Re: Cyclist rant: back in black

[Adrian]

Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> Oh, yes... How many people die annually because of muppets driving in
>> bus lanes

> Impossible to tell the number that die because of health-related
> illnesses arising from pollution caused by congestion caused by bus
> lane abuse, but the number is non-zero. The cost to the economy is
> also significant.

Figures?

>> or not renewing their tax disc?

> The correlation between drivers with out of date tax disks, and those
> drivers wanted for more serious offences, is quite high.

Yes, which is why ANPR uses RLSV technology to actually catch 'em - and why
I've already suggested equipping all police vehicles with it. DKUATB.

> You're very good at weaselling out of the questions you can't answer
> and instead latching onto some very insignificant point where you can
> prove that you are "right".

And I'm alone in that round here?

Right. I'm not here any more now. Play nicely with the other traffic.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 11 Mar 2005 11:50:07 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> And VED, using ANPR.
>Point of order, Sir...
>That's *detected* using cameras, and enforced using the much under-used
>RLSV technology.

So which other offences do you think should be detected using cameras?

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 11 Mar 2005 11:51:30 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Oh, yes... How many people die annually because of muppets driving in bus
>lanes or not renewing their tax disc?

You do know the proportion of untaxed vehicles which are also
uninsured and lack an MoT, don't you?

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 11 Mar 2005 12:16:18 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Are - Dangerous Driving, Driving without due care and attention not by
>> definition moving traffic offences?

>How do we prosecute those with cameras?

Ah, now I see. You think that /no/ offence should be prosecuted using
a camera until /all/ offences can be prosecuted using a camera. Well,
it's a novel idea anyway. In the Sir Humphrey sense of the word
novel, obviously.

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 11 Mar 2005 11:38:28 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Again, nothing to do with speed limits, everything to do with poor
>observation and a lack of thought - and some road engineers needing to be
>lined up against the wall and shot.

And again the risk is magnified by those who exceed the (recently
reduced for the reasons you state) speed limits.

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

 

[Tony W]

"Adrian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Oh, yes... How many people die annually because of muppets driving in bus
> lanes or not renewing their tax disc?

So renewing ones tax disc is now voluntary in Adriansworld? Makes a mockery
of extending vehicle taxing to human powered vehicles if its voluntary for
motor vehicles, does it not?

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Richard
<[email protected]> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Richard
>><[email protected]> writes
>>
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>>>much like they were saying :
>>>>
>>>>>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. which you can debate 'til the cows come home, speeding
>>>>>leads to increased chemical pollution, increased noise pollution
>>>>
>>>> Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4
>>>>doing 60?
>>>
>>>
>>> Straw man. The question you should be asking is, does a small car
>>> doing 80 pollute more than the same small car doing 60? Does a large
>>> 4x4 doing 60 pollute more than the same 4x4 doing 40? Etc. (Clue: the
>>> answer is "yes").
>> And therefore, to reduce emissions, speed should be restricted by
>>law? In which other areas of life would you introduce such sanctions?
>
>Quite a lot of other areas already have similar restrictions. The
>Clean Air Act. Various factory emissions regulations.

But not many where the legislation controls quantitatively the extent to
which a private citizen does something which is legal qualitatively.
There isn't a house temperature limit, or an hours of television viewed
limit. There isn't even a 20p/kg CO2 surcharge on the carbon dioxide
emitted by the use of fossil fuels to provide domestic power; the entire
price paid by the user (per kg CO2) is less than the duty (per kg CO2)
on petrol.

And, as Adrian pointed out and was shouted down, a speed limit based on
emissions would lead either to very different speed limits for different
vehicles or else to a situation where someone in a smaller car was
prosecuted for breaking an environmental law by emitting less than
someone quite legally going slower in a larger one. Doesn't strike me as
very fair.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:17:43 +0000, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>as Adrian pointed out and was shouted down, a speed limit based on
>emissions would lead either to very different speed limits for different
>vehicles or else to a situation where someone in a smaller car was
>prosecuted for breaking an environmental law by emitting less than
>someone quite legally going slower in a larger one. Doesn't strike me as
>very fair.

You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed limits
for different classes of vehicle.

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

 

[Richard]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, Richard
> <[email protected]> writes
>
>> Steve Walker wrote:
>>
>>> In message <[email protected]>, Richard
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>>>>> much like they were saying :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. which you can debate 'til the cows come home, speeding
>>>>>> leads to increased chemical pollution, increased noise pollution
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4
>>>>> doing 60?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Straw man. The question you should be asking is, does a small car
>>>> doing 80 pollute more than the same small car doing 60? Does a large
>>>> 4x4 doing 60 pollute more than the same 4x4 doing 40? Etc. (Clue: the
>>>> answer is "yes").
>>>
>>> And therefore, to reduce emissions, speed should be restricted by
>>> law? In which other areas of life would you introduce such sanctions?
>>
>>
>> Quite a lot of other areas already have similar restrictions. The
>> Clean Air Act. Various factory emissions regulations.
>
>
> But not many where the legislation controls quantitatively the extent to
> which a private citizen does something which is legal qualitatively.
> There isn't a house temperature limit, or an hours of television viewed
> limit. There isn't even a 20p/kg CO2 surcharge on the carbon dioxide
> emitted by the use of fossil fuels to provide domestic power; the entire
> price paid by the user (per kg CO2) is less than the duty (per kg CO2)
> on petrol.

You seem to be trying to argue that because one particular source of
pollution isn't regulated, none of them should be (or, alternatively,
either none of them should be or all of them should be).

There have been many, and still are some similar inequities in the
statute books; the difference between male and female rape was only
eliminated fairly recently, for example, and then there were all those
laws related to women as chattels of their husbands.

R.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>as Adrian pointed out and was shouted down, a speed limit based on
>>emissions would lead either to very different speed limits for different
>>vehicles or else to a situation where someone in a smaller car was
>>prosecuted for breaking an environmental law by emitting less than
>>someone quite legally going slower in a larger one. Doesn't strike me as
>>very fair.

> You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed limits
> for different classes of vehicle.

Honda Insight - 80g/km CO2
Ferrari Enzo - 545g/km CO2

No, wait, don't tell me, they're "extreme examples"...

How about Citroen C2 HDi - 108g/km vs Range Rover v8 - 389 g/km?

Oh, look, they all have the same speed limits.

Now, I am *REALLY* not here any more.

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> writes
>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:17:43 +0000, Steve Walker
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>as Adrian pointed out and was shouted down, a speed limit based on
>>emissions would lead either to very different speed limits for different
>>vehicles or else to a situation where someone in a smaller car was
>>prosecuted for breaking an environmental law by emitting less than
>>someone quite legally going slower in a larger one. Doesn't strike me as
>>very fair.
>
>You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed limits
>for different classes of vehicle.

Yes, and a Citroen AX and a V8 Range Rover are in the same one.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Richard
<[email protected]> writes
>Adrian wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
>>sounding much like they were saying :
>>
>>>And bus lanes. And VED, using ANPR.
>> Oh, yes... How many people die annually because of muppets driving
>>in bus lanes
>
>Impossible to tell the number that die because of health-related
>illnesses arising from pollution caused by congestion caused by bus
>lane abuse, but the number is non-zero.

Yes, holding buses up must significantly increase the volume of
particulates they pump out...

--
Steve Walker

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 11 Mar 2005 13:35:13 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed limits
>> for different classes of vehicle.

>Honda Insight - 80g/km CO2
>Ferrari Enzo - 545g/km CO2
>No, wait, don't tell me, they're "extreme examples"...

They are. They are also examples of the wrong thing. We already have
different speed limits for different classes of vehicle, check the
Highway Code if you don't believe me.

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 Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:33:10 +0000, Richard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You seem to be trying to argue that because one particular source of
>pollution isn't regulated, none of them should be (or, alternatively,
>either none of them should be or all of them should be).

This is his consistent with his views on camera enforcement: no
offences may be enforced by camera unless all are.

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

 

[Tony Raven]

At 12:17pm Adrian wrote:
>
> Right. I'm not here any more now. Play nicely with the other traffic.

At 13:35pm Adrian wrote:

> Now, I am *REALLY* not here any more.

For God's sake GO and leave us to a peaceful weekend.

Tony

 

[Dave Larrington]

Steve Walker wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis
> Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:17:43 +0000, Steve Walker
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> as Adrian pointed out and was shouted down, a speed limit based on
>>> emissions would lead either to very different speed limits for
>>> different vehicles or else to a situation where someone in a
>>> smaller car was prosecuted for breaking an environmental law by
>>> emitting less than someone quite legally going slower in a larger
>>> one. Doesn't strike me as very fair.
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed
>> limits for different classes of vehicle.
>
> Yes, and a Citroen AX and a V8 Range Rover are in the same one.

Correct. They are both, within the Meaning of the Act, "cars". However,
trucks have different speed limits from cars and furthermore have different
speed limits within the class of "truck" depending on weight and
configuration.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Adrian wrote:
>
>Yes, which is why ANPR uses RLSV technology to actually catch 'em

Google says you are the only person ever to use "ANPR" and "RLSV"
in the same web page or Usenet post, and the first few pages on automatic
number plate recognition all mention using cameras but not anything that
RLSV would be an obvious acronym or typo for.

Assuming you aren't talking about Raspberry Leaf Spot Virus, what are
you talking about?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:41:10 +0000, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>You seem to have forgotten that we already have different speed limits
>>for different classes of vehicle.

>Yes, and a Citroen AX and a V8 Range Rover are in the same one.

Big. Fat. Hairy. Deal.

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

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Adrian wrote:
>Alan Braggins ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying :
>
>>>Indeed. Or moving ahead of the lorry so they can be seen.
>
>> Moving ahead across the stop line through the red light?
>
>Across the line, if need be, yes.
>Across the junction, no.

You realize that for many junctions, and moving far enough to be obvious
to a lorry driver who isn't looking down at his left side, that means moving
into the cross traffic?

(There are times when I think it's worthwhile with cars, even if it does tend
to encourage the sort of motorist who rants about lawless cyclists.)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:42:46 +0000, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, holding buses up must significantly increase the volume of
>particulates they pump out...

Quite possibly, a lot of the fuel burned by any motor vehicle in
traffic is due to starting from rest.

In London an averagely-occupied bus carries 22 times as many
passengers as an averagely-occupied car. Buses are bigger, of course,
so in stationary traffic the cars only need about seven times as much
road space per passenger as a bus, but as soon as they start moving
that rapidly escalates. At 30mph you need at least ten car-lengths
headway, more really.

Total emissions per passenger mile for a bicycle is approximately
zero, by the way.

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