|
I am a regular user of the roundabout as a car driver. Although I do cycle a lot around Cambridge I have not used this roundabout as a cyclist since the modification.
Don't be misled by the figures. The number of recorded crashes has been higher but these have been cyclist/cyclist and cyclist/pedestrian resulting in less serious injury. The number and severity of injuries involving car/cyclist and car/pedestrian has decreased.
When I am in the car I am very cautious and am looking in all directions for cyclists to emerge. I feel the signage and road markings need to be improved. When crossing the cycle path from the road the road markings are "give way to right at roundabout". Whereas the cyclist could be approaching from either left or right. There is not an additional "Give Way" sign which I think would emphasise the need for motorists to give way to cyclists. Pedestrians already have a zebra crossing and beacons. The beacons are very effective as there are 2 mounted together and they flash alternately and are bright LED's.
The roundabout is well lit and visibility of approaching pedestrians and cyclists when driving is good
Roundabout has 20 mph speed limit, surrounding roads are 30 mph.
Roundabout is very close to Addenbrookes Hospital which is one of the best major trauma units in the country. Ambulance station at same site !
|
|
|
This country is anti motorist, we pay all the bills too.
Except it's really not - becuase a few cycle ways have been built does not mean the country is suddenly anti motorist...and I expect the majoirty of cyclists are motorists.
|
This country is anti motorist, we pay all the bills too.
Except it's really not - becuase a few cycle ways have been built does not mean the country is suddenly anti motorist...and I expect the majoirty of cyclists are motorists.
Not anti-motorist, Try 20mph zones, empty bus lanes, roads narrowed to accommodate bikes, LTNs ULEZs, parking fees, the cowboy parking operatives, Fining motorists who creep over the ancient speed limits VED, including the £40k penalty for new, VAT, Fuel duty Poor roads this roundabout, ICE going. Not enough chargers for EVS The car drivers affected by the link and others to come The majority of motorists never riding a bike. The new highway code giving priority to others which is unworkable in practice
"""Labour council wages war on drivers by increasing cost of permits by up to 368% (msn.com)
|
|
How many buses does it take before a bus lane isn't empty? They don't run nose to tail.
|
|
|
This country is anti motorist, we pay all the bills too.
Except it's really not - becuase a few cycle ways have been built does not mean the country is suddenly anti motorist...and I expect the majoirty of cyclists are motorists.
Not anti-motorist, Try 20mph zones, empty bus lanes, roads narrowed to accommodate bikes, LTNs ULEZs, parking fees, the cowboy parking operatives, Fining motorists who creep over the ancient speed limits VED, including the £40k penalty for new, VAT, Fuel duty Poor roads this roundabout, ICE going. Not enough chargers for EVS The car drivers affected by the link and others to come The majority of motorists never riding a bike. The new highway code giving priority to others which is unworkable in practice
"""Labour council wages war on drivers by increasing cost of permits by up to 368% (msn.com)
None of that shows anything being anti motorist.
20mph zones are just to help prevent deaths from crashes.
Empty bus lanes are needed for buses otherwise they would not get down them
Roads narrowed - as people would complain if they were widened.
It's not worth going on but none of this is anti motorist.
|
This country is anti motorist, we pay all the bills too.
Except it's really not - becuase a few cycle ways have been built does not mean the country is suddenly anti motorist...and I expect the majoirty of cyclists are motorists.
Not anti-motorist, Try 20mph zones, empty bus lanes, roads narrowed to accommodate bikes, LTNs ULEZs, parking fees, the cowboy parking operatives, Fining motorists who creep over the ancient speed limits VED, including the £40k penalty for new, VAT, Fuel duty Poor roads this roundabout, ICE going. Not enough chargers for EVS The car drivers affected by the link and others to come The majority of motorists never riding a bike. The new highway code giving priority to others which is unworkable in practice
"""Labour council wages war on drivers by increasing cost of permits by up to 368% (msn.com)
None of that shows anything being anti motorist.
20mph zones are just to help prevent deaths from crashes.
A pity that they don't, because a good deal of motorists ignore such limits, because almost all are not backed up by speed cameras. They are, on the other hand, cuasing more death and disease via vehicles travelling in lower gears at the slower speeds, using more fuel and thus causing more pollution.
Ironically, for the roundabout in question, speed cameras down the road enforce 30 and 40mph limits, or at the hospital to 'prevent' people using the road from the A10 as a cut through to avoid the heavy jams going into the city - mainly caused by the council imposing a bus lane that's barely used and in a terrbile state.
