Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective?

Increasing the price of petrol is the best way to solve growing traffic and pollution problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What other measures do you think might be effective? 

Amplifying environmental consciousness has prompted a suggestion about tackling rising traffic congestion and pollution through costly fuel. I completely disagree with this proposal and shall discuss the other plausible steps that can aid surmounting these issues.

To start with, it is wrongly assumed that by making propellants dearer would  dissuade a majority from purchasing petrol-driven vehicles; it would pose an unbearable economic burden, especially on the lower and middle income groups. Consequently, decreasing the number of cars on the road, easing traffic density, and eventually, mitigating emissions. 

However, those cynical of this suggestion assert that such initiatives lack substance and viability. There are areas sans public transport, due lack of proper roads, forcing people to use personal vehicles for commutes everyday, and thus, expensive fuel will only add to their woes, raising their expenditure. Moreover, the elite  - the majority users of personal four wheelers - will remain unaffected with higher prices, and will continue to buy fossil fuel driven vehicles, and a negligible minority of lower and middle income groups will face the wrath instead.  

There are a few practical measures that can be considered to surmount this pressing challenge. Investments  in better infrastructure: roads, which could connect most parts of urban locales effectively, can create motivation to forgo their own and switch to mass transit. Additionally, campaigns could be launched at various levels to engender enlightenment about the ramifications of pollution, and encourage resorting to public commutes and carpooling.  

To conclude, one cannot be lop-sided and push through impractical approaches. Many locations lack connectivity due to absence of roads, and such a proposal will not influence the affluent. The solution lies in investing into building roads, launching campaigns,  and stimulating participation from the society can aid in overcoming this challenge. 

Many people believe that reducing the speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Many people believe that reducing the speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Nowadays, as safety on roads is becoming a major concern, alleviating speed range seems to be the best solution. I believe there are some other possible and practical ways to tackle this problem, which will be discussed in the following paragraphs, along with their benefits and drawbacks.

To start with, one of the practical ways is to install traffic cameras on the roads. The main advantage of this is that many will be dissuaded by the presence of the cameras and stay within the required permitted speed; consequently, reducing the number of accidents on road due to overspeeding. However, dispensing such an arrangement will cost several arms and legs to governments. Not only the installation but  also their upkeep will add more expense on the shoulders of the lawmakers.

Moreover, another approach is to increase penalty fees or impose sentences since none will be interested in getting fined, paying hefty charges or being punished. Not only will many vehicle users think twice about breaking the speed limit, this will also generate extra revenue for the state via collecting fines. This money can be utilized for upgrading the safety on road or improving overall infrastructure. Having said that, the con of this method is corruption as many will pursue the officer on duty to take bribes in order to avoid paying a colossal amount of fines. 

In conclusion, there are other viable ways to implement and ensure public safety on roads: increasing fines and installing cameras but these methods come at a price: expensive for the lawmakers and chances of bribing are some of the drawbacks. Hence the government should weigh all the approaches before implementing.

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

Many cities are replacing cars with bicycles. What are the reasons for this? Which do you think is better?

Nowadays, several urban locales have started opting for cycles and proscribing use of cars. This can be attributed to several causes, but when it comes deciding which of the two modes is superior is a fiercely debated issue.  

The  reasons behind this paradigm includes cars becoming a major source of traffic jams and snarls, and accidents.  Similarly,  they are a prominent source of air pollution, leading to more environmental issues. Additionally, these are encroaching pedestrian space in shopping districts, roads and residential areas, causing chaos,  making neighborhoods don an ugly look, and fueling safety concerns among pedestrians. To corroborate this, a survey revealed that 40% of pedestrian space in Toronto is occupied by the four wheelers, resulting in four to five accidents every fortnight. 

Although  cars are known to offer comfortable rides and protection from extreme weather, apart from allowing families to travel together, pedaling is incomparable when it comes to reducing the cost of creating and maintaining infrastructure; these humble two-wheelers do not stipulate an elaborate road infrastructure: less space is needed for riding and parking.  

