Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Ban cars!

****

Yes folks it's the latest piece of public health nonsense. The people who brought you "third hand smoke", "obesogenic environments" and "passive drinking" -  a veritable torrent of nannying fussbucketry - now want to do the same for cars:

Private cars cause significant health harm. The impacts include physical inactivity, obesity, death and injury from crashes, cardio-respiratory disease from air pollution, noise, community severance and climate change. The car lobby resists measures that would restrict car use, using tactics similar to the tobacco industry. Decisions about location and design of neighbourhoods have created environments that reinforce and reflect car dependence.

I seem to recall that tobacco was 'unique' as a product and that no other product was so exceptionally damaging. So why is it that the judgemental little authoritarians in the public health fraternity keep finding more things they wish to ban? That they advocate:

Car dependence is a potent example of an issue that ecological public health should address. The public health community should advocate strongly for effective policies that reduce car use and increase active travel. 

How long before they start banning car ads 'targeting children'? And adding health warnings to cars? Sock puppet organisations  - Traffic Concern or some such wibble - will spring up and the lobby the councils and government departments that fund them?

Will we have laws restricting engine size, saying we can only own one car, rationing petrol - all in the cause of making us healthy (whether the policies work or not - it's the campaign that matter).

 And just before we dismiss the article as just another bit of daft academic nonsense - the lead author works for the NHS.

8 comments:

anthonymasters said...

The case for tobacco control was made on its supposed uniqueness.
Now, there is a "car lobby", and their actions are directly compared to that of the tobacco industry.
The smallest liberties often require the strongest defence.

anthonymasters said...

The case for tobacco control was made on its supposed uniqueness.
Now, there is a "car lobby", and their actions are directly compared to that of the tobacco industry.
The smallest liberties often require the strongest defence.

The Filthy Engineer said...

"Physical inactivity". Rubbish, driving a car requires quite a lot of activity. Like pressing the brake pedal and turning that round thing in front of you.

"Obesity". Have their cars got a built in Big Mac dispenser then?

"Death and injury"....So it's safer on a bike according to them.

"Cardio-respiratory disease". My car is fitted with an air filter. Please think of the pedestrians.

"Noise". What sort of cars do they drive?

"Community severance", What the F**k is that? Without a car I would visit my kids far less.

"Climate Change". Now they're getting hysterical.

johnd2008 said...

When I have a public transport system in my locality that is available any time day or night, is cheap ,and will take me door to door,you know just like a car, then I might consider giving mine up.

George Speller said...

Private cars bad buses good? I thonk I get the picture . . .

Jackart said...

It's not cars, but on-street parking. Countries as diverse as the Netherlands and Japan have banned urban on-street parking, and found EVERYTHING: roads, public transport, driving walking and cycling much improved.

Don't have a car, if you've nowhere to park it.

Junican said...

@ Jackart.

How about banning cars from having wheels?

Anonymous said...

@ Jackart

As you may recall from videos of their Tsunami, the Japanese have an out for rural motorists who don't have off-road parking spaces. The 660cc Kei Cars.

And the Korean i10,Picanto, Spark are a rough equivalent. All the same width so fire trucks can get through.