"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free an

[Simon Dean]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> that then reinforces the stereotypical notion that drivers are
>> selfish, only out for number one, we sit in a bubble in our own
>> world protected, destroying the environment.
>
> As an aside, I recently administered a travel survey at my place of
> work. We were doing a relocation, and asked all staff "when we move
> to XYZ, how do you expect to travel to work?"
>
> The majority were going to drive, unsurprisingly. What was surprising
> was that about half of the respondents that indicated driving didn't
> simply do so, but added a to some degree defensive comment - "I'd love
> to cycle but..." or "I can't walk because..." or "I'd need to get up
> at x am to get the train" or some such. However, not one single
> person that indicated cycle, train, bus or walk added any similar
> comment.
>
> So, whether cyclists have the notion or not, it seems a sizeable
> proportion of motorists are at least somewhat defensive about their
> choices.
>


With you breathing down their neck, Im not surprised.

Those that did cycle, or took public transport, did they live closer?
Did they have better transport links? Those that would like to cycle but
decided to drive again (ie I'd love to give up the car and drive but),
did they have other commitments you're not aware of? Maybe they do other
things that you're not aware of.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:06 +0000, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > That depends on the value of 'viable'. I think you've all but
> > admitted that there are other options that I (and a good number of
> > other people) consider viable. As such, yes, I think it's still a
> > choice.
>
> Exactly. You consider it viable, but I don't. Im in a different
> situation to you in a number of ways you can't appreciate, yet you're
> discussing how viable another course of action is for me because it's OK
> for you.
>
> It's taken a long time for me to prove you are using your own
> experiences and knowledge to critique others.

IOt shouldn't. It's self-evident - every comment made by anyone ever
is using tehir own experience and knowledge. Quite why you'd want to
spend time 'proving' something slef-evidently true is a mystery to me.
I've certainly never denied what you seem to be determined to prove.

Will you move on to proving that the sky is blue?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > So, whether cyclists have the notion or not, it seems a sizeable
> > proportion of motorists are at least somewhat defensive about their
> > choices.
>
> With you breathing down their neck, Im not surprised.

I wasn't breathing down anyones neck. It was one question (actually
two) in a survey of staff.

> Those that did cycle, or took public transport, did they live closer?

Some do, some don't. Several drive but live under half the distance
away that I do, for example. However, that and all the rest of your
questions are irrelevant - I'm not commenting on the reasons, or the
reasonableness of the reasons, merely on the fact that only one class
of respondents felt the need to justify their answer, rather than
simply provide their answer.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Roger Merriman]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote on 13/02/2007 15:06 +0100:
> >
> > admitaly i haven't ridden every bike with every type of brakes etc, but
> > this hill is easly steep enought to give cars brake fade, the V brakes i
> > used seem to be just about as good as a disk, capers no not enought
> > leverage or what not, but this hill is nr vertical so is some what
> > extreme. quite a few folks in the village will not drive there cars up
> > or down it heh.
>
> Grid reference?

clydach gorge, road name is staion road. runs from clydach up, the otehr
one nr gilwern is as steep in places but is shorter.

roger

 

[Roger Merriman]

Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Roger Merriman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:1htg7wf.1pmxacc16b4ky2N%[email protected]...
> > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Roger Merriman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:1htfwnc.1irm7vy545hymN%[email protected]...
> >>
> >> > if you live in urban area then yes, does get tricker out of urban
> >> > areas,
> >> > where the distances/terrian and the fact that trains/bus often don't
> >> > link up well.
> >>
> >> TBH I'd ignore bus - they're just too slow to be practical most of the
> >> time
> >> IMO. But trains - well, with sensible choice of location, you can get a
> >> decent enough service in a rural area - eg I reckon the Yorkshire Dales
> >> hardly counts as urban . And, on topic, having the bike with the train
> >> is
> >> a really good way of filling in the gaps - the ones you're thinking of
> >> using
> >> the buses for.
> >
> > thats a big 'if' having train staions in the right places, unless they
> > are very cose together, or the dales are very flat...
>
> You've not heard of the three peaks then? FWIW the trains here are actually
> pretty good for the size of population they serve - it of course helps
> having a fairly famous line. Once you get to the populated bits (Skipton),
> the train service to the properly urban bits is excellent, rather than
> merely pretty good.
>
as i live in a hilly area or did uintil a few weeks ago. you may forgive
my looking at other hilly places as destnations.

yes i did assume the dales where hilly. hence the not conviced that bike
and train would work that well unless all the houses are on the flat
valley bottom i guess?