Empty bus lanes are needed for buses otherwise they would not get down them
There's a big difference between nearly empty and reasonably used, especially outside the main rush hour. All theyeir inclusion has done in Cambridge is extend the jam periods, as I could attest to last week.
Roads narrowed - as people would complain if they were widened.
IMHO, that's disengenuous. People complain when more lanes are added, not kept as they have been for decades. What they don't like is one lane given over to buses that condeses every other vehicle into one lane, causing polluting congestion outside their home whilst few buses pas along the bus lane per hour, especially outside the rush hours.
It's not worth going on but none of this is anti motorist.
Sorry to disagree, but a good deal of it is anti-motorist. Funny how the same authorities have £800k+ to spend on redoing ONE roundabout (and other 'traffic calming' measures that are a waste of space) but ironically NOT the bus lanes in town which are pothole-ridden - so bad has the surface broken up that when a bus does pass by, a cloud of debris appear behind it due to all the ground-down loose road surface and dirt that never gets cleared.
In my nearby town, the Lib?Lab council wants to get £5M+ of taxpayer money for road cycle lanes and a bridge over a local trunk route where barely anyone uses the roads for cycling - epsecially when existing cycle lanes aren't maintained or swept.
They are even proposing to ditch 100 terraced houses' worth of on road car parking spaces (nowhere else to park) on a crucial cross-town, one-way residential street in favour of a two-way cycle lane, because lazy cyclists from the station cannot be bothered to cycle a nearby (safe and quiet) route taking 1-2 mins longer.
Alongside that, they are doing similar things on another main through route, diverting traffic (including buses) along past a primary school on a narrow road, leaving the only other ways to cross town to go either the 'long way' (3x the diatance) via the bypass or, you've guessed it, via the aforementioned one-way street, making life even more peachy for cyclists.
The council's so-called 'expert' didn't have a clue when I brought up these issues at a town meeting to discuss it- no doubt he was only acting 'under orders', as some councillors did get decidedly miffed when their plans (they were going to do the same in other towns in the borough) were shown up as complete rubbish. Not that such things ever stops them from ignoring local views, facts and surveys, as evidenced by the same lot reducing bin collections when the overwhelming majority of residents opposed it.
Like with LTNs in London and other major cities, much of these 'road management' measures are ideological, anti-motorist, not wanted by the majority of taxpayers and more often than not very expensive, 95% of the time well over budget and not cost effective in most respects.
|
|
"""Like with LTNs in London and other major cities, much of these 'road management' measures are ideological, anti-motorist, not wanted by the majority of taxpayers and more often than not very expensive, 95% of the time well over budget and not cost effective in most respects."""
LTNs coming to a city near you. Winners perhaps those who live in the LTN but those with cars are often inconvenienced in having to go out of their way. Losers the people outside with more traffic and pollution and same restrictions moving about. Disliked to the point where some are taking to moving obstructions and cutting down road pillars.
ULEZs. coming to a city near you. The expansion in London is well documented and surely anti car. If it was about extreme pollution then no argument but the heavy fines not justified for the average car owner or business user. Some are taken to destroying the cameras and others cloning number plates. Cannot ever see the bicycle/scooter being the favoured mode of transport. Public transport is a joke on both price and convenience in most parts of the country. People have a basic need to get to work in an ever increasing 24hour 7 day working pattern. The lower paid are being priced out of motoring and others are finding it difficult.
|
|
People living within a ULEZ may not 'win', because they might not be able to continue to afford to run their car, if they aren't that well off and have either poor public transport (e.g. South London) and.or need the use of a car for their job or lifestyle, e.g. the weekly shop for their family or as a carer - neither of which they can choose an alternative that suits their needs.
LTNs are similar, because many people now have obstructions half way down their road, forcing them onto major roads with more traffic, increasing their commute or joruney times generally. They'll also get many people who haven't got or don't use a satnav going down their road in error thinking it's still a viable route, polluting more because they all have to do u-turns.
|
People living within a ULEZ may not 'win', because they might not be able to continue to afford to run their car, if they aren't that well off and have either poor public transport (e.g. South London) and.or need the use of a car for their job or lifestyle, e.g. the weekly shop for their family or as a carer - neither of which they can choose an alternative that suits their needs.
