Congestion Charge



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:00:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You muttered:
>>>> >> >> Tax: (n) A contribution to State revenue, compulsorily levied on people, businesses,
>>>> >> >> property, income, commodities, transactions,
>>>etc.

>And then grumbled:
>>>> Is there supposed to be interest or benefit in discussing the definition of the word "tax"?

>You said:
>>I didn't start it.

>Our survey said: <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=18145v0dna8iod3eei85muaiikj5gl1qpk%404ax.com&h-
>l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=VZj*oGiLp%40news.chiark.greenend.org.uk&rnum=1>

I did point out the CC was a tax. I didn't start the argument about the definition of "tax".

>>>Begs the question "why did you start it then" really :)

>>And that's a now common misuse of the once excellent phrase "begs the question". But I can't be
>>bothered.

>Thank you for your excellent demonstration of the ad hominem argument,

It's no such thing of course.

>and thanks to Geraint for pointing out to us that the usage was incorrect according to best
>practice. Actually it was an acceptable use of the phrase in current English according to some
>sources, but I will be careful to use the more correct usage only in future.

>Because I can be bothered.

Yawn.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:58:02 -0000, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>But of course, you ignore the fact that public transport is a C19 invention, catering for those
>>(then the majority - but certainly no longer so) who could not afford private transport.
>
>It's great how a 19th Century invention proves the antidote to a 21st Century problem. Personally I
>choose a 21st Century incarnation of another 19th Century invention as my usual transport, and it
>does me very well.
>
>I also, in the main, prefer 17th and 18th Century music to 21st Century music.
>
>Not all that is new is necessarily better.

Hey, man!

Get your motor runnin', head out on the highway!

You know it makes sense!

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "I hate cars. If I ever get any power again, I'd ban the lot." (Ken
Livingstone, June 1989)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> The businesses get to hold the vat for a while which aids cash flow as part compensation for
> the admin.
>
Welcome to the fast track to banruptcy.

> As far as taxes go, VAT is a good tax with a low cost of collection.
>
No it isn't. It only has a low cost of collection for the taxman. For a business it is alot more
admin. I take it you've never worked with VAT?

--
_________________________
Conor Turton [email protected]
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:15:43 -0000, Conor Turton <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The businesses get to hold the vat for a while which aids cash flow as part compensation for
>> the admin.

>Welcome to the fast track to banruptcy.

Don't be silly.

>> As far as taxes go, VAT is a good tax with a low cost of collection.

>No it isn't. It only has a low cost of collection for the taxman. For a business it is alot more
>admin. I take it you've never worked with VAT?

My business is VAT registered. If it's a lot more admin, you're not keeping proper records.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:48:48 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Park outside my house and you'll have Marjorie over the road banging on your window and asking you
>to push off

Why does that make me want to come and park in front of Marjories house every day for a month? :eek:)

Bob
--
Mail address is spam trapped To reply by email remove the beverage
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

>"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> >> Fine. So do you have a rational explanation for the sudden loss of the road accident fatality
>> >> rate trend in the very early 90s?

>> >Airbags and ABS.

>> Disc brakes, radial ply tyres, crash testing and seat belts didn't have the effect. Why should
>> Air bags and ABS?

>Airbags create a sense of security not dissimilar to that brought about by seat belts which -
>surprise surprise - caused significant increases in fatalities for rear-seat passengers and
>vulnerable road users.

...and...

>With ABS you can drive much closer to the limits, but when you fail you fail big time.

Oh, I get it: You're pretending to be stupid. Nobody is really _that_ stupid.

>Haven't you noticed how much closer people follow these days?

Lack of education.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm
a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help
me spread!
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:52:51 +0000 someone who may be Paul Smith <[email protected]>
> wrote this:-
>
> >I'll tidy up this week sometime.
>
> I do hope that the statistics lecturer mirrors the graphs before you do that.

They are already in powerpoint presentations.

Colin
 
"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As far as taxes go, VAT is a good tax with a low cost of collection.

VAT costs a fortune to collect. The government have just been very canny and passed the costs of
collection on to the companies who are VAT registered.

Transferring the cost of collection from the tax authorities to the tax payers (as in VAT, Income &
corporation tax self assessment etc.) is not reducing the cost of collection -- it is spreading the
cost of collection into the accounts of others who the government do not have to declare when they
spin their figures.

T
 
"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Only 13% of the electorate voted for Livingstone. Bad turnout. Is that a mandate? *I* don't
> think so.

Low turnout is the bane of any democracy. Livingstone said clearly what he intended to do, If people
had bee so disturbed by his proposals they had the opportunity to vote against it. They will have an
opportunity to ellect Shagger Norris next year who may dismantle the system.

>
> >FDR listed 'Four freedoms' in a speech to the US Congress on 6/1/1941.
That
> >is widely seen as a good summary of liberty. He said:-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>
> Where's liberty? Freedom from slavery?
>
> I regard the list as hopelessly incomplete and would rate freedom of speech, freedom to self
> determination, the right to education, a freedom to travel, and a right to earn money / operate a
> business as highly important in any modern society.

SUMMARY -- .in a couple of hundred words. Most of your wish list are covered by the 1st freedom --
of speech and expression -- and none are denied you in this country (though some may be constrained
by reality).

T
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:30:24 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've looked. I'm afraid I'm going to have to play dumb here, what is the value of this constant
> >annual factor? What margin of variation is there, since what I can see isn't *constant* from year
> >to year. I can see factors in the range from 0.85 to 1.06 (though most are less than 1 obviously)
> >reducing the fatalities per 100 million vehicle km, year on year, from a total of 6.87 in 1950 to
> >0.73 in 2001.
>
> Try about 0.945 and stick it through 1970.

