Good News!

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Steve Firth, Jan 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:42:53 -0000, "JNugent" <[email protected].uk> wrote:
    >>I don't think I can recall a time whe motorists were not overtaxed.
    >
    > I can. Right now, for instance. Not that their consistent failure to contribute as much to the
    > economy as they cost has ever stopped them whingeing. Incredibly, some motorists have even been
    > known to compare the revenue from vehicle duties with the cost solely of building and maintaining
    > the road network! Evidently the doctors in their health authorities pick up road crash victims for
    > nothing, saving the NHS a fortune.

    If you insist on adding in indirect motoring costs, then you must also add in indirect benefits.
    Since you are not doing so, it is hardly surprising that the results produce just the conclusion
    that you wish to see.

    --
    Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP at GMP, UK [email protected] Sun Microsystems

    "Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"
     


  2. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:15:02 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > So, you don't think your conviction could be justified by
    > > looking at accident statistics, even if the detail was there.
    >
    > No, I just don't have any confidence that I can find the stats for low-speed car crashes, those
    > with speed prior to impact being 25mph or less, and I'm not confident I could isolate the stats
    > for pedestrians killed and injured by cyclists not on the footway. That's the sort of thing you'd
    > need to prove whether a car at speed X is more or less deadly than a bike at the same speed.

    So, in principle you think that is where to look?

    >Apart from anything else, speed is not recorded in cycle crashes.

    And even if it was, with all the other details, you would not be confident about the sample size;
    so in practice, it is not possible?
     
  3. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:40:24 -0000, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> A motorised armchair can be made legal, so I think it just needs the two barking systems and
    >> reflectors.
    >
    > The barking designer and the barking driver, you mean?

    That'd be this one:

    http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/dogmilkfloatST230104_450x350.jpg

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> JNugent wrote:
    >
    >>> Motor vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights as though they were
    >>> green - and never have done.
    >
    >> What utter rubbish! In Leicester they do it all the time, buses, cars, bicycles, the lot.

    >Someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "routine" and its derivatives.

    What part of "do it all the time" don't you understand?
     
  5. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from
    >> person to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.

    > And that personal limit is getting shorter all the time.

    Perhaps.

    You have no way whatever of knowing it, of course, but perhaps.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
     
  6. W K

    W K Guest

    "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >> Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from
    > >> person to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.
    >
    > > And that personal limit is getting shorter all the time.
    >
    > Perhaps.
    >
    > You have no way whatever of knowing it, of course, but perhaps.

    eh?

    Eyes and ears and memory certainly suggest that its true.
     
  7. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > JNugent wrote: [email protected] wrote:

    >>>> Motor vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights as though they were
    >>>> green - and never have done.

    >>> What utter rubbish! In Leicester they do it all the time, buses, cars, bicycles, the lot.

    >> Someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "routine" and its derivatives.

    > What part of "do it all the time" don't you understand?

    You would have done better to ask: "...which part of "do it all the time" don't you *believe*?..."

    Motor-vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights.

    Trying to pretend (or kid oneself) that they do is childish.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
     
  8. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> You know full well what is meant - but you act daft and pretend you don't.

    > Yes, what you meant was to come up with a definition of driving / riding on the pavement which
    > excludes most such infractions by motorists and includes most by cyclists. But yuo were
    > sufficiently obvious about it that you were immediately rumbled.

    The meaning was *meant* to be obvious.

    > What happened to your unreserved condemnation of all offences by all road users? Or indeed just by
    > car drivers?

    I have no difficulty with condemning travelling along the pavement when done by the driver of a
    motor vehicle. One cannot, however, condemn every instance of a vehicle's mere *presence* on a
    footway, because:

    (a) there are locations where parking on the footway is lawful, and
    (b) crossing a footway is lawful in order to gain access to land on the other side of it (indeed, I
    cross the footway in my car every time I go out in it).

    Similarly, I do not condemn the mere presence of a bicycle on the footway. I have no difficulty with
    seeing a bike chained to railings, or with a cyclist crossing a footway when emerging from a private
    entrance. I *do* object to cyclists travelling along the footway (or through pedestrianised zones)
    as though it were an acceptable alternative to the carriageway. Funnily enough, so does the law.

    What none of us have ever seen - because it doesn't happen is a motor-vehicle merrily trundling
    along a footway at 30mph, four wheels on the pavement. Still less have we ever - because it doesn't
    happen - seen a driver screaming obscenities at a pedesytrian who had the temerity to refuse to get
    out of the way on the footway.

    > Both the PP and I have seen cars driving on the pavement in order to bypass traffic jams, just as
    > you have seen cyclists doing.