LTNs are similar, because many people now have obstructions half way down their road, forcing them onto major roads with more traffic, increasing their commute or joruney times generally. They'll also get many people who haven't got or don't use a satnav going down their road in error thinking it's still a viable route, polluting more because they all have to do u-turns.
When did you last go to South London? Like most of London, the public transport is excellent.
|
People living within a ULEZ may not 'win', because they might not be able to continue to afford to run their car, if they aren't that well off and have either poor public transport (e.g. South London) and.or need the use of a car for their job or lifestyle, e.g. the weekly shop for their family or as a carer - neither of which they can choose an alternative that suits their needs.
LTNs are similar, because many people now have obstructions half way down their road, forcing them onto major roads with more traffic, increasing their commute or joruney times generally. They'll also get many people who haven't got or don't use a satnav going down their road in error thinking it's still a viable route, polluting more because they all have to do u-turns.
When did you last go to South London? Like most of London, the public transport is excellent.
I've worked in and around London for many years - including south of the River. And London doesn't have particularly good train and especially Tube links south of the Thames.
Buses aren't good if you need to get 6 bags of groceries home from the supermarket or a new TV or microwave from Curry's because the old one broke, is it (not everyone can have everything 'delivered')? Buses have their uses, but they aren't the be all and end all for doing everything, are they? And I wouldn't call their seats 'comfortable' either, and much of London isn't exactly safe, especially after dark.
Public transport in London is overstretched, mainly because of all those 'extra people' who appear every year that think its streets are 'paved with gold'. They ain't.
|
|
Exactly. Getting around South London is horrendous. And I dont mean the parts that are on the river.
|
|
The era of cheap motoring freedom for all is on its way out. An uncomfortable or abhorrent thought for all who grew up before Y2K but nonetheless true.
Urban areas in which cars work least well (pollution, congestion, parking etc) have growing high density populations.
Fossil fuels upon which the car centric society has thrived are becoming more expensive and are ultimately limited.
We are therefore at the start of a significant societal change:
- ICE will be obsolete due to both pollution and long term availability
- unconstrained low cost travel enjoyed over the last 60 years will get more expensive
- people will be forced to value local services and infrastructure rather than accepting long commutes, out of town retail parks etc
- autonomous vehicles will become a reality summoned by smart phone app
- ownership of cars will be replaced by short term rental and autonomous taxi.
This will not all happen together in a single "big bang" but as a direction of travel over the next 20-30 years. Some elements are already happening - eg: EVs, online shopping etc. By 2050 our world will be very different.
That only the relatively wealthy will be able to own personal transport is simply a return to the pre 1960 status quo.
We all have a choice:
- complain bitterly that it is so unfair, make up spurious reasons why it won't work, assume that denial will perpetuate the current
- recognise the world will change, respond positively to the opportunities created - more leisure time, community, better health through exercise etc
Personally I would go for the latter every time!
|
|
Terry W couldn't agree more.
|
The era of cheap motoring freedom for all is on its way out. An uncomfortable or abhorrent thought for all who grew up before Y2K but nonetheless true.
Only because the 'great and good' (who of course won't be personally affected because they either can easily afford the 'alternatives' (like EVs, using EV taxis or paying 'carbon offsets' to fly etc) - most of which they invest in as well as advocate for (what a coincidence?), whilst the rest of us revert back to pre WWII modes of trasnsport because 'they say so' as well as 'The Science'.
Urban areas in which cars work least well (pollution, congestion, parking etc) have growing high density populations.
How about stopping the increase by stopping mass immigration? Then most if not all of the problems would be manageable because the population would be either stable or slightly declining.
Fossil fuels upon which the car centric society has thrived are becoming more expensive and are ultimately limited.
Mainly because of the actions of governments, egged on by vested interests. There is more than enough oil reserves to keep ICE going for many decades and more if need be.
Most of us 'on the other side' aren't advocating for ICE and fossil fuels to be used forever, especially as the overwhelming majority of us also realise they are finite and polluting.
It's that we fundamentally diagree with the analysis of many so-called 'experts' as well as the many vested interests funding such 'reseach' and lobby groups that push or 'encourage' politicians and scientists to go the route of rapid change which only benefits the rich and powerful and their lackies.
Many of the technologies they front for and push are now coming under a good deal of scrutiny (though not by most of the mainstream media) and are increasing being shown to come up well short of 'promises' and often are not anywhere near as 'green' (if at all) as those pushing them say.
