Re: Anti-Motorist Measures Are Everywhere: IT'S OFFICIAL

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 19:46:19 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<fb115c6a-41e2-4f42-8328-2a0694209537@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:

>> Do you live or work in London? *I do. *The congestion charge was one
>> of the best things that ever happened to the city. *

>Yes, it's great isn't it? The amount of traffic has fallen, but the
>amount of congestion has gone back up to what it was before the charge
>was introduced, and the charge isn't actually raising any money at all
>because it's so inefficiently administered.

That would make it a failure if the idea was solely to raise cash.
If the idea was to make London a better place, then it worked - and
is working - quite brilliantly.

>I can't see how anyone but a car-hating twat would be pleased about
>traffic levels falling despite congestion remaining the same.

As far as I can tell, it has not remained the same. I find it much
easier to get across London now than before the charge was
introduced. Sure, the bike was the quickest mode in central London
before the charge and remained so afterwards, but there is less
gridlock, in my experience.

>That's right, because of measures designed to hinder
>traffic flow, in other words the ANTI-MOTORIST MEASURES which
>apparently don't exist.)

No, these the C-charge is actually *pro*-motorist, in an elitist way
which the Tory party can surely only admire. The roads have been
cleared of riff-raff in favour of those plutocrats who can afford
the charge, thus affording said plutocrats (or their chauffeurs) a
more enjoyable driving experience.

Who drives most miles in London? I'd say taxi drivers. Every taxi
driver I've asked has found the C-charge a net positive, making it
easier to get from A to B and thus allowing them to take more fares
in a day. Taxi drivers, who practically live behind the wheel, are
motorists for sure,

Meanwhile, the vast majority who live and work in central London
still get about by means other than the private car so remain
largely unconcerned. And it's just as well they don't use the
private car, as single-occupant cars are the least efficient use of
road space (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Highway_Robbery).
Encouraging more private car use, now that *would* be anti-motorist.

Do not mistake whining by the Islington set for any kind of
representative opinion. Of course the journos at the Daily Mail now
have a small inconvenience in their way if they choose to drive
across London to work, but as far as I can tell most of us who work
in London find the charge either irrelevant or positive.

>Boris dares to suggest that it's possible to make
>things better for cyclists *and* motorists, and as far as Spindrift
>(and you) are concerned, it's not enough to make things better for
>cyclists; things must be made worse for motorists as well, and the two
>groups must be played off against one another.

Really? Where did I say that things must be made worse for
motorists? Come to think of it, where did I say that anything much
needs to be done to make London better for cyclists? Apart from
increasing the all-red phase and fitting red light cameras at Hyde
Park Corner to catch the buses who block the junctions, there is not
much I'd change about London right now as a place to cycle.

>Something tells me that you're not keen on Boris' policy to rephase
>traffic lights in order to improve traffic flow (i.e. the reverse of
>what Livingstone did). In other words, it's yet another way in which
>you just happen to think exactly what a motorist-hater would. Uncanny
>isn't it?

Thank you for this splendid example of the straw man fallacy. The
voices in your head are, as usual, wrong. Hint: "We *are* traffic".

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound