Move to change law

[Tony Dragon]

John Wright wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Al C-F wrote:
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, half the time it's not possible to cycle on the pavement
>>>>> because some berk has parked their car there...
>>>>
>>>> An illegal act that is also never enforced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Officially, maybe. There's a line of cars parked on the pavement on
>>> my way to school, whose drivers have to realign their mirrors every
>>> day that it's my turn to do the school run.
>>>
>>> It's a start.
>>
>> I was standing on a street corner (don't ask!) in the dreaded
>> Weston-super-Mare some years ago (opposite the Playhouse for those
>> that know it) and a Police constable was standing a few yards away.
>> A car drove straight on to the pavement and parked between us and
>> the shops. Mr Plod didn't bat an eyelid and went to walk off. I
>> called out to him about said driver breaking the law and, with a
>> gritting of teeth, he actually did something about it.
>>
>> There is hope, I thought, but these days they don't seem to come out
>> when it's light.
>
> I was standing on a street corner in the dreaded Leicester some years
> ago when a cyclist decided to ride round the outside of a roundabout
> taking no notice of the fact that s/he was entering a stream of moving
> traffic. One bang later, there was a cyclist on the ground, with some
> mangled wreckage that used to be a bicycle near by.
>
> There were two Plod walking in front of me, as soon as it happened
> they whipped round and said "did you see that?". I said "no, as soon
> as I saw that I knew there was going to be an accident". "You're
> f***king useless you are" they said to me...
>
> John Wright
A not unreasonable comment.


--
Tony the Dragon

 

[Jeff York]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff York wrote:
>
>> Your figures simply didn't add up... The benefits outweigh the
>> costs... Motorists are *not* subsidised. Indeed, they are instrumental
>> in subsidising all public transport.
>
>Surely that depends on what costs and benefits one assigns to public
>transport?

Not really... Viewed in terms of basic fiscal reality, motoring
generates more tax revenue than is returned by HMG for anything to do
with motoring and is thus a net contributor to the exchequer. Public
transport generates less in gross revenue, let alone tax, than it
costs to run...

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clive Coleman. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
>>>>>><[email protected]> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This dual carriageway in Bristol is where? I can look it up on
>>>>>>>>my AtoZ and give you an opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A4174 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4174_road
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is actully in South Gloucestershire right next to Bristol, but
>>>>>>>many of the postal addresses along it (the bit I use) are Bristol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know that road at all apart from the bit from The Gloucester
>>>>>>Road to Junction 1 of the M32. To be honest it's an important
>>>>>>route that takes major traffic from the north A38 to the A4 south
>>>>>>to bath and onto the south coast, as such it's a major arterial
>>>>>>route, carrying all the traffic trying to avoid Bristol. I would
>>>>>>have considered anyone cycling along there to need to have his/her
>>>>>>wits sharpened, indeed for myself I would have called using this
>>>>>>road fool-hardy. There are plenty of more minor roads in the
>>>>>>vicinity which would be more cyclist friendly, but the road you are
>>>>>>using will not be used by the locals as much as the persons that
>>>>>>want a trunk route, in that regard I'm surprised it's limited to
>>>>>>50mph and that you are allowed to cycle on it. It's your decision,
>>>>>>it's your life.
>>
>>>>>And what about the obligation upon motorists to drive with due care
>>>>>and attention to other road users?
>>>>
>>>>There is no such obligation.
>>
>>>Do stop posting ****, you only make yourself look ridiculous.
>>
>>Oh dear... fallen out of your pram?
>>
>>I repeat (without fear of sensible or authoritative contradiction):
>>
>>You say: "...what about the obligation upon motorists to drive with due
>>care and attention to other road users?"
>>
>>There is no such obligation.
>>
>>There is a part of the law requiring driving with due care and attention
>>(to the driving) and another part of the law requiring driving to be done
>>with consideration (for other road users).
>>
>>But nothing about "due care and attention to other road users".
>
>
> Did I say the legislation was worded in that manner?

<groan...>

 

[JNugent]

Pyromancer wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Al C-F
> <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>
>
>>It's not a Road Fund Licence and hasn't been since the mid 30s.
>
>
> Indeed, but that didn't stop a dealership ad on the radio here ten
> minutes ago calling it "Road Fund Duty". They're advertising a "factory
> invoice price" promotion, and explain at the end that what they mean is
> the price they pay the manufaturer, plus cost of number plates, "one
> year's road fund duty" and a few other bits and bobs.
>
> Whatever it may really be called / for, in the collective mind of the
> general public, it is indeed "road tax", a situation that's unlikely to
> change any time soon. :-(

Indeed, the relevant department actually called it
"Road Tax" in a series of TV adverts a couple of
years ago (the ones that replicated the "Chitty
Chitty Bang Bang" film).