We are therefore at the start of a significant societal change:
- ICE will be obsolete due to both pollution and long term availability
- unconstrained low cost travel enjoyed over the last 60 years will get more expensive
- people will be forced to value local services and infrastructure rather than accepting long commutes, out of town retail parks etc
- autonomous vehicles will become a reality summoned by smart phone app
- ownership of cars will be replaced by short term rental and autonomous taxi.
This will not all happen together in a single "big bang" but as a direction of travel over the next 20-30 years. Some elements are already happening - eg: EVs, online shopping etc. By 2050 our world will be very different.
That only the relatively wealthy will be able to own personal transport is simply a return to the pre 1960 status quo.
We all have a choice:
- complain bitterly that it is so unfair, make up spurious reasons why it won't work, assume that denial will perpetuate the current
- recognise the world will change, respond positively to the opportunities created - more leisure time, community, better health through exercise etc
Personally I would go for the latter every time!
Probably because you can easily afford to and you are in later life, so won't have to deal with any long term consequences. I somehow doubt you'd think that way if you were less well off and/or well under 50. You'll own nothing, rent everything, eat ze bugz and be happy? I doubt that.
What exactly was it that suddenly precipitated the need to go from a gradual changeover to less polluting, sustainable technologies so that everyone coule benefit fairly to one where its forced on those who cannot afford it right when governments spending $Tns on supposed 'protective measures' that appear to do quite the opposite, especially for the younger generations who will end up paying for this all through the rest of their lives in every sence of the word?
Perhaps those now most benefitting from this (or least who can easily afford to get round the changes) can be taxed until their pips squeak to ensure the less well off get an 'equitable deal'. No? I didn't think so.
|
People living within a ULEZ may not 'win', because they might not be able to continue to afford to run their car, if they aren't that well off and have either poor public transport (e.g. South London) and.or need the use of a car for their job or lifestyle, e.g. the weekly shop for their family or as a carer - neither of which they can choose an alternative that suits their needs.
LTNs are similar, because many people now have obstructions half way down their road, forcing them onto major roads with more traffic, increasing their commute or joruney times generally. They'll also get many people who haven't got or don't use a satnav going down their road in error thinking it's still a viable route, polluting more because they all have to do u-turns.
When did you last go to South London? Like most of London, the public transport is excellent.
I've worked in and around London for many years - including south of the River. And London doesn't have particularly good train and especially Tube links south of the Thames.
Buses aren't good if you need to get 6 bags of groceries home from the supermarket or a new TV or microwave from Curry's because the old one broke, is it (not everyone can have everything 'delivered')? Buses have their uses, but they aren't the be all and end all for doing everything, are they? And I wouldn't call their seats 'comfortable' either, and much of London isn't exactly safe, especially after dark.
Public transport in London is overstretched, mainly because of all those 'extra people' who appear every year that think its streets are 'paved with gold'. They ain't.
I lived in London for 20 years, and return frequently, and almost all of that is complete nonsense!
If I wanted food, I walked to Sainsbury's. If I wanted a TV I could get a bus five minutes to Currys and they would deliver it to me whenever I wanted. Work was a ten minute walk and half an hour on the tube.
I never got into any trouble walking around, even drunk in the middle of the night.
Since the Overground was set up properly, travel all around has become even easier. The new Elizabeth Line is world class and super convenient.
About the only place you have difficulty getting to by train is Camberwell, and pretty much every bus south of the river goes there.
|
People living within a ULEZ may not 'win', because they might not be able to continue to afford to run their car, if they aren't that well off and have either poor public transport (e.g. South London) and.or need the use of a car for their job or lifestyle, e.g. the weekly shop for their family or as a carer - neither of which they can choose an alternative that suits their needs.
LTNs are similar, because many people now have obstructions half way down their road, forcing them onto major roads with more traffic, increasing their commute or joruney times generally. They'll also get many people who haven't got or don't use a satnav going down their road in error thinking it's still a viable route, polluting more because they all have to do u-turns.
When did you last go to South London? Like most of London, the public transport is excellent.
I've worked in and around London for many years - including south of the River. And London doesn't have particularly good train and especially Tube links south of the Thames.
Buses aren't good if you need to get 6 bags of groceries home from the supermarket or a new TV or microwave from Curry's because the old one broke, is it (not everyone can have everything 'delivered')? Buses have their uses, but they aren't the be all and end all for doing everything, are they? And I wouldn't call their seats 'comfortable' either, and much of London isn't exactly safe, especially after dark.
