Yeah, fair enough! I was thinking of places in the UK (and other areas of Western Europe I'm familiar with) where even 'isolated' houses are usually less than five miles away from a larger settlement. I've been in plenty of places where I'd just walk across or around a field to get to the nearest shop - which was more direct than taking the road!
In terms of the rural US, I think you're probably right that solving these problems with human-powered vehicles and public transport is, basically, too hard, and that cars are the best available solution. That said, it's probably still worth building the infrastructure so people have the option of not using a car for the whole of every single journey.
Are you speaking from experience of rural areals? Because if so, it doesn't match with mine!
Most rural areas I know of are heavily dependent on neighbouring areas, whether other villages or larger towns. So the public transport option which works best is buses: Usually they connect a chain or ring of smaller villages with each other or with a large town. Having bike lanes or footpaths (separate from roads) to connect the villages works, too. And the UK, historically, had many small train lines, including single track routes, that did a similar job to the buses.
That's cool. One of the advantages of lower speed limits is that while they slightly improve safety, they massively improve the perception of safety. When people feel safe walking and cycling, they're more likely to do it. So, lower speed limits decrease the subjective desire to drive, and thereby reduce car dependency.
you all take it for granted that everyone is capable to ride a bike from here to sunset, and that the same bike is sufficient to haul whatever it is to be hauled
Not a single person here has said or even implied this. Everyone here has suggested several different kinds of transport, including but not limited to bicycles. Not only that, but nearly every comment has acknowledged that some car use in the countryside is probably necessary. I recommend actually reading the comments here rather than assuming you know what they say and getting angry about it.
Yes. Again, there are good and bad ways of implementing these things. I was also just thinking that having hire bikes at P&Rs would be a good idea, to give people more options, and that train stations bordering rural and urban areas should also be effectively P&Rs.
So people say. I'm a bit sceptical about that origin story because fossils aren't seashells and, as far as I remember, Mary Anning didn't sell many of her fossils!
I agree, those are obviously issues in many areas. But infrequent, unreliable, overcrowded public transport is a result of political decisions, whereas the car congestion is a result of geometry!
I also think it would be good if more places of work had staggered or flexible hours. So that, e.g., some staff work 8-4, others 9-5 and others 10-6. That would spread out the single hypothetical 'rush hour' into three busy hours. I'm not sure how exactly you could implement that at scale, granted. Possibly if governments started to do it, it would catch on in the rest of the world of work.
Yes, of course. My point is that you can have good public transport in rural areas. The fact that in most places we currently don't is the exact problem!
I had a friend who was killed by a motorist while walking on a country road, so I've given this some thought. The key principle for safety is to keep cars away from more vulnerable road users.
So, there are the same basic options: better public transport infrastructure, and well-signposted, properly maintained footpaths and bike lanes are the most obvious.
As for driving from the countryside into urban areas, you can have 'Park and ride' schemes, which are common in parts of the UK. You drive your car to a bus station at the edge of the town, and the bus takes you the rest of the way in. That minimises miles driven and keeps cars out of urban areas, where they're especially inefficient.
Also, why would anyone she sell seashells by the seashore, of all places? Terrible business model to sell seashells where your customers can easily find their own.
Agree. In fact, whether it grows or not, they're hoping to have the political capital to adjust the fiscal rules or fudge the numbers to make them fit the rules. The latter being exactly what Brown did as Chancellor!
Things did get better for the majority of the nation under previous Labour governments. It wasn't perfect by any stretch, but if your criterion for good governance is 'helping the majority of the nation live decent lives', which I agree is a noble goal, Labour's track record shows they're the party to vote for.
I don't think it's so much ideological (though I don't mind if it is) as a case of promoting those with experience of government. Inevitably, that means people who worked under Blair and Brown.
Thanks, that's interesting! Always like it when I'm provided with evidence that I am, if anything, slightly too sympathetic towards cars.