I like it!

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> But that would penalise the frugal wealthy more than
>> those lower earners who, by wasting resources and
>> unnecessarily consuming, cause more damage to the
>> earth.
>>
>> >
>> >Well, obviously it'd make you unelectable.....but
>> >it would be

fairer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>
>> No, it wouldn't. See above.
>> >
>>
>
>?!?!?!

What part of it not being fairer are you having trouble
with? Are you, perhaps, arguing that there is more
merit in consumption than thrift?

No. But the fact is not all poor people consume too much
- and that many rich people do.

So those over consuming rich people would pay more tax.
It's really very simple if you could abandon your
prejudices for five minutes.

But that's not the point! It would be better if they didn't
overconsume in the first place!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>People don't get rich by being frugal.

Good financial management helps rather a lot.

Granted

Therefore being frugal helps people become rich.

It is part of the solution yes. But just being frugal won't
help many poor people who don't have the opportunities
necessary to earn a decent living.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>In the vast majority of cases get rich by chance -
>being born into the right situation for example.

I doubt this. Many people get rich by hard work and
calculated risk taking.

Indeed. Many get rich from an inheiritance passed down
from gernerations ago - money which was often earnt in an
unsavoury manner.

So you seek to provide different tax treatment to the two
groups? Or would you prefer to demonise both hard work
and having ancestors who fail to match up to todays
liberal values?

I have no problem with those who work hard to get their
wealth (although I would still encourage them to be generous
to help the underpriviliged)

As for the people who inheirit dirty money - perhaps we need
a tax to internalise the true costs that the acquision of
that money caused and causes. In many cases it would be a
very steep tax.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Whilst some poor people are wasteful, most realise
>they can't afford to be.

I am always surprised by how many more pubs, fast food
joints and smokers there are when I ride through the
'slimey depths' compared to here in outer suburbia.

I can't say I notice much difference myself. But I
suspect the "slimet depths" your refering to aren't the
real problem areas.

How so?

I suspect the "slimey depths" you ride through aren't the
areas where poverty is a real problem. I would be interested
to here where you consider to be "the slimey depths".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So these 'poor' are voluntarily paying the taxes on
booze and [censored] - and a fat tax on takeaways is
currently occupying our red tops.

Oi! You missed one. Come on - agree or disagree? Explain.

I would suggest that they aren't the true poor.

I have already acknowledged in this thread that there are
people who don't help themselves by wasting money and
opportunity.

What about the rest of the poor?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think the 4x4 cliche has already been covered.

But people do it.

As previously covered.

Indeed. Consider it an attempt to drag this thread kicking
and screaming back on topic :-p

"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 19:58:36 +0100, Al C-F <aloysiu-
[email hidden]> wrote:

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing
> >and happiness.

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have
> >no idea how to do it :-)
>
> Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man
fulfilled by a very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his
pages on Walden. Buy the book and study it.

Or, there *was* a man fulfilled etc. I doubt the same
can be said for the drunk [censored] who ran him down and
killed him.

Indeed. It is selfish inconsiderate [censored] like the
drunkard involved that give motorists a bad name. I hope the
true costs of his actions have been internalised - somehow I
doubt it :-(

<snip

in message <[email hidden]>, Nathaniel Porter

(') said:

"Al C-F"
<[email hidden]> wrote
in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train for
the 200 mile trip, walking or cycling for the wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

That's kind of the point, isn't it?

If you want to cycle in wilderness, you have two choices:

* You can live near a wilderness; or

* You can work your pan off to earn lots of money so you can
belch an unreasonable share of the earth's finite supply
of fossil fuel out through the [censored] of some expensive
motor vehicle, in order to tear round the wilderness
without the time or calmness to get any real enjoyment out
of it before leaping back into your expensive motor
vehicle to tear back to the distant city to get back to
the office to work your pan off so you can belch...

Stop.

Think.

Calm down.

If you really like living in a city, live in a city. Enjoy
it. Go to the opera; go to the concerts; visit the art
galleries; mix with the movers and shakers.

If you don't like living in a city, get out.

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came
in) is chasing a myth that you can have it all. That you can
live in a city but 'be a country person really'. That you
can be a merchant banker (or whatever) through the week and
a mountaineer at weekends.

You can't.

