I like it!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:06:24 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>It has been demonstrated that no, we can't build our way
>out of congestion. So let's dig up all the extra roads we built
>trying.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOL! Brilliant idea!

Quoted message said:

Why? Would be rather wasteful surely?

In what way? Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

But would it reverse the process?

Wouldn't it be better to inform people that there are better ways - but keep
the roads for those who would still benefit through sensible use?

I mean new roads have only encouraged people to make silly arrangements
because of Thatcher's "great car economy" ideology. If you look at other
countries, like France, Germany, Holland, they have all have good motorway
networks. People enjoy the benefits this brings without all the silly
commuting because they appreciate the car and provision for it has its
advantages, but is not good at everything - and thus travel more sensibly.

That way everyone wins :-)

Just zis Guy said:

In the US you can get a 2wd version of the Cherokee: all the vile
handling and poor economy with none of the offroad ability.

The Cherokee doesn't have any off-road ability.

Tony

"Simonb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Can't we all just get along?

Sadly, this is not the English way.

A great, great shame :-(

Just zis Guy said:

In what way? Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

Don't forget metalled roads were originally built in response to cyclists'
demands well before the first IC car came on the scene. In fact it has been
said that without that and cyclists campaigning for the repeal of the "Red
Flag Act" of 1864, motor vehicles may never have got a hold. So if you dig
up all the roads you'll pretty soon have cyclists campaigning to have them
rebuilt.

Tony

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:08:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

Quoted message said:

But would it reverse the process?

I believe it would. Not that anybody's ever tried, so we don't know
for sure, but the evidence suggests that the distance people commute
is governed by the time they are prepared to spend in commuting; I
can't see that this would work one way and not the other.

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it be better to inform people that there are better ways - but keep
the roads for those who would still benefit through sensible use?

Like Transport 2000 have been doing while the aforementioned failed
attempts to build our way out out of the problem were being tried and
failing? I think you may be suffering from an attack of idealism ;-)

Quoted message said:

I mean new roads have only encouraged people to make silly arrangements
because of Thatcher's "great car economy" ideology. If you look at other
countries, like France, Germany, Holland, they have all have good motorway
networks. People enjoy the benefits this brings without all the silly
commuting because they appreciate the car and provision for it has its
advantages, but is not good at everything - and thus travel more sensibly.

And bacause they are more geographically dispersed so commuting from
town A to town B is bound mainly by distance rather than congestion.

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

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> 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?

No. But the fact is not all poor people consume too much - and that many
rich people do.

So those over consuming rich people would pay more tax. It's really
very simple if you could abandon your prejudices for five minutes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People don't get rich by being frugal.

Good financial management helps rather a lot.

Granted

Therefore being frugal helps people become rich.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Indeed. Many get rich from an inheiritance passed down from gernerations
ago - money which was often earnt in an unsavoury manner.

So you seek to provide different tax treatment to the two groups? Or
would you prefer to demonise both hard work and having ancestors who
fail to match up to todays liberal values?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

I can't say I notice much difference myself. But I suspect the "slimet
depths" your refering to aren't the real problem areas.

How so?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So these 'poor' are voluntarily paying the taxes on booze and [censored] -
and a fat tax on takeaways is currently occupying our red tops.

Oi! You missed one. Come on - agree or disagree? Explain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the 4x4 cliche has already been covered.

But people do it.

As previously covered.
--

Cheers,

Al

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

In what way? Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

Don't forget metalled roads were originally built in response to cyclists'
demands well before the first IC car came on the scene. In fact it has

been

Quoted message said:

said that without that and cyclists campaigning for the repeal of the "Red
Flag Act" of 1864, motor vehicles may never have got a hold. So if you

dig

Quoted message said:

up all the roads you'll pretty soon have cyclists campaigning to have them
rebuilt.

I don't think he was refering to all roads :-)

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the 200 mile
trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

Or a station. Or a bus route. Cycles are allowed on trains in my
area, so are walking boots.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and regarding the pub /
car - what are you on about?

Drink driving was rather irresponsible the last time I checked

But not actually pertinent to this argument.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

But it's relative isn't it? When the costs of many other products don't have
external costs internalised (electricity is an example I cite) then those
products of those which do (at least to an extent) (such as petrol, alcholic
beverages) *are* made relatively expensive.

Relative to what?

Petrol and booze relative to electricity? I would have thought that
electricity comes as close to a necessity as anything except, perhaps,
water. Therefore is is subsidised to make it affordable to all.
Neither petrol nor booze are essential. Therefore their use is not
subsidised.

Quoted message said:

Although I must point out here that I did a very bad job of getting my POV
across - so I'll have ago at explaining it here. I don't mind the current
cost of petrol, nor the duty imposed on it as present - these are fair
market forces.

My point was that the notion that it is fair and/or effective to attempt to
tax people out of their cars is IMHO wrong. I don't consider the amount of
duty leveied by the govt. at present to be unfair - but I feel the notion of
trying to tax people out of something is unfair and divisive.

But it's simple supply and demand. There is a finite amount of space
for motoring that is becoming full. Therefore the use of that space
will stand a higher price. The only way to regulate the use is
through the price of petrol, unless we are to have more toll roads.

Quoted message said:

It would be better if people were educated about the benefits of other modes
of transport and learnt to get the best from them - making motoring better
in the process.

Indeed. And make sensible choices in their selection of their
vehicles, e.g. not using some over sized, over weight, over thirsty
vehicle in towns.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no idea how to do it :-)

Then you need to examine your consumerist values.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man fulfilled by a
very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his pages on Walden. Buy the book
and study it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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.

I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point.

People do not die through poverty in the UK, my taxes see to that.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stupid definition. Stick with Real Poverty.

If you consider it satisfactory for a person to merely have the means to
exist then that is your choice. I don't want to live like that - and I don't
think anyone should have to.

It's their choice. It's not my duty to elevate them above that,
whatever the government says.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I worked with someone like that once. His whole motivation was to get
a job with a company car. How very shallow.

I agree - his motivation is shallow.

As is yours, if access to a car is really so important to you.

Quoted message said:

My motivation is to enjoy the precious gift of life with which I have been
gifted - and one of the things I enjoy is driving. I don't care what the
vehicle is, what it's status is, even if's warm and dry.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe I
just have an odd outlook on life.

I'd say.

Again, I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point.

Unfortunately you get your jollies from a pastime that causes so much
impact to other people, and it is rightly being made more expensive.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Seriously, we have an adequate (careful choice of word there)

[welfare provision]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it?

Yes.

I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point also.

Why should my taxes pay for luxuries for someone who does not
contribute?

Quoted message said:

My point was about the tax on fuel being inneffective is that people don't
associate the cost of petrol with each journey - they associate it with
filling up their car. So they go to the petrol station, fill up, whinge
about the price of petrol (but pay for it nethertheless) - but they then
forget about the cost. So every time they drive they don't consider the tax
they've paid.

So calibrate the fuel gauge in pounds and pence then.

Quoted message said:

Additionally, fuel tax can't do things like discourage stupidly short
journeys whilst limiting the effect on longer, more sensible trips -
something we need to be thinking about.

Just because a trip is longer, it isn't automatically more sensible.
We have buses and trains in the UK.
--

Cheers,

Al

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:08:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

Quoted message said:

But would it reverse the process?

I believe it would. Not that anybody's ever tried, so we don't know
for sure, but the evidence suggests that the distance people commute
is governed by the time they are prepared to spend in commuting; I
can't see that this would work one way and not the other.

Quoted message said:

Wouldn't it be better to inform people that there are better ways - but

keep

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the roads for those who would still benefit through sensible use?

Like Transport 2000 have been doing while the aforementioned failed
attempts to build our way out out of the problem were being tried and
failing?

Except they were (and are) against the roads at all.

I have no problem with reasonable, effective means of restricting traffic on
motorways so they don't simply fill up - but I'm still for a proper motorway
network, so people can drive when sensible at reasonable speed between long
distances - and provide for motorised traffic away from areas in towns and
the like where cars are a bit [censored].

There are more benefits from motorways than simply capacity for commuters.

Quoted message said:

I think you may be suffering from an attack of idealism ;-)

Quite possibly :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I mean new roads have only encouraged people to make silly arrangements
because of Thatcher's "great car economy" ideology. If you look at other
countries, like France, Germany, Holland, they have all have good

motorway

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

networks. People enjoy the benefits this brings without all the silly
commuting because they appreciate the car and provision for it has its
advantages, but is not good at everything - and thus travel more

sensibly.

Quoted message said:

And bacause they are more geographically dispersed so commuting from
town A to town B is bound mainly by distance rather than congestion.

Which helps, granted - but still people are more sensible regarding car use
over there than over here.

Additionally - part of the problem here is that planning policy has
encouraged long distance commuting. On the continent they seem to be a bit
more clued up on trying to provide jobs locally. They also haven't let PT
rot.

On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:00:29 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm still for a proper motorway
network, so people can drive when sensible at reasonable speed between long
distances - and provide for motorised traffic away from areas in towns and
the like where cars are a bit [censored].

But when they build one, people start to use it for commuting and it
/does/ fill up. The problem is not lack of roads, it's too high a
tolerance for wasting time in transit.

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

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the 200 mile
trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

Or a station. Or a bus route. Cycles are allowed on trains in my
area, so are walking boots.

I would suggest somewhere with a train station or bus station nearby isn't
wilderness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and regarding the pub /
car - what are you on about?

Drink driving was rather irresponsible the last time I checked

But not actually pertinent to this argument.

My point is in response to [Not Responding]'s point that all car journeys
can be done by other means with the fact that every mode of transport has
its drawbacks. The example I used was to give balance - an acknowledgement
that car travel (like all modes of travel) has its limitations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

But it's relative isn't it? When the costs of many other products don't

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

external costs internalised (electricity is an example I cite) then those
products of those which do (at least to an extent) (such as petrol,

alcholic

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beverages) *are* made relatively expensive.

Relative to what?

The price of everything else. If you only pay the true cost on some things
but not others, the things on which you pay the true cost are made
artificially expensive compared with those things where external costs are
not internalised.

If a loaf of bread cost £1,000,000, a million pounds wouldn't worth very
much.

Quoted message said:

Petrol and booze relative to electricity? I would have thought that
electricity comes as close to a necessity as anything except, perhaps,
water.

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen on usenet.
Electricty is not a necessity - and it certainly isn't closer to necessity
than food, sanitation, health care etc.

Quoted message said:

Therefore is is subsidised to make it affordable to all.

What about internalising the true cost of electricity? Are you unwilling to
pay the true cost for what you use?

Quoted message said:

Neither petrol nor booze are essential. Therefore their use is not
subsidised.

Indeed. Neither is electricity.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although I must point out here that I did a very bad job of getting my

POV

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

across - so I'll have ago at explaining it here. I don't mind the current
cost of petrol, nor the duty imposed on it as present - these are fair
market forces.

My point was that the notion that it is fair and/or effective to attempt

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tax people out of their cars is IMHO wrong. I don't consider the amount

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

duty leveied by the govt. at present to be unfair - but I feel the notion

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trying to tax people out of something is unfair and divisive.

But it's simple supply and demand. There is a finite amount of space
for motoring that is becoming full. Therefore the use of that space
will stand a higher price. The only way to regulate the use is
through the price of petrol, unless we are to have more toll roads.

Which is true - but it would be far better if people are more sensible about
their travel choices and don't think it's a good idea to commute umpteen
miles every day, or think it's a good idea to drive 0.5 of a mile.
Regulation by common sense is better than legislation or taxation. They seem
much better at it on the continent, but here we seem insistant on crude,
unfair measures to force people into sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would be better if people were educated about the benefits of other

modes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of transport and learnt to get the best from them - making motoring

better

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the process.

Indeed. And make sensible choices in their selection of their
vehicles, e.g. not using some over sized, over weight, over thirsty
vehicle in towns.

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I

have

Quoted message said:

>no idea how to do it :-)

Then you need to examine your consumerist values.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man fulfilled by a
very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his pages on Walden. Buy the book
and study it.

Indeed.

I am fulfilled by enjoying driving - and I am perfectly happy to minimise my
impact in doing so. I think that is reasonable.

And I don't think you are one to criticise, as you are perfectly happy to
enjoy subsidised electricity without a care for the impact that has on
others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> 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.

I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point.

People do not die through poverty in the UK, my taxes see to that.
This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stupid definition. Stick with Real Poverty.

If you consider it satisfactory for a person to merely have the means to
exist then that is your choice. I don't want to live like that - and I

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think anyone should have to.

It's their choice. It's not my duty to elevate them above that,
whatever the government says.

No - but it would be better for everyone if you helped them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I worked with someone like that once. His whole motivation was to get
a job with a company car. How very shallow.

I agree - his motivation is shallow.

As is yours, if access to a car is really so important to you.

It's not that having access to a car is important - it's that driving (which
obviously requires access to a motor vehicles of some description) is
enjoyable. I would like to enjoy myself in life. I don't think that's much
to ask.

What is your motoivation if you're so noble then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My motivation is to enjoy the precious gift of life with which I have

been

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gifted - and one of the things I enjoy is driving. I don't care what the
vehicle is, what it's status is, even if's warm and dry.

Quoted message said:

>Maybe I
>just have an odd outlook on life.

I'd say.

Again, I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point.

Unfortunately you get your jollies from a pastime that causes so much
impact to other people, and it is rightly being made more expensive.

How much impact does driving sensibly and considerately, in a manner
designed to reduce the impact *really* have though? (Either in absolute
terms, or in terms of other modes of long distance travel)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> Seriously, we have an adequate (careful choice of word there)

[welfare provision]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Is it?

Yes.

I guess we are diametrically opposed then on this point also.

Why should my taxes pay for luxuries for someone who does not
contribute?

Who says they do not want to?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My point was about the tax on fuel being inneffective is that people

don't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

associate the cost of petrol with each journey - they associate it with
filling up their car. So they go to the petrol station, fill up, whinge
about the price of petrol (but pay for it nethertheless) - but they then
forget about the cost. So every time they drive they don't consider the

tax

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they've paid.

So calibrate the fuel gauge in pounds and pence then.

Quoted message said:

Additionally, fuel tax can't do things like discourage stupidly short
journeys whilst limiting the effect on longer, more sensible trips -
something we need to be thinking about.

Just because a trip is longer, it isn't automatically more sensible.

I would suggest using a car for a 20 mile car trip is *always* more sensible
than using a car for a half mile trip.

Quoted message said:

We have buses and trains in the UK.

Indeed. But they're no fun (in my personal opinion anyway)

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:00:29 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm still for a proper motorway
network, so people can drive when sensible at reasonable speed between

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distances - and provide for motorised traffic away from areas in towns

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the like where cars are a bit [censored].

But when they build one, people start to use it for commuting and it
/does/ fill up. The problem is not lack of roads, it's too high a
tolerance for wasting time in transit.

In terms of capacity, I agree.

All I'm saying is having a rational well planned motorway network has other
benefits and is overall beneficial IMHO. It's just we don't have a well
planned motorway network in this country, and we do suffer for it (and not
just in terms of congestion).

Indeed widening sections of motorway when congested is just as big a part of
the problem as the various missing links that exist in our network.

I'm not for 8 lane superhighways - but I find it silly that
Newcastle-upon-Tyne isn't connected to the motorway network (although
thankfully the govt. is doing something about this example)

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:58:36 +0100, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I

have

Quoted message said:

>no idea how to do it :-)

Then you need to examine your consumerist values.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man fulfilled by a
very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his pages on Walden. Buy the book
and study it.

Or, there *was* a man fulfilled etc. I doubt the same can be said for
the drunk [censored] who ran him down and killed him.

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally, fuel tax can't do things like discourage stupidly short
journeys whilst limiting the effect on longer, more sensible trips -
something we need to be thinking about.

Just because a trip is longer, it isn't automatically more sensible.
We have buses and trains in the UK.

Al, I've been meaning to ask this since we ran into each other in The
Other Place but do you own a car or have you taken the plunge?

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> 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?

No. But the fact is not all poor people consume too much - and that many
rich people do.

So those over consuming rich people would pay more tax. It's really
very simple if you could abandon your prejudices for five minutes.

But that's not the point! It would be better if they didn't overconsume in
the first place!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Good financial management helps rather a lot.

Granted

Therefore being frugal helps people become rich.

It is part of the solution yes. But just being frugal won't help many poor
people who don't have the opportunities necessary to earn a decent living.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

Indeed. Many get rich from an inheiritance passed down from gernerations
ago - money which was often earnt in an unsavoury manner.

So you seek to provide different tax treatment to the two groups? Or
would you prefer to demonise both hard work and having ancestors who
fail to match up to todays liberal values?

I have no problem with those who work hard to get their wealth (although I
would still encourage them to be generous to help the underpriviliged)

As for the people who inheirit dirty money - perhaps we need a tax to
internalise the true costs that the acquision of that money caused and
causes. In many cases it would be a very steep tax.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>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.

I can't say I notice much difference myself. But I suspect the "slimet
depths" your refering to aren't the real problem areas.

How so?

I suspect the "slimey depths" you ride through aren't the areas where
poverty is a real problem. I would be interested to here where you consider
to be "the slimey depths".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So these 'poor' are voluntarily paying the taxes on booze and [censored] -
and a fat tax on takeaways is currently occupying our red tops.

Oi! You missed one. Come on - agree or disagree? Explain.

I would suggest that they aren't the true poor.

I have already acknowledged in this thread that there are people who don't
help themselves by wasting money and opportunity.

What about the rest of the poor?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the 4x4 cliche has already been covered.

But people do it.

As previously covered.

Indeed. Consider it an attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming
back on topic :-p

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:58:36 +0100, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness.

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have
> >no idea how to do it :-)
>
> Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man fulfilled by a
very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his pages on Walden. Buy the book
and study it.

Or, there *was* a man fulfilled etc. I doubt the same can be said for
the drunk [censored] who ran him down and killed him.

Indeed. It is selfish inconsiderate [censored] like the drunkard involved that
give motorists a bad name. I hope the true costs of his actions have been
internalised - somehow I doubt it :-(

<snip>

in message <[email hidden]>, Nathaniel Porter

(') said:

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the 200
mile trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

That's kind of the point, isn't it?

If you want to cycle in wilderness, you have two choices:

* You can live near a wilderness; or

* You can work your pan off to earn lots of money so you can belch an
unreasonable share of the earth's finite supply of fossil fuel out
through the [censored] of some expensive motor vehicle, in order to tear
round the wilderness without the time or calmness to get any real
enjoyment out of it before leaping back into your expensive motor
vehicle to tear back to the distant city to get back to the office to
work your pan off so you can belch...

Stop.

Think.

Calm down.

If you really like living in a city, live in a city. Enjoy it. Go to the
opera; go to the concerts; visit the art galleries; mix with the movers
and shakers.

If you don't like living in a city, get out.

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came in) is chasing
a myth that you can have it all. That you can live in a city but 'be a
country person really'. That you can be a merchant banker (or whatever)
through the week and a mountaineer at weekends.

You can't.

It's a fraud.

Decide what's important in your life, make your choices, do it well,
enjoy it. You can't have everything. Don't burn away the good years of
your youth and health thinking that you have to earn a lot of money now
(you don't) in order to have the good life later (you can't).

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you do with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nathaniel Porter

(') said:

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for the 200
mile trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

That's kind of the point, isn't it?

If you want to cycle in wilderness, you have two choices:

* You can live near a wilderness; or

* You can work your pan off to earn lots of money so you can belch an
unreasonable share of the earth's finite supply of fossil fuel out
through the [censored] of some expensive motor vehicle, in order to tear
round the wilderness without the time or calmness to get any real
enjoyment out of it before leaping back into your expensive motor
vehicle to tear back to the distant city to get back to the office to
work your pan off so you can belch...

Stop.

Think.

Calm down.

If you really like living in a city, live in a city. Enjoy it. Go to the
opera; go to the concerts; visit the art galleries; mix with the movers
and shakers.

If you don't like living in a city, get out.

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came in) is chasing
a myth that you can have it all. That you can live in a city but 'be a
country person really'. That you can be a merchant banker (or whatever)
through the week and a mountaineer at weekends.

You can't.

It's a fraud.

Decide what's important in your life, make your choices, do it well,
enjoy it. You can't have everything. Don't burn away the good years of
your youth and health thinking that you have to earn a lot of money now
(you don't) in order to have the good life later (you can't).

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you do with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

Well said that man!

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Well I'm sorry I want to enjoy life. I don't see why others shouldn't be
able to. And I suspect you do to.

I do. But I don't share your skewed value structure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*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.

Indeed. But you have to do it for everything to be fair.

How is that fair? Why should I pay to make driving more enjoyable for
other people?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*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 enjoy it. This makes me happy.

Ooh I feel warm inside already.

Quoted message said:

Happy people are generally heathier, and more productive - meaning you pay
less to keep me healthy.

Yet you pollute the air I breathe. And you irritate my asthma.

Quoted message said:

It also means I'll be much friendlier and nicer if you should have to deal
with me for some reason - which makes you happier, healthy and so on.

I doubt it.

Quoted message said:

This applies equally to any completely unecessary (but enjoyable for the
person in question) activities anyone may partake in.

Of course, there is the negative impact to this, but with compromise and
consideration this can be minimised.

There's also all the various economic reasons - means I'm more flexible,
which is useful for industry for example - and a stronger economy helps pay
for your health care, roads (potholes are more of a problem to cyclists than
for cars), civil ammenities (local swimming pools for example), education
for you and your children and so on.

Fine. Except that we also fund a rather large road-building budget,
which is wasteful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm just slightly tipsy;

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

It's called admitting a fault. Try and learn from it.

--

Cheers,

Al

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

In what way? Since the new roads have ancouraged people to live and
work ever further apart, dismantling them would *reduce* waste by
reversing the process.

Don't forget metalled roads were originally built in response to cyclists'
demands well before the first IC car came on the scene. In fact it has

been

Quoted message said:

said that without that and cyclists campaigning for the repeal of the "Red
Flag Act" of 1864, motor vehicles may never have got a hold. So if you

dig

Quoted message said:

up all the roads you'll pretty soon have cyclists campaigning to have them
rebuilt.

I don't think he was refering to all roads :-)

Indeed. Specifically, the roads built in an attempt to build our way
out of congestion, as stated explicitly.
--

Cheers,

Al

Al C-F said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. Specifically, the roads built in an attempt to build our way
out of congestion, as stated explicitly.

Follow the thread back and its roads on streets where people have concreted
over their drives.

Tony