Public transport in London is overstretched, mainly because of all those 'extra people' who appear every year that think its streets are 'paved with gold'. They ain't.
I lived in London for 20 years, and return frequently, and almost all of that is complete nonsense!
In your opinion.
If I wanted food, I walked to Sainsbury's.
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
If I wanted a TV I could get a bus five minutes to Currys and they would deliver it to me whenever I wanted. Work was a ten minute walk and half an hour on the tube.
When I needed to replace a broken microwave oven, Curry's was going to take 3 weeks for 'delivery' and I would have to either wait in (not good if that's a work day) all day on a weekday, or pay extra for a shorter/weekend delivery, but which wasn't anywhere near soon enough. Not everyone can just be at home for delivery.
So I looked online, saw what was in stock in my local branch and went and got it to use straight away. Good luck using the buse to get that back home.
I never got into any trouble walking around, even drunk in the middle of the night.
Lucky you. Give the crime (and especially knifing and murder) rate has shot up over the last 8 years in London, I don't think it's that safe. As I said, I've worked there on and off over the years, and did not feel safe on many occasions when working late.
Some areas are far better than others, but as someone who was born in London in the 70s, went to college there in the 90s and worked there (including project work) since and still occasionally visit, it is not as safe as it used to be. But then nor is my parents town just outside London mor my home town of 17 years at the other end of Herts.
Since the Overground was set up properly, travel all around has become even easier. The new Elizabeth Line is world class and super convenient.
And how many £Bns over budget and years late? And most services into London are still busy and very expensive. And did you know that Mayor Khan is thinking of ending the Travelcard in order to shore up TfL's finances because its essentially broke, thanks to his 'stewardship'?
Like with Cambridge, those in charge are pricing the ordinary folk out of being able to go about their lawful business, leaving it to the indentured surfs and rich to be left.
About the only place you have difficulty getting to by train is Camberwell, and pretty much every bus south of the river goes there.
That's not my memory of London. Having to change buses/tubes/trains a lot, waiting in the cold and rain on often smelly (not pollution if you get my drift) and unkept streets with 'undesirables' often loitering nearby (even during the day).
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
a) Not everyone can be at home - especially when they are working and/or the item cannot be guaranteed to be delivered on X day at Y time. Especially people with children who now have to take far more of their annual leave to look after the kids on 'strike' days.
b) Not all workplaces (for those who cannot take the time off at short notice) allow items to be delivered to their office etc. Obviously larger items like TVs may get in the way, or if left in their car (and likely 'on show') - which often isn't parked in an office car park of within view - can then be subject to theft.
c) Many items need a person to have a physical look at it for useability/ergonomics etc.
d) The person may need an item straight away and cannot wait several days for delivery.
e) Some items are only available 'in store', including some end-of-line / 'open box' / special sale items.
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
a) Not everyone can be at home - especially when they are working and/or the item cannot be guaranteed to be delivered on X day at Y time. Especially people with children who now have to take far more of their annual leave to look after the kids on 'strike' days.
b) Not all workplaces (for those who cannot take the time off at short notice) allow items to be delivered to their office etc. Obviously larger items like TVs may get in the way, or if left in their car (and likely 'on show') - which often isn't parked in an office car park of within view - can then be subject to theft.
c) Many items need a person to have a physical look at it for useability/ergonomics etc.
d) The person may need an item straight away and cannot wait several days for delivery.
e) Some items are only available 'in store', including some end-of-line / 'open box' / special sale items.
I was replying to your post about familiy food shoppoiing not being able to fit on the bus...supermarkets all have times that you book and can deliver at a time that suits you...and a lot of the time is probably cheaper than the bus/car as well.
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
a) Not everyone can be at home - especially when they are working and/or the item cannot be guaranteed to be delivered on X day at Y time. Especially people with children who now have to take far more of their annual leave to look after the kids on 'strike' days.
b) Not all workplaces (for those who cannot take the time off at short notice) allow items to be delivered to their office etc. Obviously larger items like TVs may get in the way, or if left in their car (and likely 'on show') - which often isn't parked in an office car park of within view - can then be subject to theft.
c) Many items need a person to have a physical look at it for useability/ergonomics etc.
d) The person may need an item straight away and cannot wait several days for delivery.
e) Some items are only available 'in store', including some end-of-line / 'open box' / special sale items.
