📘 Part 3: Traffic problems

This episode's vocabulary

Rush hour (noun) - the busy part of the day when towns and cities are crowded, either in the morning when people are travelling to work, or in the evening when people are travelling home.

Infrastructure (noun) - the basic systems and services, such as transport and power supplies, that a country or organization uses in order to work effectively.

To sacrifice (verb) - to give up something for something else considered more important.

Ownership (noun) - the state or fact of owning something.

To fund (verb) - to provide the money to pay for an event, activity, or organization.

Expertise (noun) - a high level of knowledge or skill.

Proximity (noun) - the state of being near in space or time.

Feasible (adj.) - able to be made, done, or achieved.

Near miss (noun) - a situation in which something almost hits something else.

Misapplication (noun) - the act or process of using something badly, wrongly, or in a way that was not intended.

By the same token (idiom) - used to mean that something you are about to say is also true, for the same reasons as what has just been said.

Convenient (adj.) - suitable for your purposes and needs and causing the least difficulty.

To opt (verb) - to make a choice, especially of one thing or possibility instead of others.

Undoubtedly (adverb) - used to emphasize that something is true.

To outstrip (verb) - to be or become greater in amount, degree, or success than something or someone.

-

Questions and Answers

M: Let's talk about traffic problems. In what ways can we fix traffic problems?

R: Well, not driving in the rush hour seems obvious. However, I doubt it's possible since people have, well, they have to get home somehow. Expanding infrastructure and increasing alternatives to the problematic elements seems to be the best set of options.

M: Do you think building more roads will make getting around in cities easier?

R: It might, but then you have to balance that with all the other things that make a city a city. When you start sacrificing local tourist attractions or sites of cultural importance to make life easier for traffic. Then you probably need to start questioning your priorities.

M: What needs to be improved in public transport?

R: Well, I'm hardly an expert, but if I were to guess, I would say that it could be more efficiently run. There are some things that seem to do better under public ownership, like the trains and other things that need to be private, such as cars. Although servicing of the roads is publicly funded, I think, in order to operate efficiently. Like I said though, it's not my area of expertise.

M: But if you were in the government, what would you focus on in terms of public transport?

R: The trains. Absolutely the trains.

M: Why?

R: Well, first of all, they're more efficient, they're environmentally friendly, and they shouldn't be as badly run as they are. So if we had a better train service, we wouldn't need so many cars and we wouldn't need to use planes so often.

M: Which mode of transport is more popular in your country? A bicycle or a car?

R: I would definitely say cars. We don't have the weather and many people don't have the proximity to their work required to make that feasible. I hope one day it will be the opposite though and that would be safer all around.

M: How can transport be improved in your country?

R: Well, that's a good question, and it probably depends on the area you want to focus on. I mean, our traffic system could always be better since the number of accidents and near misses is increasing in relative and absolute terms, it seems. At the same time, while the condition of most roads seems reasonable, they could be made safer in places and more accessible in others in the case of bikes and alternative means of transport.

M: Is it fair to limit the use of private cars?

R: If you mean the government doing that by force, then no. There's too much room for corruption and a misapplication of the rules. If people choose to do it, in line with certain principles they have accepted, then that would be fair. It takes more time and effort, but I think it would be more effective.

M: Will there be fewer people using cars because of improved public transportation?

R: Well, I certainly hope so. And there were plenty of people who used the systems in London and Moscow that had cars. By the same token, other people also used the car as it was just more convenient for them to get around to get closer to their homes as well, actually.

M: Will they be fewer cars if public transport is free?

R: I think that depends on how everything is financed. There's no such thing as a free lunch. So if there's a massive increase in tax to pay for the public transport, making people less able to afford petrol for their cars then I suppose so. However, if it was made free by taxing corporations or even just making sure they paid their fair share of tax, then people might still not opt for the, or sorry, people might opt for the convenience of cars still if they could drive them.

M: Do you think modern means of transportation cause harm to the environment?

R: Well, undoubtedly, yes. Even the ultra-modern electric cars require rare earth minerals extracted at no small cost to the place where they were mined. That's true for almost everything people do. Though, there's always some kind of cost. So the question should be, do they do less harm? And I have no idea how you would even begin to calculate that.

