Anarchist Drivers Federation

by hood Tue Feb 17, 2004 16:39

logically, if people like you stopped locating your meaty heads behind driving wheels and took more public transport, there would be a more efficient public transport system. Why would they provide more buses when the ones they have aren't being used?

And I manage to travel from the West easily without a car so quit your whinging.

Yeah LAs so great as long as you don't mind the toxic air

I'm no smelly primitivist, but you're pretty fuckin stupid if you think cars can be eco-friendly

by limerick1919 Tue Feb 10, 2004 19:57

That i use, i have no vested interest, I also have a car, just giving my side of story. If you don't believe it try it for a while.

Can not vouch for train. If L gunman looked at bus eireann website they would see that Lim to Galway
Lim to Cork
Lim to Tralee
and Lim to Dublin all go on the hour- every HOUR

I travel on one of these services and because of the nature of the work I am in, I know only too well when I am late but as I said 4 times in a year ain't bad.

BTW travelled once on Kavanaghs private bus to Dublin once as well from Limerick- can't say I was overly impressed.

by Car Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:42

Coz I'll be wiping the entrails of you anarcho-cyclists off my windscreen morning, noon and night.

How will I recognise you? I'll hit em all and take my chances.

by mayler Mon Feb 09, 2004 15:24

I suggest that you have a look at the recent feature on climate change:
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/110392.shtml


And this has got to be the most important (and depressing) website around, all about peak oil:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

by lone gunman Sat Feb 07, 2004 23:07

No one gives a fuck for your idiotic ,luddite views either.So you shut the fuck up as well
Face facts. Cars are here to stay.You and your horse and cart ideas arent going to change it at all.
Tax me to the hilt. make my car tax 3 grand a year and petrol at 10 euros a gallon.I and every motorist will then drive even more.If I am going to pay for an expensive commodity I will use it even more. Maybe somthing that hasnt enterd your slope foreheaded primitive brained head.Should try to stop bashing it off reality somtime.
Roll on anarchism.No rules!!! Good ! You and your bicycling types will be easy meat for me to spin my tyres on your greasy bodies!!!

by hood Fri Feb 06, 2004 23:52

cars aren't evil, but they are inherently crap.

the few advantages of cars in no way make up for all the shit they cause.

also, anarchism is not about doing whatever the hell you want. anarchy is order achieved through co-operation rather than force.

many laws originate as agreements which communities voluntarily enter into because THEY MAKE SENSE! not all laws are inventions of the state.

as i've already said, your over-simplified understanding of anarchism has more in common with right-wing libertarians than actual anarchists.

by Lone gunman Fri Feb 06, 2004 22:19

David,
you say the busses have to go thru towns.Exactly my point. Europe had most of its cities levelled in WW2.Thussly allowing for modern town planning allowing for modern traffic patterns.Until we have a modern infrastructure of roads ,both major and minor.The traffic problems will stay.So this opens another can of worms build more modern highways,with all the probs of land prices speculation et al.Or widen and improve the existing structures?
Limerick1919.
What bus are you using??it sure isnt Bus Eirinn!! So if you are saying is true it must be a private company.100 miles round trip,suggests to me a private company which would have an incentive to deliver a proper service.IE Fare patying customers
BTW I was talking about the train,and using a bus as a commutor from a park&ride lot outside Dublin or any major city.[private or otherwise]
Nice if you are only going to one paticular point.IE Work/home or Home/work.
BUT if you are one of us folk whose work revolves around being mobile,it isnt a very viable option is it?London,NYC,etc yes..possibly because there is a more or less efficent public transport. Not Dublin,Limerick,or between those two points.
I had a daily commute between San Diego and LA 300miles appx.No problem by either car or train or plane if need be.But the sit was it ran every hour!!! How often do the busses trains and planes go between our major cities???Once or twice a day??Morning&Evening???In Europe it is every hour between every major city.24/7
Untill we can grauntee a train or bus between every city here in Ireland once an hour forget it!

by David Fri Feb 06, 2004 19:20

It does take a long time but thats because it has to go through all the towns along the way.
If more people used the bus then they would be able to have more express routes which would get people to their destination faster. (which would encourage more people to take the bus)
I would also prefer if they took out one row of seats and give us all more leg room. it wouldnt cost them that much money cause the Buses are hardly ever full, and when they're almost full they have to put on an extra bus anyway

by Limerick1919 Fri Feb 06, 2004 19:04

regards last comment: I use the bus to make a journey of nearly 100 miles round trip daily. I originate in Limerick and in my experience over one year we have been late only 4 times and none more than 15 minutes. that is pretty impressive stats, maybe clare is worse.

