Re: Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads?

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> ... contrary to your statement,

The statement which wasn't made, you mean?

> current trends are for heavier vehicles and more SUVs.

All of which use less fuel than the average USA car in the gas-guzzling days
of the 1950s through to the mid-1970s.

What IS your problem?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:06:48 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> ... contrary to your statement,
>The statement which wasn't made, you mean?

No, the one which was made: "You are probably a couple of decades
behind the times."

It turns out that the big increase has been in (predominantly
US-built) light trucks, including SUVs, which now account for nearly
half of all new cars sold in the USA.

>> current trends are for heavier vehicles and more SUVs.
>All of which use less fuel than the average USA car in the gas-guzzling days
>of the 1950s through to the mid-1970s.

Which is not what you said.

>What IS your problem?

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it's fucwits who consistently argufy from a
basis of ignorance? Yes, maybe that's it.

Time for a solution:

<plonk>


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>>> ... contrary to your statement,

>>The statement which wasn't made,
>> you mean?

> No, the one which was made: "You are probably a couple of decades
> behind the times."

Ah.. I see my mistake.

I *should* have written: "You are probably more than three decades behind
the times."

There... that's better.

> It turns out that the big increase has been in (predominantly
> US-built) light trucks, including SUVs, which now account for nearly
> half of all new cars sold in the USA.

>>> current trends are for heavier vehicles and more SUVs.
>> All of which use less fuel than the average USA car in the gas-
>> guzzling days of the 1950s through to the mid-1970s.

> Which is not what you said.

Actually, it was - but not in the limited bit you responded to (have a
look - it's all there to be found).

>> What IS your problem?

> Oh, I don't know.

Quite.

> Perhaps it's fucwits who consistently argufy from a
> basis of ignorance? Yes, maybe that's it.

Or those (like your good self) who prefer to misrepresent and edit posts so
as to change their meaning?

 

[Simon Proven]

JNugent wrote:

> Well-justified. It certainly caused the government to need a change of
> underwear. Though the Peoples' Protest was five years ago, Brown hasn't
> dared increase petrol and diesel tax in real terms since then - completely
> counter to what they had been doing over the previous three years. That has
> only happened because they know the people have spoken.

Now that is made-up ********. As you know, the fuel duty escalator was
abolished *before* the Sept 2000 protests.

 

[JNugent]

Simon Proven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Well-justified. It certainly caused the government to need a change
>> of underwear. Though the Peoples' Protest was five years ago, Brown
>> hasn't dared increase petrol and diesel tax in real terms since then
>> - completely counter to what they had been doing over the previous
>> three years. That has only happened because they know the people
>> have spoken.

> Now that is made-up ********.

Far from it.

And what a nice turn of phrase you have.

> As you know, the fuel duty escalator
> was abolished *before* the Sept 2000 protests.

That much is right. Of course, that "abolition" made no actual difference.
Brown had still imposed a higher-than-inflation increase in fuel tax that
year (and cannot reasonably be said to have abandoned the policy - he had
just re-named - or perhaps "de-named" - it.

Remind us - has he dared return to those pre-September 200 ways of his?

 

[Lum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 03:41:33 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> I do find that of the things which suddenly, irritatingly and
>>> unpredictably require me to have cash, parking is - well, not even on
>>> the list, as I'm always expecting it. Shops that don't take plastic?
>>> Annoying. Parking machines? No bother, we keep some coins in the
>>> car.
>
>>I used to keep coins in the car. My car was then broken into at 3 in the
>>morning to get my £1.20 tunnel money. From investigating the damage it
>>seems they took a screwdriver and a hammer and bent in all the metal
>>around the lock barrel until it fell out, then removed it and pulled the
>>release mechanism manually.
>
> So the problem is not one of money, but one of car crime. I have been
> a bit more fortunate; someone screwdrivered the lock of one of my cars
> years ago, but actually I've on occasion left the keys in the door and
> the car (and keys) have still been there in the morning. I recommend
> moving...

I'm working on it. I am moving bit by bit into my GFs one car load at a time
as my work takes me across the country.

>>>>Oh and today I went to a Maplin in Essex to buy a 19p part. I paid 60p
>>>>in parking charges (I didn't know there would be parking charges at a
>>>>retail park) which left me with 15p in change so I had to buy the part
>>>>on credit card.
>
>>> A journey for a single part? Sounds like a distress purchase to me.
>
>>There is no local Maplin, however there is one en route to the customer I
>>was visiting that day, so I popped in on the way back. The part in
>>question was a replacement power plug for my laptop, having nearly
>>exhausted the battery in it with the days work.
>
> This is getting a bit pointless, I think. The fact is, if you build
> your life around the assumption that every journey will be by car,
> there will be lots of attendant costs. I opt out of much of that by
> using a bike.

We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was originally about
how parking costs killed a town centre.