I was replying to your post about familiy food shoppoiing not being able to fit on the bus...supermarkets all have times that you book and can deliver at a time that suits you...and a lot of the time is probably cheaper than the bus/car as well.
Not everyone has the time to just 'stay in' or stop what they are doing. Many people's lives are just too busy to schedule such things days in advance - especially young families.
Besides, I've often seen people who do have their groceries delivered complain bitterly (yet continue to have that service) of getting sub-par fruit and veg, or 'alternate' items they don't like/want, or that items are damaged or missing.
The other problem - especially important with high inflation - is that it make shopping around for bargains less viable, because you could be buying at multiple stores (in small amounts) and thus you negate the saving per item by having to pay the delivery charge.
Making one trip out and shopping at (say) two stores not too far away from one another means you save on the fuel compared to going twice, and you're also able to get 'end of line' bargains as well, which can save a LOT of money if you do it right. You can't do the latter online.
And now Tesco (for example) are now charging for delivery with a higher minimum spend than before. Bear in mind that thus far (and I think it's now coming to an end, as is the subsidising of fuel to attact customers into the shops) up until recently, the supermarkets have been heavily subsidising delivered food via bumping up prices overall, which physical shoppers are increasing resentful of.
Online shopping can be useful, including for some people as regards food, but it not the panacea some portray it as. I would say that it's best for the 'young professional singleton' and the housebound, who may not have the time during the day (but can be somewhere at a prescribed time) or isn't able to get out at all. That's essentially the demographic of who gets delivered groceries in my area.
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
a) Not everyone can be at home - especially when they are working and/or the item cannot be guaranteed to be delivered on X day at Y time. Especially people with children who now have to take far more of their annual leave to look after the kids on 'strike' days.
b) Not all workplaces (for those who cannot take the time off at short notice) allow items to be delivered to their office etc. Obviously larger items like TVs may get in the way, or if left in their car (and likely 'on show') - which often isn't parked in an office car park of within view - can then be subject to theft.
c) Many items need a person to have a physical look at it for useability/ergonomics etc.
d) The person may need an item straight away and cannot wait several days for delivery.
e) Some items are only available 'in store', including some end-of-line / 'open box' / special sale items.
I was replying to your post about familiy food shoppoiing not being able to fit on the bus...supermarkets all have times that you book and can deliver at a time that suits you...and a lot of the time is probably cheaper than the bus/car as well.
Not everyone has the time to just 'stay in' or stop what they are doing. Many people's lives are just too busy to schedule such things days in advance - especially young families.
Besides, I've often seen people who do have their groceries delivered complain bitterly (yet continue to have that service) of getting sub-par fruit and veg, or 'alternate' items they don't like/want, or that items are damaged or missing.
The other problem - especially important with high inflation - is that it make shopping around for bargains less viable, because you could be buying at multiple stores (in small amounts) and thus you negate the saving per item by having to pay the delivery charge.
Making one trip out and shopping at (say) two stores not too far away from one another means you save on the fuel compared to going twice, and you're also able to get 'end of line' bargains as well, which can save a LOT of money if you do it right. You can't do the latter online.
And now Tesco (for example) are now charging for delivery with a higher minimum spend than before. Bear in mind that thus far (and I think it's now coming to an end, as is the subsidising of fuel to attact customers into the shops) up until recently, the supermarkets have been heavily subsidising delivered food via bumping up prices overall, which physical shoppers are increasing resentful of.
Online shopping can be useful, including for some people as regards food, but it not the panacea some portray it as. I would say that it's best for the 'young professional singleton' and the housebound, who may not have the time during the day (but can be somewhere at a prescribed time) or isn't able to get out at all. That's essentially the demographic of who gets delivered groceries in my area.
For what it's worth, I'm not single, I'm married and have a young son. We get the majority of our shopping delivered because we are ALWAYS in at about 8 o'clock in the evening. What else are we going to be doing?
|
Sounds like you're single, as a family shop would need more than one or even two people can safely carry, or for that matter store on the bus with it's tiny storage area shared between 30-60 passengers. Under the seat won't cut it except for a singleton.
