To think that no-one will choose to swap cars for public transport when it's still easier / cheaper / faster to drive?

[BogstandardBelle]

Since starting a new job 18 months ago I have used public transport to get there and back 3 days a week. I leave my house, walk 10 minutes to the metro, spend around 20 minutes on the metro with one change in between, then walk around 15 minutes at the other end to arrive at work. I always assumed that (living in a big busy city) it was cheaper and easier to travel this way and never really considered driving.

This morning I needed to take some heavy bags into work, so I decided to drive. I left around 15 minutes later than usual and still arrived at the same time! And I didn't need to walk anywhere or share my space with hundreds of coughing / sneezing / inconsiderate / odd people en route. The cost was negligible compared to the 64 euros I spend each month on a metro ticket.

I'm really disappointed! I know that the exercise is good for me, and god knows the air pollution problem in my city doesn't need yet another single occupancy, short distance car journey being added to it. But it was so much easier / more pleasant than using public transport... and now I know how easy it was, there's going to be a little voice saying "just take the car...".

So it is unreasonable to expect people to give up their cars when public transport is actually more expensive, less convenient and overall harder work than driving? I used to think that all the motorists clogging up the roads / causing the pollution were BU, but now I'm not so sure.

We don't invest in public transport in Britain because it is privatised

I agree PiebaldHamster but people like it. People have told me how dreadful buses and tubes in Central London must be. They don't use them. They just drive about in their cars in suburbia. I try to say my public transport is really good and how I don't need a car but they don't believe me

I love buses!

Vulpine, surely that depends on where you cycle. A decent lane fine the sort of road where a cyclist inevitably obstructs the traffic and cars have to overtake, no thanks.

If one is fit one will not sweat lots at the first sign of raised heart rate.

The amount someone sweats is not related to fitness. Some fit people sweat a lot, some unfit people don't sweat much at all.

I used to cycle 2.7 miles to work and always preferred a shower when I got there.

I now have a 10 mile commute (one way) for part of the week, but in the winter time it's hard to carry the amount of stuff i need on a bike(laptop, charger, change of clothes, jacket, packed lunch, stupidly heavy d lock etc.)

I exercise, I walk when I can and when it's safe to do so, mainly so I'm not hanging around waiting for buses. But it's simply not feasible or safe to walk/cycle to work. I'm not a great cyclist so do choose walking over cycling, it's my own preference. My job is also very active.
But there's no denying that a car would have changed my life completely, being able to get to more places and have greater earning potential. Of course decent public transport would have the same effect.
There's a reason you don't see cyclists or walkers on the road here when it's dark - it's dangerous.
I ride a horse a couple of times a week for a friend, I think I'd be pretty irresponsible to ride the country lanes and a roads at night, even with flourecsent and reflective gear and lights, it'd put everyone in danger. And most horses ridden by adults are bigger than a bike, and you'd think easier to see. While I agree when it's safe, cycling is a good, healthy and green alternative to driving, I don't think saying that putting yourself in danger when there's an alternative, because it might cost the NHS less for you to get flattened by a car than it would if you cycled and had the health benefits from that, is a very balanced argument really.

I live in a rural area. Public transport is almost nonexistent, there's no way I could use it to get to work. Or anywhere I need to go, really. I hate driving but I don't have any choice.

Soulrider - youre right- perhaps I am going from anecdotal evidence only, which is that the most sweaty people i know are carrying the most extra weight and are also unfit (smokers etc) Although I accept there are plenty of other reasons to sweat.

And soulrider - i carry all those things on my bike. If you dont want to cycle thats fine but some of the reasons that people use not to cycle don't add up. Dangerous roads, distance, disability, heavy loads - all perfectly valid reasons but a bit of sweat ?!

I think I'd be pretty irresponsible to ride the country lanes and a roads at night, even with flourecsent and reflective gear and lights, it'd put everyone in danger

No you are not being irresponsible or putting anyone in danger by riding on the public roads in a legal and responsible mammer dumbfuck SMIDSY motorists who arw seemingly impossible of noticong. Tou when you are plastered in retro reflective clothing are the irresponsible ones.

A deraol and very little consolation as you find yourself rseld sprawled on their bonnet, but safe and reasonable cyclists shouldn't be made to feel cowed by aggressive and careless idiots in a 2 tonne killing machine.

There are a few different elements to this discussion. One is yes, outside of urban centres public transportation is generally pretty shoddy - you're expected to pay loads for an infrequent and unreliable service. I know this because I have only held my license for a relatively short period of time so was reliant on trains and buses to get around, and boy, waiting for a bus in the freezing cold which may or may not come is no fun. However there is little incentive to improve public transport when it's frequented by pensioners and students and the poor, not markets companies are interested in.

Having said all of this, now that I'm on the other side as a driver I can definitely say that it's easy to fall into a habit of driving anywhere and everywhere rather than walking or using public transport. I prefer not to drive to work so I cycle - it's only about 5-10 minutes slower than driving, I save money and get exercise. And I don't get sweaty unless it's the height of summer, nothing a quick wipe doesn't take care of.

Undeniably there's also a stigma attached to public transport. As a working professional people seemed very surprised I was using buses to get around and several people said they would never get on a bus because they're full of 'weirdos'. Two of my colleagues live in the same suburb as me and could easily bike/take the bus but each chooses to drive - yet they complain endlessly about the horrendous traffic!

You don’t actually cycle on the A46 you’d probably get sucked under a HGV if which there are many, even crossing the A46 is unpleasant. What I said was the surrounding roads will also carry some of the commuting cars of these major roads - I didn’t say it would be a good cycle route, which you must be be mad to think is...

