BBC story re pollution / excise duties

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Guy Chapman, May 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.


  1. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

  2. Guy Chapman wrote:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm

    Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great idea
    that wouldn't be.

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "When you sleep with someone, your body make a promise whether you do or not." --
    Julie Gianni, Vanilla Sky
     
  3. Daniel Auger

    Daniel Auger Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003, StainlessSteelRat wrote:

    > Guy Chapman wrote:
    > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm
    >
    > Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great
    > idea that wouldn't be.

    Might even force us all onto bicycles? ;-)

    More investment would be a good thing. However, having just been to Virginia for a week I realise
    that the state of our railways is not the worst in the world. "We have this train that goes on
    Tuesday, then there is this one on Friday, ...". Exaggeration is only very slight!

    --
    Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
     
  4. >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm

    That should burst a few blood vessels over in uk.tosspot ;-) Mind you, without any serious real
    investment in public transport, it would achieve b*gg*r all.

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  5. Daniel Auger wrote:
    >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm
    >>
    >> Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great
    >> idea that wouldn't be.
    >
    > Might even force us all onto bicycles? ;-)

    Hehe, well perhaps. But even though bicycles are a wonderful thing there are many jobs and
    situations that mean they are not practical. Equally the provision for a bicycle bound society just
    isn't there.

    > More investment would be a good thing. However, having just been to Virginia for a week I realise
    > that the state of our railways is not the worst in the world. "We have this train that goes on
    > Tuesday, then there is this one on Friday, ...". Exaggeration is only very slight!

    Hmmm, but what were the trains like? Clean, busy...? This might just be a timetabling issue, or down
    to lack of people using trains (American's lurve their cars).

    What I find frustrating about trains is the crumbling infrastructure, they're dirty and overcrowded
    (where I live), and there are always timetable problems. Anyway, I guess we all know this...

    --
    StainlessSteelRat Billy: I'm scared Poncho. Poncho: Bullshit! You ain't afraid of no man! Billy:
    There's something out there waiting for us, and it ain't no man. We're all gonna die.
     
  6. "Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm

    Banning petrol cars and forcing people to use cleaner fuels (like LPG) would work better. Wouldn't
    make money though.

    I think we need to get away from the idea we must force motorists off the road due to safety and
    environmental issues - rather we should concentrate on making cars cleaner and safer. That way
    everyone wins.
     
  7. Andy Welch

    Andy Welch Guest

    On 1-May-2003, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I think we need to get away from the idea we must force motorists off the road due to safety and
    > environmental issues - rather we should concentrate on making cars cleaner and safer. That way
    > everyone wins.

    Depends what you mean by safer. I'm comming to the conclusion that all these advances in passenger
    safety for car occupants have just made life more dangerous for vulnerable road users. Make cars out
    of glass and stick a spike on the steering wheel pointed straight at the drivers heart. Bet the
    buggers wouldn't be so keen to overtake me comming up to a blind bend then!

    Cheers,

    Andy (cyclist, motorist etc)
     
  8. Chilly

    Chilly Guest

    "Daniel Auger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 1 May 2003, StainlessSteelRat wrote:
    >
    > > Guy Chapman wrote:
    > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2989555.stm
    > >
    > > Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great
    > > idea that wouldn't be.

    I'm about ten quid a week better off working than on benefits. There is NO public transport to my
    work. I am very close to becoming a professional cyclist sponsored by the DHSS. One more raid on my
    pay packet should do it.

    Bill
     
  9. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003 12:18:56 +0100, "StainlessSteelRat" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great
    >idea that wouldn't be.

    You are Paul Smith & ICMFP :eek:)

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003 15:23:58 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

    >Depends what you mean by safer. I'm comming to the conclusion that all these advances in passenger
    >safety for car occupants have just made life more dangerous for vulnerable road users.

    The correct terminology is "benign modes" since we're only vulnerable by comparison with the cagers
    who are the cause of the problem :)

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  11. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >> Great... wonderful... more tax without any serious investment in public transport. What a great
    >> idea that wouldn't be.
    >
    > You are Paul Smith & ICMFP :eek:)

    I guess I should know who these people are. Only I don't :)

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to
    read." -- Mark Twain
     
  12. Andymorris

    Andymorris Guest

    Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    >
    > I think we need to get away from the idea we must force motorists off the road due to safety and
    > environmental issues - rather we should concentrate on making cars cleaner and safer. That way
    > everyone wins.

    And how does that accomodate the projected increases in traffic in the future?

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
     
  13. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 1 May 2003 15:23:58 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > >Depends what you mean by safer. I'm comming to the conclusion that all
    these
    > >advances in passenger safety for car occupants have just made life more dangerous for vulnerable
    > >road users.
    >
    > The correct terminology is "benign modes" since we're only vulnerable by comparison with the
    > cagers who are the cause of the problem :)
    >

    Hate to correct you Guy, buy Bad "cagers" are the cause of the problem. I understand though, you
    wouldn't notice the good "cagers".
     
  14. For a start, we make some effort to accomodate present traffic (i.e. build new motorways). As for
    future traffic, I say we nip this in the bud by preventing the construction of new out-of-town
    shopping centres etc. that generate new traffic*

    *IMHO, it is a myth that roads generate new traffic. However, I believe that new destinations do
    generate new traffic - these new destinations should be prevented from developing.
     
  15. Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    > For a start, we make some effort to accomodate present traffic (i.e. build new motorways). As for
    > future traffic, I say we nip this in the bud by preventing the construction of new out-of-town
    > shopping centres etc. that generate new traffic*
    >
    > *IMHO, it is a myth that roads generate new traffic. However, I believe that new destinations do
    > generate new traffic - these new destinations should be prevented from developing.

    There was a huge study done when the M25 was built that showed the amount of traffic on it was many
    times more than the anticipated traffic based on the surrounding roads.

    Due to this the government massively reduced the road building programme.

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "We struck down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not
    bickering." -- The Shoveller, Mystery Men
     
  16. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Fri, 2 May 2003 01:21:22 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >For a start, we make some effort to accomodate present traffic (i.e. build new motorways). As for
    >future traffic, I say we nip this in the bud by preventing the construction of new out-of-town
    >shopping centres etc. that generate new traffic*

    >*IMHO, it is a myth that roads generate new traffic. However, I believe that new destinations do
    >generate new traffic - these new destinations should be prevented from developing.

    I think it's sometimes true that "roads generate new traffic". It happens in cases where someone
    makes a decision based on the availability of a road. For example, I might take a job further from
    home if a road makes travel reasonable, or I might move further away from family and friends if
    there's a suitable road to make visits easy.

    But the factor they never seem to allow for is how folk allocate their time. Available time is a
    limiting factor which means that roads development has a limited effect on traffic growth. To take
    an extreme example to illustrate the effect, if we doubled available roads, we could not possibly
    expect to double traffic because many folk simply could not find the time to spend twice as long
    travelling.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  17. Andy Welch

    Andy Welch Guest

    On 2-May-2003, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > *IMHO, it is a myth that roads generate new traffic. However, I believe that new destinations do
    > generate new traffic - these new destinations should be prevented from developing.

    Well it certainly doesn't seem to be a myth up here. When I moved up to the frozen north I elected
    to buy a house out in the country with a 23 mile commute along the A96 to work. So there go my green
    credentials [1]. At the time the A96 was single carriageway and went through a number of small
    towns. The journey was slow and took almost an hour. Then they turned the A96 into dual carriageway
    and bypassed the towns. Bingo, 70mph from Inverurie to the roundabout on the outskirts of town then
    a slow bit to work, but journey times down to 30 minutes. But of course this just made living in the
    country even more attractive so we've seen an explosion of house building along the new A96.
    Consequently, four years later, I still get to travel at high speed to the outskirts of Aberdeen.
    But with a few thousand extra cars there is now a hughr jam at the first roundabout, where we sit
    for 20 minutes. So the end result is that four years after the new dual carriageway was put in my
    commute takes as long as it did before the road was built. Some developers have made lots of money
    thank you very much. In fact overall it seems to me that my taxes were spent to provide new
    infrastructure but the only people to benefit were the developers.

