I like it!

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

Quoted message said:

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

Oh? Check out the recent studies of health outcomes per local council
ward, and then correlate the results with average incomes data.

The worst life expectancies were where the lowest incomes were
concentrated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Oh? Check out the recent studies of health outcomes per local council
ward, and then correlate the results with average incomes data.

The worst life expectancies were where the lowest incomes were
concentrated.

True, but lowest incomes does not equal poverty[1]

[1] Unless you are really into all this 'relative' poverty rubbish.
Myself, I fail to see why we should care about income differentials and
lack of TVs and microwaves when there's actually real poverty stricken
people starving to death somewhere else. S'pose it gives the loonies
something to carp on about.

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Except where you said:
"Better take up the roads and pavements then if that is your concern"

To which I replied:
"Sounds good. 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."

....and clarified exactly which roads I thought should be considered
candidates for being dug up.

Gawnsoft <[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 (more or
less):

Quoted message said:

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

Oh? Check out the recent studies of health outcomes per local council
ward, and then correlate the results with average incomes data.

The worst life expectancies were where the lowest incomes were
concentrated.

Which would be consistent with my observations of large numbers of
takeaways, pubs and smokers.

I rather suspect that it is less to do with income and more to do with
lifestyle.

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian G Batten

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Gawnsoft said:

The switch from four to two wheel drive is unlikely to affect fuel
economy hugely

On a vehicle whose differentials are crude enough that the
manufacturer
feels the need to fit free-wheeling hubs, it will. On a more modern
vehicle it wouldn't, which is why the switch isn't fitted in the first
place.

No one is raising the main problem with 4WD vehicles. There are only
three off-roaders which are aesthetic objects: the wartime [censored]'s
Jeep, the Series I through Series III Land Rover, especially in 108"
form, and
the original 2 door Range Rover with hose-out interior.

Oh, for heaven's sake! I'll almost grant you the 90" Series One for
sheer primitiveness, but all 110" land rovers are serious crocks from
an aesthetic standpoint. I admit to a soft spot for the minimalism of
the 90" air-transportable, but apart from that in my opinion all
serious off road 4x4s are pretty ugly. The ugliest of all, of course,
were the Mercedes in the days when they made serious off road vehicles
(other than Unimogs, of course, which are in a different class
altogether).

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

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

in message <[email hidden]>, Gawnsoft

(') said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:24:28 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

davek said:

OK, fair enough, but they're still not *really* designed to go off
road, are they?

Well if they are not they have wasted a lot of money building them so
they
can. After all what use is 4WD, traction control, limited slip
differentials, low range gearboxes etc if you are only designing them
for the road?

Marketing. What good to a car selling organisation is an off-roader
that no-one buys because it's not listed as having all the 'necessary'
off-roader features?

And indeed, of course, most of these features are not there on serious
off-roaders. I don't know whether this year's Land Rover Defenders have
traction control or limited slip differentials but they surely didn't
use to, for the simple and most excellent reason that when these things
break down miles from anywhere the local blacksmith needs to be able to
fix them.

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

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Yet somewhere with a road through it and a car park and a visitor
centre is wilderness?

Quoted message said:

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.

That's possibly the only case of a limitation to car use seen by some
people.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

It's the only way some people have to heat their homes. Consequently,
it is high on the list for consideration as 'necessary'. But then,
you have posted that you rate access to use of a car above other
worldy wealth, so your priorities are clearly skewed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Indeed. Neither is electricity.

Living in this country is such that for part of the year, some form of
heating is considered necessary by some people. Therefore, either a
pile of wood or a tank of oil or some gas or some electricity is
likely to be necessary.

Quoted message said:

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.

Evidently, this common sense of which you speak is not common enough.

Quoted message said:

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

So how do you decide of your impact is acceptable or considerate to
others? You pollute the air that I breathe.

Quoted message said:

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.

There are very few households without an electricity supply in this
country, therefore all users are equally guilty. I try not to waste
electricity, though perhaps taking part in this discussion is such a
waste. It is probably less wasteful than me travelling to discuss
with so many people in person.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Actually it wouldn't. If I helped them they would just consume more.
That would mean more manufacturing and more transport.

Quoted message said:

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.

Except that your chosen enjoyment impacts on others greatly.

Quoted message said:

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

It would appear that I enjoy cycling.

Quoted message said:

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)

The impact of private motoring has been discussed widely. Provision
of infrastructure, cost of the consequences, consumption of materials.

Quoted message said:

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.

But it might be more sensible to use a bus or train for the 20 mile
trip.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We have buses and trains in the UK.

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

Yet they have lower impact on the environment and other people. They
are generally safer.

Your fun seems to be at the expense of your environment and the people
around you.

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 18:29:13 +0000 (UTC), "davek"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, the kind of "off road" vehicle that wouldn't last five minutes if it
actually went off road.

I saw one of those Porsche 4x4s the other day. Not only was it
pig-ugly, it was absolutely evident that any attempt to drive it off
road would be short, amusing and highly unsatisfactory for the driver
(think low profile road tyres and negligible ground clearance on
rutted muddy tracks).

The ground clearance is adjustable. For serious off-road use, wheels can
be swapped for ones with different tyres.