Still, what do they know?

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> writes
>> It is a fact that pressure on the road is
>> directly the same as the pressure in the tyre
>
>No it is not a fact.
Care to enlighten me, simple physics can be followed if you want.
--
Clive.

 

[Tony Dragon]

Clive. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Dragon
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Lets get this right, she lived in your house & you paid all the
>> bills for utilities, services, TV licence, all repairs etc. You
>> bought all her clothes, medications that were not prescribed, all
>> her food, transport costs,even the bunch of flowers that are in the
>> vase on the table. She does not pay phone bills etc.
> She did work a long time ago, but whilst the house was mine I paid the
> bills. In her later years TV licence is free (over 75) and the
> council tax was not required because of her level of income (Bills
> marked £0:00). Like a lot of old people, she only ever went out when
> one of my siblings took her. If you want to go back 30+ years then
> it's possible she paid tax, but whether any of this was kept to be
> used for funding the "modern?" Road system is questionable.

Quote from one of your posts
"I can honestly say my mother paid none of these,"
Are you going to change your mind on any other details/


--
Tony the Dragon

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, Nigel Cliffe
<[email protected]> writes
>I think I see your problem. You assume a road is a solid object.
>If you model a road as a flexible object you might get nearer.
I am seeing a tyre that distorts so that the area under the tyre is
proportional to it's weight in psi divided by the tyre pressure, and the
deformation of the road surface.
--
Clive.

 

[Brimstone]

Clive Coleman. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
> <[email protected]> writes
>> Literally only food, or other normal domestic and personal items
>> (e,g light bulbs, clothing, etc) as well?
> The house was my property, it was only fitting and right that I paid
> for it's upkeep, maintenance etc.

Which fails to answer my question. Did she buy her own clothes and general
domestic items, e.g. cleaning materials, light bulbs etc?

I'll accept that you maintained the property.

 

[Brimstone]

Jeff York wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jeff York wrote:
>>
>>> Your figures simply didn't add up... The benefits outweigh the
>>> costs... Motorists are *not* subsidised. Indeed, they are
>>> instrumental in subsidising all public transport.
>>
>> Surely that depends on what costs and benefits one assigns to public
>> transport?
>
> Not really... Viewed in terms of basic fiscal reality, motoring
> generates more tax revenue than is returned by HMG for anything to do
> with motoring and is thus a net contributor to the exchequer. Public
> transport generates less in gross revenue, let alone tax, than it
> costs to run...

A simplistic view unsupprted by reality.

 

[Brimstone]

Clive Coleman. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
> <[email protected]> writes
>> However, there would also be a substantial decline in costs directly
>> and indirectly caused by the present overuse of cars.
> How?

Because they would be used less.

 

[Brimstone]

JNugent wrote:
> Pyromancer wrote:
>> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Al C-F
>> <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>
>>
>>> It's not a Road Fund Licence and hasn't been since the mid 30s.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, but that didn't stop a dealership ad on the radio here ten
>> minutes ago calling it "Road Fund Duty". They're advertising a
>> "factory invoice price" promotion, and explain at the end that what
>> they mean is the price they pay the manufaturer, plus cost of number
>> plates, "one year's road fund duty" and a few other bits and bobs.
>>
>> Whatever it may really be called / for, in the collective mind of the
>> general public, it is indeed "road tax", a situation that's unlikely
>> to change any time soon. :-(
>
> Indeed, the relevant department actually called it
> "Road Tax" in a series of TV adverts a couple of
> years ago (the ones that replicated the "Chitty
> Chitty Bang Bang" film).

That's because they feel that the only way they can communicate is by
dragginf everything down to the level of the lowest. Do you really want to
be seen as one of them?

>
> Still, what do they know?

As civil servants ........

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
<[email protected]> writes
>Which fails to answer my question. Did she buy her own clothes and general
>domestic items, e.g. cleaning materials, light bulbs etc?
No, one of my sibling bought her clothes, normally birthday and
Christmas presents, you'd be surprised how few clothes one little old
lady needs. Cleaning done by Social Cervices, carrying their own
chemicals.
--
Clive.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:53:37 -0000, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:

> can we stop this stupid bit of the thread ?

There's a sensible bit of this thread? Where.

