The Social Ideology of the Motorcar

[Tony B]

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html

Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.

Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??

bfn,

T

[Dan Gregory]

Tony B wrote:
> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
> Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.
>
> Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??
Please no!!!!

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:19:57 +0100 someone who may be Tony B
> wrote this:-

>http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
>Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.
>
>Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??

Don't crosspost. Just post it there and let those who occasionally
like to indulge take up the subsequent war.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Roger Merriman]

Tony B > wrote:

> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
> Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.
>
not bad at all.

> Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??
>
> bfn,
>

roger
> T

[Tony B]

David Hansen wrote:

> Don't crosspost. Just post it there and let those who occasionally
> like to indulge take up the subsequent war.

er, only joking gov... or maybe making bullets :-)

Seriously, I'm well aware it's prolly best to keep this sort of thing
from our friends over there... I'm not sure they are ready for it.

<Col.Jessop>
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
(!Col.Jessop>


T

[Señor Chris]

"In the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and
creates more distance than it overcomes."

Sounds about right.

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony B
> gently breathed:
>http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
>Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.

Not so sure about that. Yes, I get the ideology and the way the author
is adding the time spent working to pay for a car to the time spent
actually in it to get his "no more than walking pace" theory - but do
average Americans really only do 6000 miles a year?

Also, the car does liberate. I've been to hundreds of places I'd never
have been without a car.

It's "motor commuting" that's the problem.

>Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??

Shhh!! Don't encourage the trolls! :-)

--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Hard Rock, Leeds <http://www.hard-rock.org.uk>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

[Adam Lea]

"Señor Chris" > wrote in message
...
> "In the final analysis, the car wastes more time than it saves and creates
> more distance than it overcomes."
>
> Sounds about right.

I'm not sure about this. Just because you own a car ultimately no-one is
forcing you to set your life up to be totally dependent on it. Owning a car
doesn't compell you to live 50 miles from work. Owning a car doesn't compell
you to live in a remote village miles from any facilities with no practical
public transport. In the end these are personal choices.

[Fred]

Tony B wrote:
> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
> Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.

I disagree with the premise that if everyone has a luxury, it is no
longer a luxury and therefore no longer worthwhile.

To much of the world's population, three square meals a day is a luxury.
Would anyone suggest that, were we able to provide every human being
with three squares a day, that it would no longer be worth eating?

Cars, like any tool, are useful things when properly used. When
misused, they can do significant damage.

Still, a thoughtful, well-written article.

Thanks for posting it.

[Nick Kew]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 00:00:56 +0100
"Adam Lea" > wrote:

> Owning a
> car doesn't compell you to live in a remote village miles from any
> facilities with no practical public transport. In the end these are
> personal choices.

If you've lived in a village all your life, it may not be your fault
that so many of your neighbours dedicate their lives to the motorcar
that the local school, shop, post office, etc all become unsustainable
and close down.

--
not me guv

[Tony B]

fred wrote:
> Tony B wrote:
>> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html

> I disagree with the premise that if everyone has a luxury, it is no
> longer a luxury and therefore no longer worthwhile.

But the author is making the point that cars are luxury by virtue of
exclusivity; that ownership promises special privileges of speedy
travel. Mass ownership negates this and the luxury is gone... on
gridlocked roads their main raison d'etre is nullified. His claim is
that cars are unique in that mass ownership cancels out their point...
spend a week commuting into a city centre and deny that cars appear to
not work! He's not suggesting ALL luxury items are like that.

> Cars, like any tool, are useful things when properly used. When
> misused, they can do significant damage.

Name another tool that has screwed the world up to a similar extent. Our
towns are now designed around motor transport. People obsess about them.
They are used to judge rank and worth in others. People spend hours
labouring to buy and run them; a lad at work recently bought a sports
car, he sold it three months later to get married and lost £8000 - a
third of a year's salary. How mad is that?? For his eight grand, he got
to look at his car through the window for seven hours a day, drive it
for an hour a day and worry about it being outside his house for the
remainder. Yeah, that sports car was cool...