I'm amazed that in all that time nobody has invited my opinion on state of public transport. When Brennan is chopping why doesn't he get market research done an actual commuters. Instead commentators are invariably car drivers. Employers should get a incentive country wide where employees use the bus. This would encourage more travel.

BTW for the a number of year previous to using the bus I used the car and when tax, depreciation and petrol is taken into account, I can't see how anyone one could call it cheaper. Plus now I arrive stress free , penalty points free and with the paper read. Great- long live the bus

by Lone gunman Fri Feb 06, 2004 16:00

On using the bus,and I agree with you driving in Dublin is a mess.However I would the "public transport"going to Dublin from Clare if;
1]It wasnt the equivelency of traveling on a filthy cramped dangerous cattle car.

2] It ran on a proper schedule,both to and from Dublin [or anywhere in the country.]Without hour or day long delays etc.

3]It was cheaper than driving to Dublin,and finding and paying forparking. Belive it or not .

4] I would glady use park&ride from the outside of Dublin IF;[1] tthere were such facilities available[2] They were secure and cheap[That the bus got us into the city centre within a reasonable time of getting out of the car.20mins appx]
Trouble is;there is none of this available to me or 98% percent of the Irish motoring pouplation outside Dublin.
This really is the crux of the problem.There is no Realistic VIABLE alternative to the car for getting from A to B in Ireland.It will stay this way ,because it is a win /win for the Irish govt.

BTW the three people or more car pool orginated in Los Angeles.You think WE have traffic problems??Works very well.But the other problem is Ireland was never layed out for the car or fast transport.Europe thru two world wars has been able to modernise its transport system.Ireland is a hundred years too late with its infastructure.

by lone gunman Fri Feb 06, 2004 15:42

Simple physics. Lets say you weigh 120lbs.[sorry not a personal observation]
multiply that by your speed on a bike average speed ,what 12mph? 1440 ft/lbs of energy,impacting with somone elderly or a kid.?Apprently there has been TWO fatalities in Dublin already over the last two years,caused by pushbike couriers.Who have No respect for the rules of the roads.
The car or the bike isnt the killer it is the idiot behind it or on it.If we were to go by the letter of the law BTW.A bike is a mechanically propelled vechicle[Chain,gearingpedals,basic mechanics]
Sauce for the goose.....etc.

by Woz Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:54

Critical Mass Cork - last Friday of Feb, 6pm Daunt Square

by David Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:45

because they interfere with car traffic.
Insane

by Wuz Thu Feb 05, 2004 20:01

Woz it's not enough just to think about it ...
WE MUST ACT !

by Woz Thu Feb 05, 2004 19:24

I just cycled through Cork City in rush hour and concluded the following.

A true anarchist driver would determine for theirself what constitutes excessive motoring behaviour, right? But it seems to me that motoring is by nature excessive. It’s rare to see a car journey that is actually necessary. It’s very expensive (as I pointed out before). It’s by far the most polluting and dangerous way to get around. Fits the definition of excessive, I think. OK so the anarchist driver would have to determine that for theirself – but assuming they did, they would pretty much stop driving altogether. And the ADF would therefore self-annihilate. Is that why you’re the only one Leon?

In response to St Rothair: Nail on the head – cars are wholly inappropriate in a city ie high density population.

In response to more freedom / more responsibility by Leon: Agreed, freedom is not license, and it’s possible that with more freedoms there would be less anti-social behaviour. I don’t claim that all drivers will behave irresponsibly if un-policed – but some of them certainly will – many do already – surely you agree? These would take advantage of the freedom you propose and that would be a bad thing. This is not the same as saying society would collapse without wage-slavery … come off it.

