True, you’re probably right. I live on a main road so the lines are blurred a little* for me.

It’s why the two key transport planning documents are “Manual for Streets” – for residential streets and the like, and “The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges” for A roads, trunk roads, motorways etc.

Maybe some of the ire on this thread is because of a lack of distinguishing between which roads we’re talking about…!

So regular run of the mill folk have no value???

I’m impressed you have interpreted my post this way. Yes, of course regular run of the mill folk have value… ..but do their journeys and choices associated with them have more value than the costs associated with them?

I think the last time I “socialised in the street” was the Silver Jubilee in 1977.

That’s a shame.

You’re making a massive assumption that the car being parked there is of no “value”.

No I’m not. That’s why I said additional benefits, the presumption being that the original use had a benefit.

Besides, what kind of proportion of parked cars are Drs on call or caregivers? I suspect it’s pretty low compared to regular run-of-the-mill folk.

Not that I’m particularly trying to use the playing footy in the street argument

I think any specific activity other than transport will be pulled apart.

We can argue that roads were originally built for farmers’ pony & trap or for Roman chariots or whatever, but the modern infrastructure we have today is primarily (though of course not exclusively) built for the mighty car.

I think that most folks here are talking about residential streets, rather than A-roads and the like. It’s probably a good idea to differentiate.

If we invented teleporters and got rid of all the cars, do you think we’d still be building roads

Of course we would, we need somewhere to socialise and do all the other stuff previously mentioned. Where better than outside your front door?

Good. There’s no need for it, we have dedicated recreation areas for this sort of thing. Go find a park.

Very good. :lol:

All of which deprive someone of that space – you missed that point.

Apologies Junkyard, I didn’t realise the semantics were what the discussion was about. I stand corrected!

I suppose the question then is, what additional benefit is the “other activities” compared to the car-parking? Difficult to quantify I’m sure, but I hope most people would be able to see that playing cricket (or whatever other social activity) offers additional benefits to the individuals and society compared to parking a car. I’d be interested to hear the argument from the other side though!

what do you want a game of footy on the road but you cannot due to parked cars?

Are you finally getting it?!

It is real deprivation. If the space is used to park cars it is depriving others of the use of the space. You can’t play football there, you can’t stop and chat to your neighbours there, you can’t use it to teach your kids how to ride a bike/make a go cart etc.

Loads of uses that are not just for cars!

Manual for Streets – DfT guidance on street and residential road design explains that roads are not merely used as a method of getting from origin to destination:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/341513/pdfmanforstreets.pdf

“However, it is all too easy to forget that
streets are not just there to get people from
A to B. In reality, streets have many other
functions.”

“Places and streets that have stood the test
of time are those where traffic and other
activities have been integrated successfully,
and where buildings and spaces, and the needs
of people, not just of their vehicles, shape the
area.”

There’s got to be a way of doing this fairlyer.

Yeah, maybe I was being a bit knee jerk.

I just don’t see what the big thing is that car ownership is a “need” a “must have” in our society. So much so that everyone must have access to buying and owning their own otherwise society is deeming it unfair. Is it unfair that the very rich have access to helicopters but the rest of us don’t? It’s only another vehicle after all?

It seems ridiculous when they are so many other options available to car ownership (except for the 5% of the population who really do live in inaccessible locations).

edited to add – Like nerd’s scooters above!

we don’t want driving to become for rich people only.

Don’t we? I’m all for the polluter pays principle. It means only rich people get to drive big, fuel guzzling tanks!

It was more of a personal pov, I need to travel from Carlisle to Aberystwyth and am responsible for 10% of the revenue for my company. But yes, the argument becomes complicated.

Ouch, well calculating economic cost/benefit stuff for individuals is going to be even more of a nightmare! being more serious though, I think these things are taken into account when the Economists do their calculations.

Let’s not forget that the car industry itself raises huge amounts of money for the economy too

In the short term yes. If the reliance on fossil fuels turns out to be the big mistake though, or some other unpredicted consequence occurs (sedentary lifestyle, hydrocarbon poisoning etc. a bit like the Pb anti-knocking agent), then the costs could make the benefits pale into insignificance.

Does this argument include the income generated, for the economy as a whole, by the car?

It starts to get stupidly complicated when factoring in things like indirect costs/benefits. So are you talking about direct benefits e.g. the manufacturing industry, the oil/petrol industry? Or the wider benefits/costs of allowing people/goods freedom to move farther and faster…

…up to a point when too many people want to do this and end up in traffic jams that cost the economy billions!

But aren’t cyclists also subsidised by the taxpayer? Isn’t that how tax works anyway?

I don’t think it is the same order of magnitude as public transport users and motorists. The required level of infrastructure is lower, the health impact is a benefit (rather than a cost), manufacturing costs are lower, pollution is minimal (at point of use). Basically the impact of owning and using human power is far lower (walking or running is even better!) than using a vehicle with an electric motor or ICE.

The cost/benefit of car use has been looked into lots in the past. It is true that car users are subsidised by the general population as a whole:

http://increase-public-transport.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Procurement/SIPTRAM/Hidden_subsidies_final.pdf

First Google result that cropped up explained things quite well I thought. Caveat – no idea about source, relevant peer review etc.

Given the conviction rate is 56.9 % it seems incredibly unlikely your assessment is correct
Shall we discuss your scenario when it actually occurs?

That’s a fair point too.

I’m also kind of conscious that the reporting rate is so low, the charging rate is low and the number of offences that actually gets to court is so low that the conviction rate compared with what is actually going on is the tip of a very big iceberg. We’re arguing over a tiny percentage of the problem, depressing really.

Spoken like a ture believer Peyote. If the coursts are finding it difficult to tell whether someone consented or not, then if what the articles state are true – that they are simply making a defense so hard that it’s incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty – then I think that there is an issue. Simply washing your hands of this because “it’s for the cause” is dangerous. It’s that attitude that really grates me, and one I see increasingly pervading society.

Yeah, perhaps you’re right, and I agree “it’s for the cause” is a dangerous view and if it results in these kinds of issues occurring then I think it is right that they be challenged. Does it mean that we cannot question some of the basic tenets of western justice though? If they aren’t working (which they don’t seem to be) in some cases should they not be addressed?

Unfortunately it is always going to be difficult without firm proof one way or the other. ‘Twas ever thus, was it not?

I take the view that the conviction rates are so low at the moment, and the weight of society’s prejudice is so ingrained that if the balance was swung in the opposite direction then maybe the ends do justify the means?

It begs the question which would you rather: the huge majority of rapists/abusers continuing their behaviour (and if survey results are anything to go by, there’s an awful lot of them) and the associated impacts. Or a few (lots?) innocent men locked up for crimes they didn’t commit. Hobson’s Choice.

At the moment thought the system isn’t working, and the closer we strive towards male/female equality the more in stark relief the failure of the Law to get to grips with this problem will be.

Apologies for all the question marks…

How do you prove continual verbal consent? And why is it now, on the defendant (not guilty until proven otherwise) to prove this? The burden should be on the prosecution or the state to prove the defendants guilt.

I didn’t think the article was claiming that the burden should be transferred, I read it that it was becoming more difficult for juries/the judiciary to distinguish consent from non-consent due to the changes made to the law.

I don’t see anything wrong with this, the old wording allowed for all manner of abuse to operate without being challengeable in court.

Proving continual verbal consent? I don’t know, I guess that’s one for the lawyers/judiciary to work out. I suppose the old ways of assuming consent (e.g. no marital rape law) and people knowing their “rightful” place in society are being challenged, rightly so, and we’re going through a transition period. The Law and the Legal System as a whole will need to transition too.

a shit excuse to suspend basic principles of western justice.

Okay, I’ve just read the Telegraph article now, and I may be being a bit dim (not unusual) and I’m not a lawyer or legally trained, but I don’t understand how “conditional consent” could be used to suspend the basic principles of western justice.

Conditional consent seems pretty straightforward to me and why shouldn’t juries and the courts be delving into this level of detail if someone requires that be done? I really don’t see the issue. Anyone like to explain?

Interesting article on the Gender Pay Gap 9% thing here:

https://www.eef.org.uk/campaigning/news-blogs-and-publications/blogs/2015/nov/the-gender-pay-gap-falls-to-94-but-the-devil-is-always-in-the-detail

These things are never as clear cut as first imagined! Also, I suppose it doesn’t account for the problems of actually getting into work in the first place (initially, then post maternity if that’s your bag). But that’s probably for another thread…

I would agree that there is a problem with ‘some’ men oppressing ‘some’ women and that in this country the set of men doing the oppressing and the set of women being oppressed is incredibly small relatively to the total population. So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading, at least as far as correctly identifying the problem and classifying it as a significant issues in need of redress.

Except it seems that much of the data, and I admit it is difficult to collect data on unreported behaviour, suggests that this oppression is a constant and ongoing problem. If, as some surveys suggest, upto 75% of women experience serious sexual assault from men at some point then (IIRC about 30% are raped) this doesn’t appear to me to be incredibly small. This is discounting other behaviour such as verbal/emotional assault and domestic abuse without a sexual element and completely ignoring the gender expectations of society.

I think we disagree on the scale of the problem. The stats suggest it’s bigger than “some”, nationally and internationally.

Defining the argument as being a problem caused by ‘men’, suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression; that it is a causal factor and thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that.

It is a problem caused primarily by men, who do you think is doing the oppressing? It has been demonstrated that males, across all sociodemographic groups are the perpetrators (and also the victims for most non sexual violence).

I don’t know enough about the legal process to make a judgement on whether I consider it “fair” or not. I’ll have a catch up, but I would be surprised if it unduly favoured women. Traditionally it has favoured men and it’s only been the last few years when it has been making steps to right that wrong. It doesn’t surprise me to learn that there are MRA groups who are upset at the prospect of losing their legal gender privelidge though!

