Guilt Free Railing 11

[WouldBeGood]

The end was not nigh,and still looking far far away, so here’s the latest thread.

Usual railing rules apply: all rails or good news welcome, no nauseating positivity or resilience wankery. 😃

@IncludeWomenInThePrequel

Impossible to scale that up nationally though. Lovely as it is.

Is it? I can't see how similar, plus free/cheap rentals couldn't be done across country and people who weren't in a position to store/maintain bikes could still have access and those who were able to store etc could get one to use exclusively and then hand back to the recycling scheme. Ours drives all over the place in their van and actually started in a village.

Well you said it's a local charity scheme. So how many volunteers are we talking nationally to make it viable? Hundreds, thousands?

It's a charity scheme but there are paid staff, they aren't volunteers but they work the scheme using grants, donations and the money they make on the bikes. No reason that they couldn't essentially be a funded service which would run more cheaply and more environmentally friendly than chucking new biles at everyone. Rental bikes already run in many places, it could be more widespread and include childrens bikes/ones with child seats etc.

iirc, there are about 4/5 staff (not all full time) plus "apprentices" that runs it across the entire council area. Not thousands required. Not everyone is going to take up the scheme, especially in city centres where they are more likely to benefit from public transport and bike rentals.

Dundee seems to be setting up something similar at the waterfront. There's some sort of cycling centre opening next to the V&A, as there's a cycle path runs right along there.

My wider point is that it's so small minded to hear about initiatives and go 'well it wouldn't be useful for me - I have a bike/hills/whatever.

It's a symptom of how widely this government is disliked that schemes designed to tackle poverty, health, and the climate simultaneously are sneered at and dismissed straight out of hand.

I'm not against free buses for under 22 either - not sure why it needs to be 26, but I do think as I said other aspects affecting bus use such as frequency need to be addressed.

I graduated at 26 so it would have worked for me

fair enough

Schemes like that are a great idea. Theres also cycle to work scheme that many companies use.
What im concerned about it the was small bollards are being used to separate a 2 lane road into a cycle lane and a car lane. Which is brilliant and fab if you're on a bike, but what about ambulances or police cars needing to quickly get past you. Or you breakdown you're fecked as you can't pull in now. Dh is a cyclist and he thinks they're nuts..

It's the blanket freebies bribes I take issue with. There can't be much benefit in having expensive schemes that many of the recipients don't need or can't use. It's money taken away from other things. I know it's easy to say from an armchair but I so often feel governments look for a visible, easy quick fix instead of being imaginative and thinking things through.
Eg the minimum price of alcohol units. Easy to implement, easy to claim the government is doing something to tackle the alcohol problem but very limited effect. It feels like there's too much bureaucracy in the way of useful work. A computer says no mentality? Maybe it's a lack of understanding of the difficulties faced by people in difficult circumstances? Eg the social workers I know are stuck with having to offer minimal practical short term input and know that when they withdraw their support their 'clients' will regress because their circumstances are so very difficult. The frustration is that, although more input would be more expensive prevention costs so much less than the cost of sending people to prison, into care, people ending up in hospital etc. So yes it's easy to criticise schemes but many of them do seem tokenistic and designed to be seen to be dealing with problems rather than committing to meaningful help that people can actually access and use in a timely manner.

@IncludeWomenInThePrequel

And yet there are posts upthread moaning about free public transport for young people.

See what I mean?

Aaaaarggggh! Not moaning at all. Just saying that making it free, without improving and increasing the service (or at least not decreasing it, as Scotrail are trying to do) isn't the way forward. People don't generally "not use public transport" because its too expensive (OK, some maybe, but it's not the main reason) but because it's too slow, doesn't run at appropriate times like for night or early shifts, is too crowded, doesn't go where they want it to, isn't safe for women or children travelling alone.... Making it free doesn't solve these issues, and may well worsen them if anyone previously put off by the cost starts using it - or, as I mentioned above, if it replaces another previously employer-subsidised service. There needs to be full scale improvement of the infrastructure before (or at least at the same time as) making it free. As far as I know, that's not what is being proposed, or at least, not what the SG thinks people want to know about.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying. I just find it so frustrating with the constant negativity. Doing one thing is better than nothing, and something in a large plan has to come first.