M: And what about the future? Do you think in the future we'll have fewer traffic problems?

R: That's a good question because the population is increasing. So that would mean that there will be more people on the roads, which means that there would likely be an increase in problems or accidents. However, by contrast, there's also increasing sophistication in terms of technology which would help make transport safer. So I don't know. It depends which one of these outstrips the other, to be honest.

M: Some people believe that there'll be driverless cars very soon. Do you agree?

R: Yeah, it was in the news the other day. So we have them. They're just not being, I suppose, put in place on a mass scale.

M: Thank you, Rory, for your lovely answers!

R: Yes, thank you! It's okay.

-

Discussion

M: So, traffic problems. So first of all, traffic is uncountable. All right? So there is a lot of traffic on the road or the heavy traffic we say. We can't say "traffics". No, no, no. We say traffic jams or traffic congestion also is the same as traffic jam and traffic congestion is also uncountable. So no "s". We fix traffic problems and Rory uses his favourite strategy, I'm hardly an expert, but if I were to guess, I'd say that it could be more efficiently run. Yeah? So public transport. Public infrastructure. Transport infrastructure. So pretty much this strategy could be used in any question. And again, I ask Rory. Oh, Rory, what do you think about like, what would you think of driverless cars? Will we have them in the future? Rory, go ahead. Your strategy.

R: I'm not an expert. But if I were to guess, we probably will, since people tend to favour safety and driverless cars are safe, generally speaking. You don't believe me, do you? But they are, in fact. Or they will be.

M: No, I agree. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. How can we fix traffic problems? We can expand infrastructure and increase alternative, alternatives to the problematic elements. Right? So expand infrastructure. Or you can, for example, say we can take the metro, take public transport more. And then when you talk about roads, you can say that the roads are serviced or the roads are publicly funded. The roads are maintained. Right. So it's about the maintenance of the roads. And when you speak about what needs to be improved in public transport, so the roads should be publicly funded or they should be privately funded. So the servicing of the roads is usually publicly funded. Maybe more funds should be allocated to maintenance, road maintenance.

R: I should say this is just in my country. I don't know if that's true in Russia, for example.

M: Yeah, I think it's all state-funded.

R: Although, somebody said that one time to me that the roads in Russia are brilliantly designed. They're designed so they need to be replaced every year.

M: That's true. That's true. It's, yeah, tradition. But then I've heard stories when in small cities and towns in Russia, people have such bad roads that they and the administration doesn't do anything. So they just pay for the road to be fixed from their own money. You know, like citizens. So they just, you know, chip in and they just pay for this asphalt, for this new asphalt because it's just impossible to, you know. So, yeah, instead of the mayor, instead of the administration. So people do this. So yeah, there are such stories.

R: Or they totally waste public money.

M: But I don't think somebody will do it in Moscow. Yeah.

R: No, but in Tver, they totally waste people's money. They put down tramlines and then they decided they didn't want them. So they tore them up again and put the buses back. And all of this was in the space of six months. And I was sitting there with my friend watching this happen.

M: Oh, boy.

R: Like where, what, how do these people make these decisions?

M: Yeah. It's, it's pretty much about money. Yeah. Yeah.

R: Anyway, away from Tver and back to public transport in general.

M: Yeah. And then the question is which mode of transport. So it's like modes of transports or means of transport is more popular, a bicycle, a car, I think now you can also ask or an e-scooter. So an e-scooter. Right?

R: The less said about E-Scooter is the better.

M: Yeah. Yeah.

R: They're dangerous.

M: Yeah, true, true.

R: Although, to be honest, bikes are dangerous as well. They shouldn't be on the road.

M: Crazy bikers.

R: I am well known for my lack of love for cyclists. I apologise if you are in fact a cyclist, but I don't like cyclists.

M: Why?