I never said cars were evil. I occasionally use one myself, without shame. But I am aware that they are crap. I agree we need to think about cars in a new way – I believe that’s what I’m trying to do.

by St.Rothair Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:48

I wouldn't argue that cars are "uniquely evil", just that they're an inefficient way of transporting us. They have a role in places where population density is so low that it would be foolish to construct railways. But they slow down transportation times in the city, release particulate matter and other pollutants which damage my health, waste petrol (you transport yourself plus a tonne of metal), make my cycling more dangerous (because as I'm sure you know as a cyclist Leon a large number of drivers don't grasp their freedom and responsibilities and are quite willing to impinge on my freedom to live).

by Leon - ADF Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:20

Woz I too am a cyclist (and driver).
Freedom is not license, if we regain our freedoms this certainly doesn't mean that we can behave like lunatics. Isn't claiming that drivers (in other words almost everyone at one time or another) will be unable to behave responsibly if unpoliced similar to those who say that if we didn't have laws (or weren't forced to work through the intersection of greed and poverty) society would collapse into warring tribes?

Also why are cars uniquely evil, surely if we are to retain our technological civilisation (a good thing I think) we will have to think about this in a new way.

by Woz Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:59

No laws – actually I agree with that as an ideal. But not while there are anti-ideal humans around. While I can believe that you personally would be responsible about determining what’s excessive, I can’t believe that of everyone. I want laws to protect me from those people. Especially when they’re driving and I’m cycling or walking. We can drop the laws when we’ve reached the ideal. That’s essentially why I disagree with you Leon.

Having said that I have to support you in spirit. I reckon that if every motorist was capable of setting their own limits on their behaviour in an honest, informed, and unselfish way (as appears to your ideal), and did so, I’d be a lot safer on my bike.

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:52

But that aside..
Anarchists generally accept the idea of freely entered agreements. these could be where if you enter into a local community they could have information whereby if you drive on their roads you are concenting to abide by their safety measures which could include some limits on speed (and that you drive on the correct side of the road)

by Leon - ADF Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:23 anarchisttdrivers2004 at yahoo dot com

We don't generally deal in terms of concepts like membership and so on, but to date despite the challenging discussion on indymedia no one has contacted by email and one could accurately describe the ADF as a 'one man band'. However I firmly believe that one person can make a difference and we never know what the issue will be that brings this whole crazy house of cards tumbling down.

by St.Rothair Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:11

They think about the world and how it affects them. So why would they be so stupid as to join a fake Drivers Federation in order to promote the destruction of the planet.

B.t.w. Leon, how many members do you have? Is it just you? Tell the truth now!

by Leon - Anarchist Drivers Foundation Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:08 anarchistdrivers2004 at yahoo dot com

Hi Hood,
I don't advocate 'speeding' in the sense of driving too fast for the road conditions; nor do I advocate getting pallatic and bombing around Dublin.

However I do believe that as a human being I should be free to determine for myself what is excessive.

Woz, you certainly have nothing to apologise for. Unfortunately if you are interested in approaching the ADF as a forum for effective transport policy within the current system, you may be barking up the wromg tree.

Incidentally I certainly do advocate the abandoment of laws (all laws). Though I accept that local communities can ask be to behave in a specific way while driving I won't accept it from that agent of my enslavement the state.

by Woz Thu Feb 05, 2004 16:36

Leon – OK I got a little off topic, sorry. But it is hard to discuss state interference in motoring, without discussing the whole transport situation in general.

Moreover I don’t agree with you at all. You talk like driving is a basic human right; it isn’t and nor should it be. The idea that motorists should be subject to no laws at all – which is what you appear to advocate … well those laws serve to protect life, and the taxes offset the costs of motoring – which are real financial and human costs to us all. It that sense the system has a reasonably sound moral basis and so is not “arbitrary” as you put it – but I definitely agree the system is far from perfect or fair.