    Cheers,

    Andy

    [1] I do have some public transport options (in fact I'm using them most days at the moment) but
    they are not great. A 7 mile bike ride along a narrow twisty B road where all the drivers are
    doing 70+ will get me to Inverurie where I can take either a train to Aberdeen centre and a bus
    to work or a bus all the way. There is one train at 7:50 (the next one isn't until 10:30) and
    the bus sits in the same jam on the outskirts of the city that I would do in the car (then makes
    a detour via the airport). So overall I need to leave home at just after 7am to get to work for
    9am by public transport or just after 8am by car. Still it's a nice ride even if the local
    motorists would rather kill me than be held up for 30 seconds!
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...

    > But the factor they never seem to allow for is how folk allocate their time. Available time is a
    > limiting factor which means that roads development has a limited effect on traffic growth. To take
    > an extreme example to illustrate the effect, if we doubled available roads, we could not possibly
    > expect to double traffic because many folk simply could not find the time to spend twice as long
    > travelling.

    True but you also have to consider extra traffic coming from people not then using shared cars.
    For instance, I share a car journey with my partner then use train and bike to complete my
    journey. If a nice shiny new dual carriage was placed slap bang across the Durham Dales I might
    decide that driving directly was a better option (though I wouldn't.) Our personal car use would
    then double. I have no idea how many such cases might exist but it is another factor and in your
    extreme example all shared car journeys could become single occupancy journeys because of a
    doubling in road capacity.

    Colin
     
  19. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Fri, 02 May 2003 05:18:52 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
    > On Fri, 2 May 2003 01:21:22 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>For a start, we make some effort to accomodate present traffic (i.e. build new motorways). As for
    >>future traffic, I say we nip this in the bud by preventing the construction of new out-of-town
    >>shopping centres etc. that generate new traffic*
    >
    >>*IMHO, it is a myth that roads generate new traffic. However, I believe that new destinations do
    >>generate new traffic - these new destinations should be prevented from developing.
    >
    > I think it's sometimes true that "roads generate new traffic". It happens in cases where someone
    > makes a decision based on the availability of a road. For example, I might take a job further from
    > home if a road makes travel reasonable, or I might move further away from family and friends if
    > there's a suitable road to make visits easy.
    >
    > But the factor they never seem to allow for is how folk allocate their time. Available time is a
    > limiting factor which means that roads development has a limited effect on traffic growth. To take
    > an extreme example to illustrate the effect, if we doubled available roads, we could not possibly
    > expect to double traffic because many folk simply could not find the time to spend twice as long
    > travelling.

    But the fundamental issue is that people are prepared to spend a certain amount of time travelling.
    Reducing the congestion by building new roads doesn't decrease the number of cars on the road, but
    they all drive further. And others for whom a particular journey was not acceptable will now
    consider it. Then there are less passengers on public transport, public transport is cut back, so
    still more people have to drive. Before very long the roads are as congested as before except that
    now people have taken jobs further from home than they would previously have considered and are now
    stuck commuting for longer than is acceptable to them. Then they get angry and you get road rage.

    People are now producing maps on how to avoid the M25 by using the roads the former traffic was
    using. Many people now on the M25 were not driving in the area before the M25 was built so they need
    these maps. In addition the road signs are carefully designed to omit any alternative routes that
    don't use the motorway which makes it a nightmare when you are on a bicycle.

    Regards,

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

    http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...