It's a fraud.

Decide what's important in your life, make your choices, do
it well, enjoy it. You can't have everything. Don't burn
away the good years of your youth and health thinking that
you have to earn a lot of money now (you don't) in order to
have the good life later (you can't).

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you
do with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

Nathaniel Porter said:

Quoted message said:

That's only because you measure yourself against a more
luxurious alternative. I'm sure that a great deal of
satisfaction can be had from precisely this arrangement.

Well I'm sorry I want to enjoy life. I don't see why others
shouldn't be able to. And I suspect you do to.

I do. But I don't share your skewed value structure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*Some people enjoy motoring and the advantages it offers

Evidently. And if everyone else contributes to the cost
of their enjoyment, so much the better.

Indeed. But you have to do it for everything to be fair.

How is that fair? Why should I pay to make driving more
enjoyable for other people?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

*We'd all be better off if those people were able to use
cars (and motorcycles) easily (within reason)

Please explain how you being able to use your car easily
(within reason - whatever that's supposed to mean) makes
me any better off.

I enjoy it. This makes me happy.

Ooh I feel warm inside already.

Quoted message said:

Happy people are generally heathier, and more productive -
meaning you pay less to keep me healthy.

Yet you pollute the air I breathe. And you irritate my
asthma.

Quoted message said:

It also means I'll be much friendlier and nicer if you
should have to deal with me for some reason - which makes
you happier, healthy and so on.

I doubt it.

Quoted message said:

This applies equally to any completely unecessary (but
enjoyable for the person in question) activities anyone may
partake in.

Of course, there is the negative impact to this, but with
compromise and consideration this can be minimised.

There's also all the various economic reasons - means I'm
more flexible, which is useful for industry for example -
and a stronger economy helps pay for your health care,
roads (potholes are more of a problem to cyclists than for
cars), civil ammenities (local swimming pools for example),
education for you and your children and so on.

Fine. Except that we also fund a rather large road-building
budget, which is wasteful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm just slightly tipsy;

Oh dear. A rather pat response when someone digs
themselves into a hole.

It's called admitting a fault. Try and learn from it.

--

Cheers,

Al

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2hc9lrFb9racU2@uni-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

In what way? Since the new roads have ancouraged people
to live and work ever further apart, dismantling them
would *reduce* waste by reversing the process.

Don't forget metalled roads were originally built in
response to cyclists' demands well before the first IC
car came on the scene. In fact it has

been

Quoted message said:

said that without that and cyclists campaigning for the
repeal of the "Red Flag Act" of 1864, motor vehicles may
never have got a hold. So if you

dig

Quoted message said:

up all the roads you'll pretty soon have cyclists
campaigning to have them rebuilt.

I don't think he was refering to all roads :-)

Indeed. Specifically, the roads built in an attempt to build
our way out of congestion, as stated explicitly.
--

Cheers,

Al

Not Responding said:

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

Snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >
> >I would suggest some means of internalising wellbeing
> >and happiness. I
have
> >no idea how to do it :-)
>
> Then you need to examine your consumerist values.
>

I'm not entirely sure what you mean -please explain.

Go and have a look at www.kenkifer.com - there's a man
fulfilled by a very low-impact lifestyle. Look at his
pages on Walden. Buy the book and study it.

Or, there *was* a man fulfilled etc. I doubt the same
can be said for the drunk [censored] who ran him down and
killed him.

Indeed. Careless abbreviating. Sorry.

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Additionally, fuel tax can't do things like discourage
stupidly short journeys whilst limiting the effect on
longer, more sensible trips - something we need to be
thinking about.

Just because a trip is longer, it isn't automatically more
sensible. We have buses and trains in the UK.

Al, I've been meaning to ask this since we ran into each
other in The Other Place but do you own a car or have you
taken the plunge?

Not for the last three and a bit years, since the company
went over to an allowance. Somehow, I never quite got round
to buying a car. I was going to get one if I needed it.
Station less than 10 mins from home. Other station less than
10 mins from work. Stations on same length of track.
(Journey allows brief view of M3 which is usually slow or
stationary, and convinces me that I am right).

School ten minutes walk away.

When all else fails, 20 mins cycle to SOU and collect
a hire car.

