Car exclusion zones around schools of 800m+ between 0800 and 1000 and 1400 and 1600 would put off the crazy 1mile school run mums

Real cycle lanes which car drivers get points for entering, like the bus lanes with cameras in operation to police , with added long phase traffic lights just so everyone caan see the bikes streaming past as they sit and tut

More pro active police on close pass nonsense and phone use with bans mandatory at 12 points , even if its a 3 month ban the persistant phone user would be greatly inconvenienced and the cost of insurance should rise dramatically

more bike space on trains , and much better bike security at stations all help an integrated transport network

I’d love to cycle to work more but I have to drop off the kids at school which leaves little time.

I love whizzing by bus stops knowing the poor people are going to have to wait and I am completely free.

I’d love to cycle to work more but I have to drop off the kids at school which leaves little time.

Said no-one ever 😆

I would put bus use to the test by making all buses free for 1 year to see how much usage increased (along with more buses as my first bus goes at 11am and last one back is 6pm)

I read a report a few months ago (can’t remember where or about which country) saying that free bus services didn’t reduce the number of cars on the road significantly but did reduce the amount of people who walked those very short journeys.

The housing ‘market’ is not a market as it is being manipulated by this tax – houses are not a commodity, removing this tax might be a step towards making them more of a commodity.

But surely a lack of house building, through a lack of will for political reasons is a manipulation as well?

I’m all for anything that changes people’s environmental impact for the better, including getting rid of a tax that encourages long commutes.

What encouraged long commutes in addition to the lack of house building/centralisation of jobs was the car.

But again the first thing that was focused on was the taxation issue. Speaks volumes for those who brought it up.

We need houses where there are jobs, jobs where there are houses and people to be encouraged to move to be near them. Londoncentricism is a problem because it tends to mean the breadwinner commutes from miles away to London and the second earner possibly even works somewhere in the opposite direction which is just bonkers. The country and environment would be better served by better jobs in Leeds than ever faster trains from Leeds to London.

Its good that you aren’t too far behind what I have earlier in the thread.

But surely a lack of house building, through a lack of will for political reasons is a manipulation as well?

put a time limit on planning permission to stop developers banking land and planning permission but not actually building. Renewing planning permission not allowed or peralised.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/31/britain-land-housing-crisis-developers-not-building-land-banking

Said no-one ever

It’s a valid problem. If it takes longer to cycle to work than drive you need to leave earlier, but the school may not take kids earlier.

What encouraged long commutes in addition to the lack of house building/centralisation of jobs was the car.

And the fact as stated earlier that people change jobs regularly. Moving house is crazy expensive. Everything is more dynamic now, except moving house. Still stuck in the past.

It’s a valid problem excuse.

No cars were ever involved in taking me to school.. or my child.
But hey, things are a cliché for a reason.

So solve the problem I have just outlined.

P.s not by suddenly pulling grand parents or similar into the mix.

Yeah, give me a couple of minutes and I’ll have it sorted for ya.

Well you belittle the reason for not being able to drop off kids without out a car when the school and work is within cycling distance. I offer a valid and not out of the ordinary situation where by it is not possible to cycle to drop off the kids and you still call it an excuse without offering a solution to the problem. You follow up with sarcasm. You’re not presenting a strong counter argument.