>>> I think anybody who travels regularly on a train will be familiar with
>>> [Bromptons].
>
>>I generally avoid trains (see another bit of this thread for my reasons
>>for that) but on the few I've been on recently, I've never seen one.
>>Perhaps it's a London thing?
>
> It's a rail commuter thing, there are more rail commuters per head in
> the South-East for sure.

Because the rail network is less **** in the south east, assuming your
commute is in and out of london of course (not travelling in and out of
London? you will be if you take the train between two other cities that
aren't very close)
>
>>>>> a Queen's Award in 1992. There were folding bikes before then.
>>>>Which were generally regarded as being bulky, clumsy and unreliable.
>>> Or Moultons
>>who?
>
> Oh do keep up at the back! ;-) http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/
>
> The same Alex Moulton who designed the suspension for the Mini.
>
>>>>> Not cheap? It depends what you mean. Mine cost me about a third of
>>>>> the annual costs of the second car we used to run (a six-year-old
>>>>> Honda Civic).
>
>>>>1/3 of the cost of running a Civic? *********** that's more expensive
>>>>than I imagined!
>
>>> Yep. That's the capital cost. How many brand new cars can you buy
>>> for that, I wonder?
>
>>Oh, that's the purchase price, I thought you were talking about running
>>costs.
>
> Heh! Not as such. My recumbent is the most expensive bike to run
> I've ever owned, that costs me about £200 in parts per year (chains
> and tyres) for about 4,000 miles travelled. My touring bike cost me a
> fraction of that, and I guess the Brom should be cheap, too.
>
>>>>I'm struggling to run one vehicle right now, certainly not taking on a
>>>>Brompton unless I get a desk-job close to where I live.
>
>>> Suit yourself. I save so much money not running a second car I can
>>> afford to buy at least one decent bike a year on the strength of it.
>
>>I don't run a second car anyway. I need the first car for work though.
>
> Ah, well, that's "for some values of need", innit? ;-)

My working day could quite easilly consist of: start at liverpool, load
replacement server into car, drive to glasgow, install server on customer
site, drive home.

Yes I need a car.
>
>>>>In my last desk-job, expensive things left on or near a desk had a high
>>>>tendency to walk, this included personal property as well as company
>>>>assets
>
>>> Sounds like a **** job. I have my own office with separate aircon
>
>>Must me nice to be rich and able to afford these fancy bicycles and
>>expensive crappy train journeys.
>
> Speak for yourself. My train journey is neither expensive nor crappy.

The last train journey I made (which was only a few weeks back) was both of
these things. I had to take a ****-poor rackety single coach slam door for
3 stops, wait an hour on a cold outdoor metal seat, get on a nicer train
only be be surrounded by loud obnoxious chavs with **** ringtones, lug my 2
bags plus laptop from one birmingham station to another, this took a while
and I caught the end of the police arresting someone for a broad daylight
mugging en route, choke on diesel fumes at new street station
(environmentally friendly my ****!) watch as the train travelled past the
factory next to my office and wait another 10 minutes before I could
alight, and then get a taxi to retrace the last 10 minutes of the journey
before getting me into the office.

It does my head in how people who commute into London think the rest of the
rail network is as good as the bit they use, especially since a lot of them
are politicians.

 

[JNugent]

Lum wrote:

[ ... ]

> The last train journey I made (which was only a few weeks back) was
> both of these things. I had to take a ****-poor rackety single coach
> slam door for 3 stops, wait an hour on a cold outdoor metal seat, get
> on a nicer train only be be surrounded by loud obnoxious chavs with
> **** ringtones, lug my 2 bags plus laptop from one birmingham station
> to another, this took a while and I caught the end of the police
> arresting someone for a broad daylight mugging en route, choke on
> diesel fumes at new street station (environmentally friendly my
> ****!) watch as the train travelled past the factory next to my
> office and wait another 10 minutes before I could alight, and then
> get a taxi to retrace the last 10 minutes of the journey before
> getting me into the office.

<mode: At Last the 1948 Show>
Luxury
<mode: /At Last the 1948 Show>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:21:07 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>> So the problem is not one of money, but one of car crime. I have been
>> a bit more fortunate; someone screwdrivered the lock of one of my cars
>> years ago, but actually I've on occasion left the keys in the door and
>> the car (and keys) have still been there in the morning. I recommend
>> moving...

>I'm working on it. I am moving bit by bit into my GFs one car load at a time
>as my work takes me across the country.

Can't say I blame you

>We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was originally about
>how parking costs killed a town centre.

Ahem: *allegedly* killed. The person who made that claim never named
names. I have worked as part of a town centre management consortium
and retailers *always* claim that a 1p increase in parking charges
will kill the town centre, and somehow it never seems to in practice.
What reliably kills town centres is massive new out-of-town retail
developments opening nearby.