This is one of the intersections

Next you’ll be saying cycling on the A591 is a pleasant experience!

Sweat is my ultimate reason not to cycle and I really don't think that's unreasonable. I want to be clean when I start work, and be wearing clean clothes. That is not a particularly "out there" idea. If other people are comfortable with being sweaty that it is to them. But I'm not. It's nothing to do with being addicted to driving or any other nonsense - I'd happily get the bus if one went where I need to go.

but each chooses to drive - yet they complain endlessly about the horrendous traffic! but they are the traffic 🤷‍♀️ that doesn’t make sense

For all the people going on about the cost of the car. Yes most people could probably minimise their commute but if you need a car for other things it really is only fuel you need to take into account. I drive thousands of miles a year for one of my hobbies where the amount of luggage means an estate car is the sensible option. I can and do cycle to work (8-10 miles) but if it’s bucketing down, dangerously windy or snow etc I will drive. If I pay to use the bus that’s costing me more than the car I’m already paying to own/insure sat on the drive.

Can see the argument against buses and trains as they are extortionate, infrequent, slow, unreliable and often unpleasant. Public transport needs to be either quicker or cheaper than driving. Whilst it costs around 5 times as much and takes at least twice as long, only those with no choice will use it. (large northern city).
What does surprise me is the reliance on cars for really short journeys. So many people would rather drive than walk for half an hour. Walking is free, healthy, generally safe, and an enjoyable way to start and end the day. Why is it seen as such a terrible ordeal to have a short walk as part of the commute?

Cycling is not a feasible alternative in many rural areas, it just isn't, sweating and lack of showers aside. And the public transport is non-existent, too expensive, too limited to fit with rural patterns of work and a complete non-option. That is just a fact. Plenty of us do car share, as my daughter does and my husband when he can.

Take a glance at the number of cars occupied by one person and it tells a different story.

I ‘m alone in my car for 99% of my journeys. I have no partner, children, parents nor siblings that could travel with me, even if they wanted to come to the same places at the same times. What would you like me to do? Drag any old random off the street so I have a passenger? I enjoy driving and I can afford to do so without worrying about the cost. I live rurally, there are very few buses. I’m not prepared to dice with death to cycle on narrow, winding B roads. So I will continue to use my car each and every time I want to if it’s all the same. And no, I won’t feel guilty.

Why is it seen as such a terrible ordeal to have a short walk as part of the commute?

It isn't and lots of people do. Lots of people work in town centres or, say, hospitals, where the daily parking charge is extortionate, so park a mile or so away where it's free, and walk to work.

I must admit I'm a bit at people's attitude to walking.

We once had a work get together at the cinema. I was walking to work at that point, finished work earlier than the others so decided to take a leisurely 45 minute walk to the cinema and a cup of tea. Some of my colleagues were horrified at me for "walking that far" almost as if I'd risked rupturing my spleen in the process or something.

Re country roads, I used to walk and cycle on country roads as a child and never felt afraid of the road. I used to walk/cycle a couple of miles from home to the main railway line to train-spot from a farmers gate! When I learned to drive, I used to love driving around the country roads and never felt they were dangerous.

Now, I avoid them like the plague, whether as a walker, cyclist or even a driver. I couldn't really put my finger on why, though, just thought it was me getting older and more aware of the dangers.

But then, we got out some old photo albums, some of which were of the countryside, and a few of me sat on that same farmer's gate and walking to/from with my family.

Then the penny dropped as to why the roads seem a lot more dangerous now than they did back then. It's the over-grown hedges. Back in the day, the roads were a lot wider and visbility was better because the hedges were cut right back and there were fewer overgrown trees. I now live in a village and there are a couple of books with old photos etc - exactly the same, the hedges and trees were a lot smaller/tidier as I could compare them to modern day. There are what are blind bends today, but historic photos show that you could see through them as the trees/hedges were cut back. If we're serious about cycling in country lanes, then the local councils need to start cutting back the hedges again to make them safer.

Plenty of parents round my way drive their kids to school and they live closer or same distance as I do. We walk.

As long as my car is the safest, cheapest and most reliable method of getting places I'm going to carry on using it.
I was going to Glasgow last year. It was £150 by train or £50 return flight. Guess what I chose.
Public transport is extortionate, overcrowded, unreliable.
I drive to work, it's 33 miles and takes me an hour to get in on a good day.
If I get the train it takes longer, costs £400 a month and there's no guarantee I'll have a seat. For a 33 mile journey...
I can't move. I have no money to.
I can't change my job.
Oh. And I can't cycle because I have a titanium ankle.
So there we are!
VROOM VROOM.

Plenty of parents round my way drive their kids to school and they live closer or same distance as I do. We walk.

Do they go on to work afterwards though? If I had children I could walk them to school, but then I'd have to walk back home, get my car, and drive back past the school again to get to work, which seems pointless and a bit of a waste of time to me.

Adaline I can remember when people thought it was pointless to smoke outside and believed that smoking wouldn’t damage others health. That all changed when Roy Castle died.

Attitudes to smoking have changed over the last 40 years, to the extent smoking is now banned in public buildings and work vehicles.

The pollution from motorised vehicles is killing and detrimental to people’s health, especially children - as they breath faster. The worst place for pollution is actually inside the car. Walking to school is better for avoiding some pollution. It’s not pointless to walk your children to school and then return and drive to work if possible walking with a bike for the return journey, or scooter 🛴 would be a speedy way to do this if possible