    We have all seen cyclists do *much more than that*, so please do not attempt to obfuscate.

    > Near me the council have actualy erected bollards to prevent this behaviour, not that they work
    > particularly well as there is still room for two wheels on the pavement.

    ...so the cyclists are still doing it, eh?

    > Clearly this is yet another behaviour which is not unique to your pet hate group.

    Nonsense. See above.

    And as you well know, I harbour no grudges towards law-abiding cyclists (who I consider to be in the
    majority outside Central and Inner London). It isn't *their* fault that the government has failed to
    ensure proper standards of training, a proper licensing system, compulsory insurance and compulsory
    tests of vehicle fitness and licensing for bicycles.

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
     
  9. On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 14:26:25 -0000, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>> Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from
    >>> person to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.
    >
    >> And that personal limit is getting shorter all the time.
    >
    >Perhaps.
    >
    >You have no way whatever of knowing it, of course, but perhaps.
    >

    It's well documented. I'm sure I've given you the URL for Transport Trends before. Please take the
    time to read it.
     
  10. "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > >
    > > > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > >> Only that minority of journeys which are longer than our "personal limit" (which varies from
    > > >> person to person) will be made on or in a vehicle.
    > >
    > > > And that personal limit is getting shorter all the time.
    > >
    > > Perhaps.
    > >
    > > You have no way whatever of knowing it, of course, but perhaps.
    >
    > Eyes and ears and memory certainly suggest that its true.

    Average trip on foot has been 15mins and 0.6miles for the last 25 years. The number of walking
    journeys has fallen from about 325 to 270 per year. But the number of trips per year of under
    one mile has also fallen from about 335 to 260, whilst the total number of trips is still around
    1024 per year.

    So it is quite possible that you see and hear more cars and fewer pedestrians (who are older than
    they used to be), but the personal limit is the same.
     
  11. On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:24:32 +0000, Jonathan Marten - Volume Systems
    Products UK <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:42:53 -0000, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>I don't think I can recall a time whe motorists were not overtaxed.
    >>
    >> I can. Right now, for instance. Not that their consistent failure to contribute as much to the
    >> economy as they cost has ever stopped them whingeing. Incredibly, some motorists have even been
    >> known to compare the revenue from vehicle duties with the cost solely of building and maintaining
    >> the road network! Evidently the doctors in their health authorities pick up road crash victims
    >> for nothing, saving the NHS a fortune.
    >
    >If you insist on adding in indirect motoring costs, then you must also add in indirect benefits.
    >Since you are not doing so, it is hardly surprising that the results produce just the conclusion
    >that you wish to see.

    Indeed. There's a pretty good study (Surface Transport Costs & Charges or similar) that does this.
    The problem with private motoring is that it offers very little societal indirect benefits that
    cannot be met by less damaging and less costly alternatives.

    The activity of 'transport' is well met without a car. There are additional benefits offered by cars
    but these are largely private; convenience, private space and personal choice.

    Out of interest, what indirect benefits to society do you see arising out of mass motoring that are
    unique to that transport mode?
     
  12. In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> JNugent wrote: [email protected] wrote:
    >
    >>>>> Motor vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights as though they were
    >>>>> green - and never have done.
    >
    >>>> What utter rubbish! In Leicester they do it all the time, buses, cars, bicycles, the lot.
    >
    >>> Someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "routine" and its derivatives.
    >
    >> What part of "do it all the time" don't you understand?
    >
    >You would have done better to ask: "...which part of "do it all the time" don't you *believe*?..."

    Well "Someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "routine" and its derivatives" is the
    weirdest spelling of "I don't believe you" I've ever seen, even allowing for your not knowing the
    difference between "myth" and "urban myth" even after being pointed at a dictionary.
     
  13. W K

    W K Guest

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

    > Motor-vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights.
    >
    > Trying to pretend (or kid oneself) that they do is childish.

    no need to pretend. Just stand next to a traffic light and watch.

    Perhaps they don't know the traffic law about what they are supposed to do when the light goes amber
    - just like you eh? But people passing the red more than 1 second after it changes are common.

    Don't try to pretend that this isn't really breaking the law - thats childish or ignorant of the
    law. (You did demonstrate the latter yourself of course).
     
  14. On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:55:28 +0000, [email protected] (Steve
    Firth) wrote:

    >At last, police are being more even handed in their treatment of road users.
    >
    >During a clampdown on cyclists in Portsmouth, over 160 individuals were stopped and cautioned over
    >cycling on pavements and cycling without lights in a 10 hour period.
    >
    >Oh dear, 160 in 10 hours.
    >
    >Little bunch of lawbreakers aren't they? The only shame is that they weren't fine £65 each.