Mrs. C-F runs a car for weekly shopping and ferrying
children to activities after school, this is probably more
economical than using taxis as said activities are spread
across neighbouring towns/villages and occur most evenings.
Lifts are shared with other parents as appropriate.
--

Cheers,

Al

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.

Tony

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

Nathaniel Porter (') said:

"Al C-F"
<[email hidden]>
wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You're being obtuse. To make it simple: bus or train
for the 200 mile trip, walking or cycling for the
wilderness,

If you live near the wilderness.

That's kind of the point, isn't it?

If you want to cycle in wilderness, you have two choices:

* You can live near a wilderness; or

* You can work your pan off to earn lots of money so you
can belch an unreasonable share of the earth's finite
supply of fossil fuel out through the [censored] of some
expensive motor vehicle, in order to tear round the
wilderness without the time or calmness to get any real
enjoyment out of it before leaping back into your
expensive motor vehicle to tear back to the distant city
to get back to the office to work your pan off so you
can belch...

Stop.

Think.

Calm down.

If you really like living in a city, live in a city. Enjoy
it. Go to the opera; go to the concerts; visit the art
galleries; mix with the movers and shakers.

If you don't like living in a city, get out.

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came
in) is chasing a myth that you can have it all. That you
can live in a city but 'be a country person really'. That
you can be a merchant banker (or whatever) through the
week and a mountaineer at weekends.

You can't.

It's a fraud.

Decide what's important in your life, make your choices,
do it well, enjoy it. You can't have everything. Don't
burn away the good years of your youth and health thinking
that you have to earn a lot of money now (you don't) in
order to have the good life later (you can't).

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you do
with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

Well said that man!

On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:32:38 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

What does a four wheel drive car do that is so different
from a two wheel drive car that only the former seriously
adversely impinges on others' quality of life?

Well, a big 4x4 (Toyota Land Cruiser Amazon) can, according
to the govt. milage and emissions stats, easily pump out 4
times the emisions/gobble four times the fuel as an
efficient small car (VW Lupo/Audi A2/Seat Arosa).

A big 4x4 can easily have twice the stopping distance as a
typical saloon car or hatchback. (pulling as little as 0.55g
from 60mph or so to zero vs. the .90g-1.05g of typical
saloons, hatches and sports cars)

Their steering and cornering abilities are typically much
less capable than those of typical saloon cars or hatches.

A big heavy 4x4 (especially the ones with bull bars) creates
a much greater pedestrian/cyclist hazard in event of
collision.

Quoted message said:

If I have a car with switchable two and four wheel drive,
does using the switch convert me in and out of being a
selfish ar$eh*le? Curious minds want to know.

The switch from four to two wheel drive is unlikely to
affect fuel economy hugely, and certainly will not affect
the vehicles mass. It's unlikely to improve the stopping
distance, or make the sterring more precise or improve
wallowing through corners vs. 4WD.

HTH.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

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. The rest are just gin-
palaces, surely? Obviously the original Quattro and the pre-
02 Impreza are lovely, but they're not the 4x4s Ken's
looking for.

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.

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.

ian

On Sun, 23 May 2004 21:35:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The whole urban off-roader thing (which was where we came
in) is chasing a myth that you can have it all. That you
can live in a city but 'be a country person really'. That
you can be a merchant banker (or whatever) through the week
and a mountaineer at weekends.

Worse still, the view held is that you can achieve these
wilderness aspirations if only you have such a vehicle. So
people buy the vehicle and are immediately fulfilled -
without ever experiencing the wilderness. So the goal
becomes just to own more 'kit'. Not actually to do anything
with the kit.

--

Cheers,

Al

Simon Brooke [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Here is here and now is now and it's up to you what you do
with it.

There is no pie in the sky.

There is no jam tomorrow.

Live now.

"The future is no place, to place your better days" -
Dave Matthews

Jon

On Sat, 22 May 2004 09:50:29 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

...

Quoted message said:

If people drive slowly, with care in quiet vehicles that
don't pollute or endanger others[1], we shouldn't care less
whether it's a Ferrari designed for a racetrack, a
Landrover designed for the country or Guy's Volvo. KL's
condemnation of Mercedes MLs but not the equally
"unnecessary" Ferrari or big Jag illustrates his
inconsistency.

...