Car culture is so deeply embedded into society now that it is literally
inconceivable to most that things could be any other way. But they could
be... maybe one day they will have to be.

T

[Chris Johns]

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Tony B wrote:

> Car culture is so deeply embedded into society now that it is literally
> inconceivable to most that things could be any other way. But they could
> be... maybe one day they will have to be.

A car is the ideal way to make certain journeys, but once people own one
it gets viewed as the only way to make any journey.

Then it's assumed that since "most" people have a car, they will want to
use it for every journey and so things are designed around that idea.

I'd rather not drive, but years of government policy has really left few
alternatives.
--
Chris Johns

[Roger Merriman]

Chris Johns > wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Tony B wrote:
>
> > Car culture is so deeply embedded into society now that it is literally
> > inconceivable to most that things could be any other way. But they could
> > be... maybe one day they will have to be.
>
> A car is the ideal way to make certain journeys, but once people own one
> it gets viewed as the only way to make any journey.
>
> Then it's assumed that since "most" people have a car, they will want to
> use it for every journey and so things are designed around that idea.
>
> I'd rather not drive, but years of government policy has really left few
> alternatives.

one problem is that certinaly in london is public transport is for most
part outer to inner.

which can make getting from one outer area to another a bit of long way
round.

it also means that for going back to nr my folks live not terribly
useful, ie you've got to head away then double back....

roger

[Blonde]

Interesting - it says about how the way we live is designed around the
use of a car, makeing it very difficult not to have one. This reminds
me of some of those new (posh) estates I have seen, where all the
brand new houses are built with double garages and there are no
pavements - it is actually quite difficult not to have a car because
there is no pavement to walk on and these estates do not have any
shops, schools or public buildings are are miles from the nearest
facilities with no public transport links. Of course this means that
they are full of people of working age, who drive and are of similar
means and there is no diversity. For example, you don't see many
elderly people there - as they are less likely to be still driving.
This makes for a ghetto of sorts - and presumably leaves the elderly
and other non-drivers living in different areas - other ghettos.

[Chris Johns]

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Blonde wrote:

> Interesting - it says about how the way we live is designed around the
> use of a car, makeing it very difficult not to have one. This reminds
> me of some of those new (posh) estates I have seen, where all the
> brand new houses are built with double garages and there are no
> pavements - it is actually quite difficult not to have a car because

I once looked at a one-bed (or maybe it was a studio) flat that had two
parking spaces. I didn't take it as it was miles from the town centre (but
was fairly handy for where i worked at the time, which was one of those
awful business parks (similar to where i work now :(). The ones i've
worked in so far have at least been cyclabale. best job i had was in a
town centre, even if it was two trains away from the town i lived in!

> facilities with no public transport links. Of course this means that
> they are full of people of working age, who drive and are of similar
> means and there is no diversity. For example, you don't see many

Related to my rant yesterday.. probably few yobs (can't afford it and it's
easier to terrorise the areas close to where you live) so you'll get a
group of people who don't see anti-social behaviour as a problem because
they've never had their tyres slashed or whatever. I'm sure too many
decision-makers live in such areas.
--
Chris Johns

[Matt B]

Tony B wrote:
> fred wrote:
>> Tony B wrote:
>>> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
>> I disagree with the premise that if everyone has a luxury, it is no
>> longer a luxury and therefore no longer worthwhile.
>
> But the author is making the point that cars are luxury by virtue of
> exclusivity;

Which is, of course, also true of, say, houses.

> that ownership promises special privileges of speedy
> travel.

That's not the main benefit though. If the same journey was available
by public transport, at exactly the same speed (or even at a faster
speed actually) many (most?) would still prefer to use their own car.
The main benefits are convenience, comfort, and "own space".

In fact, all the same reasons that people prefer to live in their own
house rather than in public dormitories.

> Mass ownership negates this

[speedy travel] Not necessarily. Only if you accept the artificial,
politically motivated, suppression of necessary road space, and lack of
provision of acceptable alternatives.

> and the luxury is gone... on
> gridlocked roads their main raison d'etre is nullified.