But I know this is the railing thread so I usually try to reel it in (although the tiers thread feels much like another railing thread these days!) Think we're all getting really bored with it all now, and it shows.

I think they are widely disliked because despite what they say or schemes they come up with, they have done nothing that has dealt with poverty or improved the life expectancy of the poor. The ideas aren't fully thought out so of course everyone will have issue with them. I agree that people don't really always think about the bigger picture though.

Nursery increased hours for example. Lots of people moaning that hours are given to people who aren't working, without considering that improving the life chances of children from deprived backgrounds by giving them enhanced experiences with people trained in child development is a very good thing. Yes childcare is expensive for working families, but that's a different issue. This is one thing I do think that this govt has got right imo. Increasing life chances from an early age is key to having a better functioning education system and society.

I'm in a position where paying more tax (to a point) is not too much of an issue for me, I'd gladly pay more for targeted issues but not for it to be wasted on court settlements/legal costs, PR etc.

People are continually promised more for less and it doesn't stack up, there is no magic money tree unfortunately.

@IncludeWomenInThePrequel and national schemes should consider the nation rather than just cities before wasting money! Rural poverty is a hidden problem but very real. A bike may be of a benefit to some in cities but in rural areas with large distances, challenging terrain and poor roads it has little benefit.

As usual though its to appease voters in the populous central belt not really for the whole nation.

@ElephantOfRisk

iirc, there are about 4/5 staff (not all full time) plus "apprentices" that runs it across the entire council area. Not thousands required. Not everyone is going to take up the scheme, especially in city centres where they are more likely to benefit from public transport and bike rentals.

Yes, this kind of charity is exactly the kind of thing that would be great for government funding. Reducing waste, encouraging active travel, promoting "green" skills, training young people...all the good things! I don't see why something similar couldn't be promoted Scotland wide. Providing/ repairing bikes at low cost or free for anyone that wants them. Subsidised by the SG if needed but also self sustaining through selling bikes/ equipment, doing services, teaching maintenance and so on. There is obviously a demand for bikes (as shown by them all selling out during lockdown) but also loads of people (like me ) utterly clueless at maintenance etc.

On the hire bikes, I thought they were a great idea, but Edinburgh's are going now, because the bikes were getting vandalised We don't stand a chance, really...

As usual though its to appease voters in the populous central belt not really for the whole nation.

I'm in the populous central belt and i'd go further and say it's really for suburbia/small town living. Not really for those living in a tenement flat in the city centres or in a high rise. Quite a lot cycle in my area, roads are relatively quiet, there are cycle paths, bike stands, it's pretty flat. I'd imagine that most who want bikes have them. Better to identify via schools, SDS and job centres etc who could benefit from and accommodate a bike?

Although places like the bike coop are good at maintenance. Agree it's time for big ideas on green policy, I'd like to see some more radical plans than adding users to existing services

Well yes, consumerism is equally valid to be tackled as well as car use so reusing existing bikes and having somewhere where you can get a decent, reasonably priced, service would be good. And also just the small regular bits of servicing that could be taught to everyone would e good.

The amount of bikes you see on FB with "not been used much, been in the shed for years, has a flat tyre" is far too many and speaks of "used it a few times, it got a puncture, didn't know how to fix it, shoved it in the shed and now clearing stuff out and it's outgrown anyway"

Guilt Free Railing 12

New thread

This is one thing I do think that this govt has got right imo. Increasing life chances from an early age is key to having a better functioning education system and society.

