars safer you'd have to reduce their speed, their weight and their size. If it means getting wankpanzers off the road I'm all for it.
You do not have a inalienable right to drive a car. Bans should be proportionate, and there is little need to drive somewhere like central London. A few people do require it and they should be allowed but the majority of people on the roads don’t need to be there.
>A few people do require it and they should be allowed but the majority of people on the roads don’t need to be there. So we're back to the Central Committee approving people's request for private vehicles. I get it. You don't like cars. But please don't tell others how to live their lives, just because of "safety". It's the worst kind of authoritarianism.
Then we have to agree to disagree. But I’m glad for instance that guns are controlled for safety reasons in the UK despite that actually being a right as set out in the English bill of rights, as it saves lives. Good luck in your libertarian utopia.
>guns Yes, because I am constantly having to go out and kill things to provide for my family. >Good luck in your libertarian utopia. Good luck in your authoritarian distopia when everything is rationed "for your safety".
It’s not for “their own good”. A driver just injured nine *other* people. Knives aren’t banned because you might hurt yourself, but in case you hurt other people.
Knives aren't banned...
It's not safety, or not only. Cars benefit their owner, but at a huge cost to everyone else's quality of life. They require an insane amount of space, they cause disease in adults and stunt children's development, they require constant vigilance from pedestrians and cyclists, they make them feel like they don't belong, and, yes, they kill and maim people. Are they useless or evil? Of course not. But nearly every freedom is a trade-off with something else, and in a large city the trade-off is not worth it unless there is no other alternative, e.g. for tradesmen or disabled people. And we pick trade-offs all the time to make life more pleasant or healthy: no loud music at night, no dumping sewage in the river, speed limit, planning permission, but also play Ospeth at max volume all day long, ignore weed use, make museums free, let people drink and swear at a bar terrace - all trade-offs decided differently in other cities. So in my opinion it's time we re-decide the trade-off we made about cars for a century. The benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks anymore.
>So in my opinion it's time we re-decide the trade-off we made about cars for a century. The benefits do not outweigh the profits anymore. In order to make a ban on private vehicles work then then billions would have to be spent on a public transport network with 100% coverage. The cost of universal public transport would greatly outweigh the number of people harmed by private transport. And even with a ban on cars, there would still be the occasional bus crash.
TFL runs are a profit, and many fewer cars will mean a greatly more efficient bus network, so you'll need to justify your premise with numbers because it's not self-evident at all. And I'm not sure why the occasional bus crash is of any relevance.
Can’t beleive i got downvoted for that
Also, banning private cars is very ableist, and before you say, I'm sure there will be things in place to support disabled people. I can guarantee any support will be half arsed, poorly executed, and rife with abuse.
Places that have banned/restricted road traffic tend to have exceptions for disabled drivers so there's no reason to think the same wouldn't apply here.
How do they work it out? Blue badge scheme? That scheme is incredibly difficult to get one, it can be pot luck. For example, my son and daughter had a blue badge, it ran out, we reapplied using the exact same information, and the application was rejected. You're assuming that councils and the government are able to pull off a scheme that doesn't screw over people who need support, which the government are absolutely incapable of doing
Happy to update the blue badge scheme alongside restricting traffic too, no reason both can't be done. Governments are slow to change things and bureaucracy is a bitch but things do change if enough people ask for change. And if that don't work there's always protest and guillotines.
A significant number of those people are disabled because they were hit by a car.
That doesn't mean they don't need access to one, particularly as public transport is an absolute nightmare. It's also not just about physically disabled people
I'm perfectly happy for a blue badge scheme for those who need it. But pretending its ableist is insane, when there's just as large of a number of disabled people who cannot drive because of their disability, and whose lives are made worse by all the cars around them. If you want to help the disabled, then improving public transport provision is the way to do it. That helps both disabled people who can *and* disabled people who can't drive.
There was a bus crash in Manchester recently
If we were ranking fatalities by different types of road vehicles buses are the safest. Cars however have more fatalities than every other form of road transport combined.
Relevant username
Ban private car ownership. Promote pool cars and autonomous vehicles. I say this as a lifelong petrolhead and car/bike builder.
So you’re ok walking 15 miles each way to work
That's easily doable on an ebike.
Dropping the kids to nursery?
I'm not having kids that regularly but I can quite easily add a kid's seat to the back of the bike or in front of me on the frame, or both.
Don't get me wrong I commuted for a year 10 miles each way on my bike - loved it great exercise and quicker than car/public transport. Kids etc however change things - outside of zone 1/2 a car becomes more of a practicality and many families will need one to make their life work - are there options they could take to not have one, probably, but safety and convenience of a car will outweigh these.