R: Well, the behaviour of cyclists in London is absolutely obnoxious in general, but one of them also crashed into me on a public footpath and I like I fell over and hurt my hand. I think I've told the story before and the guy was like, are you okay? And I said, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm just a bit sore. And he was like, oh, you know, you should watch where you're going. And I looked at him and I was like, It's a public footpath. The clue is in the title, you shouldn't have been on there and you've just hurt me. You're lucky that I'm not suing you, to be honest. I was just like. So it's that kind of arrogant behaviour. I imagine not all cyclists behave this way, but in London, it seems to be quite a common problem.

M: Wow. I've heard of Amsterdam too. Yeah, when we were in Amsterdam also they were kind of, you know, really, because people... But in Amsterdam, tourists keep going, keep using these cycle lanes. And if you cycle to work and you're in a hurry, you know, you could be frustrated when like a group of tourists... Like this. On a cycle lane.

R: Well, that would be fine because that's a cycle lane, not a footpath. I mean, you shouldn't have to explain to people why it's not okay to cycle on a footpath. It's not.

M: Right. Yeah, true, true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And we used to have many e-scooters, you know, dear listener, this an e-scooter. Right? So you just stand there and it's just going, right? So an electric scooter, this is what we call it. Um, we used to have so many e-scooters, but now even like in Moscow, in the south of Russia, they have restricted areas. So last year you could use an e-scooter there, but this time no. So, you see, they are changing the rules.

R: We had, um, I was reading one of our newspapers once and there is this guy who complained about like he was talking about E-Scooters and said that they were dangerous in Moscow and he was saying this is an example of why we shouldn't have them in Britain. And the minister he wrote to replied saying, well, if they're causing a problem, you should complain to the Moscow police. And I was just like, yes, you complain to the e-scooters, to the Moscow police, and then see how they laugh at you. And to do nothing because it's ridiculous. That's not what the police are for.

M: Yeah, no, but actually, Rory, maybe, you know, that person did complain. And now the places where you could use a scooter, now they are closed for scooters. So maybe, you know, many people complained.

R: I imagine if paid a little bit of money, you'd be allowed to ride your e-scooter in the e-scooter-free zone. That's how that works.

M: Okay, maybe. Maybe. Yeah, I didn't try, but yeah, I was just, you know, riding my e-scooter on the embankment close to the sea and then he goes like no, no, no, you can't use this e-scooter here. What do you mean I can't?

R: So I ran him over.

M: No, no, I had to leave. Anyway. So, yeah, you can feel free and talk about e-scooters, these annoying e-scooters or not annoying e-scooters. Maybe you like them. And a good phrase is the proximity to their work. So people use cars, for example, not bicycles, because many people don't have the proximity to their work required to make that feasible.

R: That just means they're not close enough.

M: Yeah. So with the proximity to their work. So how close their work is to them. Feasible? Doable. Right? It's not doable. It's not achievable or it's not feasible. That's a nice one. Then you can speak about the conditions of roads. For example, we, in our country, the condition of most roads is reasonable and also roads are safe or accessible. Okay? So some adjectives to describe roads and you can talk about, traffic safety could be better, right? Or our traffic safety is horrible.

R: Apparently that's true. The number of traffic accidents has gone up since the pandemic started and since the restrictions were put in place.

M: Oh, really? So during the pandemic, people just forgot how to drive. And after that the roads were open. They were like...

R: I think the argument that many people are making is that more people are engaging in reckless behaviour.

M: Ah, right. Okay. So they were bored to death sitting at home.

Speaker 2 R: And decided to make their life more interesting by endangering the lives of other people. So, yes, please don't do that. It's very selfish.

M: And then the government could limit the use of private cars by force. And we can say that there is too much room for corruption. Right? So there is like a lot of space out of room for corruption. And when we break rules, we can say we miss apply the rules.

R: Well, that's it's a particular kind of breaking the rules. So if the rules are misapplied, then it means that they are used for some people, but not for all people.

M: Right.

R: But that's not just for traffic. You can see it in the way that our government behaved during the pandemic when they decided to have garden parties at a time when people were trapped in their homes. That's a misapplication of the rules.

M: Are you talking about Boris Johnson?

R: I am indeed talking about our wonderful Prime Minister. Probably by the time this goes out, he'll be our former prime minister.