Yes, I'd agree. I remember when the SG were looking into the baby boxes, they sent a delegation to Finland (?) who had used them as one part of a whole programme to improve early years - child and mother mental health, nutrition, poverty, education and so on. The boxes were a small part, underpinned by a total rethink of their social systems (parental leave, maternal employment rights, postnatal care, early education etc etc) and this was explained to the delegation. Who then went on to say "yes, yes, but what's in the box" . I know that sounds a bit flippant, and there is now more emphasis on these other things, like the funded nursery hours etc. But it does seem that the emphasis is too much initially on the things that will look good but don't necessarily give the most "bang for buck". I know it's reasonable to have a "launch" of a particular policy or strategy with a photogenic and vote-winning thing (baby boxes, free bikes, free uni tuition etc) but it's important the strategy doesn't stop there and goes on to do more useful stuff, that may not be as popular, or at least not as eye catching.

@IncludeWomenInThePrequel

And yet there are posts upthread moaning about free public transport for young people.

See what I mean?

I think it's ridiculous that your classing 26 as young people.

I could see the logic if it was up to 21 or students but it's a bit crazy when you know graduates getting 32k a year yet the 50 year old woman in the co-op is barely clearing 18k. Yet the graduate is entitled to a free bus.

Stop and think about it. It makes no sense it's about buying votes.

I think the free bus travel is an excellent idea - it would've made a huge difference to me years ago.
Not everyone goes to uni or college, lots leave and go straight into employment or apprenticeships - that would make a real difference as their starting salary will be low.
I live in Lanarkshire and started work at 18 and travelled to Glasgow and then Edinburgh. I didn't have a car and my starting salary was low - travelling took up a chunk of my earnings (and time!).

Erm, I can and have stopped to think about it. That's why I posted my opinion.

I mean, would it be better if public transport was universally free? Of course. Should we have better, cheaper to run, better scheduled public transport? Sure.

Still doesn't mean I'm going to carp and moan that a measure is being taken. When I was 25 I was fucking skint. Let's not pretend that there are loads of kids earning over 30k - there are also plenty of young mothers in that age group taking their kids to nursery by bus every day too. So let's save them a tenner a week.

Yes, that's fair. It will always be popular to save people a few quid, that's not in dispute. And if it encourages a "good habit" to support other policy initiatives, all the better. But being popular and saving people some money isn't the stated aim - that's encouraging people under 26 to use buses more (instead of cars, presumably).

I'm not sure it is genuinely going to increase that or, if it does, if that change will persist once they have to pay or their life moves on and buses are no longer meeting their needs. I just have the feeling that that age isn't an especially high car using demographic - especially in cities/ towns where public transport is currently a viable alternative to car use. So if buses weren't free, what would they do? Either pay to travel, or maybe walk or cycle if that was out of reach (which you wouldn't want to discourage)? Some may currently drive or carshare for convenience, but would the bus cost change that decision? You may have some discretionary travel shifting from car to bus, but for some things that still isn't especially convenient (grocery shopping, IKEA, going into the country where there's one bus every 3 hours, ferrying kids around with limited time windows).

We don't have a car for environmental reasons mostly, but realise we're in the fortunate position of being in a city with good public transport and even so are well used to all its inconveniences and annoyances (stress when running late to pick up from childcare and the bus breaks down, or stops because someone is smoking on the top deck, or just doesn't turn up). And can afford the odd taxi if needed. But even so, I turned down a job once with better pay than the one I took as it would be an hour and a half on the bus/tram out in a business park, though only 20 mins on the bypass in a car... Good transport links theoretically, but only from the centre of town, which would take 40mins at least to get to! Not impossible, but hardly attractive, and not something I was willing to do every day even if it had been free if I had any alternative! But equally, you don't want to run hundreds of buses across the country more than half empty...that's hardly environmentally beneficial.

I don't know what the answer is, and it's not going to please everyone, but I'm not sure the answer is always "well, doing something - anything - is better than nothing" if it doesn't actually meet your aim, even if it sounds like it should and wins you votes.