Re: The danger of riding among drivers, even with a helmet

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 23, 7:51*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 7:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:09*am, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 6:57*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23, 6:26*am, Derek C > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 23, 6:18*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 22, 5:03*pm, "Fredxx" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 21, 5:07 pm, "Ian Field" >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> "JMS" > wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > ...
>
> > > > > > > >>> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 21:30:14 -0000, "Ian Field"
> > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >>>> "JMS" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Some will be aware that a Mr Tony Raven recently claimed that
> > > > > > > >>>>> helmet use increased the risk of injury - and then misquoted a
> > > > > > > >>>>> research paper concerning Australia in order to try and prove the
> > > > > > > >>>>> point.
>
> > > > > > > >>>>http://poetry.rotten.com/all-kings-horses/0003/
>
> > > > > > > >>>> Pretty messy - but death outright is much cheaper than rest of life
> > > > > > > >>>> quadraplegic care.
>
> > > > > > > >>> Should have worn a helmet - although I think psycholists reckon they
> > > > > > > >>> suddenly stop working above a certain speed.
>
> > > > > > > >> Its not speed that kills - its the stopping suddenly bit that does
> > > > > > > >> the damage.
>
> > > > > > > > Speed is directly related to impact damage as well as decreasing
> > > > > > > > stopping distance.
>
> > > > > > > > Given as there is so much debate about the effectiveness of helmets
> > > > > > > > anyway, it can only be regarded as a tokenistic safety measure as long
> > > > > > > > as a speeding majority of motorists are still allowed on our roads.
>
> > > > > > > I for one would advocate the raising of speed limits, then oppressed drivers
> > > > > > > are less likely to be accused of "speeding".
>
> > > > > > But that would increase the danger they pose to seriously threatened
> > > > > > vulnerable road users not decrease it! The only reason drivers are
> > > > > > quite rightly 'oppressed', *as you put it, is because a majority of
> > > > > > them deliberately break laws which are there to protect other people.
>
> > > > > If you (Doug) had your way, all vehicles would have to be preceded by
> > > > > a man with a red flag. That law was very rightly repealed in 1896.. It
> > > > > takes a long time to get anywhere at walking pace, so a modern economy
> > > > > would be impossible.
>
> > > > What about using the train instead? Also halving car journeys for a
> > > > start would make the roads much safer. Many car journeys are non-
> > > > essential but they still take lives. How do you account for the fact
> > > > that the modern economy is crap anyway, despite car use?
>
> > > > -- .
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > A very London-centric view of the UK, where there are lots of train
> > > lines (and buses). Try living out in the sticks where there aren't any
> > > trains and not many buses.
>
> > What you ignore are two facts.
>
> > a) Cars have largely ousted public transport in the sticks
>
> > b) Cars have enable many people to live in the sticks which otherwise
> > would not be possible.
>
> Why should anyone want to live in the expensive sh*t hole that London
> has become? Why should I have to move from an area where I have lived
> and worked for many years, just to fit in with your warped view of the
> World?
>
No you don't understand. Were it not for car use you almost certainly
would not be there in the first place or use the same employer. Cars
have allowed the dispersal and fragmentation of many services and
families.
>
> > > In any case what trains we do have are very
> > > overcrowded in the rush hour and will only take you in the direction
> > > of London. Useless for going anywhere else.
>
> > Yes we do have a defective public transport infrastructure which is
> > underfunded, probably because most people choose to use cars instead.
> > Maybe if money was diverted from perpetual roadbuilding and other
> > costs incurred by the demands of motorists, including congestion and
> > the costs of road deaths and injuries, the public transport could be
> > greatly improved.
>
> If I use my car, it is only in operation when I actually need it and I
> can take the shortest and quickest route to where I want to go (ditto
> my bicycle). Outside the commuter rush hour many trains and buses
> travel around almost empty of passenger, so are wasting energy for no
> good reason.
>
Because people choose to use cars instead.
>
> Many journeys to quite nearby towns require a train
> journey at least part way into London and then back out again.
>
And neither is car use perfect, far from it.
>
> In any case, I thought you (Doug) wanted everybody to cycle
> everywhere!
>
No that is your exaggeration.

Doug

[Derek C]

On Nov 24, 8:01*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> No you don't understand. Were it not for car use you almost certainly
> would not be there in the first place or use the same employer. Cars
> have allowed the dispersal and fragmentation of many services and
> families.

In the real (non-Doug) World, work doesn't come to you, you have to go
out and find it and move home if necessary. I have done this several
times in my life and so have many others.

>
> > If I use my car, it is only in operation when I actually need it and I
> > can take the shortest and quickest route to where I want to go (ditto
> > my bicycle). Outside the commuter rush hour many trains and buses
> > travel around almost empty of passenger, so are wasting energy for no
> > good reason.
>
> Because people choose to use cars instead.
>
> > Many journeys to quite nearby towns require a train
> > journey at least part way into London and then back out again.
>
> And neither is car use perfect, far from it.

Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
this.
>
> > In any case, I thought you (Doug) wanted everybody to cycle
> > everywhere!
>
> No that is your exaggeration.

You could have fooled me!

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C > wrote:

> Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> this.

I am sat on the train catching up on emails, reading a book & reading &
replying here on my one hour journey. If I were driving I would be
wasting an hour sat holding a steering wheel instead.

--
Tony

[Derek C]

On Nov 24, 8:54*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C > wrote:
> > Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
> > Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> > much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> > already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> > this.
>
> I am sat on the train catching up on emails, *reading a book & reading &
> replying here on my one hour journey. *If I were driving I would be
> wasting an hour sat holding a steering wheel instead.
>
In a car you

[Derek C]

On Nov 24, 8:54*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C > wrote:
> > Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
> > Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> > much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> > already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> > this.
>
> I am sat on the train catching up on emails, *reading a book & reading &
> replying here on my one hour journey. *If I were driving I would be
> wasting an hour sat holding a steering wheel instead.


But in a car I can sit in a nice comfortable guaranteed seat,
listening to the radio in a nice warm cabin. There are no smelly
strangers coughing their germs all over me and I never have to stand.

Derek C

[Clive George]

On 24/11/2010 16:36, Derek C wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:54 am, Tony > wrote:
>> Derek > wrote:
>>> Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
>>> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
>>> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
>>> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
>>> this.
>>
>> I am sat on the train catching up on emails, reading a book& reading&
>> replying here on my one hour journey. If I were driving I would be
>> wasting an hour sat holding a steering wheel instead.
>
>
> But in a car I can sit in a nice comfortable guaranteed seat,
> listening to the radio in a nice warm cabin. There are no smelly
> strangers coughing their germs all over me and I never have to stand.

In a train I sit in a nice comfortable guaranteed seat, listening to
whatever I want in a nice warm carriage, but also doing more. I don't
get smelly strangers coughing over me, and with my guaranteed seat I
don't have to stand.

If I was on a train which didn't have that, the car equivalent would
probably be sitting in a traffic jam - busy times are busy on both
trains and cars.

[Marc[_5_]]

On 24/11/2010 08:29, Derek C wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:01 am, > wrote:
>>
>> No you don't understand. Were it not for car use you almost certainly
>> would not be there in the first place or use the same employer. Cars
>> have allowed the dispersal and fragmentation of many services and
>> families.
>
> In the real (non-Doug) World, work doesn't come to you, you have to go
> out and find it and move home if necessary. I have done this several
> times in my life and so have many others.

Errrr don't look now, but you've just shot your own arguemtn down.
>
>>
>>> If I use my car, it is only in operation when I actually need it and I
>>> can take the shortest and quickest route to where I want to go (ditto
>>> my bicycle). Outside the commuter rush hour many trains and buses
>>> travel around almost empty of passenger, so are wasting energy for no
>>> good reason.
>>
>> Because people choose to use cars instead.
>>
>>> Many journeys to quite nearby towns require a train
>>> journey at least part way into London and then back out again.
>>
>> And neither is car use perfect, far from it.
>
> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,

I's £30 a month less for my train ticket than my diesel bill....

>often overcrowded

Choice of seats in either direction both this mornign and this eveing..

>and slow.

Train and waiting time are exactly the same if I use the car or train,
the extra time on the bike is excercise that I should have been doing at
some time during the day anyway.

Net result is I have MORE time to myself than when I drove.

> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> already have one.


See above...

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 24/11/2010 20:07, Marc wrote:

> On 24/11/2010 08:29, Derek C wrote:

>> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,

> I's £30 a month less for my train ticket than my diesel bill....

If the diesel bill relates *only* to travel to work (with no social, domestic
and pleasure mileage), there may be something wrong with the engine.

And that's without even looking at the bits of the journey not covered by
your train ticket.

[ian field]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 24/11/2010 20:07, Marc wrote:
>
>> On 24/11/2010 08:29, Derek C wrote:
>
>>> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,
>
>> I's £30 a month less for my train ticket than my diesel bill....
>
> If the diesel bill relates *only* to travel to work (with no social,
> domestic and pleasure mileage), there may be something wrong with the
> engine.


Mine was a binding front brake - which got worse as the temperature dropped.

