BBC story re pollution / excise duties



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Sat, 03 May 2003 20:55:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Ah, but the road lobby will never allow it. Musn't upset the dear road lobby. After all, they
>>>have so many votes.

>>If they have so many votes, then anyone taking a true democratic view would be wise and honourable
>>to take proper account of their wishes.

>The road lobby has wielded disproportionate influence since the first half of the last Century, a
>time when cars were outnumbered by bicycles as a means of transport.

I don't see anything resembling "disproportionate influence" now; quite the opposite.

>The hegemnoy of the road lobby in road "safety" policy led the CTC to withdraw from RoSPA at one
>point, and Prince Michael continued to preside over road "safety" issues even while banned for
>drink-driving.

Big deal. Tiny drops in the ocean.

>It is hard to answer the more general point about the tyrrany of the supposed majority view
>represented by the road lobby without risking the invocation of Godwin's law.

Allow me to refer you to this article:

http://www.brookesnews.com/032404cars.html
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
On Sat, 03 May 2003 20:45:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>don't we all benefit from lower pricing in the out-of-town shopping centres?

>No, only those who are rich enough to own cars. It further reinforces the wealth gap. Probably why
>the Ridlex of Quarg never thought to oppose that sort of development except in his own back yard.

Absolutely not true. The local supermarkets run a bus service.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
In article <[email protected]>, al_Mossah <peterkmossno
[email protected]> writes
>Ah, but the road lobby will never allow it. Musn't upset the dear road lobby. After all, they have
>so many votes.
>
But isn't that how it's supposed to work, the voters get what they want (deserve)?
--
Peter Grange

Remove crude spam trap to reply
 
On Sat, 03 May 2003 22:33:04 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>don't we all benefit from lower pricing in the out-of-town shopping centres?

>>No, only those who are rich enough to own cars.

>Absolutely not true. The local supermarkets run a bus service.

Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much* better
than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

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.
 
On Mon, 05 May 2003 21:17:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>don't we all benefit from lower pricing in the out-of-town shopping centres?

>>>No, only those who are rich enough to own cars.

>>Absolutely not true. The local supermarkets run a bus service.

>Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much* better
>than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Fri, 2 May 2003 11:52:34 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And would they have the same problems if the designed the M25 properly, without local junctions
> >so only long distance traffic could use it?
> >
>
> As you rightly suggest, IMO, Nathaniel, this is the type of journey that causes most of the M25's
> congestion.
>
> I used to work in and around Weybridge. In my experience many of the locals use the M25 just for
> local trips of a junction or two - I included myself in that local category.

I proposed that all the junctions are removed, all at once and very quickly, preferably during rush
hour. I'm sure they'd not notice.

Colin
 
On Tue, 6 May 2003 09:57:58 +0100, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> On Fri, 2 May 2003 11:52:34 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And would they have the same problems if the designed the M25 properly, without local junctions
>> >so only long distance traffic could use it?
>> >
>>
>> As you rightly suggest, IMO, Nathaniel, this is the type of journey that causes most of the M25's
>> congestion.
>>
>> I used to work in and around Weybridge. In my experience many of the locals use the M25 just for
>> local trips of a junction or two - I included myself in that local category.
>
> I proposed that all the junctions are removed, all at once and very quickly, preferably during
> rush hour. I'm sure they'd not notice.
>
Reminds me of a comment on the Today programme one morning - something along the lines of "The M25
is almost at a standstill from junction 4 to junction 18 in both directions. When it comes to a
complete stop they are going to concrete over the top and start again."

Although not up to the standard of Brian Redhead "Friends of the M6": "They've done it at last.
They've turned the M6 into a cul-de-sac."

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/
 
"Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Although not up to the standard of Brian Redhead "Friends of the M6": "They've done it at last.
> They've turned the M6 into a cul-de-sac."

I thought it already was. Depending on ones perspective there is nothing north/south (delete as
appropriate) of the Watford Gap :)
 
"Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tim Woodall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Although not up to the standard of Brian Redhead "Friends of the M6": "They've done it at last.
> > They've turned the M6 into a cul-de-sac."
>
> I thought it already was. Depending on ones perspective there is nothing north/south (delete as
> appropriate) of the Watford Gap :)
>

I could've sworn that Watford Gap was on the M1....
 