Where does this magic number of 0.945 come from? What do you mean, stick it through 1970?

The factor fluctuates in the range I've stated, a simple mean from 1951 to 1991 is 0.96 A simple
mean of the factors from 1992 to 2001 is also .96 I realise that this is really noddy stats but you
have suggested that the change in 1992 is "sudden".

> I actually remembered that I'd finished playing around with it, but apparently not, unless I'm now
> looking at the wrong spreadsheet.
>
> The fit from 1950 to 1970 might be a bit of a distortion to the later figures, and I'm now playing
> with best fits from 1970 to date.
>
> Don't miss the chance to take a log view, where constant rate of change is a straight line and the
> changes in trend are more visible.
>
> Looks like my claim of 1,000 lives annually was not a final estimate, unless one also extrapolates
> recent trends to 2003. I'm not going to be doing that.

I would just like to know, simply put, what your actual methods are. How do you arrive at 0.945 as a
constant factor (it clearly isn't a constant factor so you must be taking some sort of average).
What is the factor after this sudden change that you attribute to speed cameras?

Colin
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:37:20 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> They're still there aren't they? I though they had been changed. I guess I was working on it when
>> I was taken ill in January. I'll tidy up this week sometime.

> You might like to have a look at the KSI figures shown in:
> http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/qcas02/charts1.htm

Thanks Nick. I had seen those. In recent years they have adopted the "KSI" approach to try to hide
fatal accident trends.

But now they have lost the beneficial serious accident trend as well it seems. I fully expected it.
The graphs on...

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html

... do warn of the rate of change of trend. But it looks like the leap in graph 3.4 (etc) will be
much greater than expected. The 2002 point may well turn out to be 0% on the basis of the page you
referenced.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:52:31 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>I would just like to know, simply put, what your actual methods are. How do you arrive at 0.945 as
>a constant factor (it clearly isn't a constant factor so you must be taking some sort of average).
>What is the factor after this sudden change that you attribute to speed cameras?

Looks like the previous spreadsheet did go missing. Let me do the work again, and I'll publish it
with full transparency.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> But now they have lost the beneficial serious accident trend as well it seems. I fully expected
> it. The graphs on...
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/graphs.html
>
> ... do warn of the rate of change of trend. But it looks like the leap in graph 3.4 (etc) will be
> much greater than expected. The 2002 point may well turn out to be 0% on the basis of the page you
> referenced.

A few posts ago you suggested, to me, that the graphs 3.1 to 3.8 were mistakes and would be removed.
Now your are referring to them and particularly the extrapolation. So, the only mistake seems to be
that they underestimate your supposed 'leap', not that their entire statistical basis was incorrect?

Colin
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MPG.18bd559bd99707109897a4@localhost...
>
>
> JPEGs Colin -- we demand JPEGs!!
>
> Any chance you could put them -- or selected highlights -- up on a web site so The Advanced Driver
> of Invernesshire can learn and the rest can ridicule?

They're just the same graphs as on the website, used to illustrate a lecture on stats techniques for
post-graduate social scientists.

Colin
 
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:50:10 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:52:51 +0000 someone who may be Paul Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote this:-
>>
>> >I'll tidy up this week sometime.
>>
>> I do hope that the statistics lecturer mirrors the graphs before you do that.
>
>They are already in powerpoint presentations.

In that case my copyright is being infringed and I object. Please provide more detail so that I may
defend my rights.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:55:53 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Only 13% of the electorate voted for Livingstone. Bad turnout. Is that a mandate? *I* don't
>> think so.

>Low turnout is the bane of any democracy. Livingstone said clearly what he intended to do, If
>people had bee so disturbed by his proposals they had the opportunity to vote against it. They will
>have an opportunity to ellect Shagger Norris next year who may dismantle the system.

All true.

>> >FDR listed 'Four freedoms' in a speech to the US Congress on 6/1/1941. That is widely seen as a
>> >good summary of liberty. He said:-
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Where's liberty? Freedom from slavery?

>> I regard the list as hopelessly incomplete and would rate freedom of speech, freedom to self
>> determination, the right to education, a freedom to travel, and a right to earn money / operate a
>> business as highly important in any modern society.

>SUMMARY -- .in a couple of hundred words. Most of your wish list are covered by the 1st freedom --
>of speech and expression -- and none are denied you in this country (though some may be constrained
>by reality).

I'm not impressed by the "summary". And I agree with your comments about this country, but nibble by
tiny nibble our human rights are being eroded, and I'd like a much more rigourous statement of
rights to use as a weapon of defence. The EU is working on one. I'm not impressed with that either.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
 
"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In that case my copyright is being infringed and I object. Please provide more detail so that I
> may defend my rights.

As long as they are only quoting a small sample, acknowledging the source and using it for
educational purposes they have little to fear.

T
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:50:10 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:52:51 +0000 someone who may be Paul Smith <[email protected]>
> >> wrote this:-
> >>
> >> >I'll tidy up this week sometime.
> >>
> >> I do hope that the statistics lecturer mirrors the graphs before you do that.
> >
> >They are already in powerpoint presentations.
>
> In that case my copyright is being infringed and I object. Please provide more detail so that I
> may defend my rights.

Really? You mean that by taking data from the DfT website, plotting it in the same manner as you
have and applying the same extrapolations as you have, your copyright has been infringed?

Colin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.