    From the rac foundation. Puts it in persective, really.

    Seeing the Light

    Being in the dark is no excuse for being in the dark and drivers who fail to light up will be
    endangering themselves and other road users, as well as risking a fine.

    In 2001, 50,000 drivers ended up counting the cost of not seeing the light while ten per cent of
    motorcycles and over 16% of cars that failed the MoT test did so because of defective lights. *

    The RAC Foundation is today (10) calling on motorists to check that vehicle lights are working
    correctly and to think about using them with consideration for other road users.

    As summer fades into autumn and the days grow shorter and the nights longer, journeys to and from
    work and school are becoming darker. When British summertime officially ends on October 26 the
    country will be plunged into deeper morning and evening gloom.

    There is nothing unusual about this. It happens every year. Yet every year it seems to take
    motorists by surprise, with many taking to the roads in badly lit and even unlit cars and motorbikes
    - unseeing and unseen, a hazard and a nuisance.

    The most frequent complaints are:

    Unlit vehicles. Vehicles with one or more bulbs not working – usually the offside. Vehicles lit up
    like Christmas trees with front and rear fog lamps on, regardless of visibility, dazzling all those
    around them. Vehicles dazzling on-coming traffic with misaligned lights thanks to poor or infrequent
    maintenance Vehicles blinding others with unadjusted lights when the car is fully laden. Kevin
    Delaney, Traffic and Road Safety Manager for the RAC Foundation said:

    "Each year motorists wait for the end of summertime to discover that one or more lights isn’t
    working and each year badly lit vehicles are involved in crashes that could have been prevented by a
    simple two-minute check of lights and indicators. Vehicles with defective lights are not only a
    menace they are illegal and in 2001 police and the courts dealt with around 50,000 such offences. **

    "Lights are an important part of the car safety system and the revised driving test will require
    novice drivers to know how to check them. Don’t wait for the clock-change to catch you out, take
    just two minutes to check your lights this weekend and once a month throughout the winter to ensure
    that you can see and be seen."
     
  15. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest

    "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> writes:
    > Indeed. There's a pretty good study (Surface Transport Costs & Charges or similar) that does this.
    > The problem with private motoring is that it offers very little societal indirect benefits that
    > cannot be met by less damaging and less costly alternatives.
    >
    > The activity of 'transport' is well met without a car. There are additional benefits offered by
    > cars but these are largely private; convenience, private space and personal choice.
    >
    > Out of interest, what indirect benefits to society do you see arising out of mass motoring that
    > are unique to that transport mode?

    That is not relevant. The OP claimed that motorists do not contribute as much as they "cost" the
    economy, and to support that offered the standard parrot-fashion argument that fails to take account
    of any indirect benefits. Whether their current transport requirements could theoretically be met by
    a substitute, which for a great many would not be an acceptable substitute by any means, is neither
    here nor there.

    --
    Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP at GMP, UK [email protected] Sun Microsystems

    "Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"
     
  16. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > [email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:

    >> At last, police are being more even handed in their treatment of road users. During a clampdown
    >> on cyclists in Portsmouth, over 160 individuals were stopped and cautioned over cycling on
    >> pavements and cycling without lights in a 10 hour period. Oh dear, 160 in 10 hours. Little bunch
    >> of lawbreakers aren't they? The only shame is that they weren't fine £65 each.

    > From the rac foundation. Puts it in persective, really. Seeing the Light

    > Being in the dark is no excuse for being in the dark and drivers who fail to light up will be
    > endangering themselves and other road users, as well as risking a fine.

    I have *never* understoood the British reluctance to switch on vehicle lights at dusk.

    Perhaps some feel it wears out the battery, or something.

    > In 2001, 50,000 drivers ended up counting the cost of not seeing the light while ten per cent of
    > motorcycles and over 16% of cars that failed the MoT test did so because of defective lights. *

    Terrible. Easily- and cheaply-fixed though.

    > The RAC Foundation is today (10) calling on motorists to check that vehicle lights are working
    > correctly and to think about using them with consideration for other road users.

    Eh?

    The RAC Foundation needs to ask itself whether the lights should be on or off. It needs to make
    its mind up.

    > As summer fades into autumn and the days grow shorter and the nights longer, journeys to and from
    > work and school are becoming darker. When British summertime officially ends on October 26 the
    > country will be plunged into deeper morning and evening gloom.

    So: lights on as soon as it starts to get dark.