> > other than that i'd be suprsied if a car wasn't cheaper and faster.
>
> Mmm. One friend used to commute to Leeds by car. Unfortunately so did
> everybody else - he learned to reallty hate it. The train is definitely
> faster, and is cheaper than fuel alone for the car, let alone the full cost.
>
> > certinaly once you get more than one person travelling.
>
> Giggle. Have you seen the excuses people give for not car-sharing?
>
commutors don't tend to it's true though where i used to work, some did
in a very loose arngment as other places i've been.

its not that popular but then people don't all live in X and work in Y.

> <description of welsh valleys>
>
> Have you seen Calderdale and such areas? Again, steep-sided valleys (don't
> make the mistake of taking that nice little road going perpendicular to the
> main ones ). But they've actually got a fair amount of biking going on
> there (both mountain and road).
>
lesure or commuting? you get folks mountain biking and such as would for
the area. but very little commuting. if close would walk, if no car
would use bus, if bus wasn't a reasonble option would use car, either
drive or lift.

> > defending bikes at all costs can be counter productive as it makes any
> > one hostile to the idea, just beable to ingnore it as just those nutters
> > etc.
>
> I'm not defending bikes, I'm promoting them.

no you've tipped over the line into rose spec mode. it does more harm
than good as people can just wright you and any idea off.
>
> > far btter to yes give things a postive spin, but to allow for times that
> > car may be a better choice.
>
> Thing is the extremes you mention are just that : extremes. The majority of
> people using their cars aren't using it out of necessity, even though they
> think they might be. People make a lot of fuss about having no choice - like
> I said to Simon, they did have a choice, it's just that they didn't choose
> to consider it.
>
i think your living in a dream really are, lots of people are tied down,
they may hate their job, commute hell house, but for number of reasons
are tied to where they are.

yes some people probably could but a lot do get tied down.

in many way your area in more extreme if it has that level of public
transport, most areas in cities don't have that let alone rual or
wildeness areas.

> (Another friend, given the choice of expensive house + no commute, or cheap
> house + long commute chose the latter - the extra cost of running the car
> all that way took away a fair part of the house savings, but he reckoned it
> was worth it. Until he moved elsewhere - guess which area had had the bigger
> increase in house prices, which would have more than made up for the
> increased payments in the meanwhile?)
>
i have so far allways had very short, commutes, normally been 10-15 min
drive ah no did once for few months have a 20min one.

> cheers,
> clive

roger

 

[Earl Purple]

On 13 Feb, 19:04, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:

> But it's not just cars. It's people. We lack housing. House prices have
> sky rocketed, and they continue to do so because apparently we build
> less houses than there is demand.

Build fewer houses. Actually it seems that there are too many
facilities being
converted into residential property now. So much that to get to
facilities you have
to travel further, probably in a car.

> Solutions to our problems?
>
> Euthenasia. Many people want to do, why not? It would solve shortages in
> houses, problems on the road, a full NHS, less money would need to be
> spent on looking after the elderly.

To whom? Your mother or someone else's mother?

> Stop letting in so many people to the country. We don't have the
> infrastructure to cope.

People should be allowed to live where they like, in my opinion, as
long as
they obey the laws and can pay their way. Why not go and move yourself
to
Romania? There's probably a lot more space there than there is here
and
the property is probably a lot cheaper.

> Once house prices come into check, I dunno whether that would actually
> enable people to start buying places closer to work. I mean, you hear
> about the ambulance technicians who have their jobs that they wouldn't
> change for the world, but they just can't afford local housing? So they
> drive in every week? There's obviously something wrong there. There's
> also loads of people still living at home with their parents...

Living at home with parents means they are making the most use of the
housing
accomodation available.

Business accommodation has a lot to do with it though. It's cheaper
for a business
to move to a business park in the middle of nowhere with access only
convenient by
a car than for them to be placed in a town centre.

> Promote working from home...

For office work that involves sitting behind a computer most of the
time, possibly with
a telephone, it may well be a good idea to have special offices set up
for this with
conferencing facilities, so that one only neesd to go round to one's
local office to log in
remotely. Not always feasible to work from home but this would be a
good alternative
for many.