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much* better
> >than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

> Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?

Dunno, it's never been tried. And unfortunately the friends and relatives of politicians have the
whole shebang stitched up so tight there's no chance of that happening in my lifetime.
 
On 6 May 2003 06:01:43 -0700, [email protected] (Guy Chapman) wrote:

>> >Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much*
>> >better than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

>> Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?

>Dunno, it's never been tried. And unfortunately the friends and relatives of politicians have the
>whole shebang stitched up so tight there's no chance of that happening in my lifetime.

Is that really what you think? I'm amazed.

I've set up and run about 9 businesses over the years and in every case have successfully addressed
myself to a market. I've never been hampered by not being a friend or a relative of a politician.
What you say makes no sense.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
John B <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry, I'm a troll - I actually don't cycle! Prefer to walk. I just come here as its the only
> > Usenet group where you can have a sensible debate about transport without getting into anti- or
> > -pro car extremism.
>
> Come On Down, Paul Smith.
>
> John B

Surely that should read "Paul Smith, come on down!", in the style of the late Leslie Crowther on The
Price Is Right? Not to be confused with the later Forsyth-based revival, of course, as everyone
knows that if you're going to have an ITV game show with Brucie in it, it *has* to be Play Your
Cards Right ("You get nothing for a pair - not in this game!", etc.).

David E. Belcher

Dept. of Chemistry, University of York
 
On Tue, 06 May 2003 15:13:51 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?

>>>Dunno, it's never been tried. And unfortunately the friends and

>> I've set up and run about 9 businesses over the years and in every case have successfully
>> addressed myself to a market. I've never been hampered by not being a friend or a relative of a
>> politician. What you say makes no sense.

>If any of those nine businesses had employees, you'll surely be aware that there is a significant
>body of employment protection law on the books. Which is, on the whole, a good thing, and I don't
>want to suggest otherwise, but I don't think it's compatible with a "true" free market.

<shrug> If the market was really "free", I suppose we could sell illegal drugs or firearms too.

The point of my reply was really to counter Guy's remark about "friends and relatives of
politicians".

And yes, I've employed loads of folk over the years. I don't do that these days, since I didn't
enjoy it much.

>Governments can and have enacted legislation to protect employees from exploitation, tenants from
>unfair eviction, and householders from having their right to "quiet enjoyment" encroached on by
>neighbours.

>I don't see that there's a philosophical difference between planning regulations which forbid your
>neighbour from building an extension that blocks all sunlight from your garden, and planning
>regulations that refuse permission for large out-of-town supermarkets that encourage more car
>journeys and drive local competitors out of business. It's all a matter of degree.

I don't object to considered and rejected planning permissions for out of town developments. I'd
hate "out of hand" rejections.

I think we're just talking about ways to fit the free market ideal into a real society. It all
sounds fine to me.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> >> >Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much*
> >> >better than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

> >> Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?

> >Dunno, it's never been tried. And unfortunately the friends and relatives of politicians have the
> >whole shebang stitched up so tight there's no chance of that happening in my lifetime.

> Is that really what you think? I'm amazed.

I don't see why you should be - even in the USA the market is regulated, tariff barriers apply, the
government intervenes.

> I've set up and run about 9 businesses over the years and in every case have successfully
> addressed myself to a market. I've never been hampered by not being a friend or a relative of a
> politician. What you say makes no sense.

The free market in terms of transport tends to mean the current pet concernes of the rpesent
government. One obvious example from history was Beeching - a Tarmac shareholder - who closed down
the branch lines to the benefit of his own investments. Pork-barrel politics is no less widepsread
in the UK than in the US, just somewhat more inept.
 
Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>On Mon, 05 May 2003 21:17:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>don't we all benefit from lower pricing in the out-of-town shopping centres?

>>>>No, only those who are rich enough to own cars.

>>>Absolutely not true. The local supermarkets run a bus service.

>>Of course - silly of me. An out-of-town supermarket served by a bus occasionally is *much* better
>>than decent shops within walking distance. How could I possibly have thought otherwise?

>Do you want to live in a free market economy or not?

