We don't dent, we die.

[Brian G]

Brian G wrote:
> marc wrote:
>
>> I've always used Motorist and Driver
>>
>> A motorist is an enthusiast, cares about and takes a pride in their
>> driving. A driver just drivers
>>
>> Drivers are PDVs Person Driving Vehicle, akin to POBs
>
> Too often it's Person Weilding Vehicle.
>

Um, make that Wielding.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

 

[Matt B]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>
>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local papers
>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers actually
>> hoot
>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used his
>> car to
>> push the horse out of the way!
>
> That's quite unbelievable!

Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)

> What the hell has happened to people to make
> them so selfish and arrogant?

The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
users.

> Why should one person in a car think they
> have some sort of divine power over one person on a horse, or bike or
> whatever?

Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage is being
hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
why many drivers are so arrogant?

> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single track
> country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is that
> really such a hard attitude to have?

No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove the
cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed the
necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let drivers
become human again.

--
Matt B

 

[cupra]

Matt B wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>
>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local
>>> papers around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>> actually hoot
>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive
>>> past shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually
>>> used his car to
>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>
>> That's quite unbelievable!
>
> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>
>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>
> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
> non-motorised road users.

I beg to differ - the root is often the 'sod you' attitude taken by many
these days.

 

[Budstaff]

" cupra" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local
>>>> papers around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>> actually hoot
>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive
>>>> past shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually
>>>> used his car to
>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>
>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>
>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>
>>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>>
>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>> non-motorised road users.
>
> I beg to differ - the root is often the 'sod you' attitude taken by many
> these days.
Agreed 100 percent - If the _only_ loutish behaviour we saw nowadays was
perpetrated by car drivers, then there might be some substance to troll b's
hypothesis. But such bad behaviour is only a small part of the rich tapestry
of anti social deeds and attitudes available. We can therefore give the same
amount of credence to this explanation as we do to 'but there's nothing for
us to do in the evenings', 'I was abused myself', and all the other
self-serving pseudo-justifications used by those who refuse to acknowledge
or take responsibility for the vacuousness of their existence.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Round here, if a community complains about speeding traffic, they can
> borrow a speed gun to gather evidence.
>
ITYF they can't do that any more because the frequency the guns use is
reserved for police use, so civilian use contravenes radio licensing
regulations.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
[email protected] says...

> Maybe the horses need a camera mounted on their rear ends?
>
Maybe they need a Winchester slung from the saddle.

 

[marc]

Matt B wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>
>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local papers
>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers actually
>>> hoot
>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used his
>>> car to
>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>
>> That's quite unbelievable!
>
> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>
>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>> arrogant?
>
> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
> tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
> users.


How does a driver manage to work out at a glance how much tax a
non-motorised road user has paid compared to them? I look at my self
assemeant from and then pay an accountant to work it out for me. Am I
missing some sort of super vision that can let me know that that scruffy
Herbert on the horse has paid £20,000 this year in tax, whilst the WVM
behind me has only paid £5,000?
>
>> Why should one person in a car think they have some sort of divine
>> power over one person on a horse, or bike or whatever?
>
> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
> the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
> to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
> the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage is being
> hampered and hindered by speed cameras,
Speed cameras don't hinder anyone, ( with the possible exception of the
one on the M4 at Port Talbot)


cycle lanes,

Hmmm nope unless it's a compulsory cycle lane, they don't hinder drivers.
ASLs,

Again , don't hinder drivers, if the lights red you stop at the normal
SL, if it's green you driver over it.
poorly phased
> traffic lights etc.,
Might have a point..


"M'lud my client drove over the horse because he was frustrated by a red
light that stayed on too long."

can't see it cutting much ice



and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
> why many drivers are so arrogant?
>
>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single
>> track country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is
>> that really such a hard attitude to have?
>
> No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove the
> cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed the
> necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let drivers
> become human again.

Nahhhhh rip out the airbags and install bayonets on the steering wheel.
>

 

[Matt B]

Budstaff wrote:
> " cupra" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local
>>>>> papers around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>>> actually hoot
>>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive
>>>>> past shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually
>>>>> used his car to
>>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>>
>>>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>>>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>>> non-motorised road users.
>> I beg to differ - the root is often the 'sod you' attitude taken by many
>> these days.
>
> Agreed 100 percent - If the _only_ loutish behaviour we saw nowadays was
> perpetrated by car drivers,

I was talking about drivers, as you'd see from the rest of the post.

> then there might be some substance to troll b's hypothesis.

Why the ad hominem???

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:19:44 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Boyd wrote:
>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>
>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local papers
>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers actually
>>> hoot
>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used his
>>> car to
>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>
>> That's quite unbelievable!
>
>Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)

Sickened by it, more like.

>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>
>The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
>tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
>users.

Evidence? Googling for the causes of road rage turned up nothing about
heavy taxes. Are you imagining things that aren't there? Again?

>> Why should one person in a car think they
>> have some sort of divine power over one person on a horse, or bike or
>> whatever?
>
>Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
>the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
>to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
>the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage is being
>hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
>traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
>why many drivers are so arrogant?

Yes. You're not helping either.

>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single track
>> country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is that
>> really such a hard attitude to have?
>
>No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove the
>cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed the
>necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let drivers
>become human again.

Great idea! Confine motorists to bridleways and psychlepaths and give
over the tarmac to human- and animal-powered vehicles on, say, days
evenly divisible by 11. Think how happy they'd be with all those nasty
white lines and traffic signals removed from their lines of sight.
They'd come back the following day full of joy in their hearts and
kindness, consideration, and lurv for cyclists, horse riders, and old
ladies who used to take sooooo long to cross the road.

 

[CoyoteBoy]

On 4 Sep, 08:13, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:58:47 +0100, " cupra" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Tony Raven wrote:
> >> Catchy phrase of a young horse-rider on the BBC South news this
> >> morning in a piece about how increasing driver aggression over the
> >> past two years is making it very difficult for her to go horse riding
> >> on the country lanes round her home. The classic council response
> >> though was to try to get farmers to open more permissive paths so
> >> they didn't need to use the roads. Nothing like rewarding bullies
> >> with roads to themselves.
>
> >I tend to agree, but surely it'd be more enjoyable riding 'off road' than
> >on?
>
> I tend to agree, but surely it'd be more enjoyable driving 'off road'
> than on?

That is certainly can be, but then environmentalists are attacking 4x4
owners so they cant open that up as a possibility. TBH I find horses
difficult when in car or on a bike - nothing like having half a ton
of animal getting spooked by the sound of your chain.

 

[[email protected]]

On 4 Sep, 14:44, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> > Round here, if a community complains about speeding traffic, they can
> > borrow a speed gun to gather evidence.
>
> ITYF they can't do that any more because the frequency the guns use is
> reserved for police use, so civilian use contravenes radio licensing
> regulations.

No personal knowledge of this, but they still seem to be on offer
(it's the council you get them from, I didn't even know that bit).

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1267

Maybe they work on different frequencies to the police ones.

Rob

 

[Roger Merriman]

Adrian Godwin <[email protected]> wrote:

> cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I tend to agree, but surely it'd be more enjoyable riding 'off road'
> >>> than on?
> >>>
> >
> > I only say so out of curiosity - not being a horse rider.
> >
>
> I'm not a horse rider either, but on/off road surely depends on what's
> achievable. I like to walk, will travel long distances to get to good
> walking country, and don't really want to walk on roads.
>
> But I tend to cycle locally rather than travel first; either in towns
> for utility or countryside for pleasure.
>
> If you live in a built-up area and keep a horse, it's likely to be
> kept on farmland rather than open countryside (moors, the highlands
> etc.) and needs regular exercise. Unlike a bike, which is your own
> choice - most bikes won't complain if you leave them in the garage for
> a week. So avoiding roads would be very limiting, and might restrict
> you to a particular set of farm tracks or byroads. Transporting a
> horse to an area where you can ride more freely is a much bigger
> problem than for a bike or a rucsac.
>
> I'm quite shocked to hear that drivers are now harassing horse
> riders. I've always found that people will act around horses the way
> I'd like them to act around bikes, passing wide & slow. This is partly
> through consideration but also strengthened by fear : an out-of-
> control horse will do damage even to a car driver. I'm sorry to
> hear that even that respect is going, and disgusted that the local
> council are reacting by trying to get horses off the road.
>
so far the horse's are given room here, around hampton court. mostly
teens on horse's

> I enjoy driving and appreciate the convenience of using a car. But
> increasingly, this sort of thing (as well as the loss of driving
> pleasure caused by overcrowded roads and all the other disadvantages
> of the growth of car transport) is making me reconsider. I think I
> might be turning into a car-hater.
>
> -adrian

roger


--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Paul Boyd]

Budstaff said the following on 04/09/2007 14:43:

> Agreed 100 percent - If the _only_ loutish behaviour we saw nowadays was
> perpetrated by car drivers, then there might be some substance to troll b's
> hypothesis.