If you advocate no motoring laws then do you advocate abolishing all laws altogether? If so your views are valid, but I still couldn’t agree (not being a proper anarchist myself, more of an anarchist sympathiser).

This is a great thread by the way. A healthy balance of humour and serious debate. Very few insults, no mention of the s-w-p … yet.

by hood Thu Feb 05, 2004 16:18

"You could be Eco friendly and a car driver"

Cos covering the earth in tarmac is eco-friendly?

And Leon: Drink-driving laws aren't oppressive. The lazy selfish pricks who think they can endanger other people's lives in the name of comfort are.

The freedom you're talking about is the American Capitalist individualist idea of freedom, ie. freedom to shit on others

Go to any right-wing "libertarian" discussion board, they'd love the shit you're spouting

by Leon Thu Feb 05, 2004 15:59 anarchistdrivers2004 at yahoo dot com

Hi Dave and Woz,

The issue is not are cars polluting (I choose not to engage with that debate) or are bikes better, sometimes they are sometimes not.

It is this
For how much longer must the drivers of the world be humiliated by arbitrary state interference.

In this context debates about tax and congestion are revealed for the essentially entryist constructions they are.

Further any one who believes the ridiculous Bus Lane LAWS should be enforced is objectively fascict.

by Woz Thu Feb 05, 2004 15:44

Lone gunman - You want to make cyclists pay insurance? What damage am I likely to do to anything or anybody? Much more likely I will be damaged myself. If you advocate any sort of fee for cycling on a public road then you must also advocate radical improvement to the situation for cyclists – which is a fucking joke in this country. Sod all facilities, sod all protection, sod all respect.

Actually I agree with a lot of your points. Tax based on mileage, yes – then you pay proportionately to the costs you cause. That’s why I advocate scrapping insurance and road tax and putting it all on fuel.

But a bio fuel car would still kill, still take up too much urban space, still need roads.

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 15:12

dublin is pretty much full up, if everybody in the inner city owned a car there would be chaos. If cars were allowed to use bus lanes then buses would get stuck in traffic (even more than they do now), the service would get worse, people would start to use their cars more, the traffic would get worse, the buses would get stuck in even more trafic, nobody gets anywhere without having to plan 6 months in advance.
There should be a single uninterupted bus only lane all alnong the quays even at the expense of a lane of traffic. This would encourage more people to take the bus, there would be more frequent and varied bus services encouraging still more people to take the bus which would reduce traffic/pollution more..

by lone gunman Thu Feb 05, 2004 14:36

By using alternative bio fuels.Bio diesel or alcohol.Both can be made in Ireland,at low cost,producing employment for farmers and distillers.making the country less fuel dependant onmulti national corporations.
Encouraging people to hold onto their cars longer.
Lower tax on older models which can be converted to bio fuels aLOT easier than the new models.[Which INMHO are becoming more big brother spying friendly].
Tax decreasing on the age of the vechicle.A 1984 car will get you where you are going just as well as a 2004 car,if you look after it properly.
A road tax based on your actual mileage you do per annum.The monies thereof to be put into improving our public transport and roads.Which is a fucking JOKE in this country.Hence the traffic problem.
A compulsory requirement for insurance for bicycle riders,horse riders and sulky riders.
hate to say it but some of you bike types think you own the road and that the rules of the road dont apply to you.
Three or more people in a car should have the use of the bus lanes,along withtaxis,busses and emergency vechicles.
why isnt this done?Cos if you own a car you are a milkcow for the Govnit.

by David Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:52

You seem to believe that contradictions can all necessarily be true

by Leon Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:09

While I wouldn't want to see mountains atom bombed for no good reason, clearly Orwell was spot on when he said the world should be covered in motorways.