Quoted message said:

[1] I know of no such vehicle.

Of course, some are worse or better than others.

Four times + as polluting for the 4x4.

Much poorer accident avoidance capabilites. (typical cars
braking 63% better, and some sports cars braking more than
twice as fast as some 4x4s, poorer steering precision, worse
cornering control and lower levels of grip)

Much greater danger to pedestrian/cyclist/saloon car road
users in event of accident (design of frontal areas, much
greater mass, etc)

Differences in degree matter. Otherwise the marginal
quantity of methane that cyclists emit from the exercise of
cycling vs the sloth of armchairs would be enough to cause
the anti-pollution lobby to clamp down! :-)

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

wrote (more or less): ...

Quoted message said:

Beats me why a cycling newsgroup has such a downer on other
road users.

Because the greatest danger to cyclists comes from motorised
vehicle users.

4x4s are massive, poorly controllable, heavily polluting (up
to 4 times as much as some four seater city cars), and many
cannot brake well (as little as 55% as well as a typical UK
hatch or saloon, and less than half as quickly as some
sports cars)

Quoted message said:

Who really gives a flying fart what anyone else drives,
rides or uses, when it's the driver/rider/user that's the
idiot, not the machine ...

Some machinery makes lower levels of driving skills idiocy
more dangerous for others.

Unless one goes off road or wants to tow big caravans while
developing minimal towing skills, why would one get a big
4x4 other than idiocy?

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 May 2004 11:19:39 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Doki said:

I generally drive quite quickly myself, but doing it in
a 4x4 is a particularly daft thing to do because they
don't go round corners or stop nearly as well as a big
car does.

Providing you make allowances for that and corner more
slowly and leave more braking room why's it a problem? Or
should we all drive Porsches and Lotuses on the basis that
they corner and stop much better than your average car?

Most Lotuses stop about as well as most ordinary cars.

Most Porsches stop about 11%-15% better than most
ordinary cars.

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

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 May 2004 10:21:10 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Incidentally most Discoveries are diesel and do 30mpg which
is about average fuel consumption .I think you need a
Humvee to get 8mpg.

Of course, the substantial minority of Discos which are
petrol do 16mpg. (Admittedly better than the H2's 8mpg.
Although the US's cars have worse mpg figures is that US
gallons are only 80% the size of imperial gallons).

Big MPV diesels tend to do a fair bit over 40mpg, and 30mpg
in petrol trim.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 May 2004 17:30:25 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

PK said:

they are big and clumsy when driven by people who do not
know how to drive them properly ie most mums in a 4x4 on
the school run in london.

Just more stereotyping

For any given degree of driver's car control skills, 4x4s
have less precise steering, less cornering grip,
substantiall poorer braking performance, and less
cornering control.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:55:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 23 May 2004 10:24:49 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
family.com> wrote in message <2hb8v1F8eiadU2@uni-
berlin.de>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Des Cartes maybe?
I kant see what you're getting at here, Tony.

Just a bit of philosophical Witt-genstein Guy

I guess it has it's nietsche in urc.

I think it's being put a bit before the horse.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 May 2004 16:47:37 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Nathaniel
Porter <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

People do have freedom of choice. But that doesn't
necessarily mean the choices they make are not idiotic -
and I think most "off-roader" owners in London are, for
they use it only in situations which highlight the
disadvantages to 4x4s without ever enjoying the beneifts
of 4x4s.

That's a load of [censored]. They use it for being seen in and
for towering over people. This is a key benefit to the status-
conscious who don't care about propping themselves up by
treading down other people.

Of course, they rationalise it with something else,
normally about being a lot safer to see high up

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

Quoted message said:

and how it will protect their kids, and (more reasonably)
how convenient it is for getting stuff in and out of. But
basically they do it cause it gives them power over people.

A

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 22 May 2004 15:19:02 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But even if you are making allowances by cornering more
slowly and leaving more braking room, that's taking up
more road space and increasing congestion, which in
London is still pretty antisocial.

How much more. Can you quantify it? Should they all drive
Smart Cars

Lots.

Yes.

No - 'cos then you can't car pool with more than one person.

(To be serious, the braking distance issue has been
recently posted by me to uk.rec.driving. If you can't find
it by googling, let me know and I'll turn it into a web-
page for you.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