or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › I like it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I like it! - Page 8

post #106 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:29:26 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>And strangle the economy, emit large amounts of emissions,
>cause lots of disruption etc. etc. in doing so?

No disruption: just close the roads. Digging them up will
cause a short term hit to the environment but a long term
benefit when rain is allowed to soak in rather than running
off into the sea. And, the country will become 'green and
pleasant' once again, and quiter.

>
>BTW, it has only been demonstrated that *just* building
>roads won't solve congestion. But having a sensible road
>network has to be part of the strategy,

Armies of planners have put motorways to all corners of the
country expanding this sensible and oh so necessary road
network. This network is full.

So what's /your/ definition of sensible?

--

Cheers,

Al
post #107 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:41:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>"[Not Responding]" <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> wrote
>in message
>news:0jdva05di9hforel0fipl6ch0o0sa9kjf6@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:18:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> <csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Fortunately for "the poor" to whom you refer, there are
>> many other ways of achieving the same result as driving;
>> walking, buses, trains, cycling etc.
>>
>
>Not exactly the same result no - you can't (reasonably)
>walk 200 miles, you can't use a bus to explore the
>wilderness, you can't use a car as a means of getting home
>from the pub after a few.

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the
200 mile trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness, and
regarding the pub / car - what are you on about?

>> The fact that rich people can afford luxuries that poor
>> people cannot is rather a characteristic of capitalist
>> economies.
>
>Fair point
>
>> It's not caused by tax on fuel.
>
>It is exaserpated by relatively high tax on fuel.

Exacerbated. Similarly, I find, by the high price of a
decent malt or a bottle of bolly. Both of these 'must' be
artificially expensive since they are made from grain /
grapes, neither of which are in short supply. SOMETHING
MUST BE DONE.
>

>
>I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and
>happiness. I have no idea how to do it :-)

Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>

>> No. Real poverty is a blight on the lives of many people
>> but not in this country. Real poverty means slow deaths
>> and permenant homelessness without hope.
>
>Which does happen here.

Can't agree here.
>
>> Real poverty does not mean being inconvenienced by the
>> lack of a car.
>>
>> Yes there are areas of the UK that are massively deprived
>> of both cash and opportunity. Places that should not be
>> denied investment and attention. But, please, do not
>> confuse this with the horrors of real poverty suffered by
>> millions of people outside this country.
>>

The problem being that poverty is usually related to mean or
median earnings, not the minimum cost of living.
>

>I would suggest that those several billion people (typo
>corrected) live not merely in "real poverty", but in
>extreme poverty.
>
>I would consider someone whose mere existance is to find
>enough money to afford the "necessities" to be poor (and
>this includes financially rich people who waste their lives
>in the rat race because they think they "need" a 4x4, or
>whatever)

Stupid definition. Stick with Real Poverty.
>
>I would consider someone who is able to enjoy their
>existance and dedicate a good time to things they enjoy and
>value to be rich.
>
>Those billions of people in extreme poverty should not be
>defined as poor simply because they lack food, water etc. -
>rather they should be defined as poor because their lack of
>food, water etc. prevents them from enjoying life and the
>opportunities it (should) offer.
>
>Now I enjoy driving - be it in a civilised manner to get
>from A to B, or in a competitive sense. If you gave the
>opportunity of a car (note this doesn't mean give me the
>car, but give me the opportunity to earn the money to
>afford the car, and the opportunity to learn how to run the
>car and so on) and the means and knowledge to run it (and
>the responsibilities that come with that of course), I
>would be wealthy. If you were to exchange that car for
>everything else on the planet, I would be poor.

I worked with someone like that once. His whole motivation
was to get a job with a company car. How very shallow.
>
>Maybe I just have an odd outlook on life.

I'd say.

>
>> >> >
>> >> >I mean in so much as it widens the gap between rich
>> >> >and poor.
>> >>
>> >> As long as the 'poor' can afford the necessities, why
>> >> should you want to inhibit the rich?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why should the poor only be entitled to the
>> >"necessities"? Aren't they allowed a quality of life, to
>> >have some fun?
>>
>> Look, I wouldn't mind a new yacht but at 120,000 UKP my
>> wife won't let
>> me. I'd like a bit of that fun too. Why should I be
>> limited to only that which I can afford?
>>
>> Seriously, we have an adequate (careful choice of
>> word there)
>
>Is it?

Yes.
>

>I think we've gotten a bit off track here. My original
>point was that high fuel tax is unfair and inneffective
>(and the inneffective bit was supposed to be the main
>thrust of my point)

That would be because the tax is not high enough, for
reasons given earlier.
>

--

Cheers,

Al
post #108 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:34:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>"Al C-F"
><aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.com> wrote
>in message
>news:9cbva0hvfqdmj3lvvg5hbhbsgdu2bq7vnm@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:30:17 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> <csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I'm not sure this is true. Yes, of course the govt.
>> >would need to recoup
>the
>> >revenue - but why can't it do this by taxing people on
>> >their means to
>pay?
>>
>> But that would penalise the frugal wealthy more than
>> those lower earners who, by wasting resources and
>> unnecessarily consuming, cause more damage to the earth.
>>
>> >
>> >Well, obviously it'd make you unelectable.....but it
>> >would be fairer
>>
>> No, it wouldn't. See above.
>> >
>>
>
>?!?!?!

What part of it not being fairer are you having trouble
with? Are you, perhaps, arguing that there is more merit in
consumption than thrift?

>
>People don't get rich by being frugal.

Good financial management helps rather a lot.

>In the vast majority of cases get rich by chance - being
>born into the right situation for example.

I doubt this. Many people get rich by hard work and
calculated risk taking.

>Whilst some poor people are wasteful, most realise they
>can't afford to be.

I am always surprised by how many more pubs, fast food
joints and smokers there are when I ride through the 'slimey
depths' compared to here in outer suburbia.

So these 'poor' are voluntarily paying the taxes on booze
and fags - and a fat tax on takeaways is currently occupying
our red tops.
>
>Rich people, however, can afford to be wasteful- and often
>don't care when they are. Hence buying 4x4s solely to take
>Cherice and Daryll on the quater-mile school run.

I think the 4x4 cliche has already been covered.
>

--

Cheers,

Al
post #109 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 23:06:08 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>That last post may have come out badly but basically my
>point was that:
>
>*A life which consists of working for only necessities is
>no life at all

That's only because you measure yourself against a more
luxurious alternative. I'm sure that a great deal of
satisfaction can be had from precisely this arrangement.

>*Some people enjoy motoring and the advantages it offers

Evidently. And if everyone else contributes to the cost of
their enjoyment, so much the better.

>*We'd all be better off if those people were able to use
>cars (and motorcycles) easily (within reason)

Please explain how you being able to use your car easily
(within reason - whatever that's supposed to mean) makes me
any better off.

>
>I'm just slightly tipsy;

Oh dear. A rather pat response when someone digs themselves
into a hole.

--

Cheers,

Al
post #110 of 204

Re: I like it!

Tony Raven wrote:
> Do you have evidence they haven't? How can you tell? If
> you looked at me driving my 4x4 how would you tell whether
> I had rationale grounds for choosing it?
>

Tyres are a dead give away as is lack of a winch or other
such parafanalia. Big allow wheels and aerofoils often
suggest other reasons. Or are you really saying you need one
in London if all you do is the school run and or Hamebose
(Homebase for the posh)?

> There you go then. Nobody who wants to "be seen" goes to
> Sainsburys. Waitrose, dear boy, Waitrose.

But the parking is atrocious at Fortnums.

>
> So are stretched limos.

So are stretched Hummers but they don't appear often in the
school run or the rush hour being as they are used to take
people with style to happy hour at Ritzys.
post #111 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:51:34 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2h9srsFaltu9U2@uni-berlin.de>:

>Des Cartes maybe?

I kant see what you're getting at here, Tony.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
post #112 of 204

Re: I like it!

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:51:34 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
> family.com> wrote in message <2h9srsFaltu9U2@uni-
> berlin.de>:
>
>> Des Cartes maybe?
>
> I kant see what you're getting at here, Tony.
>
> Guy

Just a bit of philosophical Witt-genstein Guy

Tony
post #113 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 21:50:39 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2h9srrFaltu9U1@uni-berlin.de>:

>> Or the London definition of off-road driving, which is
>> driving onto the pavement by an inch when dropping
>> Tarquin and Jocasta at Madame Mugge's Academy for Gifted
>> Children Who Have Yet To Reveal Their Special Talents, in
>> order to be able to use the double-yellows without having
>> to go to the trouble of switching on their hazard
>> lights...

>Which is different from dropping the boys off in a 2.5litre
>turbocharged Volvo with leather upholstery, air
>conditioning, etc etc how? I won't insult your children by
>claiming they lack intelligence because of it.

We don't live in a city, and can't send our children to the
school within walking distance because the council won't let
us. And we never park on the pavement or the zigzags - my
wife actually parks some way from the school and walks the
rest when she does take the boys by car rather than by
Megabike. Plus, if we /were/ mainly driving in town, we
would have kept the Honda.

There is also a question of the size of 4x4s. My car is
narrower than many smaller cars, and is substantially less
pedestrian-hostile than the average 4x4. It is more
manoeuvrable and has exceptionally good brakes, allowing for
a greater chance of avoiding a crash should the unexpected
happen. Steering, braking, close visbility and emergency
manoeuvrability are all seriously compromised in most 4x4s.

The principal extravagance is the engine, and that was
mostly a matter of what was available. I wanted the 2.5 10v,
but couldn't find one in good enough condition to buy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
post #114 of 204

Re: I like it!