Moreover, it is the cleanest mode of commuting as it does not produce any emissions, helping alleviate  greenhouse gas discharge, and thus, air pollution. Likewise,  it also promotes physical activity, leading to better health outcomes, and ultimately, resulting in healthcare cost reduction.  To exemplify, the city of Guelph encouraged the use of cycles by providing it for free for forty hours per week to the residents, and this initiative recorded a 40% downfall in issues related to cardio and joints. 

In hindsight, it can be concluded that cities are more cautious about environment and health. Hence, preferring and promoting the use of bicycles is justified since this 19th century invention can ensure a clean environment, and well being. 

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Motorists? Why      

• It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars 

• This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will dissuade people from buying cars 

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax and so on

• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity

Some people say that governments should pay for improving road infrastructure to accommodate rising numbers of cars. However, the other section believes that this initiative should be handled by car owners.

Many argue that policy makers should don the mantle of improving and sustaining road infrastructure, feel that since they collect taxes in various forms from citizens such as sales tax,road tax,toll tax and pollution tax, to name a few, they should reciprocate by providing an upgraded roadways system. To corroborate, a survey carried out by the University of Toronto reveals that this demand is deemed justified by a majority of car owners as they bear various levies for maintaining cars; thus, it is their right to anticipate pliable roads, taken care of by the regime. 

However, a school of thought is in favor of making car users responsible for this expenditure. This view is based on the fact that traffic snarls and jams are the outcomes of thickening traffic, majorly due to personal four-wheelers, and these minority road users are the lone cause of inconvenience caused to the majority who either use public commute or other alternatives. Therefore, any investment made to improve the roads should be done by the former.

Similarly, this move is likely to bring an indirect benefit:people will be discouraged from buying cars because no one will be keen to pay extra money. For example, a pivot study carried out in Tokyo produced  favorable outcomes as almost 40% of buyers canceled their orders and opted for other more environmentally friendly options.

Overall, even though both the view points are carrying substance, I feel that it should be the authorities funding expansion an improvement of road framework as four-wheelers owners are already burdened by a plethora of charges.     

Intro 1

The rising traffic density due to cars mandates improvements in road infrastructure, but who should bear the expenditure of this initiative is a matter that invites mixed reactions. Some say that the state should bear it, while others believe that car owners should take this onus.            

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs.

 As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Motorists? Why 

• It is them who need this service. They are in the minority and a majority suffers because of them. The traffic snarls and increased carbon footprint are a result of increased number of cars 

• This will have a direct impact on number of cars, such a levy will 

• people from buying cars 

• 
  

The state? Why 

• People are paying taxes, especially care owners are being levied sales tax, road tax, pollution tax, toll tax and so on

• Better roads will encourage people to travel more (and buy more cars) creating economic activity   

As the number of cars increases, more money has to be spent on road systems. Some people think the government should pay for this. Others, however, think that drivers should cover the costs. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Incrementing vehicles mandates maintenance and expansion of road networks that has precipitated a thought provoking discourse over who should be bearing the onus of this: some argue that it should be policy makers, while others put the burden on motorists. I will examine both perspectives and draw a plausible conclusion.

Those vouching for the role of lawmakers in this endeavor argue that roads are meant for public good that benefit everyone, not just those plying personal vehicles. These facilitate the movement of goods and services, contributing to the overall economy by allowing businesses to function, enabling public transportation, and ensuring access to essential services like healthcare and education. Since everyone in society benefits indirectly from a well-maintained road system, regimes should fund it using public funds. For instance, rural areas with fewer drivers might not generate enough revenue from driver fees to maintain their roadways, necessitating government intervention to ensure fair distribution of resources. 

Nevertheless, those advocating for drivers covering the cost propose that it is only fair for them to pay for what they use. Increased usage leads to greater wear and tear on roads, meaning motorists directly contribute to the need of maintenance. Implementing road tolls is a potent way of ensuring a sustainable way to fund road repairs and expansion. Additionally, charging them for road use may encourage people to use public transportation, mitigating congestion and environmental damage. For example, in cities like London, congestion charges have been implemented to alleviate traffic snarls while generating revenues for road improvements. 

In my opinion, even though both the opinions are well-reasoned and are convincing, I feel this should be a joint responsibility as everyone benefits from the well-maintained infrastructure, wherein the state would reap economic benefits, and motorists  can obtain safer rides. 