M: Oh, boy.

R: He wasn't the only one. They were all at it. So this is by the idea of the government doing things like that is not a good idea because it's always one rule for thee and another for me.

M: Hmm. One rule for thee and another for me. Nice, nice one. And also a quote from Rory, dear listener, are you ready? There is no such thing as a free lunch. All right? Please write it down. Look at it every day. So if somebody gives something to you for free, you remember Rory's words. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Okay? There's no free lunch. So if they give you a free lunch, then they would charge you for a coffee or for a drink. Or maybe they will charge you after you are done with the lunch. Maybe you want to leave the cafe like on a camel. You know, you can go up on the camel for free, but to go down the camel, you have to pay.

*crickets*

R: Where are you getting this from?

M: The Russian tourists' stories about Egypt. Yeah, they do that.

R: That is a genre of story.

M: I've never been to Egypt, I've never ridden a camel, but I'm sure that they charge you to go down the camel. Camel, you know this animal in Egypt.

R: Moving on...

M: All right. Then we can say that people might opt for the convenience of cars. So they might prefer cars. So they might choose the convenience of cars. They might opt for the convenience of cars. That's a nice one. And then about modern means of transportation, do they cause harm to the environment or do they do harm? The expression is do harm to the environment. And Rory said undoubtedly yes. So no doubt, yes, they do cause harm to the environment. And then you go, even the ultra-modern electric cars. Right? Like Tesla, for example.

R: Ultra modern just means the latest.

M: Yeah. Like state-of-the-art cars. Electric cars, which are supposed to be environmentally friendly actually do need some minerals or oil. Yeah? To function.

R: I should say, any time you're asked about the environment or not, it's not just cars, it's any kind of technology, rare earth minerals or something you could definitely mention because that is a specific kind of material, but basically mining them destroys the ground where they are. So that's not good for the environment, regardless of whether it's being used to power electric vehicles or not or to run them.

M: Yeah. A very good idea. So pretty much any piece of technology does require rare earth minerals. Some kind of like stones. Extracted. So we extract stones or minerals from earth, and then rare earth minerals are extracted at no small cost to the place, to the environment where they are mined. So we mine minerals. So yeah, so we are pretty much destroying our earth by mining it for minerals. Right?

R: Well we are not doing it. Like horrendous corporations are doing it. Actually, I think there's an Australian one that operates in Papua New Guinea that basically is committing genocide against the tribe that lives there in order to get at these things, which is again, totally unacceptable.

M: Oh, wow. So it's kind of like the Avatar movie. Yeah?

R: Well, I'm not really sure, it's a really great idea to compare tribal people to green, to blue aliens. But still. Yes. I mean, we're laughing about it now, but it's like really not good. And these people, not the tribesmen and women, but the corporations should be punished.

M: Yeah. And to wrap it up, Rory, tell us, what does this expression mean? By the same token.

R: It just means in the same way or in a similar manner. It's just another way of connecting the topic that's coming to what's come before.

M: Right. So by the same token, other people also used the car as it was the most convenient means of transport for them, for example.

R: Yeah. Or are we talking about rare earth minerals there and how mining them destroys the local environment? By the same token, there doesn't seem to be any other way of extracting them. So it's just like this terrible thing is happening, however, there's no other way to get at these things, although I think maybe we could avoid genociding local tribespeople. That would be nice. Australian companies, please bear that in mind.

M: Oh boy. Yeah.

R: Sorry. I've turned into a bit of a social justice warrior on this issue, but it's actually outrageous. When I find out this is happening, I was like, I can't believe they're allowing this.

M: Right, dear listener, so let's stay positive, let's stay green, help other people drive cars or don't drive cars. And just remember, that any technology you're using has these rare earth minerals, right? So rare earth minerals, dear listener, remember, yeah? All right. Thank you very much for listening! Hugs and love! Bye!

R: Bye!

-

Make sure to subscribe to our social media to see some of the “behind the scenes” stuff:

Our Instagram: bit.ly/instagramswi

Our Telegram: bit.ly/telegramswi