Incidentally, you can always spot a town that's dying on its feet:
charity shops in the main high street. These are usually on short
leases in otherwise empty property, so if they appear in the main
shopping street it's generally a bad sign.

>> It's a rail commuter thing, there are more rail commuters per head in
>> the South-East for sure.

>Because the rail network is less **** in the south east, assuming your
>commute is in and out of london of course (not travelling in and out of
>London? you will be if you take the train between two other cities that
>aren't very close)

I don't know about that. I have a friend who used to rail commute
from Dronfield to Manchester, there were a lot of people who commuted
by train from there to Manc or Sheffield. I think it depends on how
Beechinged your local area was.

>>>I don't run a second car anyway. I need the first car for work though.
>> Ah, well, that's "for some values of need", innit? ;-)

>My working day could quite easilly consist of: start at liverpool, load
>replacement server into car, drive to glasgow, install server on customer
>site, drive home.

Sure, and mine used to regularly include drive from Reading to
Harrogate, do a day's work, drive back, round trip 512 miles, but the
point is that I decided to stop doing that. Even the lure of a
£30,000 company car was not enough to keep me doing it.

>>>Must me nice to be rich and able to afford these fancy bicycles and
>>>expensive crappy train journeys.

>> Speak for yourself. My train journey is neither expensive nor crappy.

>The last train journey I made (which was only a few weeks back) was both of
>these things.

Bad luck. I used to go quite regularly from Reading to Birmingham, on
the Virgin Voyager. Nice clean quiet trains, plenty of leg room,
decent coffee from the buffet thingy, and I could read a book on the
way. Driving was the default in that firm but lobbied hard to take
the train and never regretted it.

>It does my head in how people who commute into London think the rest of the
>rail network is as good as the bit they use, especially since a lot of them
>are politicians.

Well, the old Connex franchise (used by *many* London commuters and
polits) was as **** as they come, and thousands of London commuters
are only just having their 1950s slam-door trains replaced now.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Lum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:21:07 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> So the problem is not one of money, but one of car crime. I have been
>>> a bit more fortunate; someone screwdrivered the lock of one of my cars
>>> years ago, but actually I've on occasion left the keys in the door and
>>> the car (and keys) have still been there in the morning. I recommend
>>> moving...
>
>>I'm working on it. I am moving bit by bit into my GFs one car load at a
>>time as my work takes me across the country.
>
> Can't say I blame you

It's the cheapest way, I can get a much smaller removal van at the end of
the process for the big things.
>
>>We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was originally about
>>how parking costs killed a town centre.
>
> Ahem: *allegedly* killed. The person who made that claim never named
> names. I have worked as part of a town centre management consortium
> and retailers *always* claim that a 1p increase in parking charges
> will kill the town centre, and somehow it never seems to in practice.
> What reliably kills town centres is massive new out-of-town retail
> developments opening nearby.

It wasn't the Trafford Centre that stopped me using Liverpool's town centre
it was when they brought in the private traffic wardens. I was always under
the impression that a single yellow line with no signs indicating the
restrictions meant something like half an hour by default, something that
had been confirmed by a few years of parking there for quick nips into town
to get stuff. Apparently a single yellow means the same as a double yellow,
that'll be 60 quid please. I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
suburb but has free parking. Only places in Liverpool's town centre that
can't be met elsewhere are Richer Sounds (which I don't use that often and
certainly not by bike), Forbidden Planet (which I've grown out of) and
Quiggins (same again)
>
> Incidentally, you can always spot a town that's dying on its feet:
> charity shops in the main high street. These are usually on short
> leases in otherwise empty property, so if they appear in the main
> shopping street it's generally a bad sign.

Heh, that would make sense
>
>>> It's a rail commuter thing, there are more rail commuters per head in
>>> the South-East for sure.
>
>>Because the rail network is less **** in the south east, assuming your
>>commute is in and out of london of course (not travelling in and out of
>>London? you will be if you take the train between two other cities that
>>aren't very close)
>
> I don't know about that. I have a friend who used to rail commute
> from Dronfield to Manchester, there were a lot of people who commuted
> by train from there to Manc or Sheffield. I think it depends on how
> Beechinged your local area was.

There are a few east-west lines, but most railway lines are from <location>
to either London or Birmingham. Aylesbury has **** poor public transport
links to anywhere except London.
>
>>>>I don't run a second car anyway. I need the first car for work though.
>>> Ah, well, that's "for some values of need", innit? ;-)
>
>>My working day could quite easilly consist of: start at liverpool, load
>>replacement server into car, drive to glasgow, install server on customer
>>site, drive home.
>
> Sure, and mine used to regularly include drive from Reading to
> Harrogate, do a day's work, drive back, round trip 512 miles, but the
> point is that I decided to stop doing that. Even the lure of a
> £30,000 company car was not enough to keep me doing it.

Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.

I'm rarely on site before 10:30
>
>>>>Must me nice to be rich and able to afford these fancy bicycles and
>>>>expensive crappy train journeys.
>
>>> Speak for yourself. My train journey is neither expensive nor crappy.
>
>>The last train journey I made (which was only a few weeks back) was both
>>of these things.
>
> Bad luck. I used to go quite regularly from Reading to Birmingham, on
> the Virgin Voyager. Nice clean quiet trains, plenty of leg room,
> decent coffee from the buffet thingy, and I could read a book on the
> way. Driving was the default in that firm but lobbied hard to take
> the train and never regretted it.

It's just the way public transport is from Aylesbury. It's better (ish) in
Liverpool but still only the London train is actually good.
>
>>It does my head in how people who commute into London think the rest of
>>the rail network is as good as the bit they use, especially since a lot of
>>them are politicians.
>
> Well, the old Connex franchise (used by *many* London commuters and
> polits) was as **** as they come, and thousands of London commuters
> are only just having their 1950s slam-door trains replaced now.

And this is supposed to encourage me to use the train?

I'm not particularly bothered about the quality of the coach (so long as it
doesn't smell) but it's the waiting, lugging stuff from platform to
platform, the fact that if you leave 5 minutes late you miss the train and
become an hour late, cold outdoor-only seating at the station you always
have to change at if going north from Aylesbury and hoardes of
inconsiderate people (many of whom work there)

 

[Tony Raven]

Lum wrote:
>
> It wasn't the Trafford Centre that stopped me using Liverpool's town centre
> it was when they brought in the private traffic wardens. I was always under
> the impression that a single yellow line with no signs indicating the
> restrictions meant something like half an hour by default, something that
> had been confirmed by a few years of parking there for quick nips into town
> to get stuff.

Remember this? http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs09.htm

From that little book of rules you are supposed to study and know in
order to pass your driving test.


--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:35:37 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>>>We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was originally about
>>>how parking costs killed a town centre.

>> Ahem: *allegedly* killed. The person who made that claim never named
>> names. I have worked as part of a town centre management consortium
>> and retailers *always* claim that a 1p increase in parking charges
>> will kill the town centre, and somehow it never seems to in practice.
>> What reliably kills town centres is massive new out-of-town retail
>> developments opening nearby.

>I was always under
>the impression that a single yellow line with no signs indicating the
>restrictions meant something like half an hour by default, something that
>had been confirmed by a few years of parking there for quick nips into town
>to get stuff. Apparently a single yellow means the same as a double yellow,
>that'll be 60 quid please.

Actually you are wrong on both counts. A yellow line - single or
double - denotes a stretch of road where parking is prohibited some or
all of the time. A single line means that the restriction applies
only at certain times (typically during the working day), a double
line applies. Look for the little plate on a post somewhere which
tells you the times.

In both cases loading and unloading is normally allowed, unless there
is an additional waiting restriction normally denoted by yellow dashes
on the kerb.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs09.htm

>I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
>suburb but has free parking. Only places in Liverpool's town centre that
>can't be met elsewhere are Richer Sounds (which I don't use that often and
>certainly not by bike), Forbidden Planet (which I've grown out of) and
>Quiggins (same again)

So the source of the problem is apparently out-of-town retail.

>> I have a friend who used to rail commute
>> from Dronfield to Manchester, there were a lot of people who commuted
>> by train from there to Manc or Sheffield. I think it depends on how
>> Beechinged your local area was.

>There are a few east-west lines, but most railway lines are from <location>
>to either London or Birmingham. Aylesbury has **** poor public transport
>links to anywhere except London.

That's partly a reflection of the Beeching closures (he was a Tarmac
shareholder, by the way) and partly of the fact that, for rail
travellers, London is probably the major destination. Commuting from
Aylesbury to London by car is likely to be much slower and much more
expensive than doing it by rail.

>>>My working day could quite easilly consist of: start at liverpool, load
>>>replacement server into car, drive to glasgow, install server on customer
>>>site, drive home.

>> Sure, and mine used to regularly include drive from Reading to
>> Harrogate, do a day's work, drive back, round trip 512 miles, but the
>> point is that I decided to stop doing that. Even the lure of a
>> £30,000 company car was not enough to keep me doing it.

>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.

No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.

>>>It does my head in how people who commute into London think the rest of
>>>the rail network is as good as the bit they use, especially since a lot of
>>>them are politicians.

>> Well, the old Connex franchise (used by *many* London commuters and
>> polits) was as **** as they come, and thousands of London commuters
>> are only just having their 1950s slam-door trains replaced now.

>And this is supposed to encourage me to use the train?

Not at all, but it is not the case that London services are wonderful
and others ****. It really isn't that simple.