In this particular instance, I wouldn't consider MattB's post to be
trolling at all.

I agree with the rest of your post though

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Adrian Godwin]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
> the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
> to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
> the middle decades of the last century.

True enough - and it hasn't stopped yet, with any number of roadbuilding
programs that take little or no account of other quality-of-life issues.


> Now their passage is being
> hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
> traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
> why many drivers are so arrogant?
>

I get as frustrated as anyone whilst driving : it's one of the reasons
I'm starting to avoid doing it. But none of those are the things that
annoy me : they may cause minor delays but most appear to have some
point behind them. Road tax is bad enough, but petrol tax is higher and
that's a constant choice I make - the convenience of motoring vs. the
lower cost of public transport.

What really, really, winds me up is the behaviour, and yes, even the
presence of other drivers. It's being stuck in an endless queue that
has taken all the joy out of it and leaves me irritable and impatient.
Even if I'm not in a hurry .. and I don't even live in London.

But I'm not so stupid that I want to fix it with more tarmac - that's
been tried for years, it doesn't work and never will. The only
sensible solution is to use less cars. It'll be painful, but it will
happen - and the longer it takes, the harder it will be. Start getting
used to it now and be ahead of the game.

-adrian

 

[Matt B]

marc wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local papers
>>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>> actually hoot
>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used his
>>>> car to
>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>
>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>
>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>
>>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>>> arrogant?
>>
>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>> non-motorised road users.
>
> How does a driver manage to work out at a glance how much tax a
> non-motorised road user has paid compared to them?

He doesn't, but that's not the point - is it. He can, however, be sure,
that certain users have paid nothing specifically to be allowed to use
the road by their present mode.

> I look at my self
> assemeant from and then pay an accountant to work it out for me. Am I
> missing some sort of super vision that can let me know that that scruffy
> Herbert on the horse has paid £20,000 this year in tax, whilst the WVM
> behind me has only paid £5,000?

Ha ha. Do you specialise in "feigning missing the point", and
"deliberate argument inflammation"?

>>> Why should one person in a car think they have some sort of divine
>>> power over one person on a horse, or bike or whatever?
>>
>> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much
>> of the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid
>> before it to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic
>> planners of the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage
>> is being hampered and hindered by speed cameras,
>
> Speed cameras don't hinder anyone, ( with the possible exception of the
> one on the M4 at Port Talbot)

Have you never seen the "panic reaction" of someone, well within the
speed limit, when they see a speed camera???

> cycle lanes,
>
> Hmmm nope unless it's a compulsory cycle lane, they don't hinder drivers.

Who excluded the compulsory ones? Have you never seen roads, mainly in
towns, where up to half the available width has been dedicated to cycle
use???

> ASLs,
>
> Again , don't hinder drivers, if the lights red you stop at the normal
> SL, if it's green you driver over it.

Have you never seen many cars stuck behind a couple of cyclists after a
long red phase?

> poorly phased
>> traffic lights etc.,
>
> Might have a point..

Have you seen Cassini's excellent documentary "In Your Car No-one Can
Hear You SCREAM"? [1]

> "M'lud my client drove over the horse because he was frustrated by a red
> light that stayed on too long."
>
> can't see it cutting much ice

No. Although magistrates, judges, etc. are allowed to, and are even
expected to, take social, cultural and other background factors into
account when deciding the level of culpability of an offender. So why
not for drivers? Perhaps it's because those social and cultural
factors, which may help to explain many of the present dangers on our
roads, were created, and are still being created today, as a result of
misguided "road safety" policies.

>>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single
>>> track country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is
>>> that really such a hard attitude to have?
>>
>> No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove
>> the cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed
>> the necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let
>> drivers become human again.
>
> Nahhhhh rip out the airbags and install bayonets on the steering wheel.

Now that's just spiteful! ;-)

There is a more moderate approach which would deliver "thinking" drivers.

[1] <http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YV3Cru7aE>

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On 4 Sep, 15:08, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Budstaff said the following on 04/09/2007 14:43:
>
> > Agreed 100 percent - If the _only_ loutish behaviour we saw nowadays was
> > perpetrated by car drivers, then there might be some substance to troll b's
> > hypothesis.
>
> In this particular instance, I wouldn't consider MattB's post to be
> trolling at all.
>
> I agree with the rest of your post though

I agree with both of your points - at this stage in the thread.

I sometimes dither about MattB's troll status. His initial points are
sometimes valid. However, he says things that nobody agrees with and
then flogs them to death at great length in tedious debates that seem
unlikely to change anyone's position.

I don't think he deliberately trolls anymore (he definitely used to),
he just gets stuck with certain points of view and uses everything as
evidence for those points of view. The effect on a thread is similar
to that of a troll, so it's not surprising people treat him as troll.

Rob

 

[marc]

Matt B wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local papers
>>>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>>> actually hoot
>>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>>>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used his
>>>>> car to
>>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>>
>>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>>
>>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>>
>>>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>>>> arrogant?
>>>
>>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>>> non-motorised road users.
>>
>> How does a driver manage to work out at a glance how much tax a
>> non-motorised road user has paid compared to them?
>
> He doesn't, but that's not the point - is it. He can, however, be sure,
> that certain users have paid nothing specifically to be allowed to use
> the road by their present mode.

Yes, himself and every other road user. As far as I am aware apart from
road tolls there are no fees to use the road apart from non hypothecated
general taxation.
>
>> I look at my self assemeant from and then pay an accountant to work it
>> out for me. Am I missing some sort of super vision that can let me
>> know that that scruffy Herbert on the horse has paid £20,000 this year
>> in tax, whilst the WVM behind me has only paid £5,000?
>
> Ha ha. Do you specialise in "feigning missing the point", and
> "deliberate argument inflammation"?

not at all, do always manage to write with a shotgun approach?
>
>>>> Why should one person in a car think they have some sort of divine
>>>> power over one person on a horse, or bike or whatever?
>>>
>>> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much
>>> of the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid
>>> before it to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic
>>> planners of the middle decades of the last century. Now their
>>> passage is being hampered and hindered by speed cameras,
>>
>> Speed cameras don't hinder anyone, ( with the possible exception of
>> the one on the M4 at Port Talbot)
>
> Have you never seen the "panic reaction" of someone, well within the
> speed limit, when they see a speed camera???
How does that "panic reaction" hinder traffic, the drivers behind should
have seen the camera ( it's the big yellow thing) and anticipated that
there will be a prat around and so left enough braking distance. Unless
of course we are meant to thank that those following too close are
"hindered"?
>
>> cycle lanes,
>>
>> Hmmm nope unless it's a compulsory cycle lane, they don't hinder
>> drivers.
>
> Who excluded the compulsory ones? Have you never seen roads, mainly in
> towns, where up to half the available width has been dedicated to cycle
> use???

Dedicated? you mean no other traffic allowed into it?


>
>> ASLs,
>>
>> Again , don't hinder drivers, if the lights red you stop at the normal
>> SL, if it's green you driver over it.
>
> Have you never seen many cars stuck behind a couple of cyclists after a
> long red phase?

Yes and this is because of the ASL how exactly?


Case one ASL

driver one arrives at SL and stops, driver two arrives after driver one
and stops, driver three arrives after driver two and stops .....
Cyclist one passes traffic and arrives at ASL , stops.
Cyclist two passes traffic and arrives at ASL , stops.
Cyclist three passes traffic and arrives at ASL , stops.... etc

Lights change cyclists set off drivers set off as space arrives in front
of them. As room on road appears drivers overtake safely.


Case two No Asl

driver one arrives at SL and stops, driver two arrives after driver one
and stops, driver three arrives after driver two and stops .....
Cyclist one passes traffic and stops behind driver one.
Cyclist two passes traffic and stops behind driver one.
Cyclist three passes traffic and stops behind driver one. .... etc


Lights change driver one sets off, cyclists set off, drivers two etc set
off as space arrives in front of them. As room on road appears drivers
overtake safely.
net gain by driver one only

Case 3 No ASL

driver one arrives at SL and stops, driver two arrives after driver one
and stops, driver three arrives after driver two and stops .....
Cyclist one passes traffic and stops behind driver one.
Cyclist two passes some traffic and stops behind driver two or three.
Cyclist three passes sometraffic and stops behind driver two , three,
four , or other. .... etc
Lights change Driver one sets off followed by cyclist one, followed by
driver two and intersperced drivers and cyclists.As room on road appears
drivers overtake safely.

Net gain by driver one only


Case 4 No ASL

driver one arrives at SL and stops, driver two arrives after driver one
and stops, driver three arrives after driver two and stops .....
Cyclist one passes traffic and stops beside driver one.
Cyclist two passes some traffic and stops behind driver two or three.
Cyclist three passes some traffic and stops behind driver two , three,
four , or other. .... etc
Lights change Cyclist one sets off followed by driver one, followed by
driver two and intersperced drivers and cyclists.As room on road appears
drivers overtake safely.

Net loss over ASL case.




>
>> poorly phased
>>> traffic lights etc.,
>>
>> Might have a point..
>
> Have you seen Cassini's excellent documentary "In Your Car No-one Can
> Hear You SCREAM"? [1]
>
>> "M'lud my client drove over the horse because he was frustrated by a
>> red light that stayed on too long."
>>
>> can't see it cutting much ice
>
> No. Although magistrates, judges, etc. are allowed to, and are even
> expected to, take social, cultural and other background factors into
> account when deciding the level of culpability of an offender. So why
> not for drivers? Perhaps it's because those social and cultural
> factors, which may help to explain many of the present dangers on our
> roads, were created, and are still being created today, as a result of
> misguided "road safety" policies.

>
>>>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single
>>>> track country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past.
>>>> Is that really such a hard attitude to have?
>>>
>>> No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove
>>> the cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed
>>> the necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let
>>> drivers become human again.
>>
>> Nahhhhh rip out the airbags and install bayonets on the steering wheel.
>
> Now that's just spiteful! ;-)

Not at all I'm just moving around the percieved risk and trying to roll
back one of those "road safety" policies you think are making drivers
frustrated.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:19:44 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
>> tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
>> users.
>
> Evidence? Googling for the causes of road rage turned up nothing about
> heavy taxes. Are you imagining things that aren't there? Again?

Are you using the most appropriate keywords - obviously not.

>>> Why should one person in a car think they
>>> have some sort of divine power over one person on a horse, or bike or
>>> whatever?
>> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
>> the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
>> to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
>> the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage is being
>> hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
>> traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
>> why many drivers are so arrogant?
>
> Yes. You're not helping either.

What, in my above paragraph, is not correct?

>>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single track
>>> country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is that
>>> really such a hard attitude to have?
>> No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove the
>> cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed the
>> necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let drivers
>> become human again.
>
> Great idea!

Praise indeed! ;-)

> Confine motorists to bridleways and psychlepaths

Or better still, let's create a "National Motor Vehicle Network" (let's
call it a "motorway" network), and let's compel motor vehicles to use it
where it is available (no pandering to their assertions that they have
the inalienable right to use public highways) for the journey they are
making, and free-off the public road network for local traffic,
pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, etc. Let's take a lesson from
Sustrans, they provided 10,000 miles of cycleways in the 21 years from
1984 to 2005. The Highways Agency have only managed to provide 2000
miles of "motorway", so far, in almost 50 years!

> and give
> over the tarmac to human- and animal-powered vehicles on, say, days
> evenly divisible by 11.

Let's make that days wholly divisible by 1.

> Think how happy they'd be with all those nasty
> white lines and traffic signals removed from their lines of sight.

Do pedestrians need white lines in shopping malls?

> They'd come back the following day full of joy in their hearts and
> kindness, consideration, and lurv for cyclists, horse riders, and old
> ladies who used to take sooooo long to cross the road.

Yes, as has been proven elsewhere.

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:41:15 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:19:44 +0100, Matt B
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>>>> What the hell has happened to people to make
>>>> them so selfish and arrogant?
>>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a heavy
>>> tax burden to use the road - especially compared to non-motorised road
>>> users.
>>
>> Evidence? Googling for the causes of road rage turned up nothing about
>> heavy taxes. Are you imagining things that aren't there? Again?
>
>Are you using the most appropriate keywords - obviously not.

Clearly. I ask again -- do you have any evidence for taxation causing
motorists' arrogant behaviour?

>>>> Why should one person in a car think they
>>>> have some sort of divine power over one person on a horse, or bike or
>>>> whatever?
>>> Ignorance, reinforced by being revered as "king of the road" for much of
>>> the last century. Motor traffic all but had rose petals laid before it
>>> to enhance its progress, by the road engineers and traffic planners of
>>> the middle decades of the last century. Now their passage is being
>>> hampered and hindered by speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased
>>> traffic lights etc., and it frustrates their assumed power. You wonder
>>> why many drivers are so arrogant?
>>
>> Yes. You're not helping either.
>
>What, in my above paragraph, is not correct?

Motorists are being hindered, alright, and I don't doubt it causes
frustration bubbling over into arrogance and violence. But they're
being hindered by too many cars in front, beside, and behind them. Get
rid of speed cameras, cycle lanes, ASLs, poorly phased traffic lights,
etc. and the frustration and rage would persist, because the traffic
levels would persist. Get rid of 80% of the cars (other people's of
course(!)), and I'm sure the frustration levels would plummet.

>>>> The last time I encountered a horse whilst driving was on a single track
>>>> country lane, and I just stopped completely to let it past. Is that
>>>> really such a hard attitude to have?
>>> No, its what most "thinking" motorists would do. We need to remove the
>>> cues and "safety engineering" from the roads, which have removed the
>>> necessity for drivers to think for much of their journey. Let drivers
>>> become human again.
>>
>> Great idea!
>
>Praise indeed! ;-)
>
>> Confine motorists to bridleways and psychlepaths
>
>Or better still, let's create a "National Motor Vehicle Network" (let's
>call it a "motorway" network), and let's compel motor vehicles to use it
>where it is available (no pandering to their assertions that they have
>the inalienable right to use public highways) for the journey they are
>making, and free-off the public road network for local traffic,
>pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, etc. Let's take a lesson from
>Sustrans, they provided 10,000 miles of cycleways in the 21 years from
>1984 to 2005. The Highways Agency have only managed to provide 2000
>miles of "motorway", so far, in almost 50 years!

Amazing how easy it is to construct thousands of miles of psychlepaths
with a few cans of white paint. Making roads for cars is a few orders
of magnitude more expensive. How much do you want us all to spend?

>> and give
>> over the tarmac to human- and animal-powered vehicles on, say, days
>> evenly divisible by 11.
>
>Let's make that days wholly divisible by 1.
>
>> Think how happy they'd be with all those nasty
>> white lines and traffic signals removed from their lines of sight.
>
>Do pedestrians need white lines in shopping malls?
>
>> They'd come back the following day full of joy in their hearts and
>> kindness, consideration, and lurv for cyclists, horse riders, and old
>> ladies who used to take sooooo long to cross the road.
>
>Yes, as has been proven elsewhere.

Waxing ornithological for a moment, you remind me of a Great Northern
Diver.

 

[Matt B]

marc wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>> Noel said the following on 04/09/2007 08:49:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if this was the same rider who was in one of the local
>>>>>> papers
>>>>>> around Redhill/Reigate? She was describing how some drivers
>>>>>> actually hoot
>>>>>> and rev their engines to get the horses out of the way and drive past
>>>>>> shouting and signalling abuse. Worse, one driver actually used
>>>>>> his car to
>>>>>> push the horse out of the way!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite unbelievable!
>>>>
>>>> Are you not familiar with human nature? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> What the hell has happened to people to make them so selfish and
>>>>> arrogant?
>>>>
>>>> The root is often their bitterness at being required to pay such a
>>>> heavy tax burden to use the road - especially compared to
>>>> non-motorised road users.
>>>
>>> How does a driver manage to work out at a glance how much tax a
>>> non-motorised road user has paid compared to them?
>>
>> He doesn't, but that's not the point - is it. He can, however, be
>> sure, that certain users have paid nothing specifically to be allowed
>> to use the road by their present mode.
>
> Yes, himself and every other road user.

No, he's a motorist, remember?

> As far as I am aware apart from
> road tolls there are no fees to use the road apart from non hypothecated
> general taxation.

In the UK you have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) on most types of
motor vehicle manufactured since about 1973, to legally use them, or
keep them, on the public road. This tax raised about £5 billion last year.

In the UK you also have to pay fuel duty on most types of hydrocarbon
fuel, if it is used to power a normal road vehicle, to legally use that
vehicle on the public road. This tax raised about £30 billion last
year. This'll make you laugh - they charge VAT on the duty, and that
alone (ignoring the VAT also paid on the fuel itself) raised about £5
billion last year!

Your confusion, as does that of many drivers, arises from the fact that
although those taxes have to be paid to legally use the road, they are
_not_ hypothecated.

In a large area of central London, the users of most types of
conventionally powered motor vehicles _also_ have to pay another tax, on
top of all the others, the innapropriately named "Congestion Charge".
This could add up to more than £2000 for a year. This tax raised more
than £120 million last year.

In an increasing number of towns and cities around the UK, users of
motor vehicles also have to pay another tax if they park their vehicles
at the side of the public road. This tax raised more than £1 billion
last year for local authorities.

So there we have about £41 billion worth of tax raised purely from
motorists to allow them to use the road. That doesn't include the
lesser, other taxes, disguised as charges and fees, such as registration
fees, MOT fees, insurance premium tax, etc., which also need to be paid
to be road-legal, or VAT (except on fuel duty).

--
Matt B