 

[John Hearns]

Clive Coleman. wrote:
>
> Basically it makes an oblique reference to axle weights but makes no
> mention of tread area. It is a fact that pressure on the road is
> directly the same as the pressure in the tyre
Twaddle. Pressure = force per unit area,
ie weight of vehicle divided by area of contact patch of tyres

 

[spindrift]

On 14 Mar, 19:40, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 14 Mar, 15:54, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >1/
>
> >Perhaps you could steer me towards any post here that proposed banning
> >traffic?
>
> >That's the scenario you invented out of thin air.
>
> >That's why it's a straw man, nobody mentioned it.
>
> It's your strawman, not mine... I never mentioned "banning traffic"
> it's a figment of your imagination...
>
> >2/
>
> >"The NHS bills the insurance companies of involved / liable drivers."
>
> >Not true. This is only where personal injury compensation is paid:
>
> That's what I said. "liable drivers"...
>
> >3/
>
> >"You mean like, for example, the peer-reviewed estimates that
> > unequivocally stated that by now there would be millions dead from
> > NvCJD?"
>
> >Source please. For instance a source as credible as Whitelegg, whom
> >you claim is an "eco nut",
>
> This would be the John Whitelegg, who is (a) Editor of the 1992 *book*
> - not research paper as you claimed - on traffic congestion, he did
> however contribute a short chapter entitled "Till the pips squeak:
> ecological taxation reform:" and is (b) the leader of the North West
> Green Party...? Frankly that doesn't make him an exactly
> disinterested researcher in my opinion.
>
> As for the NvCJD, try "Thousands may be harbouring vCJD" athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3729901.stm- as valid a source as
> your tame eco-nut Whitelegg.
>
> >4/
>
> >"Because you claimed that the Royal Navy was largely employed in
> > keeping the sea-lanes open for the passage of oil tankers, with the
> > implication that without motorists the costs of this would not be
> > necessary. "
>
> >I claimed no such thing.
>
> My apologies... My memory mislead me... What you actually said was:
> "The coast of fighting a war in order to secure oil supplies so as to
> keep cars on the road?" - no need for me to imply anything.
>
> >5/
>
> >"The QALY figure used by the NHS in deciding whether treatment
> > is economically viable puts it at something less than 50% of the
> > figure I quoted, 15/34ths to be precise.."
>
> >So, to answer the question, which was what YOU think the value of a
> >life is, not the NHS, you are saying less than £430,000?
>
> >You would consider £430,000 in exchange for your child, say, a fair
> >deal?
>
> That's neither here nor there... What I was saying is that the value
> placed upon a life by QALY multiplied by the number of road deaths is
> insufficient to come to the total "cost" that was quoted originally -
> even if you factor in a reasonable percentage for the injuries.
>
> Your figures simply didn't add up... The benefits outweigh the
> costs... Motorists are *not* subsidised. Indeed, they are instrumental
> in subsidising all public transport.

1/


"It's your strawman, not mine... I never mentioned "banning traffic"
it's a figment of your imagination..."

I'm afraid you did. You said the cost of empty roads would be economic
stagnation.

Nobody mentioned empty roads. The discussion was on the huge subsidies
motorists receive. The argument is to increase the unnaturally low
taxes motorists pay. You've invented an absur proposition and used it
as a straw man argument so people end up wasting time defending
something that was never said.

Nobody mentioned empty roads as a consequence of a ban or anything
else.

You made it up.

Stop it please.

2/

"That's what I said. "liable drivers"..."

So taxpayers bear the cost of all non-blame accidents and uninsured
drives. The MIB don't pay for consequential loss, and police are
drifting away from the view that there is always an at fault party in
an RTA. Taxpayers cover this, even the taxpayers who don't have a car.
More subsidies for drivers from the public purse.

3/

A writer having an agenda is one thing. Dismissing his research as
that of an "eco not" demonstrates nothing so much as a closed mind.
Argue (rather better than you are ) with what he said, don't think
insulting him is impressive.


"As for the NvCJD, try "Thousands may be harbouring vCJD"
athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3729901.stm"

So your claim that millions would die was untrue. Again.

4/

Thanks for the apology. Please argue with what I've said, not your
dishonest misinterpretation.

5/

"That's neither here nor there"

It's very much here. I asked you what value you placed on human life
and you started waffling about the NHS.

Not what I asked.

What value do you place on a child's life.

Not the NHS.

You.


Slightly concerning that you appear to drive around with the view that
the calculations you have done in your head place a lower value on
human life than I think any parent would place on their child.

Do you speed thinking:

"Hey ho, if I hit a kid it's not much money"?

 

[spindrift]

On 15 Mar, 08:07, "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Mar, 19:40, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >On 14 Mar, 15:54, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >1/
>
> > >Perhaps you could steer me towards any post here that proposed banning
> > >traffic?
>
> > >That's the scenario you invented out of thin air.
>
> > >That's why it's a straw man, nobody mentioned it.
>
> > It's your strawman, not mine... I never mentioned "banning traffic"
> > it's a figment of your imagination...
>
> > >2/
>
> > >"The NHS bills the insurance companies of involved / liable drivers."
>
> > >Not true. This is only where personal injury compensation is paid:
>
> > That's what I said. "liable drivers"...
>
> > >3/
>
> > >"You mean like, for example, the peer-reviewed estimates that
> > > unequivocally stated that by now there would be millions dead from
> > > NvCJD?"
>
> > >Source please. For instance a source as credible as Whitelegg, whom
> > >you claim is an "eco nut",
>
> > This would be the John Whitelegg, who is (a) Editor of the 1992 *book*
> > - not research paper as you claimed - on traffic congestion, he did
> > however contribute a short chapter entitled "Till the pips squeak:
> > ecological taxation reform:" and is (b) the leader of the North West
> > Green Party...? Frankly that doesn't make him an exactly
> > disinterested researcher in my opinion.
>
> > As for the NvCJD, try "Thousands may be harbouring vCJD" athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3729901.stm-as valid a source as
> > your tame eco-nut Whitelegg.
>
> > >4/
>
> > >"Because you claimed that the Royal Navy was largely employed in
> > > keeping the sea-lanes open for the passage of oil tankers, with the
> > > implication that without motorists the costs of this would not be
> > > necessary. "
>
> > >I claimed no such thing.
>
> > My apologies... My memory mislead me... What you actually said was:
> > "The coast of fighting a war in order to secure oil supplies so as to
> > keep cars on the road?" - no need for me to imply anything.
>
> > >5/
>
> > >"The QALY figure used by the NHS in deciding whether treatment
> > > is economically viable puts it at something less than 50% of the
> > > figure I quoted, 15/34ths to be precise.."
>
> > >So, to answer the question, which was what YOU think the value of a
> > >life is, not the NHS, you are saying less than £430,000?
>
> > >You would consider £430,000 in exchange for your child, say, a fair
> > >deal?
>
> > That's neither here nor there... What I was saying is that the value
> > placed upon a life by QALY multiplied by the number of road deaths is
> > insufficient to come to the total "cost" that was quoted originally -
> > even if you factor in a reasonable percentage for the injuries.
>
> > Your figures simply didn't add up... The benefits outweigh the
> > costs... Motorists are *not* subsidised. Indeed, they are instrumental
> > in subsidising all public transport.
>
> 1/
>
> "It's your strawman, not mine... I never mentioned "banning traffic"
> it's a figment of your imagination..."
>
> I'm afraid you did. You said the cost of empty roads would be economic
> stagnation.
>
> Nobody mentioned empty roads. The discussion was on the huge subsidies
> motorists receive. The argument is to increase the unnaturally low
> taxes motorists pay. You've invented an absur proposition and used it
> as a straw man argument so people end up wasting time defending
> something that was never said.
>
> Nobody mentioned empty roads as a consequence of a ban or anything
> else.
>
> You made it up.
>
> Stop it please.
>
> 2/
>
> "That's what I said. "liable drivers"..."
>
> So taxpayers bear the cost of all non-blame accidents and uninsured
> drives. The MIB don't pay for consequential loss, and police are
> drifting away from the view that there is always an at fault party in
> an RTA. Taxpayers cover this, even the taxpayers who don't have a car.
> More subsidies for drivers from the public purse.
>
> 3/
>
> A writer having an agenda is one thing. Dismissing his research as
> that of an "eco not" demonstrates nothing so much as a closed mind.
> Argue (rather better than you are ) with what he said, don't think
> insulting him is impressive.
>
> "As for the NvCJD, try "Thousands may be harbouring vCJD"
> athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3729901.stm"
>
> So your claim that millions would die was untrue. Again.
>
> 4/
>
> Thanks for the apology. Please argue with what I've said, not your
> dishonest misinterpretation.
>
> 5/
>
> "That's neither here nor there"
>
> It's very much here. I asked you what value you placed on human life
> and you started waffling about the NHS.
>
> Not what I asked.
>
> What value do you place on a child's life.
>
> Not the NHS.
>
> You.
>
> Slightly concerning that you appear to drive around with the view that
> the calculations you have done in your head place a lower value on
> human life than I think any parent would place on their child.
>
> Do you speed thinking:
>
> "Hey ho, if I hit a kid it's not much money"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Meanwhile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,2034264,00.html

Watchdog reveals cost overruns on road schemes leave taxpayer with
£3bn bill


David Hencke, Westminster correspondent
Thursday March 15, 2007
The Guardian


Taxpayers are facing a bill of more than £3bn to pay for cost overruns
on nearly 200 road schemes, the National Audit Office reveals today.
The failure to control costs is so great that the Treasury has
introduced revised rules to give more pessimistic estimates for
existing schemes after the average cost overrun hit 40%.
Even after this change some schemes have still cost substantially more
than the revised estimate.

The worst examples in England are a new lane on the M5 between
junctions 19 and 20 which was budgeted to cost £6m, rose to £8m in a
revised estimate but cost £17m to complete, and a crossroads on the
A14, budgeted at £5m, which was revised to £6.7m but cost £13.4m to
build.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
®i©ardo <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> PLUS, should you wish to remain below the tax threshold (which isn't
> easy, being set at just over £5,000 per year), you're still required
> to pay VAT on goods and services, you still need a TV licence (a tax
> by any other name and more iniquitous than most as it doesn't take
> into account ability to pay), you're still liable to pay council tax,
> even if, at great expense, the council employs a middle-man to then
> give it back by way of rebate and if you have a car you are required
> to pay VED (see comment about TV licence!).

But note that monies from the TV Licence goes directly to the BBC, not into
Mr. Brown's piggy bank.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Wood is an excellent material for making trees, but is otherwise
not to be trusted.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Clive Coleman. <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> In message <[email protected]>, Jeff York
> <[email protected]> writes
>> You mean that she never bought *anything* that had VAT on it???
> I don't know, it would depend on how much tax is on food. You'll
> know better than me, I'm sure you'll have your finger on the pulse so
> to speak.

Most food is zero-rated, but items demmed to be "luxury goods" aren't. VAT
is applied to chocolate digestives, but not to plain ones.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Nicht in die laufende Trommel greifen.

 

[Martin Dann]

Clive. wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> writes
>>> It is a fact that pressure on the road is
>>> directly the same as the pressure in the tyre
>>
>> No it is not a fact.
> Care to enlighten me, simple physics can be followed if you want.

For a tyre that has little or no deformation when placed on the road,
the pressure on the road will be completely different to that of the air
inside the tyre. As weight is put onto the wheel, the tyre will deform,
increasing the surface area on the road, but the tyre will still hold
some of the air pressure at the interface.


> I am seeing a tyre that distorts so that the area under the tyre is
proportional to it's weight in psi divided by the tyre
pressure, and the deformation of the road surface.

What does "weight in psi" mean (and the rest of the sentence).

Martin.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
JNugent <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Pyromancer wrote:
>> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Al C-F
>> <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>
>>
>>> It's not a Road Fund Licence and hasn't been since the mid 30s.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, but that didn't stop a dealership ad on the radio here ten
>> minutes ago calling it "Road Fund Duty". They're advertising a
>> "factory invoice price" promotion, and explain at the end that what
>> they mean is the price they pay the manufaturer, plus cost of number
>> plates, "one year's road fund duty" and a few other bits and bobs.
>>
>> Whatever it may really be called / for, in the collective mind of the
>> general public, it is indeed "road tax", a situation that's unlikely
>> to change any time soon. :-(
>
> Indeed, the relevant department actually called it
> "Road Tax" in a series of TV adverts a couple of
> years ago (the ones that replicated the "Chitty
> Chitty Bang Bang" film).
>
> Still, what do they know?

Obviously not enough to know that, while it would still require a tax disc,
it would cost this much: 0. The same, in fact, as for Bond James Bond's
Aston, which also featured in this campaign.

However:

Road Fund Licence for 16 lire Talbot in 1926: 14 GBP[1]
VED on a 1.6 litre (petrol) Ford Focus in 2007: 125 GBP[2]

If RFL/VED had kept pace with inflation, that Focus would cost almost six
hundred quid[3] a year to tax, so I'd say the average motorist is getting
off lightly...

1 - from "Georges Roesch and the Invincible Talbots", Anthony Blight
2 - from the DVLA's webby SCIENCE
3 - http://www.moneysorter.co.uk/calculator_inflation.html


--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
This Unit is a productive Unit.