I think there is a problem with oppression full stop. Lumping all people of the same sex or colour together as a collective isn’t going to fix the problem.

If the problem is systemic, which it is in this case, a systemic solution is needed. You cannot treat each individual on a case by case basis when the entirety of society is the problem. The structures we have in place: law, judiciary, police, social norms/rules, media etc. all display and operate within this oppressive framework, they all need to be tackled as they are, for want of a better phrase, a “reflection on the society that produced them”.

The sooner men, white people, or whoever is the beneficiary of this oppression, as a class (and as individuals for that matter so not disregarding your approach), recognise this the better.

I don’t see any other way it can be tackled, but I’m open to ideas?

So you don’t think that they is a problem with male oppression of females?

The stats that are regularly trotted out about the relative wealth of the genders, the poor rape/abuse reporting conviction rates, the glass ceilings, the religious mysoginy, the gendered bias of domestic violence, the media skew on female sexual objectification, the gender imbalance that starts at birth. All of this is not true? Really?

I’m not sure if I’m missing something here.

Edited to add – I’m not saying all males are oppressing all females. Although there are obviously indirect benefits to those males that aren’t, and to be honest most is probably subconscious anyway…

No, I think it’s a never ending argument that people getting caught up in it are distracted by. Meanwhile the real people taking advantage of the power go about their business increasing that power and taking advantage whilst everyone else is bickering about black vs white, men vs women etc.

I disagree. I think these issues are too important to disregard as bickering and distractions. Considering the abuse that the “out groups” are subject to on a daily basis, and the pain and distress they suffer I think that’s a pretty heartless point of view.

Going car-free (ownership at least) isn’t difficult, it’s just inconvenient and would require changes to peoples lives that they don’t want to do. Simple as that really.

It’s a lot easier if you start from scratch though. Live near to sustainable transport links, don’t commute too far etc.

Well, it’s comparable to any other power imbalance isn’t it? Same as white/black people, cyclists/motorists etc. I’m sure in each case there are individuals who treat each other with respect, but as a class one has significant power over the other.

Not to recognise this is a bit blinkered I think.

I can relate, when I plan my own death it happens quietly, gently and in peace in a beatiful location in Snowdonia. Back to nature. Dust to dust.

Well depends on how philosophical you want to get but in practical terms I think there is altruism about – say a financial sense or how their time is spent.

Fair do’s, it’s a bit early to be getting too deep as well!

True altruism doesn’t exist, we are all selfish to cetain degrees.

However, compassion and self interest aren’t mutually incompatible, I can be selfish, have my wants/needs met without causing hurt/disadvantage to others, or even approach it from a symbiotic level. Conversely I could just go all out and not give two-hoots about the impact of my wants on others. All three options are selfish though. It’s just semantics.

Is any party actually going to raise taxes?

I’d be happy to pay more for a “high tax, high spend” economy. Mind you, I’m just a bit of an old socialist hippy, and I don’t earn enough to fit into that tax bracket anyway!

hold on – are you saying that men are hard done by or the opposite?

The opposite, as Emsz says.

Just to clarify though, I think the law, as it is written, is pretty clear on equality and the need to treat people equally. I don’t think those responsible for enforcing and upholding the law (enforcement authorities and judiciary) work to such a high standard. It’s why sexual assault, rape et al have such low reporting, and subsequently conviction rates. Society doesn’t care enough.

do they?

Are you really saying that misogyny isn’t alive and kicking in society? I think it is.

even if the perpetrator is a male and seen traditionally as physically stronger?

I don’t think the law generalises based on gender, I would hope that individuals are treated as such, taking into account a whole range of issues including (but not limited to) physical size. I think that’s what the whole “aggravating factors” thing is all about. But I’m not a lawyer.

IMO there shouldn’t be any assumption based on gender, and I believe the law (as it is written, if not enacted) agrees with this.

If there is obvious intent. When you pee into a bush mid-ride, do you think you should automatically be done for indecent exposure if walkers walk by?

I don’t think so no. But that wasn’t really my point. I was arguing that gender shouldn’t and I don’t think it does, come into play when it comes to legal instruments of this kind…

…of course,law enforcement, judiciary, media and the public have a long way to catch up with this sentiment.

Both could be done for indecent exposure though?

It is only attitudes that are the problem, the law seems quite clear…

V. impressive engineering, though it reminds me a bit too much of the Chernobyl Sarcophagus…

Chuggington is worse.

I don’t really understand how you’d teach it as a scientific theory anyway. It’s not as if kids at a pretty low level of scientific understanding won’t turn around and say something like: “Actually, there isn’t any proof of this creationism theory, it’s not like evolutionary theory which although still a theory has some stuff to back it up, where’s the fossil records and DNA history to back it up?”.

I think I may have missed something in the debate tho’.

Mary-J was a gateway drug for me, I started on that and before I knew it I was smoking cigarettes. Bad stuff Man, bad stuff.

Orwell and Huxley?