    > There is nothing unusual about this. It happens every year. Yet every year it seems to take
    > motorists by surprise, with many taking to the roads in badly lit and even unlit cars and
    > motorbikes - unseeing and unseen, a hazard and a nuisance.

    > The most frequent complaints are:

    > Unlit vehicles.

    I once (thirty-plus years ago) supervised a friend who was a learner-driver after dark (in well-lit
    London streets, I hasten to add). I glanced across and saw the panel lights were on, so I assumed
    that meant the side-lights were on. We were stopped down the road by a police sergeant who said "No
    lights!". And he was right - when I jumped out I saw there were no sidelights on. I got back in and
    asked the learner driver to put the lights on (she knew the car better than I did) - and it was only
    then that I realised that the "panel lights" had been the display for the car-radio, which was "on"
    but turned down, IYSWIM. Since I had never had a car posh enough to be fitted with a radio (and this
    was in the days before the whole dash lit up like a Christmas tree when you turned on the side-
    lights), the possibility of that mistake had never even occurred to me.

    > Vehicles with one or more bulbs not working - usually the offside.

    Lamps do blow (eventually). Not all that common, mind you - I have not had to replace a lamp on any
    of the three cars I have owned in the last twelve years. Not one. Lucky? I don't know. You sometimes
    do see vehicles with a lamp out, but not that often.

    I can't work out what is meant by "usually the offside". Is it someone having a pop at drivers for
    being unfortunate enough to have a lamp blow by trying to suggest that it is worse than it is?

    > Vehicles lit up like Christmas trees with front and rear fog lamps on, regardless of visibility,
    > dazzling all those around them.

    Well, it is annoying in the rain.... at other times, who cares? Let them play.

    > Vehicles dazzling on-coming traffic with misaligned lights thanks to poor or infrequent
    > maintenance

    Or maladjustment. My car has a manual adjuster (for height). I never use it.

    > Vehicles blinding others with unadjusted lights when the car is fully laden.

    That's what the adjuster is for (only when "fully laden" means that the boot is heavily loaded).

    > Kevin Delaney, Traffic and Road Safety Manager for the RAC Foundation said:

    > "Each year motorists wait for the end of summertime to discover that one or more lights isn't
    > working and each year badly lit vehicles are involved in crashes that could have been prevented by
    > a simple two-minute check of lights and indicators.

    That is *way OTT*.

    > Vehicles with defective lights are not only a menace they are illegal and in 2001 police and the
    > courts dealt with around 50,000 such offences. **

    If the vehicle is so defective that no lights are working - and if the route is unlit - I can see
    his point.

    Otherwise, that is hyperbole.

    Having a sidelight out (whilst using dipped headlights, which one should in any event) is not a
    "menace" by any stretch of the most fevered imagination.

    > "Lights are an important part of the car safety system and the revised driving test will require
    > novice drivers to know how to check them.

    Good.

    > Don't wait for the clock-change to catch you out, take just two minutes to check your lights this
    > weekend and once a month throughout the winter to ensure that you can see and be seen."

    Clock-change?

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 24/01/04
     
  17. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [Not Responding] <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The activity of 'transport' is well met without a car.

    With some idealised public transport system, perhaps. Not with the one this country has. Isn't it
    odd that, for example, cyclist Guy, scourge of the driver, drives a Volvo estate? Do you never
    use a car?

    ian
     
  18. "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > It's well documented. I'm sure I've given you the URL for Transport Trends before. Please take the
    > time to read it.

    I've just posted the numbers I thought most relevent; which ones did I overlook?
     
  19. Simon Proven

    Simon Proven Guest

    W K wrote:
    > "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >>Motor-vehicle drivers do not routinely drive through red traffic lights.
    >>
    >>Trying to pretend (or kid oneself) that they do is childish.
    >
    >
    > no need to pretend. Just stand next to a traffic light and watch.
    >
    > Perhaps they don't know the traffic law about what they are supposed to do when the light
    > goes amber - just like you eh? But people passing the red more than 1 second after it changes
    > are common.
    >
    > Don't try to pretend that this isn't really breaking the law - thats childish or ignorant of the
    > law. (You did demonstrate the latter yourself of course).

    Ah yes the one time I used a pedestrian crossing in central london this weekend... what do you know
    a car goes through on red.
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Ian G Batten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Isn't it odd that, for example, cyclist Guy, scourge of the driver, drives a Volvo estate?

    Not at all odd, it's the only thing with a roof long enough to take a three-seater bike. It won't
    fit into a modern train. Fits in the older rolling stock just fine, though.

    And yes, I do drive. Sometimes as often as five times in a month. Only car bigots refuse to consider
    other modes; I use trains quite often as well.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...