…the keys from my cold, dead hands.
UK motorists could be paid thousands of pounds to give up their cars under a new scheme, which aims to drive polluting vehicles off the streets and cut congestion.
The government-funded trial, set to be launched in Coventry this year, will give drivers cash to ditch their cars in exchange for public transport, electric vehicle car hire and bike-sharing schemes.
Fuck off! Seriously, fuck off! This arsehole of a council is planning to use people’s own money to bribe them to give up their personal transport in favour of something with less utility. The reason people drive cars is because they allow a degree of flexibility and independence that the alternatives do not. Not one of those alternatives being peddled in this bribe will effectively replace the personal motor vehicle.
So, no. Absolutely not.
John Seddon, head of transport and innovation at Coventry City Council, told the newspaper around 100 people would initially take part in the trial, funded by a £20m Department for Transport award.
That’s you and I, not the government. The government doesn’t have a bean. What it has, it has extorted from you and I and you and I will be paying for this scam – not the department for transport.
“We see it as a variant of scrappage schemes of the past but rather than trading in an old car for a newer one, it is trading in the car for the ability to use other modes of transport,”
People can already do that. So no bribe is necessary, is it?
The project, which is the first of its kind in the UK, was approved by the West Midlands Combined Authority and will see credit added to smart cards with the aim of encouraging motorists to “give up their private vehicles in exchange for a limited time period of support” to test the amount of money needed to trigger a long-term change in travel habits.
According to documents presented at the meeting, it will “stimulate a long-term sustainable shift in travel behaviour” among drivers.
I fully intend to keep my car. Although I don’t use it a great deal, when I do, then it is because it is the most effective means of transport. I fully intend to keep my bikes and I will never give them up. So, over my dead body. I will not be manipulated by the state – it is none of their business how I live my life or what transport I choose to use.
Surely it,s prise.
Yes, indeed. Silly me. Corrected.
The augean stables really do need a clean out don’t they. This crap won’t work anyway, I can remember when John Prescott was always on the radio telling us how he was going to get people out of their cars and onto public transport. The few that sign up for it will soon find out how wonderful public transport is and go back to their cars.
This precisely. We already have the alternatives in place and people do not use them as much as the politicians would like. There is a reason for this. As for electric cars, they are a waste of time. When you can charge one in the same time it takes to fill a tank of petrol and they have the same range as a petrol car, then maybe, they will be onto something. Otherwise, it’s a gimmick.
Public transport really only works if you live and work in a major city and you don’t need to travel outside of it.
Credits will go a smartcard”. I think that tells you all you need to know.
A private version of this scheme could work, at least if the millionaire hipster rhetoric is to believed.
Rather than £3000 (or whatever), this card could be charged with “wankerpoints” which could be redeemed at participating outlets. Maybe one of these concerned millionaires could provide a fleet of “wankerbikes” available for the redemption of a certain number of “wankerpoints”.
I’m sure the report showing the rip roaring success of this scheme has already been written.
As the holder of a bus pass, I’m quite happy to leave my car at home for my twice weekly visits to the local library, my visits to the theatre, or a restaurant or two (which will allow me the pleasure of a glass or two of wine), and use public transport. “Can I have some money, please?”.
From what I see whilst riding my scooter is Uber, Private taxis (pre book), pizza delivery cars, fast food cars, huge numbers of vans that don’t have “Amazon” on their sides, because that lot and others use self employed drivers. It’s the same with the local Chinese restaurant, they use a variety of people who use their own car (they may have insurance for commercial use, but I doubt it).
Bakeries like Greggs do naff all in house and they, along with the satellite shops of Tesco and they like need several deliveries every day. And while I can see their home delivery vehicles displacing stacks of individual trips to their superstores, they do add to the congestion and so to pollution.
In Edinburgh we have those irritating tourist buses without roofs. I think there are several companies doing this, all starting at the Waverley Station that’s slap in the middle of town. They tour at little more than cycling speed all day, acting like movable chicanes.
Merit only to UPS; their delivery fleet is all electric. Deliveroo use cyclists and people with little scooters, usually the Honda Vision that’s 110cc and real frugal.
So there are reasons way beyond someone using their car to drop off a child, or get an infirm relative to hospital, or even just a change of scenery.
There’s a simple and cost effective way to persuade people to dump their cars. Give up their car driving licence and show proof they have no tin can registered to their address, then give them a free for life transport card, good for buses and trains.
And if they want to keep their motorcycle licence, then that’s okay (though I’d restrict that to 125’s).