Not at all. Many would rather sit in a jam than use PT.

> His claim is
> that cars are unique in that mass ownership cancels out their point...

A completely invalid claim, having missed the point of their "point".

> spend a week commuting into a city centre and deny that cars appear to
> not work!

They "work" in so much as the main reasons for choosing them over the
alternatives still apply, even in congestion.

> He's not suggesting ALL luxury items are like that.

Cars aren't like that.

>> Cars, like any tool, are useful things when properly used. When
>> misused, they can do significant damage.
>
> Name another tool that has screwed the world up to a similar extent.

The house?

> Our
> towns are now designed around motor transport.

I think even more so around ouses.

> People obsess about them.

Yes.

> They are used to judge rank and worth in others.

Yes.

> People spend hours
> labouring to buy and run them;

Yes.

> a lad at work recently bought a sports
> car, he sold it three months later to get married and lost £8000 - a
> third of a year's salary. How mad is that?? For his eight grand, he got
> to look at his car through the window for seven hours a day, drive it
> for an hour a day and worry about it being outside his house for the
> remainder. Yeah, that sports car was cool...
>
> Car culture is so deeply embedded into society now that it is literally
> inconceivable to most that things could be any other way. But they could
> be... maybe one day they will have to be.

The same can be said for housing. The car cannot be un-invented, it can
however be improved upon.

--
Matt B

"Cycle is a poor man’s transport, hobby of rich man and medical activity
for the old."
- Cycling Federation of India

[Blonde]

Yes, well that's another reason that these so-called 'yobs' all end up
living in the same area which becomes some kind of crime hot-spot,
instead of people living in more diverse communities where this just
doesn't happen. Stupid housing policies haven't helped this; The ex-
council estate were often built on the edge of towns and devoid of
facilities too. Hull has some odd places - some of the estates there
are so far away from the rest of the town, although transport links
are better, they are still basically ghettos of low waged, elderly and
unemployed people and it's no wonder they develop their own culture!

Very thought provoking article that. Liked it.

[Dan Gregory]

Blonde wrote:
> Interesting - it says about how the way we live is designed around the
> use of a car, makeing it very difficult not to have one.

This makes me think of the carbon neutral towns Gordon Brown was (is?)
talking about. They seem to be on old military sites, not close to
anywhere - where will the inhabitants work? Will there be rail links?

[BIG_ONE]

(Roger Merriman) wrote:

>one problem is that certinaly in london is public transport is for most
>part outer to inner.
>
>which can make getting from one outer area to another a bit of long way
>round.

isn't that what the bus is for ? ... but those of us who are able
bodied may just cycle it

[Roger Merriman]

big_one > wrote:

> (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> >one problem is that certinaly in london is public transport is for most
> >part outer to inner.
> >
> >which can make getting from one outer area to another a bit of long way
> >round.
>
> isn't that what the bus is for ? ... but those of us who are able
> bodied may just cycle it

no buses are very much local, lots of stops etc,

localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.

uselful for getting home after pub etc mind.

roger

[Ekul Namsob]

Roger Merriman > wrote:

> localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
> they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
> lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.

If you take a book or newspaper with you then the bus is quicker than
the car.

My objection to the bus is that round here they don't give change. I
want to see Oyster rolled out to the provinces.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

[Roger Merriman]

Ekul Namsob > wrote:

> Roger Merriman > wrote:
>
> > localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
> > they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
> > lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.
>
> If you take a book or newspaper with you then the bus is quicker than
> the car.

localy no as there isn't room for bus lanes bar one bit, add in the
stopping, and even in rush hour, the car will be quicker, not much i
grant you but quicker as both have to drive the same roads.

also the point of waiting for said bus, and does the bus run exackly
where you want it.

during rush hour the bike is the fastest and certinaly most pleasent.

