Not using the car is easy for those who live in the city

Not using the car is easy for those who live in the city

Not using the car is easy for those who live in the city

<span>Photo: Septemberlegs Editorial / Alamy</span>“src =”–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU3Ng–/ 0Hthty61Hw_iypwZFCdPzA– ~ B / aD02MDA7dz0xMDAwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u / https: // / https: // –/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTU3Ng–/–~B/aD02MDA7dz0xMDAwO2FwcGlkPXl0YWNoeW9u/”/ ></div>
<p><figcaption class=Photography: Editorial Septemberlegs / Alamy

John Vidal (The era of “the car is king” is over. The sooner we accept it, the better, on August 30th) concludes that because cars kill and injure thousands of people, they pollute, clog our roads and are expensive to own and manage, their time is running out. If only.

The examples it provides of car-free benefits are for cities, where high population density means public transport is frequent and cheap, local shops and businesses may be feasible, and people can access them comfortably without a car. .

Car ownership has allowed the spread of low-density suburbs, where public transport is not convenient and there are fewer people to support local businesses, so – at square one – we need cars to access those dispersed services. : work, schools and shops.

The current free-for-all planning is exacerbating these problems: low-density estates scattered throughout every town and village, all needing cars to get anywhere or to do anything.

We need a new planning framework based on sustainable principles rather than lobbying property developers. This would mean intensifying existing suburbs, establishing higher development densities and viable settlement sizes, limiting the development of green areas, and integrating public transport and services. Only then can people manage their daily life without a car and realize the benefits that Vidal offers.
Moira Hankinson
Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire

• You may ask where does John Vidal live? Presumably in London or another major city. We have just returned from visiting friends in the Northumberland countryside, where it is an eight mile journey from the nearest bus route, for a bus that runs once a day, two days a week. If they need groceries, a trip with their electric car is more feasible than an electric scooter, a ride sharing app or the other solutions proposed by Vidal.
Melvin Ellis
Harrogate, North Yorkshire

• It makes sense to eliminate private cars from big cities, but many of us who live in villages have no choice but to drive.

I would gladly forgo my infrequently used bus pass for a reliable and regular bus service. Bury St Edmunds (our favorite mall) is only accessible by car. Our choice of cultural center, Snape Maltings, is the same. We would be happy to pay £ 3 for return journeys in both. Similarly, we would go by bus to Ipswich, less for shopping than for the theater or the Dance House, but the last return bus leaves at 5pm, excluding all but the first matinee.

If the UK government had the foresight of our continental neighbors, we could have a properly subsidized and efficient public transport system that charges reasonable fares.
John Pelling
Coddenham, Suffolk

• John Vidal provides impressive proof of the need to end our addiction to cars. But “auto culture” remains strong, as celebrity makers and enthusiasts continue to promote cars as things to love and status symbols, perhaps with a little help from a fossil fuel industry eager to delay. its own final end.

Will the children of Generation Z really continue this romance with something as old and raw as an internal combustion engine? I do not think so. Of course, automobiles will remain essential for a while as a more connected society is built. To this end they can easily be made more utilitarian and less polluting.
Jeff Waage

Do you have an opinion on something you read in the Guardian today? Please e-mail send us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.