Alan Braggins said:

The ground clearance is adjustable. For serious off-road use, wheels can
be swapped for ones with different tyres.

Main thing'll be to swap the driver with someone who has a clue about
off-road (which will include the tyre knowledge, of course). Same goes
for MTBs, if you've never done much cycling and buy a Cannondale Jekyll
just because you've got a fat wallet and read the reviews you'll still
be left behind by anyone with some cycling legs and offroad chops on an
'88 Muddy Fox rigid...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:41:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I have
no idea how to do it :-)

Live in the here. Live in the now.

Exercise two or three times a week for twenty to thirty minutes.

Eat five portions of fresh fruit or vegetables per day.

There are others, but I forget them.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

On 24 May 2004 05:49:23 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Oh? Check out the recent studies of health outcomes per local council
ward, and then correlate the results with average incomes data.

The worst life expectancies were where the lowest incomes were
concentrated.

True, but lowest incomes does not equal poverty[1]

[1] Unless you are really into all this 'relative' poverty rubbish.
Myself, I fail to see why we should care about income differentials and
lack of TVs and microwaves when there's actually real poverty stricken
people starving to death somewhere else.

Or people living in cold damp climates without enough money heat their
dwellings, and eating a solid diet of lard because it's calories/£ is
so much more affordable than fresh fruit and veg, then dying early of
diet-related illnesses? Or having massively higher infant mortality?

Quoted message said:

S'pose it gives the loonies something to carp on about.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft said:

On Sat, 22 May 2004 22:41:46 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing and happiness. I have
no idea how to do it :-)

Live in the here. Live in the now.

Exercise two or three times a week for twenty to thirty minutes.

Eat five portions of fresh fruit or vegetables per day.

There are others, but I forget them.

I'm sure sex, drugs and rock'n'roll should be in there somewhere 🙂

Paul Rudin said:

I'm sure sex, drugs and rock'n'roll should be in there somewhere 🙂

That doesn't internalise wellbeing and happiness - it just ensures you can't
remember whether you are unwell or unhappy :-)

Tony

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:24:38 +0100, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Most ordinary cars can stop 50%+ faster than big 4x4s.

Not sure if it's quite 50% - the V70 stops from 60mph 16% shorter than
a Disco, but will take nearly 30% greater lateral force in skidpan
tests and can do a slalom test about 60% faster.

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

Peter Clinch said:

Main thing'll be to swap the driver with someone who has a clue about
off-road (which will include the tyre knowledge, of course).

Many owners are likely to have done some off-roading and/or training at one
time or other so its a false assumption that because they can afford an
expensive car they know nothing.

Quoted message said:

Same goes
for MTBs, if you've never done much cycling and buy a Cannondale Jekyll
just because you've got a fat wallet and read the reviews you'll still
be left behind by anyone with some cycling legs and offroad chops on an
'88 Muddy Fox rigid...

Agreed and I'm a [censored] off-road cyclist but I thoroughly enjoy riding my Santa
Cruz even though I know it is capable of much much more than I can manage. I
have no shame about buying and riding it and no time for people who have
nothing better to do than sneer. Get out and ride as they say.

Tony

On Sun, 23 May 2004 22:53:42 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

No one is raising the main problem with 4WD vehicles. There are only
three off-roaders which are aesthetic objects: the wartime [censored]'s Jeep,
the Series I through Series III Land Rover, especially in 108" form, and
the original 2 door Range Rover with hose-out interior. The rest are
just gin-palaces, surely?

Now there I cannot but agree. I nearly bought a LWB Series III Safari
as a plaything some time back, but got talked out of it.

Quoted message said:

It's possible that someone has bought an X5 or an M-Series who isn't an
idiot. But I'm guessing it's unlikely.

It could happen. In theory.

Quoted message said:

And all MPVs are [censored], too, except the original Matra-built Espace.
If you want a big estate car, buy a big estate car. 4x4s and MPVs are
just rubbish ways to avoid it.

Maybe MPVs are better now. The last Galaxy I drove cornered like a
blancmage but managed to transmit every tiny pebble impact direct to
the driver's back.

All OT. Galaxies are good for bikes, allegedly. You can get four
people and four bikes inside. Except that you'd actually buy the Seat
turbodiesel not the Ford. Should be called the Tracy, anyway, since
the VW is called Sharan.

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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:47:19 +0100, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

And the deisel manual lists at 57mpg.

No ottermatic, tho. Can't think why so few diesels are offered with
an ottermatic option.

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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:45:01 +0100, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

ITYM a woman is only a woman ;-)

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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

And indeed, of course, most of these features are not there on serious
off-roaders. I don't know whether this year's Land Rover Defenders have
traction control or limited slip differentials but they surely didn't
use to, for the simple and most excellent reason that when these things
break down miles from anywhere the local blacksmith needs to be able to
fix them.

Plus the real offroad drivers didn't need them, because they knew how
to use brakes, gears and winch to get out of pretty much anything ;-)

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

On Mon, 24 May 2004 12:05:19 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

if you've never done much cycling and buy a Cannondale Jekyll
just because you've got a fat wallet and read the reviews you'll still
be left behind by anyone with some cycling legs and offroad chops on an
'88 Muddy Fox rigid...

True. It's not about the bike...

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