My one caveat is that though we should all have cars, we should still RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

by Adolf Hitler Wed Feb 04, 2004 22:05

(Detroit News, 31 December 1931)

by George Orwell Wed Feb 04, 2004 22:01

Man's power over Nature is steadily increasing. With the aid of the atomic bomb we could literally move mountains: we could even, so it is said, alter the climate of the earth by melting the polar ice-caps and irrigating the Sahara. Isn't there therefore something sentimental and osbcurantist in preferring bird-song to music and in wanting to leave a few patches of wildness here and there instead of covering the whole surface of the earth with a network of Autobahnen flooded by artificial sunlight?

by eoin Wed Feb 04, 2004 20:30

what we need is better policing of speed limits and harsher penalties,
and of course a much improved public transport system

by Leon Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:08 anarchistdrivers2004 at yahoo dot com

Personally I use the car only for long distance. I generally am all on for cycling. But we can't let these right wing pressure groups exploit this issue without forcing the question of the relationship between driving and
(1)the exploitation of fossil fuels obviously this can have bad effects when people are exploited and such. That's why we've gotta go to veggie vans.

(2) the ceding of personal autonomy that we engage in when we conform to these random speed limits drink driving rules and so on. I say drive safe drive smart but be your own man.

(3) It is a hot button topic. This could be way bigger than the bin tax.

RESIST

by Woz Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:20

Motorists are state-subsidised; just thought I'd point that out. The amount you pay to drive your car isn't enough to cover the cost of motoring. Road tax, fuel tax, and insurance combined don't provide enough revenue to pay for new roads, planning, policing, legislation, pollution clean-up, the cost of all the accidents, asthma treatments, etc.

So you can’t be an “Anarchist Driver” – not at the moment anyway. If you drive you are doing exactly what the state wants you to, making a damaging and conformist transport choice, accepting a role as a tool of capitalism.

And dear MIJAG let's not forget that part of the reason insurance premia are so high is that there's too many fucking cars around. Put all the costs – all of them - into tax on fuel, I say.

On yer bike.

by hood Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:49

You're joking right?
There's a reason this is "the province of the right" you twat
should we "radicalise" capitalism too? or racism?

(if this is satire i apologise but unfortunately you never can tell on indymedia)

by Leon Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:07

Lets sieze this issue for too long the province of the right wing and RADICALISE it!

It isn't a question of higher speed limits or lower insurance, but rather of asserting autonomy in the place where people most in control. THE CAR.

by Ray McInerney Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:04

Quality man.

by Mike M Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:58

Under Socialism science and technology will be directed towards satisfying the needs of the proletariat. Within years there will be no need for yogic flying. Workers will have their own jet backpacks and eventually their own flying cars.

Through prudent harnessing of resources a World Socialist Government will return to the Moon and found colonies on Mars. The Red Planet will become truly red.

Forward the flying workers!
Onward to Red Mars!
Socialism on one planet is impossible!
For a Socialist Federation of the Solar System!
Long Live The First Inter-Galactic!

by Eoin Fanning Wed Feb 04, 2004 13:46

if you or any of your family was hit by a speeding idiot like your self and was left wheelchair bound for the rest of your life, how you you feel about this statment. i agree that insurance is too high but their are better ways to protest.

by Leon Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:44

Hi King Cob.

There was very little response to the Left Parents Coalition (though there was some). I went to the childcare protests yesterday but couldn't stay long and didn't really get talking to anyone.

I'm not taking the piss, are only brown rice eating cyclists allowed to disent nowadays?

Though as it happens I cycle to work.

by Leon Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:41

Which is cool that is your right.

ADF don't call for a higher speed limit and free insurance we seek to use driving as a way we can reject the arbitrary authority of the state.

IGNORE arbitratrary speed limits,

A rethink on driving without insurance it is too irresponsible, however we should refuse to DISPLAY insurance (a hell of a climbdown I know but I think we -me- went too far).

This is a very topical issue and like the bin tax the left can use it to drive dissent.

by King Cob Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:24

Hi Leon! Have you given up on the Left Parents Coalition? Or opposing teachers cause one of them once shouted at you?

Please tell me you're taking the piss.

by David Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:14

"anarchists" as a group do not agree that everybody should have their own car and that public transport should be disbanded and that we should only support cycle lanes "where practical" and that we should drive like maniacs because we dont care if we die (what about the people you crash into)

by David Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:59

Obviously this is an attempt to discredit anarchism for any casual indymedia readers.
We're not all lunatics.