Just order online and get it delivered to you - no need to go out.
a) Not everyone can be at home - especially when they are working and/or the item cannot be guaranteed to be delivered on X day at Y time. Especially people with children who now have to take far more of their annual leave to look after the kids on 'strike' days.
b) Not all workplaces (for those who cannot take the time off at short notice) allow items to be delivered to their office etc. Obviously larger items like TVs may get in the way, or if left in their car (and likely 'on show') - which often isn't parked in an office car park of within view - can then be subject to theft.
c) Many items need a person to have a physical look at it for useability/ergonomics etc.
d) The person may need an item straight away and cannot wait several days for delivery.
e) Some items are only available 'in store', including some end-of-line / 'open box' / special sale items.
I was replying to your post about familiy food shoppoiing not being able to fit on the bus...supermarkets all have times that you book and can deliver at a time that suits you...and a lot of the time is probably cheaper than the bus/car as well.
Not everyone has the time to just 'stay in' or stop what they are doing. Many people's lives are just too busy to schedule such things days in advance - especially young families.
Besides, I've often seen people who do have their groceries delivered complain bitterly (yet continue to have that service) of getting sub-par fruit and veg, or 'alternate' items they don't like/want, or that items are damaged or missing.
The other problem - especially important with high inflation - is that it make shopping around for bargains less viable, because you could be buying at multiple stores (in small amounts) and thus you negate the saving per item by having to pay the delivery charge.
Making one trip out and shopping at (say) two stores not too far away from one another means you save on the fuel compared to going twice, and you're also able to get 'end of line' bargains as well, which can save a LOT of money if you do it right. You can't do the latter online.
And now Tesco (for example) are now charging for delivery with a higher minimum spend than before. Bear in mind that thus far (and I think it's now coming to an end, as is the subsidising of fuel to attact customers into the shops) up until recently, the supermarkets have been heavily subsidising delivered food via bumping up prices overall, which physical shoppers are increasing resentful of.
Online shopping can be useful, including for some people as regards food, but it not the panacea some portray it as. I would say that it's best for the 'young professional singleton' and the housebound, who may not have the time during the day (but can be somewhere at a prescribed time) or isn't able to get out at all. That's essentially the demographic of who gets delivered groceries in my area.
For what it's worth, I'm not single, I'm married and have a young son. We get the majority of our shopping delivered because we are ALWAYS in at about 8 o'clock in the evening. What else are we going to be doing?
Taking the kids to/home from some sports/other club/outing, putting the very little'uns to bed, etc etc. Besides, not everyone can have a 'prime 8pm slot', can they? I try and make my evening meal around that time, and probably quite a few other people do. Maybe midnight, when there's nothing to do? Don't forget also a good number of people do shift work or like I did, regularly (but not scheduled) have to stay late at work.
All I'm saying is that which works for one person doesn't for another. Like with a lot of 'modern thinking', it is applied to us Plebs whether we like it or not or is useful / good. The great and good however, can still choose to do something different - mostly because they can afford to, including the shopping, owning a certain type of car, etc, etc.
|
Not everyone has the time to just 'stay in' or stop what they are doing. Many people's lives are just too busy to schedule such things days in advance - especially young families.
Besides, I've often seen people who do have their groceries delivered complain bitterly (yet continue to have that service) of getting sub-par fruit and veg, or 'alternate' items they don't like/want, or that items are damaged or missing.
The other problem - especially important with high inflation - is that it make shopping around for bargains less viable, because you could be buying at multiple stores (in small amounts) and thus you negate the saving per item by having to pay the delivery charge.
Making one trip out and shopping at (say) two stores not too far away from one another means you save on the fuel compared to going twice, and you're also able to get 'end of line' bargains as well, which can save a LOT of money if you do it right. You can't do the latter online.
And now Tesco (for example) are now charging for delivery with a higher minimum spend than before. Bear in mind that thus far (and I think it's now coming to an end, as is the subsidising of fuel to attact customers into the shops) up until recently, the supermarkets have been heavily subsidising delivered food via bumping up prices overall, which physical shoppers are increasing resentful of.
Online shopping can be useful, including for some people as regards food, but it not the panacea some portray it as. I would say that it's best for the 'young professional singleton' and the housebound, who may not have the time during the day (but can be somewhere at a prescribed time) or isn't able to get out at all. That's essentially the demographic of who gets delivered groceries in my area.
They don't have time to stay in but have time to go to the supermarket and sometimes more than one supermarket to make it cheaper? It would take less time to order online and get it delivered than going for a for a lot of people...and they can spend more time with the family rather than walking round a supermarket.
You can get the odd missing item/substituion but it does not happen that much, and you don't have to accept them either.
We don't often get food delivered but can't see that for most people that the time of delivery would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