Er, with all due respect, fuck off. You will prise the keys of my three (over 125cc) bikes out of my cold dead hands. 125s are bloody useless and nothing like as stable, safe and effective as their bigger brothers even for short urban journeys.
You were joking, weren’t you?
Incidentally as someone who once worked for BR, I have free rail travel. I hardly ever use it. Why might that be?
Not entirely because the fuel consumption of large motorcycles is not especially good, and things like the Goldwing don’t hack it unless in their intended environment of motorways or interstate highways.
https://www.totalmotorcycle.com/MotorcycleFuelEconomyGuide/2016-MPG
So no I wouldn’t go for a carte blanch on ptw’s. Whether there should be a capacity limit, or an mpg one is one for discussion if anything I suggested is taken seriously, though I suspect I’ll know that when it starts raining custard.
Modern motorcycles have pretty good fuel consumption – EU4 bikes can generally give 60mpg. But even so it’s no one else’s business what I choose to ride. Bigger bikes are more stable and have better luggage carrying capacity as well as being more able to accelerate out of trouble. They are safer, more efficient and better balanced. I do occasionally get on 125s for the purposes of demonstrating during CBT. I would never recommend anyone buy one for serious use. Too small, too light and not enough performance.
@Smoking Scot
Really?
GPz550H1 I owned 1982-1986 averaged 63mpg. That included almost every day commutes (3/4 urban 1/4 ex-urban where >100mph always hit), three high-speed 300 miles each way to Silverstone, weekend drag races with other bikes and more fun. Also had fuel consuming heated grips, LED Clock and ORO 100/80w H4 headlamp, 1 each Cibie Fog & Spot on crash bars.
I’d also add that in choosing the Gold Wing, you have picked an outlier. Not many riders use Gold Wings. If you look around, most of the bikes are middleweights – 600s – usually street bikes or sports/sports tourers. I also use a big BMW R1200RT that comfortably gives me over 62mpg, so hardly a thirsty beast. But the bottom line here is that it is not the place of the state to dictate terms on this matter. If I really wanted a Gold Wing, then I should be free to buy and use one whenever and wherever I see fit in a free, liberal society, which we are increasingly losing.
These kind of madcap schemes will only really benefit those who can manage without personal transport in the first place. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, I have access to free rail travel. Rail travel is great for going into London, for example, but I have no desire to travel to that awful shithole ever again if I can avoid it. I’m issued with a card giving me twenty trips per annum. Most years it is unused. This is because public transport doesn’t go where I want or need, when I want or need. It is private transport that truly liberates us. Especially outside of the conurbations. Which is why on anything but a small scale this scheme will fail.
I made an effort to explain that much of the congestion on our roads has been caused by services that did not exist just 20 years ago.
And by implication, which I admit isn’t easy to spot, they’re blaming the wrong people.
In short I agree with the thrust of your argument.
I do not doubt the capability of big motorcycles and I am perfectly aware that most ptw’s are efficient in urban areas, most being able to lane split and make best use of all the available road ie, pass buses that are half in, half out their stop.
The largest machine I’ve ridden was a Yamaha 750 triple, the fastest a Honda CBR 600 F. However I am at heart a lightweight enthusiast with my current machines being an Aprilia Scarabeo 100 2t and a Honda SH 300. I like the former, it’s 19 years old and weighs 92 kg. I respect the 300, that’s better on the open road. Yet to me the 300 isn’t as much fun, just too darned capable.
However traffic volumes are far lower in Lothian than down south and I have no trouble using the wee one for trips on A and B roads, and I much prefer it for short trips to supermarkets. It’s out of it’s depth on fast roads, while the big one does fine up to 85 mph and returns 75 mpg.
You may be dismissive of 125’s. I’m not. I got my first machine in 1967, a 9 year old NSU Quickly. Parents and boarding school meant it had to be parked well away from prying eyes and it was stolen. I didn’t mourn it’s loss, Dad had bribed me with a Suzuki M50D, that shifted if you believed the speedo – and the D stood for dynamo, it was electric start, or a push by hand on the kick start.
Would I force anyone who took part in my proposed scheme to stick only to them? Probably not, but that’s after I’ve taken on board what you guys have said.
You are probably aware of the 125 rule in France. Get a car licence, stay clear for 2 years, do a CBT and you get a 125 licence. There you’ve got company executives who ride them to work. They prefer the cruiser type scoot with the huge under seat store. Out comes the dress shoes and laptop, in goes the over suit, helmet and gloves.