> Promote flexible working...

Not always convenient.

> Make "green" cars more affordable (green cars are beyond the reach of
> ordinary folk).

Improving car pooling would be a good idea. And minibus services that
are more point-to-point.
Well actually they don't have to be minibuses but some kind of express
buses might be popular.

> Speaking of green, why do police come and crush those mini bikes, or
> untaxed cars? They've cost the planet lots of resources to produce.
> We're talking about green and recycling, why aren't they being sold on?

Same with car repairs in general. Don't ever take a car to be repaired
to a dealer.
I also wish they'd use more used parts. There are some dealers in used
parts but it's rare
you'll find garages that will be able to locate them easily for you.

> Lets get more people off the roads too - the criminals, the drug
> dealers, the accident prone, the incompetent - Im sure there's a few
> million there...

Prisons are already overcrowded, aren't they?

> How about promoting car sharing? There's this website called liftshare!

Good in theory although in practice when I tried to set up with some
people to car-share
it was hard arranging for everyone to travel at the same time. This is
where Oyster PAYG
can be useful because one can share a ride when appropriate and not
have to pay on those days
for public transport they don't use.

While few would probably want to share with total strangers, they may
be less averse to sharing
with others who work in the same company as themselves, so companies
should really set up
their own car-sharing schemes among their staff. (Particularly large
companies, who are placed in
business parks to which many of their staff drive).

> Better transport links, so trains actually get to places before 9am with
> decent bus links to the local communities?

Better transport links in London that is not radial based, eg 2 more
orbital routes, around the North/South
circular (there are already routes not that far from the South
Circular) and around the M25.

> Bikes are in there, but I'll leave that upto someone else about how to
> promote bike - and no demote car use...

Provide housing with facilities to store bikes securely.
Better facilities for journeys consisting of bike/train/bike, even at
peak times, which would allow commuters to do part of their journey by
bicycle. Even possibly bike/bus/bike
if special buses were built for this.
Better work facilities for bike storage + showering / changing
facilities.
Safer facilities on the road. Not just painted white lines.

However it would balance. Many cycle to work simply because it's
faster than any other form of transport. If you cleared up the roads
significantly enough such
that car travel became faster, many would switch back to it.

 

[[email protected]]

On 12 Feb 2007 04:00:15 -0800, "Marz" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:47:49 +0000, TrollB and undenied ABD member
>> > <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Yes. You can, contrary to "popular opinion" in this ng, be banned from
>> >>>> cycling.
>>
>> >>> However, _all_ persons are banned from driving a motor-car, unless
>> >>> they have recieved permission.
>>
>> >>> The same does not apply to cyclists.However,
>> >> i.e. you agree - good.
>>
>> > No, we do not agree; not on essence, number, or implication.
>>
>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>
>> --
>> Matt B
>
>What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>highway as I do to walk on it.
>

Exactly so.

The important difference (TrollB's spectacular failure to read and
comprehend notwithstanding) is that you have the right _by default_;
whereas the permission to drive a motor-car is withheld by default.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:50:54 +0000, TrollB
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Marz wrote:
>> On Feb 12, 8:32 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>> Marz wrote:
>>>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>>>> ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>>>> as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>>>> highway as I do to walk on it.
>>> Have you been following the thread? An individual was banned from
>>> cycling in Manchester (IIRC) - a reference was provided. Go read.
>>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> So he wasn't banned form cycling, he was banned from cycling in a
>> certain area
>
>Yes, he was banned from cycling within a prescribed area.
>

No.

He was not banned from cycling.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2007 04:00:15 -0800, "Marz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:47:49 +0000, TrollB and undenied ABD member
>>>> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes. You can, contrary to "popular opinion" in this ng, be banned from
>>>>>>> cycling.
>>>>>> However, _all_ persons are banned from driving a motor-car, unless
>>>>>> they have recieved permission.
>>>>>> The same does not apply to cyclists.However,
>>>>> i.e. you agree - good.
>>>> No, we do not agree; not on essence, number, or implication.
>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt B
>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>> ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>> as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>> highway as I do to walk on it.
>>
>
> Exactly so.
>
> The important difference

No, just a technicality, given that everyone has the right to apply for
the right to drive.

> is that you have the right _by default_;
> whereas the permission to drive a motor-car is withheld by default.

Yes, like I said: "There is a subtle difference in that you have to jump
through a hoop, and pay a tax, to get the right to drive - but having
done that, and it's everyone's right to attempt it, the right is similar
to the right to cycle."

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:50:54 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>> Marz wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 8:32 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>>>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>>>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>>>>> ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>>>>> as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>>>>> highway as I do to walk on it.
>>>> Have you been following the thread? An individual was banned from
>>>> cycling in Manchester (IIRC) - a reference was provided. Go read.
>>>>
>>> Not really.
>>>
>>> So he wasn't banned form cycling, he was banned from cycling in a
>>> certain area
>> Yes, he was banned from cycling within a prescribed area.
>
> No.
>
> He was not banned from cycling.

Let me quote from the BBC news article: "... man has been banned from
using his bike ...".

Banned from "using his bike". Perhaps you could tell us what /you/ use
your bike for - on second thoughts perhaps you'd better not.

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:17:55 +0000, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2007 04:00:15 -0800, Marz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling?
>>
>> He's being a pillock, basically.
>
>i.e. I've embarrassed those who have asserted cycling cannot be banned.
>

No-one has said this.

What has been shown is that cycling is a right, unlike driving a
motor-car, which is done by permission.

The (well deserved) appellation of "pillock" is a consequence of your
instant distortion.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> What has been shown is that cycling is a right, unlike driving a
> motor-car, which is done by permission.

In the post (in the other thread) that you failed to reply to, for
obvious reasons, we also saw that the Home Office assert that driving is
a right.

Just to remind you of what they said in the referenced document: "The
right to drive is a privilege, earned by proving competence in safe
driving, and withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."

Once you have earned the right you /have/ the right - it couldn't be
plainer.

--
Matt B

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:06 +0000, Simon Dean <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > That depends on the value of 'viable'. I think you've all but
>> > admitted that there are other options that I (and a good number of
>> > other people) consider viable. As such, yes, I think it's still a
>> > choice.
>>
>> Exactly. You consider it viable, but I don't. Im in a different
>> situation to you in a number of ways you can't appreciate, yet you're
>> discussing how viable another course of action is for me because it's OK
>> for you.
>>
>> It's taken a long time for me to prove you are using your own
>> experiences and knowledge to critique others.
>
> IOt shouldn't. It's self-evident - every comment made by anyone ever
> is using tehir own experience and knowledge. Quite why you'd want to
> spend time 'proving' something slef-evidently true is a mystery to me.
> I've certainly never denied what you seem to be determined to prove.
>
> Will you move on to proving that the sky is blue?

Is it?

What makes you think that?

There was an article in our local paper some years ago, from a woman who was
trying to teach children, and she said that the planet looked blue from
outer space because of the water on it!

Alan

 

[Roger Merriman]

Earl Purple <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 13 Feb, 19:04, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>
snip a lot of stuff.

> > Better transport links, so trains actually get to places before 9am with
> > decent bus links to the local communities?
>
> Better transport links in London that is not radial based, eg 2 more
> orbital routes, around the North/South
> circular (there are already routes not that far from the South
> Circular) and around the M25.
>
indeed thats one of the problems my partner had by train from kingston
area spent a lot of time just getting to the london to wales train,
infact on a good run i could get to hers almost before then.

so yes some way that doesn't require going in then out...

> > Bikes are in there, but I'll leave that upto someone else about how to
> > promote bike - and no demote car use...
>
> Provide housing with facilities to store bikes securely.
> Better facilities for journeys consisting of bike/train/bike, even at
> peak times, which would allow commuters to do part of their journey by
> bicycle. Even possibly bike/bus/bike
> if special buses were built for this.
> Better work facilities for bike storage + showering / changing
> facilities.
> Safer facilities on the road. Not just painted white lines.
>
> However it would balance. Many cycle to work simply because it's
> faster than any other form of transport. If you cleared up the roads
> significantly enough such
> that car travel became faster, many would switch back to it.

dunno my partner enjoys her ride into work it goes though some old deer
parks and what not, and this area kington and surrounding towns are easy
to ride, all flat got the royal parks it's a very pleasent way of
travelling.

yes quite often even a rush hour it isn't attaully that much faster but
its a lot less hassel.

okay not every one rides in the snow and pouring rain. but even so see a
fair number of bikes about okay much much less than cars but still a
fair amount.

roger

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:57:04 +0000, TrollB
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:50:54 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>> Marz wrote:
>>>> On Feb 12, 8:32 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>>>>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>>>>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>>>>>> ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>>>>>> as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>>>>>> highway as I do to walk on it.
>>>>> Have you been following the thread? An individual was banned from
>>>>> cycling in Manchester (IIRC) - a reference was provided. Go read.
>>>>>
>>>> Not really.
>>>>
>>>> So he wasn't banned form cycling, he was banned from cycling in a
>>>> certain area
>>> Yes, he was banned from cycling within a prescribed area.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> He was not banned from cycling.
>
>Let me quote from the BBC news article: "... man has been banned from
>using his bike ...".
>

Please continue quoting - the part of the line you won't include gives
the lie to your statement.

 

[Simon Geller]

4sub (possibly) wrote:
>>
> Every Saturday driving back from Crawley I have a pack of Lycra Suited
> Dickheads riding 6 and 7 abreast holding up the traffic.
>
>


I know how you feel. Every morning as I cycle to work I get held up by a
pack of Steel-Encased Dickheads sitting in queues. They are driving two
abreast but don't have anyone else in the car with them. Get them off
the road I say!

S.


--
"Just because the world's getting hotter, you can't pin that on global
Warming!

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:57:04 +0000, TrollB
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:50:54 +0000, Matt B wrote:
>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 12, 8:32 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 12, 5:37 am, Matt B wrote:
>>>>>>>> We were, at that point in the thread, discussing whether you could
>>>>>>>> actually be banned from cycling - you can. Do you disagree?
>>>>>>> What!?!?! How can anyone be banned from cycling? There is provision to
>>>>>>> ban cycling from certain types of road or pedestrian areas, but as far
>>>>>>> as I understand it I have a very similiar right to ride on the public
>>>>>>> highway as I do to walk on it.
>>>>>> Have you been following the thread? An individual was banned from
>>>>>> cycling in Manchester (IIRC) - a reference was provided. Go read.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not really.
>>>>>
>>>>> So he wasn't banned form cycling, he was banned from cycling in a
>>>>> certain area
>>>> Yes, he was banned from cycling within a prescribed area.
>>> No.
>>>
>>> He was not banned from cycling.
>> Let me quote from the BBC news article: "... man has been banned from
>> using his bike ...".
>>
>
> Please continue quoting - the part of the line you won't include gives
> the lie to your statement.

This line? "A [age]-year-old man has been banned from using his bike -
to stop him riding around to find cars to steal from"

Or this one? "The three-year ban is part of an anti-social behaviour
order imposed on [***] of [***]"

Or this one? "He now knows that the slightest breach of his order will
trigger further court action - he is playing with his liberty if he so
much as mounts a bike and turns a wheel."

--
Matt B

 

[Mike Sales]

"Simon Dean" is very keen to prove a car is essential to him. I've never
read or heard of a motorist in this sort of discussion who could do without
a car. Simon Dean has built his life around car use, and unsurprisingly, to
live that life a car is needed. Its like an addiction in a way. Car use has
changed his "metabolism" (living arrangements) as heroin does, so that he
can use the withdrawal symptoms to say "see I told you I couldn't do without
it."
Simon may be stuck in his situation, but nearly everyone else could kick the
habit and be better off in real ways. I've not bothered to read his
extensive self justification, hence the "may". So I say, come on Simon, give
it a go. Make a bit of effort, perhaps change your job or whatever. Cycling
is addictive too, because it is so much fun, your health will be much
better, your mind more serene, your surroundings more beautiful and your
conscience clearer.
Mike Sales

 

[Simon Dean]

Mike Sales wrote:
> "Simon Dean" is very keen to prove a car is essential to him.


Hahaha. I've never laughed so much in my entire life. I realise you're
just trying to inflammatory, so I won't respond further to your comments!

Oh go on.

You're a liar. I'm not keen to prove that a car is essential to me.
Because it isn't. What I am keen to prove though, is that in one
particular situation, a car is essential.

I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference though.

You may not realise, but I walk as much as possible to and from local
areas, and catch public transport when appropriate. Car use is not an
automatic necessity for me. but neither is public transport. You and
your cycling buddies fail to make that observation. I wonder why that
is. Maybe that's because you're all arrogant selfish f********s

 

[Simon Dean]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:30:06 +0000, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> That depends on the value of 'viable'. I think you've all but
>>> admitted that there are other options that I (and a good number of
>>> other people) consider viable. As such, yes, I think it's still a
>>> choice.
>> Exactly. You consider it viable, but I don't. Im in a different
>> situation to you in a number of ways you can't appreciate, yet you're
>> discussing how viable another course of action is for me because it's OK
>> for you.
>>
>> It's taken a long time for me to prove you are using your own
>> experiences and knowledge to critique others.
>
> IOt shouldn't. It's self-evident - every comment made by anyone ever
> is using tehir own experience and knowledge. Quite why you'd want to
> spend time 'proving' something slef-evidently true is a mystery to me.
> I've certainly never denied what you seem to be determined to prove.
>

Only an ignorant, arrogant jackass would say that.

Some people, before they start spouting advice, and what someone else
can do with their time and how they should live their life, prefer to, I
don't know, get to know someone else first, ask a few questions, get a
different perspective. We don't make assumptions, we investigate first,
then talk.

This is my last post on the subject. I had this pre-written.

You make rash assumptions based on your own experience. You do not
consider things from another persons point of view. You're happy with
your life, and you compare your life with others. You've basically told
me that I could do what you do, and then moan when I don't accept your
lifestyle as a choice that I could make.

If I was presented with two options, eating some food, or killing a
person, is that latter option a choice despite it being totally
unviable? Is an unviable option still a choice?

Looking after our emotional and physical state, isn't a choice.It's a
need. Ensuring we have enough time to fulfil that, isn't an option, it's
a necessity. Ensuring that we have a job and earn money to do this,
isn't luxury, it's a requirement.

Don't think Im singling you out, others have suggested that we all have
a choice.

There are many here that all they see is this evil selfish car driver
who won't do anything else, who won't consider anything else. But it's
been proven, that even when they have shown they've considered something
else but can't make it work, the car driver is still told off for it.
They're still told they're "ignoring the possibilities".

I don't know where this misconception comes from.

One of your pathetic assumptions is that "people who need to use a car
for business get one provided". I want to know what world you live on,
because that's so far removed from reality it's a joke.

Perhaps you could spend some time looking at how other people work
besides your narrow viewpoint of your own experiences, like I do.

This is how I know, that not everyone works in the city. Not everyone
lives close to their job. There are hundreds and thousands of small
employers around. they don't provide company cars for business - they
require you to use your car. But of course, why should that be
surprising when HMRC allow 40p a mile for business use in your own car?

Some people get cars provided, some people don't.

Not all trains or buses get to work on time. Some don't even have
scheduled services before 9am.

Some people even have the arrogant assumption that we choose where we
live. Some of us do, some of us don't. Some of us choose what we can
afford - even if that means living with parents. If that is the only
choice, is it still a choice? You'd have us think yes.

The driver can never win here.

First it's: You should be taking public transport. You wouldn't have
enough time for yourself in the evening? Who cares! I have plenty of
time. Oh transport arrives too late for work? Well, can't you negotiate
when to start work? Can't do that? Well maybe you should move houses
then. Can't do that? Can't afford it? Yes, well, offset your car running
costs against a house. Oh still can't afford it? You should quit your
job? Maybe you should still take public transport and do nothing in the
evening. Oh you're making excuses. Never put yourself first.

You again assume that Im the ignorant and arrogant one. That I refuse to
consider public transport or cycling.

I've considered it many times. One last time Ian, just so you get this
through your head, I have considered it.

I consider it to be unpractical and therefore unreasonable and not a
viable choice therefore not an option.

If my circumstances change, like, I get a job in the middle of
Birmingham, then I will probably almost definitely take public
transport. It depends whether, as is the case at the moment, my employer
requires me to have a car for my job.

People see me as being unreasonable. Balderdash.

As I wrote to another mad dingo,

"You may not realise, but I walk as much as possible to and from local
areas, and catch public transport when appropriate. Car use is not an
automatic necessity for me, but neither is public transport. You and
your cycling buddies fail to make that observation. I wonder why that
is. Maybe that's because you're all arrogant selfish f********s



Cya
Simon