Of course he doesn't. Anyone who supposes that because a free market wonderfully controls and
optimises classic producer/consumer markets that it should be applied everywhere regardless is an
economic nincompoop.

Any fule kno that a free market is only good for regulating things where those who benefit pay for
the benefits they get. Since road traffic is one of the classic examples where this isn't the case,
making it a free market will obviously lead to to a heavy distortion towards those who are in effect
accidentally subsidised by the mismatches between beneficiaries, benefactors, and payers.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
 
Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
>An example journey which is IMO best done by car. I study at university in Coventry. However, I
>live in Bedford during holidays. Getting me, computer, radio, clothes, work, books etc. is entirely
>impractical by PT (obviously!), so the car is the most effective method of transport in this case.

That's all very well - although on the face of it our parents managed perfectly well without cars -
but if everyone made 6 car journeys a year we wouldn't have a problem.

Of course, if people really did only make 6 car journeys a year, we'd have a small number of shared
cars (like rented removal vans), and the cost of insurance, depreciation, etc. would be represented
in the cost of an individual journey.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:yXd*[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >An example journey which is IMO best done by car. I study at university
in
> >Coventry. However, I live in Bedford during holidays. Getting me,
computer,
> >radio, clothes, work, books etc. is entirely impractical by PT
(obviously!),
> >so the car is the most effective method of transport in this case.
>
> That's all very well - although on the face of it our parents managed perfectly well without cars
> - but if everyone made 6 car journeys a year we wouldn't have a problem.
>
> Of course, if people really did only make 6 car journeys a year, we'd have a small number of
> shared cars (like rented removal vans), and the cost of insurance, depreciation, etc. would be
> represented in the cost of an individual journey.
> --

It was one example. Another would be for food shopping for people with families. Say that's weekly,
that makes 104 journeys a year alone. Unless you have another idea for the weekly shop? (Yes,
providing local facilities within walking distance to allow families to shop when they need to would
help, but most families don't have the time to shop daily/bi-daily etc.)
 
Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
>It was one example. Another would be for food shopping for people with families.

Er, yes. Curiously, I do have an example here; my mother did it throughout my childhood for a family
of four, and she has never held a UK driving license - she used an invention you may have heard of
called the "bicycle".

[And, at that, with rear panniers and bags on the handlebars only - with a larger requirement, one
could mount front panniers, a large saddlebag, a trailer - the cargo capacity of a bicycle can
easily be 4 times what she had. Not to mention that these days Web-based ordering provides for
delivery of occasional bulk goods - again, this produces a situation with a small number of shared
vehicles where the capital costs of the vehicle are amortised over every journey it makes.]

>(Yes, providing local facilities within walking distance to allow families to shop when they need
>to would help, but most families don't have the time to shop daily/bi-daily etc.)

This did not require trips that frequently - more often than once per week, _but_ of course part of
the reason people don't have much spare time is the amount of their time that is spent earning money
in order to have a motor car; the average family car is estimated to cost 4,000 pounds a year, which
is a very large chunk of the average post-tax earnings.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
 
Not so long ago, my motorcar was off the road requiring attention to its brakes, and I was thus
obliged to use a bicycle for shopping. Being in possession of a BoB trailer helps, as does living
alone; I used to be able to manage the shopping with just a pair of Iberians when I was a penniless
student oaf.

It seems to me, therefore, that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that two people, each
with a trailer, could do the weekly shop for a family. The shops would have to be close enough,
natch; I would not espouse this method for those living in remote rural areas but in towns and
cities it is not that difficult.

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Re: BBC Caught Editing Story To Appease Global Warming Lobbyist
Replies
0
Views
314
UK and Europe
burtthebike
B
D
Re: BBC Caught Editing Story To Appease Global Warming Lobbyist
Replies
4
Views
437
UK and Europe
Nuxx Bar
N
P
Helmet story on BBC site
Replies
1
Views
313
UK and Europe
Rob Morley
R
B
+ve BBC cycling story?
Replies
5
Views
336
UK and Europe
Erik Sandblom
E
S
  • Locked
Another BBC Story
Replies
5
Views
730
UK and Europe
Richard Goodman
R
Top Bottom Back