I got your point about the causes of congestion. I simply disagree that any schemes such as this are a solution as a matter of principle even if they did work because they are authoritarian and because it involves bribing people with their own money and the reason people eschew public transport is because it is not a viable solution.
As for lightweight bikes – I really don’t like them. Blown about by gusts of wind and bounce about on uneven road surfaces. Indeed, the 125 learner law was a bad idea from the off. There were lovely 250cc learner bikes available at the time, but the idiots in parliament were swayed by the availability of fast 250s such as the Yamaha and Suzuki offerings, which, frankly were safer and more stable than the 125s they then forced learners to adopt, proving that politicians are ill-informed cretins, so nothing has changed in that department.
What I can gather about the 125 law is a motorcycle dealer in Glasgow found that 3 of his customers were killed over one sunny weekend. That followed from one who died earlier in the season.
He then contacted other big dealers, some of whom had lost one or more customers and felt awful about it.
All the kids were riding the 250 twin two strokes that Yamaha, Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki and Aprilia produced. They’re great bikes, but – as the dealers discovered – best ridden by people with some experience, not red raw 17 year old kids.
They then got together and petitioned their MP’S to review the whole learner laws. I believe they were consulted as various options were considered, however my understanding is the Glasgow dealer was very keen on no repeat of that awful weekend. Hence the 12bhp, 125 at 17, leading eventually to an open licence at 21.
The EU mandated the change in test to include the contentious evasion part, however the Italians fought and won the 14.6bhp output for 125’s.
Suddenly us Brits found we had 125’s that could hit just over 70 mph, against the old UK limit of 12 bhp and about 65 mph on a good day.
So endeth the history lesson.
Re lightweights being squirmy with crap suspension etc., well LR that’s part of what I like about them. Easy to chuck around, manoeuvre with a dead engine and not too much capital invested in them, nor prohibitive to insure.
I speak for no one else, however if you look at their figures for December 2018, that also includes the ytd, 125’s make up 30% of new bike sales.
http://www.mcia.co.uk/sub/Press_Stats
On that score we’ll have to agree to disagree.
And if you, or anyone reading this happens to know of a nos or mint Aprilia Scarabeo 100 2t circa 2000 to 2003, do please get in touch, my email is on the front page of my site.
When it comes to chucking bikes around, nothing beats something with a bit of weight and muscle behind it. In 1981, Honda produced a lovey soft tuned 250 that was an ideal learner machine. A simple capacity limit is ridiculous, frankly. Yes, the X7 and RD250 were not best suited for learners, but a weight/horsepower ratio could have sorted that and allowed more suitable machines to be available for novices. A soft tuned 250 is heavier and therefore more stable than a 125.
The bikes they had access to were the Honda NSR, Yamaha TZR, Suzuki RGV and Kawasaki did one as well, the KRS. All 250 twins, liquid cooled 2t’s.
The Suzuki and Yamaha were the best sellers with about 50 bhp available in standard condition and a brutal power band between 8 and 11 k rpm.
I believe Kawasaki still produced it’s 3 pot 250, though that, toward the end of its product life was down to about 30 bhp and 90 mph with a strong tailwind.
The state of the art jobs were good for 110 mph, frequently more if punter took time to run them in properly.
They’re currently cult classics.
Also, bear in mind most of the 70/80s 250cc bike had appalling brakes & handling.
One reason I went Kawa was sintered metal brake pads were standard OE fitment.
I had a race with a RD350LC vs my GPz in Edinburgh – Woolworths, down past JL, roundabout & back – Acc, brake, turm, twisty.
I won from start, he vanished. Re-rode and found him – he hadn’t smelt/noticed diesel spill on roundabout.
ROFL – Scotch puritans depriving donor waiting list and ignoring Darwin : two related fails – kill sick & preserve stupid.
Why are there always so many people who always want to tell other people how to live their lives? Anyone showing this tendency should be kept as far away as possible from any position of power. Even if public transport was free I wouldn’t use it. Were I live it is of no practical use. I do cycle a lot though.
Give up freedom and independence for Gov’t approved cattle transport at when and from & to where they dictate?
No. Absolutely not.
.
I can see this mad idea being rapidly gamed by existing bus users: buy a £400 MOT’d banger and “give-up” using it.
Also, all the reports suggest one does not receive £2,000 cash; it’s £2,000 credit for Gov’t approved schemes:
Give up car and walk/cycle = £0
Give up car and bus/cycle-hire = £2,000 subsidy
Taxi firms, Uber etc judicial reviews coming next
Gov’t hires the best from Oxbridge? ROFL they hire the control-freaks, the lazy, the gullible and those rejected by profit makers
What never seems to occur to these greenie, save-the-planet types is that there are some people (yes, I’m one of them), who simply couldn’t practically get to work if I didn’t drive there. Unlike them, I don’t work in the middle of a huge city or even a moderately-sized town and the closest public transport to the area I work in stops several miles away from my actual workplace. It would I estimate, make my daily commute something like two hours rather than the 30 minutes it currently takes, thus extending my working day by four hours. I’m not sure how they would square that with the current drive for a good work/life balance and adequate “free, leisure and family time” that they’re always so keen on.
It’s yet another example of how the politicians and/or civil servants that come up with these hare-brained schemes exist firmly in a rose-tinted little London-centred bubble, where there are frequently-served train and tube stations and bus stops all over the place, at a reasonable distance from both your starting point and your destination. They simply don’t seem to have any awareness that we don’t all work in big towns, and that there are huge swathes of the country which, to all intents and purposes, just don’t have any public transport at all which is practically usable for anyone other than day-trippers or tourists with no constraints on their time!
20 million split among 100. Eh?
19 million into the council pension scheme and one million to the swappers, more like.
I fully agree with your comment, and here’s why:
I live on the outskirts of a city, and there is a regular bus service from the nearby supermarket. But I can’t remember when I last used it. Apparently a one-way fare to the city centre is about the same as petrol for both ways in the car, & 2 hrs undercover parking in one of the shopping centres. Plus the usual aspects of going when it suits me, having ample space for shopping, and not having to share with a bunch of people yacking into their phones…
Yesterday I went out for a drive to do some bird watching – Birds of Prey – if you must know. I was able to take whichever route and country lanes I wanted, and stop at a moments notice when I saw something of interest. It included taking tea making gear, and a packed lunch. Please explain how I could do the same with public transport?
I need only check the speedo trip reading to see how much range I have – unlike an EV this won’t have changed at all if the car hasn’t been used for a couple of weeks. And (unlike an EV) this won’t change dramatically if I want to use the heater or aircon. I also have an old runabout for work purposes – it normally has several toolboxes and other bits & pieces onboard, plus the ability to jump-start and provide mains power if needed. How am I supposed to do that with public transport (or even an EV!)
As for two wheels – it’s many years since I rode a motorcycle, but IIRC my BMW R65 averaged about 58mpg – and that was without any modern computer technology. I also put nearly 70,000 miles on my trusty CZ175, including taking it to the IOM TT. It was not the best machine on the motorway journey, but I managed a respectable lap time round the circuit, and passed many larger bikes, although admittedly I knew the course from previous visits!
.
Would somebody please explain to me why I have to justify my car ownership and use to some sanctimonious and self righteous arse head from hell? Never mind some curtain twitching, sheet sniffing stasi wannabe.
I own a car and as long as it is legal and I don’t break the law it’s nobodies damn business what I drive, where and when.
It really is that simple. Just fuck off!
Those proposing this scheme are sometimes known as “seagulls.” They fly in,flap about, squawk a lot, cause one hell of a mess, then fly off leaving those left behind to clear up their crap. Meanwhile the seagull is off annoying other people and stealing their chips.
I was a Civil Servant for 20 years but left when it became too obvious that madcap schemes like this were becoming the norm and were being encouraged in the name of “career development.” It simply won’t do to have a core of experienced and knowledgeable staff who actually like doing their jobs. I left when I found I was discouraged from doing my job, advising the Emperor on the state of his clothing, lest I said something factually correct about someone’s pet project.
So, at 50 years old I’ve retrained as an electrician. I’m already a competent mechanic which helps me keep my two 750 Kawasaki sports bikes from the 1990s on the road. After a brief absence from the IOM TT, I’m booked for this year and will be camping with a large group of people who don’t enjoy being told what to do for no good reason. My kind of people.
My point is this: this scheme will die a death. It will be a long, drawn-out process, much money will be “invested” (i.e. wasted) on it, it will cause chaos and confusion, it will leave many angry and bewildered people in its wake, and no-one will be around to be held accountable. It is this sort of project that is an argument for the relaxation of central government control and its ad hoc funding of “eye-catching initiatives” and the return (?) of local democracy to make local decisions.
The IOM TT only became a thing in the first place because the PTB refused to have roads closed for motorcycle races on the mainland. The motorcycle people approached the IOM authorities instead and they said ‘Yeah alright’ and the rest is history.