Actually probably the biggest differences are probably between the old
post-grouping regions - Eastern is the poor relation, West Coast is
better but still short of investment, the Western do things
differently and often better and so on. That's been my experience,
anyway.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Lum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 13:35:37 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>>>We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was originally
>>>>about how parking costs killed a town centre.
>
>>> Ahem: *allegedly* killed. The person who made that claim never named
>>> names. I have worked as part of a town centre management consortium
>>> and retailers *always* claim that a 1p increase in parking charges
>>> will kill the town centre, and somehow it never seems to in practice.
>>> What reliably kills town centres is massive new out-of-town retail
>>> developments opening nearby.
>
>>I was always under
>>the impression that a single yellow line with no signs indicating the
>>restrictions meant something like half an hour by default, something that
>>had been confirmed by a few years of parking there for quick nips into
>>town to get stuff. Apparently a single yellow means the same as a double
>>yellow, that'll be 60 quid please.
>
> Actually you are wrong on both counts. A yellow line - single or
> double - denotes a stretch of road where parking is prohibited some or
> all of the time. A single line means that the restriction applies
> only at certain times (typically during the working day), a double
> line applies. Look for the little plate on a post somewhere which
> tells you the times.

There was no plate, I walked up and down the road several times, and
periodically re-checked during the years I was using it for free praking.
If the single yellow requires the plate to say when you *cant* park then
surely no plate means you can park. I tried to avoid using it for more than
half an hour ago as I thought that was the default, and in any case it's a
sensible "don't take the ****" option.
>
> In both cases loading and unloading is normally allowed, unless there
> is an additional waiting restriction normally denoted by yellow dashes
> on the kerb.
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs09.htm
>
>>I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
>>suburb but has free parking. Only places in Liverpool's town centre that
>>can't be met elsewhere are Richer Sounds (which I don't use that often and
>>certainly not by bike), Forbidden Planet (which I've grown out of) and
>>Quiggins (same again)
>
> So the source of the problem is apparently out-of-town retail.

It's hardly out of town. They knocked down a bunch of condemed 60s concrete
flats that were full of smack-heads (hopefully without warning them first)
in a crappy suburb and built a Tesco, yay for Tesco!
>
>>> I have a friend who used to rail commute
>>> from Dronfield to Manchester, there were a lot of people who commuted
>>> by train from there to Manc or Sheffield. I think it depends on how
>>> Beechinged your local area was.
>
>>There are a few east-west lines, but most railway lines are from
>><location> to either London or Birmingham. Aylesbury has **** poor public
>>transport links to anywhere except London.
>
> That's partly a reflection of the Beeching closures (he was a Tarmac
> shareholder, by the way) and partly of the fact that, for rail
> travellers, London is probably the major destination. Commuting from
> Aylesbury to London by car is likely to be much slower and much more
> expensive than doing it by rail.

I generally drive to Finchley, park somewhere for free and get a travel card
from there, and maybe London is the major destination but so what? I do not
want to travel to London, are you saying that my choice of destination is
wrong and I should desire to travel to London instead?

London is overcrowded, expensive and there are too many jobs there with not
enough accomodation, this is caused by the fact that it's easy to get to.
It's a vicious circle really.
>
>>>>My working day could quite easilly consist of: start at liverpool, load
>>>>replacement server into car, drive to glasgow, install server on
>>>>customer site, drive home.
>
>>> Sure, and mine used to regularly include drive from Reading to
>>> Harrogate, do a day's work, drive back, round trip 512 miles, but the
>>> point is that I decided to stop doing that. Even the lure of a
>>> £30,000 company car was not enough to keep me doing it.
>
>>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.
>
> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.

My office is in Liverpool, it was 15 minutes drive away, still had to take
the car in case there's a call out.
>
>>>>It does my head in how people who commute into London think the rest of
>>>>the rail network is as good as the bit they use, especially since a lot
>>>>of them are politicians.
>
>>> Well, the old Connex franchise (used by *many* London commuters and
>>> polits) was as **** as they come, and thousands of London commuters
>>> are only just having their 1950s slam-door trains replaced now.
>
>>And this is supposed to encourage me to use the train?
>
> Not at all, but it is not the case that London services are wonderful
> and others ****. It really isn't that simple.

The tube, nuff said.

I know Londerners complain about it all the time, but with trains every 5
minutes and stations so close it is vastly superior to any other cities
public transport system, plus if you are in london and need to get to any
other major city there is a direct line for you to take. One change at
worst.

> Actually probably the biggest differences are probably between the old
> post-grouping regions - Eastern is the poor relation, West Coast is
> better but still short of investment, the Western do things
> differently and often better and so on. That's been my experience,
> anyway.

It's changing train and waiting that is the most annoying for me. I have to
change twice to get from Aylesbury to Birmingham and then I am reasonably
well set to getting to anywhere else.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:21:48 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>> Actually you are wrong on both counts. A yellow line - single or
>> double - denotes a stretch of road where parking is prohibited some or
>> all of the time. A single line means that the restriction applies
>> only at certain times (typically during the working day), a double
>> line applies. Look for the little plate on a post somewhere which
>> tells you the times.

>There was no plate, I walked up and down the road several times, and
>periodically re-checked during the years I was using it for free praking.

Inform the council.

>If the single yellow requires the plate to say when you *cant* park then
>surely no plate means you can park.

No, it means you have to assume the working day (I think that's
8:30-5:30 or some such, but I don't know). But there should be a plate
for a single yellow.

>I tried to avoid using it for more than
>half an hour ago as I thought that was the default, and in any case it's a
>sensible "don't take the ****" option.

You are deluding yourself. No waiting means exactly that: no waiting.
Either the restriction is in force or its not. You are choosing to
believe what you want to believe, and it's at odds with reality.

>>>I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
>>>suburb but has free parking.
>> So the source of the problem is apparently out-of-town retail.

>It's hardly out of town. They knocked down a bunch of condemed 60s concrete
>flats that were full of smack-heads (hopefully without warning them first)
>in a crappy suburb and built a Tesco, yay for Tesco!

Still and all, the problem appears to be "doughnutting".

>> That's partly a reflection of the Beeching closures (he was a Tarmac
>> shareholder, by the way) and partly of the fact that, for rail
>> travellers, London is probably the major destination. Commuting from
>> Aylesbury to London by car is likely to be much slower and much more
>> expensive than doing it by rail.

>I generally drive to Finchley, park somewhere for free and get a travel card
>from there, and maybe London is the major destination but so what? I do not
>want to travel to London, are you saying that my choice of destination is
>wrong and I should desire to travel to London instead?

Where did I say that, or anything like it? The point is simply that
London is particularly attractive to rail commuters because of the
time and expense of commuting into London by car. It takes well over
an hour longer to get to the City from my house by car as by train.

>>>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>>>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.

>> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
>> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.

>My office is in Liverpool, it was 15 minutes drive away, still had to take
>the car in case there's a call out.

You are missing the point. I changed the job; as a result I don't
have to drive for work. Result!

>The tube, nuff said.
>I know Londerners complain about it all the time, but with trains every 5
>minutes and stations so close it is vastly superior to any other cities
>public transport system, plus if you are in london and need to get to any
>other major city there is a direct line for you to take. One change at
>worst.

Capital cities are like that. And the tube is not as fabulous as you
might think - I prefer to cycle from Paddington to St Mary Axe.

>It's changing train and waiting that is the most annoying for me. I have to
>change twice to get from Aylesbury to Birmingham and then I am reasonably
>well set to getting to anywhere else.

Blame Beeching - or rather the pro-car Government that handed him his
conclusions and told him to find the supporting data.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[JNugent]

Lum wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[ ... ]

Lum:
>>>>> We have missed the point, I'm sure this bit of thread was
>>>>> originally about how parking costs killed a town centre.


[ ... ]

JzG:
>>>> ... I have worked as part of a town centre management
>>>> consortium and retailers *always* claim that a 1p increase in
>>>> parking charges will kill the town centre, and somehow it never
>>>> seems to in practice. What reliably kills town centres is massive
>>>> new out-of-town retail developments opening nearby.

[ ... ]

Lum:
>>> I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
>>> suburb but has free parking. Only places in Liverpool's town centre
>>> that can't be met elsewhere are Richer Sounds (which I don't use
>>> that often and certainly not by bike), Forbidden Planet (which I've
>>> grown out of) and Quiggins (same again)

JzG:
>> So the source of the problem is apparently out-of-town retail.

Lum:
> It's hardly out of town. They knocked down a bunch of condemed 60s
> concrete flats that were full of smack-heads (hopefully without
> warning them first) in a crappy suburb and built a Tesco, yay for
> Tesco!

These days, Tesco sells a lot more than groceries, of course, but even so,
the building of supermarkets in the suburbs of Liverpool (whether inner or
outer) cannot possibly be the source of any "problem" for the city-centre.
The fact is that low-order shopping (groceries including meat and bread,
alcohol and tobacco, newspapers/magazines, some sorts of clothing and
footwear, etc) has not been any more than a tiny fraction of the retail
economy of the *centre* of that fine city since the place was a mere
township, early in the Victorian period. In other words, with the exception
of the food retail trade in St John's Market (which was wrecked by the city
council four decades ago), and following the closure of high-quality
specialist food store Coopers (c.1965), no-one went into the city centre to
get their normal day-to-day shopping (and they didn't do much of even when
the market was a more congenial place and when Coopers as still open).

Liverpool is a metropolitan centre, and low-order shopping has been a
suburban activity there for over a hundred years. What *has* happened is
that the low-order retail trade, which until about thirty to forty years
ago, was spread out along the radial main roads of the nineteenth century
areas (just look at any of them), has shifted to supermarkets and even a few
EOT "malls" (such as the one at Belle Vale). This is turn has helped the
decline of some inner suburbs as the local raison d'etre for the shops has
gradually disappeared, leaving too many of the shop premises with no
function (hence, AIUI, the city council's decision to demolish some of them,
and to improve others, partly by demolishing low-demand terraced housing in
the vicinity in order to provide infrastructure improvements (mainly
parking, without which strung-out retail shops flounder in this day and
age).

But any idea that building EOT or OOT centres damaged Liverpool city centre
is borne out of ignorance of the social and economic geography of my home
town.

[ ... ]

Lum:
> London is overcrowded, expensive and there are too many jobs there
> with not enough accomodation, this is caused by the fact that it's
> easy to get to. It's a vicious circle really.

You really ought to spend a week or two trying to commute into Central
London from a satellite town (say) thirty miles away. You'd soon amend the
phrase "easy to get to" to something quite different.

 

[ian henden]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
>>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.
>
> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.
>

Must be a lovely place to commute from (or to) .... on the coast, so only
needs half the access routes that inland places need, and possibly less
through traffic .... bonus!!
)

 

[Ian]

"ian henden" wrote in message
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [...]
>>>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>>>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.
>>
>> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
>> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.
>>
>
> Must be a lovely place to commute from (or to) .... on the coast, so only
> needs half the access routes that inland places need, and possibly less
> through traffic .... bonus!!
> )
>

You obviously aren't familiar with the A32 form Fareham to Gosport. The road
can't take the current traffic let alone the extra from the new houses that
are being built. Most of it is single carriageway with not enough land
either side to widen it. I try only to use it off peak.

Ian

 

[Lum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:21:48 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
> in message <[email protected]>:
>
>>> Actually you are wrong on both counts. A yellow line - single or
>>> double - denotes a stretch of road where parking is prohibited some or
>>> all of the time. A single line means that the restriction applies
>>> only at certain times (typically during the working day), a double
>>> line applies. Look for the little plate on a post somewhere which
>>> tells you the times.
>
>>There was no plate, I walked up and down the road several times, and
>>periodically re-checked during the years I was using it for free praking.
>
> Inform the council.

Can't be arsed, they wont care now that they have employed parking vultures,
it's in their interests to have the regulations as confusing and obnoxious
as possible? (not replaced your orange badge with a blue one yet? have a
£60 fine)
>
>>If the single yellow requires the plate to say when you *cant* park then
>>surely no plate means you can park.
>
> No, it means you have to assume the working day (I think that's
> 8:30-5:30 or some such, but I don't know). But there should be a plate
> for a single yellow.

This was a Saturday, I never parked there during the week.
>
>>I tried to avoid using it for more than
>>half an hour ago as I thought that was the default, and in any case it's a
>>sensible "don't take the ****" option.
>
> You are deluding yourself. No waiting means exactly that: no waiting.
> Either the restriction is in force or its not. You are choosing to
> believe what you want to believe, and it's at odds with reality.

Write that paragraph in the past tense and you would be correct.
>
>>>>I now just use Tesco for most stuff, that's in a
>>>>suburb but has free parking.
>>> So the source of the problem is apparently out-of-town retail.
>
>>It's hardly out of town. They knocked down a bunch of condemed 60s
>>concrete flats that were full of smack-heads (hopefully without warning
>>them first) in a crappy suburb and built a Tesco, yay for Tesco!
>
> Still and all, the problem appears to be "doughnutting".

What do chavs in Tesco car park after hours have to do with this?
>
>>> That's partly a reflection of the Beeching closures (he was a Tarmac
>>> shareholder, by the way) and partly of the fact that, for rail
>>> travellers, London is probably the major destination. Commuting from
>>> Aylesbury to London by car is likely to be much slower and much more
>>> expensive than doing it by rail.
>
>>I generally drive to Finchley, park somewhere for free and get a travel
>>card from there, and maybe London is the major destination but so what? I
>>do not want to travel to London, are you saying that my choice of
>>destination is wrong and I should desire to travel to London instead?
>
> Where did I say that, or anything like it? The point is simply that
> London is particularly attractive to rail commuters because of the
> time and expense of commuting into London by car. It takes well over
> an hour longer to get to the City from my house by car as by train.

And travelling to anywhere that isn't London is less attractive, many
politicians fail to realise this and continue to bang on at people using
cars.
>
>>>>Commuting to a fixed workplace like that would be really annoying,
>>>>presumably they expected you to be there by 9? Bugger that.
>
>>> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
>>> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.
>
>>My office is in Liverpool, it was 15 minutes drive away, still had to take
>>the car in case there's a call out.
>
> You are missing the point. I changed the job; as a result I don't
> have to drive for work. Result!

Working on it. There is very little IT work in Liverpool, once I have
completed moving then I will be looking for another job (please god don't
let my employer be reading this!)

>>The tube, nuff said.
>>I know Londerners complain about it all the time, but with trains every 5
>>minutes and stations so close it is vastly superior to any other cities
>>public transport system, plus if you are in london and need to get to any
>>other major city there is a direct line for you to take. One change at
>>worst.
>
> Capital cities are like that. And the tube is not as fabulous as you
> might think - I prefer to cycle from Paddington to St Mary Axe.

It's a relative term, compared to Liverpool's underground system (about 4
stations, 5 if you include Birkenhead) it's state of the art, seriously.
>
>>It's changing train and waiting that is the most annoying for me. I have
>>to change twice to get from Aylesbury to Birmingham and then I am
>>reasonably well set to getting to anywhere else.
>
> Blame Beeching - or rather the pro-car Government that handed him his
> conclusions and told him to find the supporting data.

Before my time, I think. I still have no idea who this guy is, presumably a
transport minister in a previous government.

 

[Lum]

JNugent wrote:

> But any idea that building EOT or OOT centres damaged Liverpool city
> centre is borne out of ignorance of the social and economic geography of
> my home town.

Indeed, What stopped me going into town was not the presence of Tesco, but
the loss of my free parking, even if that free parking was only due to lax
enforcement and a misunderstanding of the law. Nothing the town centre
sells is immediately necessary (eg. food) things like clothes can be bought
elsewhere, so if I happen to be passing, say, Meadowhall near sheffield
I'll go there (and park for free) or if I'm at my GFs in Aylesbury there
are still a few places where you can park for free for short periods, so
I'll get stuff there, from the high street!

Traffic Wardens do not allow you time to go to a cash machine and then get
change, some of the places in Bradford even have signs warning you that
you'll get ticketed if you attempt this.

> Lum:
>> London is overcrowded, expensive and there are too many jobs there
>> with not enough accomodation, this is caused by the fact that it's
>> easy to get to. It's a vicious circle really.
>
> You really ought to spend a week or two trying to commute into Central
> London from a satellite town (say) thirty miles away. You'd soon amend the
> phrase "easy to get to" to something quite different.

From Aylesbury or Liverpool, it's a single train.
Get there on time, get on train, get ****** off because all the seats are
full and spend the journey grumbling to the guy next to you would seem to
be the order of the day.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 02:59:53 +0100, Lum <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>There was no plate, I walked up and down the road several times, and
>>>periodically re-checked during the years I was using it for free praking.

>> Inform the council.

>Can't be arsed, they wont care now that they have employed parking vultures,

You think? It may make their parking fines invalid. I'm betting
they'll care.

>>>If the single yellow requires the plate to say when you *cant* park then
>>>surely no plate means you can park.

>> No, it means you have to assume the working day (I think that's
>> 8:30-5:30 or some such, but I don't know). But there should be a plate
>> for a single yellow.

>This was a Saturday, I never parked there during the week.

So fight the ticket.

>> Still and all, the problem appears to be "doughnutting".

>What do chavs in Tesco car park after hours have to do with this?

I could have sworn those goalposts were over there a minute ago...

>> London is particularly attractive to rail commuters because of the
>> time and expense of commuting into London by car. It takes well over
>> an hour longer to get to the City from my house by car as by train.

>And travelling to anywhere that isn't London is less attractive, many
>politicians fail to realise this and continue to bang on at people using
>cars.

Yada yada yada. I don't live in London, and I don't work in London
(except for visits to head office). I commute by train. My friend
Séamus commuted by train from Dronfield to Manchester.

>> You are missing the point. I changed the job; as a result I don't
>> have to drive for work. Result!

>Working on it. There is very little IT work in Liverpool, once I have
>completed moving then I will be looking for another job (please god don't
>let my employer be reading this!)

If they are, you have just accelerated the process! ;-)

>> Blame Beeching - or rather the pro-car Government that handed him his
>> conclusions and told him to find the supporting data.

>Before my time, I think. I still have no idea who this guy is, presumably a
>transport minister in a previous government.

He's the one who closed all the branch lines and cross-country links
whose absence you note. Not a transport minister, a hatchet man.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:34:53 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> No, it wasn't a fixed workplace. I travelled all over Northern
>> Europe, the office was originally in Ascot but moved to Gosport.

>Must be a lovely place to commute from (or to) .... on the coast, so only
>needs half the access routes that inland places need, and possibly less
>through traffic .... bonus!!

Heh! Up to a point. The fact that it is the armpit of the Western
world had an impact on its desirability, as did the 135-mile
round-trip commute and the average of 90 hours worked per week over
several months.

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 CHS, Puget Sound