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution and may fail to help. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

The debate surrounding ways to find easing congestion on urban roads is the most heated. While some suggest that the state should build more roads, claiming it would be a suitable solution, others believe it would exacerbate the problems. The forthcoming paragraphs shall look into the matter thoroughly and share a plausible conclusion.   

To begin with, a lobby professes that construction of new roads and bridges would help in creating a bi-furcation between those traveling within a limited area and those traversing across cities, ultimately decreasing the density of congestion of automobiles on the current roads. This will create a time saving ecosystem as a massive amount of time is wasted in intensive road jams, different routes for different suitable vehicles will make commuting much faster and also keeps a less chaotic environment. 

Similarly,  this move will help create more lanes for a variety of vehicles, rendering smooth flow at speed, resulting in a healthy driving environment. For instance, the advanced lane system in the city of Mumbai has resulted in fast traveling; motorists have reported saving at least 2 hours everyday that they used to exhaust while reaching their offices in mornings and back home in evenings.  

However, some feel this proposal will only waste money as they believe less roads are not the main reason for traffic jams; the rising population is one of greatest factors affecting road traveling. To add to woes, poor public transport networks force urbanites to opt for their conveyance. Thus, any expansion of pathways will be soon clogged with more vehicles.    

Overall, I believe that building new pathways is a great idea and will go a long way in mitigating the problem of traffic, providing ease of traveling to road users. Therefore, I completely agree with the idea.

If countries are serious about solving traffic problems, they should tax private cars very heavily and use the money to provide free or very cheap rail travel. In what extent do you agree or disagree? Write in no less than 250 words and give relevant examples from your own experiences

If countries are serious about solving traffic problems, they should tax private cars very heavily and use the money to provide free or very cheap rail travel. In what extent do you agree or disagree? Write in no less than 250 words and give relevant examples from your own experiences

The common perception that prohibitively taxing on personal four wheelers and using the revenues raised to afford economical, or free of cost rail commute can help mitigate challenges posed by thickening traffic density is bolstered and contested strongly. 

The success of this policy is predicted by those assuming such an arrangement would act as a disincentive for the most of the populace  against using  their private modes of transportation. Vehicle owners would think twice before using their vehicles, and affordable or free of cost train rides would act as a persuasion to switch. Such pilot projects have been carried out in cities like Tokyo wherein, levying charges on private conveyance and lowered train tickets  have been able to convince several urban dwellers to utilize train services while abandoning their own means of commuting.  

Having said that, the proposal is prone to failure in most regions and people are bond to suffer if such a policy is enacted owing to the inadequately equipped public transport network: trains cannot reach all the places since some regions and locality are bound to remain out of bounds of railways, forcing people to use their own vehicles dampening the objective of such a benign strategy.

Besides this, rail commutes will rarely be accessible during wee hours, and also remain a cause  of concern of safety for the elderly, women and children; consequently, overtaxing might impose an additional burden on car owners, but it is likely to fail to prove a panacea for  traffic and pollution woes.  

Overall,  disputes aside, even though such a policy presents a rosy picture, the ground reality is far from being true; the poor condition of rail transit systems across the world make it impractical for most to use it as their primary mode of traversing.  

Some experts say for road safety cyclists should pass a test before being allowed on public roads. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Some experts say for road safety cyclists should pass a test before being allowed on public roads.
To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

Of late, a common perception has been emerging that those pedaling must prove their eligibility before using common motorways. Even though this proposal seems to be agreeable, it is necessary to analyze the rationale behind it critically.

There  is a skeptical view that challenges this notion and terms  it as regressive. Such a move will only cause chaos as it will become hard to decide at what age one must undergo the licensing process: currently, everyone, regardless of their age, is allowed to pedal anywhere. However, after implementation of this policy, minors might be barred from using main roads and forced to remain confined to the residential areas only. Consequently, besides becoming dependent on others for negotiating their daily chores, they could also get encouraged to lead a sedentary lifestyle, by virtue of being condemned to travel by automobiles on main roads.

Nevertheless,  those supporting this suggestion cite safety of road users as a motivation for making the testing of cyclists before affording them the liberty to use public roadways. It has been observed that there has been a phenomenal increase in road mishaps involving these individuals; a majority of such incidents can be attributed to their erratic behavior, stemming from their lack of knowledge of road rules and etiquette. This can be corroborated by referring to the data of accidents caused by cyclists in cities like Chandigarh where unpredictable maneuvers by these individuals led to road fatalities, especially of those riding two-wheelers. Thus, those cycling must prove their awareness of road safety norms before entering the main motorways. 

Overall, controversies apart, I vehemently feel that such an arrangement should be put into effect urgently; this would help in making roads safe for all and prevent bicycle riders from becoming a cause of accidents.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

Some say that due to heavy traffic governments need to build more roads in metropolitan cities, while others argue this isn’t the right solution, and might cause more problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your reasons and examples.

The significantly rising urban populace across has precipitated a phenomenal increment in congestion on urban roads. To surmount this challenge, some experts suggest establishing more road networks; however, the skepticals feel this cannot resolve the problem, but add to woes.

Expanding the road network in the urbanized areas os being proposed as a viable solution: it would help in alleviating the density of vehicles on individual roadways: the traffic would be diverted to the new roadways. Similarly, the expansion of roads would create more space for cars and other means of transportation. This would enable the authorities to ensure an easy flow of various vehicles.

Having said that, those cynical of this proposal feel that constructing new roadways would prove to be impractical in long run because the way the number of cars, trucks and buses, etc. is rising, the newly constructed passages would soon become clogged and the situation would worsen. Furthermore, the construction of new roadways would attract builders and developers who would either develop new residential, business and industrial complexes in adjoining areas. This would render the exercise of enhancing the roadway networks useless. 

Moreover, constructing new road networks would not only rob cities of valuable land which could instead be used for developing other more vital facilities for the inhabitants of urban locales but also cause an ecological disaster – by large scale felling of trees. Expansion of roadways would also mean allocating more critical financial resources to this exercise, resulting in wasteful public expenditure.

To recap, I feel that expanding road networks is not a panacea: this would instead cause a huge ecological disaster, and an unnecessary wastage of public money.  The need of the hour is to discover sustainable remedies rather than looking for expensive solutions that are provisional in nature.  

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you think to reduce traffic congestion?

Most companies are developing cars which are able to fly in order to reduce traffic congestion. Do you think this flying car approach is effective to reduce traffic congestion? What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion?

 

Yes? Why justify  

Assumption/ postulation/ hypothesis   

• Those supporting this concept assume that when vehicles will be able to become airborne,  they would avoid snarls and it would also reduce the traffic density 

• Cars would also not need roads to drive since they would be take to the skies from the homes and land at destination directly 

No? Why justify 

• This is impractical when it comes to resolving since traffic problems: such machines would need a lot of space to take off: it is impossible to render them space in populated urban locales   

• Traffic congestion will shift from ground to the air, and also present a hazard to birds 

• They will prohibitively expensive for common people to afford 

What other measures do you  think to reduce traffic congestion? 

•  Developing and Promoting public commute 

• Better bus networks 

• Developing fast train network  

• Encouraging people to use bicycles

• Car pooling  

• Better traffic management 

• Construct more bridges and roads 

Introduction 1

In an era, when traffic jams are becoming ubiquitous, many have come up with an inventive idea of introducing cars that can fly. Even though this proposal is hailed as appealing by some, it majorly lacks substance, making it imperative to discover plausible solutions.  

Introduction 2

Even though flying cars have been proposed as an excellent solution to surmount the challenges posed by thickening traffic, it fails to convince the skeptics who favor finding more plausible remedies. 

Those  in favor of this innovative solution assume that such automobiles would greatly help in thinning the traffic density, by virtue of personal four wheelers becoming airborne. This would make roads virtually useless because those traveling from one place to another would take off from the point of origin of their journey and directly arrive at the destination. 

Having said that, such a notion, despite being intriguing, is outrightly impractical since if this solution were implemented, it would cause a great chaos. Creating space to provide runways to such innovative flying machines will become a major worry for urban planning authorities since big cities that are plagued by traffic snarls, tend to use every inch of available area to create some facility for  the urbanites. Moreover, these vehicles are likely to remain a pipe dream because of prohibitively high prices of owning and maintaining them.

Resolving the serious challenge posed by thick vehicular traffic is only possible by adopting prudent steps  rather than squandering valuable financial resources on useless inventions. There is a need to develop and promote mass transit systems: improved bus operation networks and high speed trains, and simultaneously make possessing a car exorbitantly expensive by imposing taxes on purchase, road use, parking and fuel. This policy will dissuade a majority from driving their own vehicles,taking the pressure off the roads.

Overall, one may wonder what cars with wings could do to relieve people from their sufferings, but it has nothing to do with resolving the issue of traffic jams since judicious planning and measures are needed to alleviate this urban malady.  

Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 

There are certain sets of typical and common traffic rules that exist all over the world to ensure safety of road users, but many are found disobeying them, this essay will discuss the same and also suggest some ways to surmount such a challenge.

To begin with, the most prominent reason why motorists violate road rules is the slackness exercised by law enforcement agencies and those who set rules, they give people the concession to break them, sometimes because of the lack of good road infrastructure; absence of appropriate strength and equipment to monitor and regulate,  be it the traffic officers or any device associated cameras to capture the law breaking incidents. In many cases, even if one is caught red-handed, the offenders are let off in lieu of gratification money, which emboldens such drivers, and persuades them to commit such infringements again and again.  

 

However, although there is not panacea available to resolve typical challenges faced and bring down incidence of breach of traffic laws, certain ways can be adopted to ease up the situation: investing more on infrastructure, traffic cameras, auto-generated and advanced systems for fines, instant accident detection alarms, and so on can help. Similarly, conducting regular car checks at check posts to make sure no driver escapes a pending fine - when one has to pay out of his own pocket they will always be more conscious of their own actions. Additionally, deploying more traffic management officers in places where there is lack of technology, and exercising strictness can also help. 

To summarize, it is true that motorists worldover tend to disobey, because of the laxity exercised by the government agencies, but a little stringent monitoring can go a long way in surmounting this challenge and making roads safer. 

Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

 Every country in the world has its road rules, but many drivers don’t obey them. Why is this happening? What can be done to solve this problem?

Various countries, despite having elaborate traffic laws, witness a breach of these by motorists. In the further discussion I would share the causes for driving these violations and the ways to overcome this tendency. 

It has been observed that countries have humongous laws but these laws are not implemented strictly; consequently,  violators do not take the charges seriously and disregard all the norms since  even after contevening, drivers are not penalized heavily. Besides, punishments for the various violations are perceived as so soft that instead of creating a fear among road users, embolden them, who in turn flout the statutes brazenly. Apart from that, numerous, after committing infringements that are serious in some cases,  are found using their clout among influential and eminent personalities, and tend to walk scott free. On top of that, law enforcement officials act callously while on duty, and instead of punishing motorists they prefer accepting bribes and letting them off. These factors are persuading a majority to overlook laws meant to make roads safer. 

Nevertheless, such propensity can be mitigated, if not eliminated by adopting prudent remedies. Penalties should be levied on the culprits and to the officials who fail to perform their duties honestly. Moreover, the amount of fines should be increased astronomically for disobeying and transgressing rules meant to regulate traffic. Additionally,the process of issuing the license should be made tougher, so that the applicants would get more aware of these, and learn to follow them diligently. Further, warnings, harsh punishments like imprisonment should be awarded to offenders. 

Overall, undeniably, those sitting at wheels tend to adopt uncaring attitude towards the safe driving conventions and stipulations; however, everyone can be made to fall in line by applying the principles of non tolerance towards traffic offences.   

If countries are serious about solving traffic problems, they should tax private cars very heavily and use the money to provide free or very cheap rail travel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

If countries are serious about solving traffic problems, they should tax private cars very heavily and use the money to provide free or very cheap rail travel. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

A  lobby believes that levying heavy duties on personal vehicles would help in mitigating the pressing issue of traffic congestion prevailing in several countries, and utilising the collected tax money to render subsidised railway tickets. This essay will justify the rationale behind this notion as well as discuss that of others.

This arrangement would encourage the travellers to commute in public vehicles since this would help them in saving a great amount of money spent due to the escalating prices of fuel as well as colossal penalties while moving in private transport, thereby ameliorating their financial health, and alleviating the traffic snarls on roads.

However, by travelling in public transport such as railways leads to the wastage of the most precious commodity that is time by virtue of which people are inclined towards the private conveyance. Since in the contemporary era, people are engaged in gruelling work schedules owing to which they do not get adequate time to devote to their families, therefore, imposing heavy levies on personal vehicles would be of little avail as time once gone never comes back, and subsidised railway tickets would fail to substitute it, and traffic may not thin. 

Similarly,  crimes have witnessed a spike in the recent years, due to which commuters have become quite apprehensive while travelling, especially in the wee hours, so they would not compromise their safety by opting for trains to save a few pennies. The priority today is safety and peace of mind rather than anything else. Thus, such a proposal might fail to deliver. Besides this, the travellers would not relinquish their comfort of traversing by personal means as they would not be able to enjoy the lighter moments with their loved ones in mass transit.

Overall,  I strongly feel that despite some positive aspects, private vehicles would continue to exist even with the enormous levies since this mode is safe and time efficient. Therefore, I fail to concur with this arrangement.   

Many people believe that reducing speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

 Many people believe that reducing speed limit is the best option for road safety improvement. Do you think there are other measures that could be put in place? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Rising incidence of road accidents has prompted many to suggest imposing speed limits to afford road safety. This approach has its own set or favorable and unfavorable outcomes, but on a serious note there is hardly any alternative available to this setting.

Many who are sceptical  of the proposal of prohibiting high speed driving claim that the mishaps occur due to poor road sense and negligent attitude of the drivers, which stem from the liberal approach adopted by authorities  in extending licenses and imposing penalties. They suggest that if zero tolerance were exercised, and  offenders severely penalized, those driving recklessly would be forced to adhere to driving norms. 

This lobby cites  the detrimental impact lowering speeds can have on the people and the environment. Slower traffic will cause an increment in travelling times, stress levels, and pollution. People will be forced to leave their homes or offices earlier to reach their destinations on time, or run the risk of reaching late, causing unprecedented stress. Additionally, vehicles moving at a snail’s pace will result in traffic snarls/jams, thereby raising the emission levels due to increased use of fuels.

 

However, notwithstanding all the criticism, which lacks substance, curtailing the driving speed is a practical solution. With such a law in place, drivers will be persuaded to limit their instincts of driving fast; thus, giving themselves room and time to judge and react to an abrupt situation on the  road ahead which may include conditions of the traffic and the roads, and also pedestrians appearing out of nowhere suddenly, consequently, averting accidents. 

 

Hence, controversies apart, I strongly feel that imposing a speed control law is the need of the hour even though this may have certain drawbacks, but the safety of those using the roads cannot be compromised.

 

Some people argue that cars should be banned in city centres while others are against this idea. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion. - Ielts Essay

Some people argue that cars should be banned in city centres while others are against this idea. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Ielts Essay - Ban Traffic at City Center 

With the traffic jams becoming a major issue in the bigger cities world over many urban area planners have been extending suggestions of banning the use of cars in the central parts of cities to ease up the pressure of traffic on roads, while others feel that adopting such measures would be unjustified and not help much.

People who justify imposition of measures to discourage use of personal transport in central zones of cities feel that city centers do not have wide roads and use of individual transportation adds to problems because people traversing in their own automobiles need individual space while driving which increases density of traffic per person on already clogged central city roads.

Besides increasing per person traffic density on roads, people travelling in their four wheelers also need individual parking space which further adds up to problems of already clogged narrow roads of central areas. This leaves little room for pedestrians because most of the space is used by make shift parking lots. This also spoils the looks of beautiful inner areas.

On the contrary, the lobby which feels that it would be too stringent an action to forbid use of personal four wheelers in city centers, base their argument on a strong logic. They think that people use personal transportation to save on time and barring them from entering central zones will force them to avoid these areas, which would in turn hamper the local business and popularity of these zones.

In conclusion, I personally feel that resolving the problem of traffic is indeed an issue in central areas of cities and we need to take stringent measures to ease up pressure on roads but barring entry of cars would not go long way in easing up traffic jams.