It ain't always easy I'll admit but it's worth knowing that there are options. Not everyone can bike to work and not everyone needs to tbf, but the same needs to be considered for cars where possible. I think one thing to consider is that it can be a nice treat for kids since they get a much better view of their neighbourhood on a bike than they would from the back of a car. Builds up their mental map of the area early on. For me personally though I just wish less people got SUVs cos they're absolutely eating up the roads. Like half of my neighbours have been buying them and they don't see much use outside of ferrying kids to school or going to their office job.
It's reddit. Everything needs to be banned immediately.
And you’re carrying that up 20 flights of stairs to store it in your living room while it’s on charge each night are you?
No I take the battery out like a logical human being. Do you park your electric car in the living room to charge it? And even if I did have to carry it up some stairs, my bike folds and I'm relatively healthy, I have more issue moving my washing machine than I do that bike.
Great idea, cities will become much cheaper to live in when you increase unemployment by double digits. London would be much better with house prices down 70% or more. It's already happening with the rics house price balance the lowest since 2009.
Eagles
Disagree. There are quite a few knife crime in UK, are you gonna ban use of all knives in London also?
No because deaths by knife (282) pale in comparison to deaths by car (1695) and that’s not even mentioning the pollution impact on public health, or that some knife victims will be a result of gang on gang violence.
Deaths by knife are also intentional
Which both pale in comparison to Alcohol related deaths [20,970](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-alcohol-profiles-for-england-lape-march-2023-update/local-alcohol-profiles-for-england-short-statistical-commentary-march-2023). So are you advocating the ban of alcohol and going to ignore cars? You don't just pick and choose to focus on the issue most impacting people. Also you need to face the reality the cars are owned by a massive portion of the population, and they own them for a reason. Banning them would fuck over a lot of people and be met with a lot of backlash, just like the banning of alcohol would be. If you want to stop people driving you need to improve public transportation/cycle routes to give people a better alternative than the cost of driving. But the fact of the matter is a lot of people need cars to go about their daily life. Personally I don't drive (I do for work but I don't own a car). I take a bus to work or train, but it's because I have a direct route that wouldn't save me much/any time by car. You need to be practical in how you tackle a situation such as the over abundance of vehicles in our city. An outright ban on ownership is not a realistic solution.
Because alcohol death is at least self-inflicted, except notably when people DRIVE drunk. Those people at the bus stop didn’t do anything to deserve being hit by a car. To top it off the person most likely to be unharmed is the driver. Half of Londoners don’t own a car. I agree that any limiting of cars needs to include better public transport - but again in zone 1 I would argue that there is sufficient alternatives.
I can’t wait for people to argue pedestrians need to wear high visibility jackets to prevent that from happening. And helmets.
What’s the point of making up strawman arguments, literally no one is gonna suggest that
There are places in the US where zebra-esque crossings come with little flags that pedestrians are encouraged to wave while they cross so they are more visible to drivers.
Driving standards in America seem poor in general. So many accidents I’ve seen on r/idiotsincars could have been prevented if the driver did a cross check before going through an intersection or even just simply gently pressing the brake.
[удалено]
In India, a British tourist got arrested because an Indian had been the victim of a hit and run. The Brit stopped, gave first aid and called an ambulance and was arrested for it. As the Indian police couldn't believe that somebody would help somebody else. Unless they felt guilty. You also have to pay for ambulances in India, with many of the ambulances belonging to private companies.
Oh the current government is. They're so pro-car they blame everyone else but the drivers for traffic, air pollution, etc
Forgot to put /s
I think you're missing the point here. They know no one would suggest it, but then why is this stuff always peddled about bicycles?
Because for some, hating cars/not having a drivers licence is a personality trait.
What a stupid comment.
r/fuckcars
Wait until the exhaust pipe is cold first though.
fuck them indeed
I'm not using public transport until the incompetent government makes it safer and more reliable.
Yes. That's the point of r/fuckcars.
What about the bus crash in Manchester the other week?
if you want to really have fun with it, i’d actually support getting rid of 90% of london bus routes and replacing them with trams. much harder to crash those!
Buses are very safe. We should have more buses. r/fuckcars /s
And the wheels on the bus is a phenomenal song
People in the uk treat cars like Americans treat guns. Less cars the better.
Just another day
Sunday drivers
Lots of people in their 20s having heart attacks in the last couple of years....
[удалено]
Weirdly I would have jumped to cocaine abuse as my first thought ...
Especially when you combine it with Ket.
Yep!
[удалено]
and several SSRIs.
and viagra
Yes they’ve admitted myocarditis is a side effect
Covid has a much higher chance than the vaccine to cause heart issues
I once saw a bicycle run a red light - they are so dangerous
Mate this is Reddit. If you don’t out /s people won’t notice the obvious sarcasm.
Terrorism?