The Student Room Group

Do Londoners have a skewed sense of distance?

-In my city, to walk from my house to the centre of town would take about 20 mins. Most of my friends in london would take the tube to travel the same distance, even if that means waiting for trains and walking through a half mile of subterranean passages.

-One of my other friends from London told me that Covent Gardens and Leicester square are incredibly close, but that most people will also take the underground for that.

-Also, when I go 20 mins by train to go clubbing in a bigger city nearby, my london friends seem to think its a massive distance yet they may go from one end of london to the other for a night out which can be like 40 mins on the tube. Because its all the same city they seem to think its less of a travel.

Has anyone else noticed stuff like this?

Scroll to see replies

Yeahh! im from london and i dont do that (but get what you mean) i dont understand people goin on a tube from leciester square to covent gardens....seriously its like 5 secs apart :lolwut:

or if im with mates instead of walking the 20mins journey from edgware road to marble arch theyd rather take the bus which takes half the time but still :erm:
Reply 2
Original post by elandar
-In my city, to walk from my house to the centre of town would take about 20 mins. Most of my friends in london would take the tube to travel the same distance, even if that means waiting for trains and walking through a half mile of subterranean passages.

-One of my other friends from London told me that Covent Gardens and Leicester square are incredibly close, but that most people will also take the underground for that.

-Also, when I go 20 mins by train to go clubbing in a bigger city nearby, my london friends seem to think its a massive distance yet they may go from one end of london to the other for a night out which can be like 40 mins on the tube. Because its all the same city they seem to think its less of a travel.

Has anyone else noticed stuff like this?


Yeah. I turned up at Kings Cross and asked the way to Oxford Street, and got told - "you're not going to walk it are you?" To be fair though, it looked like quite a short distance on the map, but I decided to get the tube back.

Another one that's quite a fair distance is Knightsbridge to Victoria - had to do this when I was sorting out a passport at the Irish embassy a while back. I think a lot of the distance perception goes out the window when you look at how close together they seem on a map, plus its quite often that you won't be simply walking in a straight line, or even continually, but be waiting for traffic to stop at so many crossings.
Reply 3
If I've got a travel card I don't walk anywhere mate.

It's just the London way. As long as it's in the same city it's all right.
Reply 4
I don't think it's a 'skewed' sense of distance, just one that doesn't match your own. If towns and cities outside of London had the same transport links that London did, people would probably get the tube instead of walk 20 minutes. I really can't see why you'd expect people in London to walk for half an hour when there are various kinds of transport that can get you there faster?

And no Londoners I know would get the tube from Covent Garden to Leicester Square, that's what tourists do.

From my house to uni is about 35 minutes walk, the same as from my house to school was outside of London. But why would you walk 35 minutes when the bus can get you there in fifteen, or the tube in five? I guess if you were hard up on cash you might, but most people in London have a travel card of some kind, so it's irrelevant.

Also, I know plenty of people outside London who only live about a half hour's walk from their work, and they take the car every day. I don't think I know anyone who walks to work. Likewise, my parents and most of my friends live about half an hour's walk from the town centre, and they'd never dream of walking to go shopping. So London actually isn't any different, except rather than drive, we use the tube/bus.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 5
You what? We was paying 20 odd quid for a student oyster -- week pass. It'd be rude not to take the tube for anything more than a 10 minute walk.
Reply 6
Original post by elandar
-In my city, to walk from my house to the centre of town would take about 20 mins. Most of my friends in london would take the tube to travel the same distance, even if that means waiting for trains and walking through a half mile of subterranean passages.

-One of my other friends from London told me that Covent Gardens and Leicester square are incredibly close, but that most people will also take the underground for that.

-Also, when I go 20 mins by train to go clubbing in a bigger city nearby, my london friends seem to think its a massive distance yet they may go from one end of london to the other for a night out which can be like 40 mins on the tube. Because its all the same city they seem to think its less of a travel.

Has anyone else noticed stuff like this?


Well, you're the same; to walk to my local town from my house would take a good 4 hours! And it's only a tiny town of 50,000 people.
Reply 7
Original post by Arekkusu
Well, you're the same; to walk to my local town from my house would take a good 4 hours! And it's only a tiny town of 50,000 people.


:lolwut:

That's nearly a city :lolwut:
Reply 8
Original post by RyanT
:lolwut:

That's nearly a city :lolwut:


There are cities much smaller than that. This country is weird when it comes to places "officially" designated as cities.
Reply 9
Original post by Psyk
There are cities much smaller than that. This country is weird when it comes to places "officially" designated as cities.


I think you have to have a cathereal. Oh and the Queen has to like you.
Reply 10
Original post by RyanT
I think you have to have a cathereal. Oh and the Queen has to like you.


The Cathedral thing isn't strictly true. It just so happens that the Queen likes places with Cathedrals:tongue:

Reading has been trying to get city status for ages. It's far bigger than many cities and is the largest town in the UK (depending on exactly what areas you count as part of Reading), but it always seems to lose out to other places. Not that officially being a city means anything other than being able to say it is officially a city.
When I'm up in London for uni, it is SO easy to think 'Aah there's a tube station round the corner and it'll only take 5 minutes on the tube', so you do sometimes end up doing what could be considered unnecessary journeys. If we're talking sort of Warren Street to Euston or Euston to Kings Cross though, then that's a bit silly :p:
Reply 12
Original post by elandar
-In my city, to walk from my house to the centre of town would take about 20 mins. Most of my friends in london would take the tube to travel the same distance, even if that means waiting for trains and walking through a half mile of subterranean passages.

-One of my other friends from London told me that Covent Gardens and Leicester square are incredibly close, but that most people will also take the underground for that.

-Also, when I go 20 mins by train to go clubbing in a bigger city nearby, my london friends seem to think its a massive distance yet they may go from one end of london to the other for a night out which can be like 40 mins on the tube. Because its all the same city they seem to think its less of a travel.

Has anyone else noticed stuff like this?


No but their ignorant as ****.
Reply 13
I think a lot of people (not necessarily resident Londoners) will use the tube map as their map of London, as it shows pretty much all the vital information on an easy map. Therefore they won't even think about walking somewhere, they'll just jump back on the tube.
Reply 14
Original post by r3l4x3d
No but their ignorant as ****.


Lol "Have you noticed this?"

"No, but they're ignorant as ****".

Not only have you branded millions of people from all different backgrounds and walks of life "ignorant as ****", you've also stated that you haven't noticed what the OP was talking about...... Irony?
Reply 15
The tube is so convenient it's hard not to just use it for everything.
Reply 16
Original post by Steezy
Lol "Have you noticed this?"

"No, but they're ignorant as ****".

Not only have you branded millions of people from all different backgrounds and walks of life "ignorant as ****", you've also stated that you haven't noticed what the OP was talking about...... Irony?


Ironic? Yes. Fact? Yes.

I understand what the OP's question was, but I replied 'no'.
Reply 17
Original post by r3l4x3d
Ironic? Yes. Fact? Yes.

I understand what the OP's question was, but I replied 'no'.


So it's a 'fact' that the entire population of London is "ignorant as ****"?

Source please.
Reply 18
LOL at walking from Leicester Square to Covent Garden..who does that :s-smilie:
Reply 19
Original post by Steezy
So it's a 'fact' that the entire population of London is "ignorant as ****"?

Source please.


Shall I explain the joke I made?

I said 'No, but their ignorant as ****.' Which, in the context of the situation was pretty ironic. There. It was a joke.

Quick Reply