>
> My objection to the bus is that round here they don't give change. I
> want to see Oyster rolled out to the provinces.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke

roger

[John Kane]

On May 29, 9:19 am, Tony B > wrote:
> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
> Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.
>
> Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??
>
> bfn,
>
> T
" When the car was invented, it was to provide a few of the very rich
with a completely unprecedented privilege: that of travelling much
faster than everyone else. No one up to then had ever dreamt of it.
The speed of all coaches was essentially the same, whether you were
rich or poor."

Dear God, it would be nice if an author, even occasionally, was
historically literate. When the car was invented the bicycle was
already doing all of this.

Now that he/she has made an ass of themself, should I read the
rest ?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>, John
Kane ') wrote:

> " When the car was invented, it was to provide a few of the very rich
> with a completely unprecedented privilege: that of travelling much
> faster than everyone else. No one up to then had ever dreamt of it.
> The speed of all coaches was essentially the same, whether you were
> rich or poor."
>
> Dear God, it would be nice if an author, even occasionally, was
> historically literate. When the car was invented the bicycle was
> already doing all of this.
>
> Now that he/she has made an ass of themself, should I read the
> rest ?

I think the author would argue that the bicycle (average speed about 12mph)
was not significantly faster than the post chaise (average speed 16mph),
but that even very early motor cars (capable of up to 80mph) were.

Someone has made a fool of himself, but it is not the author.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

[Ekul Namsob]

Roger Merriman > wrote:

> Ekul Namsob > wrote:
>
> > Roger Merriman > wrote:
> >
> > > localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
> > > they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
> > > lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.
> >
> > If you take a book or newspaper with you then the bus is quicker than
> > the car.
>
> localy no as there isn't room for bus lanes bar one bit, add in the
> stopping, and even in rush hour, the car will be quicker, not much i
> grant you but quicker as both have to drive the same roads.

I think you missed my point: I read a good amount. If I read on the bus
I manage to combine two activities, which I would do anyway, safely. If
I read in the car, I risk being stopped for driving without due care and
attention.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

[Roger Merriman]

Ekul Namsob > wrote:

> Roger Merriman > wrote:
>
> > Ekul Namsob > wrote:
> >
> > > Roger Merriman > wrote:
> > >
> > > > localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
> > > > they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
> > > > lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.
> > >
> > > If you take a book or newspaper with you then the bus is quicker than
> > > the car.
> >
> > localy no as there isn't room for bus lanes bar one bit, add in the
> > stopping, and even in rush hour, the car will be quicker, not much i
> > grant you but quicker as both have to drive the same roads.
>
> I think you missed my point: I read a good amount. If I read on the bus
> I manage to combine two activities, which I would do anyway, safely. If
> I read in the car, I risk being stopped for driving without due care and
> attention.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke

ahh i have large number of audio books + podcasts so i use that for long
journeys.

but

[Sir Jeremy]

On 29 May, 14:19, Tony B > wrote:
> http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/gorz.html
>
> Just read a piece on cardeology, difficult to pick fault with it either.
>
> Anyone want to crosspost the link to the other place??
>
> bfn,
>
> T

Its complete wank written by an idiot who thinks that the DDR was
heaven

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-06-01 00:24:55 skrev Roger Merriman >:

> Ekul Namsob > wrote:
>
>> Roger Merriman > wrote:
>>
>> > localy tend to use bike or car, mostly bike. the trouble with buses is
>> > they are slower than a car as the roads aren't wide enought for bus
>> > lanes of any use. so move as fast or as slow as the traffic does.
>>
>> If you take a book or newspaper with you then the bus is quicker than
>> the car.
>
> localy no as there isn't room for bus lanes bar one bit, add in the
> stopping, and even in rush hour, the car will be quicker, not much i
> grant you but quicker as both have to drive the same roads.


If you ad a bus lane, the bus will go faster and so attract more
passengers. Some of these passengers will previously have taken the car,
so there will be fewer vehicles on the road. So the bus lane actually
makes more space on the road, not less.

What the space on the road is to be used for, is a matter of priorites. I
don't think you would say "there is no room for the runways at Heathrow
because there are so many parking lots" or "there is no room in the subway
for trains because of the cars" etc.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies