The car stinks, it pollutes, and it makes stupid!

[Rulian]

1) You're still a student so it would surprise me that it was by choice ... you simply don't need it. It is not a choice.

No, no, it's a choice. I could have one if I wanted. And gratis. If I do not need it it is because I have arranged for it. By choosing my place of life wisely for example, depending on where I work. It is not always possible certainly, but there is often a way and it comes back cheaper in the end.

Arguement con but so realistic (of people's stupidity) for the future: send CVs for a position of engineer saying that you have no cash or private means of transport ... you will see the reaction (fascinates !!!) of HRD! Op ... classified cv (trash can)!

Well listen I know several young graduates without cars who had no problems. There is even one who does not have a license. It doesn't prevent him from living. After for the interim c on that c abused.

It is easy to break this argument by talking about the unemployment rate at the beginning of the XXth century or almost nobody had a car .... The guy opposite is speechless ... It's quite fun as an experience (but not good for hiring LOL)

False argument. It has nothing comparable. And the current unemployment rate may not be much to envy that of a century ago.

Otherwise yes for the city it confirms what I said in my Parisian example on condition of shopping exclusively at the neighborhood stall (I am obviously)

Ben c what do about half of Parisians (and residents of other cities) They are doing very well and it costs less. The other half remains ...

[Cuicui]

The problem with public transport is that we are dependent on those who are supposed to transport you. If they go on strike ... Nothing beats independence. Let's grow rapeseed! I also plan to acquire or tinker with an electric bike.

[Christophe]

FYI the average occupancy rate is "only" 35% ... (at least for Strasbourg buses)

[Christine]

FYI the average occupancy rate is "only" 35% ... (at least for Strasbourg buses)

Well yes because you have to multiply the passages, otherwise people do not take them at all (see what you said about flexibility)

[nonoLeRobot]

Yes you still hope not to be able to fill 100% all the time otherwise it is more of public transport.

35% is already not bad. Then we could possibly adapt the size of the means of transport (see bus to replace trains when there are not many people) but it is absolutely necessary to be able to increase flexibility if we want to develop public transport.

Even if it was not profitable ecologically (which is not the case anyway) it's still good because it gets used to not taking the car it's easier to control at the state level ( buses can be forced to have this type of motorization). It would ultimately be less traffic jams and more room for bikes.

In Paris it may not be very conclusive but it is sure that it takes time for mentalities to change, if there is more public transport and bicycle space with no less car it can hardly work but you have to start at one end.

PS: It's not very funny anymore forum humor inally;)

[Christophe]

35% is already not bad.

Well, the filling rate of an ossicular car between 1,3 and 1,6 depending on the source ... which makes 26 to 40% respectively depending on whether the car has 4 or 5 places .... So finally, after Reflection, the filling rate does not mean much, rather it should be reduced to km.passenger / Liter of fuel for each means of transport.

For example:

a) a car filled to 1,45 (average of 1,3 and 1,6) consuming 8L / 100 in the city will have one km.passenger / Liter = 18,125

b) a bus with 40 seats filled to 35%, i.e. 14 people and which consumes 40L / 100 in the city will have one km.passenger / Liter = 35

From 18 to 35, the difference is still appreciable, the double what ... this reasoning, on fuel, is extensible to all the other econological costs of vehicles ...

[gegyx]

Yes you still hope not to be able to fill 100% all the time otherwise it is more of public transport. 35% is already not bad.

Eco-friendly transport. And 350%, is it possible?

[nonoLeRobot]

Thank you Gegyx, return of humor

Otherwise Christophe I would find it clearer to speak of Liters per 100Km of passenger Liter / 100Km.

What makes a car: 5.5 L per 100 Km (for 1 passenger)

Bus: 2.8 L per 100 Km (for 1 passenger)

Knowing that if habits change, bus and car rates will improve.

(less car for 1 person because more buses and less empty bus because less car for 1 person)

I would scan you for a gag one day ;-)

[Christophe]

Eco-friendly transport. And 350%, is it possible?

hihihi i had the same thought when i saw these images the 1st time

Otherwise Christophe I would find it clearer to speak of Liters per 100Km of passenger Liter / 100Km.

Uh ... excuse me but your definition is not clear at all ....

It is exactly the same as km.passager / L but reversed ... I think people imagine more easily how many km.passager we do with a liter .... rather than the number of liters used to make 100 km for 1 passenger ... no ??

It's a bit the same when we talk about MPG (miles per gallon = how many miles a gallon can do) in the USA and L / 100 in Europe

(less car for 1 person because more buses and less empty bus because less car for 1 person)

I would scan you for a gag one day ;-)

Uh ... I had a good laugh while reading the (..)

[nonoLeRobot]

Yeah look at it http://antivoitures.free.fr/2005/05/aut ... space.html

How does stress ecology too.

That said, I agree that in the countryside the car is vital (but it poses less problem too). And for workers (need to transfer gear), the disabled (while waiting for reliable and accessible public transport) and other particularities, the car is difficult to avoid.