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> We don't live in a city, and can't send our children to
> the school within walking distance because the council
> won't let us. And we never park on the pavement or the
> zigzags - my wife actually parks some way from the school
> and walks the rest when she does take the boys by car
> rather than by Megabike. Plus, if we /were/ mainly driving
> in town, we would have kept the Honda.
>
> There is also a question of the size of 4x4s. My car is
> narrower than many smaller cars, and is substantially less
> pedestrian-hostile than the average 4x4. It is more
> manoeuvrable and has exceptionally good brakes, allowing
> for a greater chance of avoiding a crash should the
> unexpected happen. Steering, braking, close visbility and
> emergency manoeuvrability are all seriously compromised in
> most 4x4s.
>
> The principal extravagance is the engine, and that was
> mostly a matter of what was available. I wanted the
> 2.5 10v, but couldn't find one in good enough
> condition to buy.
>

You see we can all rationalise why we do it and I'm sure if
you took the time to stop and ask the people you hold up to
ridicule they could come up with equally good excuses. So
why do you ridicule and deride them but believe that what
you do isn't ridiculous and derisory?

Tony
post #115 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:25:59 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2h9urbFaauorU2@uni-berlin.de>:

>or
>c) an indictation that lots of Londoners leave the city at
> the weekend for the *countryside*

Where they use the Awesome Offroad Ability of their car to
ride over the kerb on the width restrictions in Checkendon
and churn the grass verge into a quagmire ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
post #116 of 204

Re: I like it!

in message <40af30e8$0$58816$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Simonb
('sbennett@YOUAREALLHEATHENSwiderworld.co.uk') wrote:

> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
>> What happened to the plan to ban bull bars on the public
>> highway? There's no need for them there really.
>
> It's a bit like th e bells on bikes scenario, except in
> reverse; it is not permitted to sell a vehicle new with
> bull bars fitted, but it is OK to add them after
> purchase. So you can go and buy your SUV, and immediately
> get bars fitted at the garage round the corner. This is
> what pisses me off most: every 4x4 you see with bull bars
> has had them fitted on owner's active insistence -- they
> are willfully making their vehicles more dangerous to
> peds and the like! Pricks.

I've always had the view that if you modify your vehicle so
as to make it less safe to the person you hit, and you do
hit a person, that should be treated as an enormously
aggravating factor. If you injure someone with a vehicle so
modified, it should count as assault; if you kill someone,
it should count as murder.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for
the welding torch.
post #117 of 204

Re: I like it!

in message <2ha0ocFahldgU1@uni-berlin.de>, Tony Raven
('junk@raven-family.com') wrote:

> paul wrote:
>>>
>> the porshe 911 is my altime favorite car, which I have
>> coverted si nce I was a wee bairn, and i have a great
>> dealof respect for porsche. however, the very idea that a
>> sports car manufacturer makes an offroad veichle is dow n
>> right stupid. Can you see any of the italian sprots car
>> houses entertainig such an idea. Porsches pathetic atempt
>> rather proves the point.
>
> Lamborghini have long made an extravagent off-road
> vehicles. http://www.lambocars.com/framed/lm/lm.htm They
> also make tractors. http://www.lambocars.com/tractor.htm
> Point not proven

Yebbut, they were originally a tractor firm. Sportscars have
always been are a sideline.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.
post #118 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:24:49 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2hb8v1F8eiadU2@uni-berlin.de>:

>>> Des Cartes maybe?
>> I kant see what you're getting at here, Tony.
>Just a bit of philosophical Witt-genstein Guy

I guess it has it's nietsche in urc.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
post #119 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sun, 23 May 2004 15:20:20 +0100, "Simonb"
<sbennett@YOUAREALLHEATHENSwiderworld.co.uk> wrote in message
<40b0b324$0$58824$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk>:

[of bull-bars]

>Even better: make them illegal. They serve absolutely no
>practical purpose.

Rather like 4x4s, they do have a purpose, and for some
people they are just the job. The proportion of people who
fall into this category is dwarfed to the point of
insignificance by the number of wannabees and fashion
victims who choose to use / fit them because they look
"kewl" or isolate them further from the consequences of
their aggression.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
post #120 of 204

Re: I like it!

On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:14:26 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<2hb8hoFa80agU1@uni-berlin.de>:

>You see we can all rationalise why we do it and I'm sure if
>you took the time to stop and ask the people you hold up to
>ridicule they could come up with equally good excuses. So
>why do you ridicule and deride them but believe that what
>you do isn't ridiculous and derisory?

Actually the normal reason given is the high driving
position (shared with MPVs and mini-MPVs) closely followed,
around here, by relief that they had a 4x4 when it snowed
last year. We have had serious snow on the roads for two
days out of the last four years, on neither of which was the
road impassable for a rear-wheel-drive automatic Volvo ((not
renowned for excellent snow handling).

And yes, I do ask them.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › I like it!