Just as well I bought new seals a while ago.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 24, 4:36*pm, Derek C > wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:54*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
> > Derek C > wrote:
> > > Public Transport is now hugely expensive, often overcrowded and slow.
> > > Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> > > much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> > > already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> > > this.
>
> > I am sat on the train catching up on emails, *reading a book & reading &
> > replying here on my one hour journey. *If I were driving I would be
> > wasting an hour sat holding a steering wheel instead.
>
> But in a car I can sit in a nice comfortable guaranteed seat,
> listening to the radio in a nice warm cabin. There are no smelly
> strangers coughing their germs all over me and I never have to stand.
>
But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Nov 25, 7:50*am, Doug > wrote:

>
> But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
> contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
> otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.
>

If I am sitting stationary in a traffic jam, I hardly have the
momentum or force to kill anybody!

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 25/11/2010 20:46, Derek C wrote:

> On Nov 25, 7:50 am, > wrote:

>> But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
>> contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
>> otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.

> If I am sitting stationary in a traffic jam, I hardly have the
> momentum or force to kill anybody!

You insensitive *******.

There's every chance that poor Doug will succumb to apoplexy just thinking
about it.

[Derek C]

On Nov 25, 9:54*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 25/11/2010 20:46, Derek C wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 7:50 am, > *wrote:
> >> But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
> >> contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
> >> otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.
> > If I am sitting stationary in a traffic jam, I hardly have the
> > momentum or force to kill anybody!
>
> You insensitive *******.
>
> There's every chance that poor Doug will succumb to apoplexy just thinking
> about it.

That would be no great loss to the World, legal, motoring, or cycling
communities.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 24, 8:29*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:01*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > No you don't understand. Were it not for car use you almost certainly
> > would not be there in the first place or use the same employer. Cars
> > have allowed the dispersal and fragmentation of many services and
> > families.
>
> In the real (non-Doug) World, work doesn't come to you, you have to go
> out and find it and move home if necessary. I have done this several
> times in my life and so have many others.
>
In the real world, if employers suffered an employee shortage, because
of a lack of motorists, they would move somewhere better. As I keep on
pointing out, mass car uses encourages dispersal and fragmentation of
services and infrastructure.
>
>
> > > If I use my car, it is only in operation when I actually need it and I
> > > can take the shortest and quickest route to where I want to go (ditto
> > > my bicycle). Outside the commuter rush hour many trains and buses
> > > travel around almost empty of passenger, so are wasting energy for no
> > > good reason.
>
> > Because people choose to use cars instead.
>
> > > Many journeys to quite nearby towns require a train
> > > journey at least part way into London and then back out again.
>
> > And neither is car use perfect, far from it.
>
> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,
>
Due to government underfunding which is diverted into the car culture
instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking provisions.
>
> often overcrowded and slow.
> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> this.
>
Yes its great in the snow isn't it.

The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
>
>
>
> > > In any case, I thought you (Doug) wanted everybody to cycle
> > > everywhere!
>
> > No that is your exaggeration.
>
> You could have fooled me!
>
Not really. I have even admitted in the past that some, but not much,
car use is essential and public transport certainly is, though sorely
neglected by government in favour of the car. Not difficult to
understand when most if not all MPs are motorists too.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Aristotleian mob.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 25, 9:54*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 25/11/2010 20:46, Derek C wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 7:50 am, > *wrote:
> >> But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
> >> contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
> >> otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.
> > If I am sitting stationary in a traffic jam, I hardly have the
> > momentum or force to kill anybody!
>
> You insensitive *******.
>
> There's every chance that poor Doug will succumb to apoplexy just thinking
> about it.
>
Sometime traffic jams move slowly, hence the danger of putting lives
at risk. It only takes a foot to slip on the accelerator of a faulty
car.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 26/11/2010 08:23, Doug wrote:

> On Nov 24, 8:29 am, Derek > wrote:

[ ... ]

>> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,

> Due to government underfunding which is diverted into the car culture
> instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking provisions.

I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
is massive amounts of labour.

>> often overcrowded and slow.
>> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
>> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
>> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
>> this.

> Yes its great in the snow isn't it.
> The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
> car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
> properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.

This must be some specialised and little-used sense of "distinct disadvantage".

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 27/11/2010 09:59, Doug wrote:

> On Nov 25, 9:54 pm, > wrote:
>> On 25/11/2010 20:46, Derek C wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 7:50 am, > wrote:

>>>> But you do get caught up in traffic jams, to which you yourself
>>>> contribute, and you also create more pollution than you would
>>>> otherwise do, while putting lives at risk of course.

>>> If I am sitting stationary in a traffic jam, I hardly have the
>>> momentum or force to kill anybody!

>> You insensitive *******.
>> There's every chance that poor Doug will succumb to apoplexy just thinking
>> about it.

> Sometime traffic jams move slowly, hence the danger of putting lives
> at risk. It only takes a foot to slip on the accelerator of a faulty
> car.

There... told you.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 28, 5:44*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> On 26/11/2010 08:23, Doug wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:29 am, Derek > *wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,
> > Due to government underfunding which is diverted into the car culture
> > instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking provisions.
>
> I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
> the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
> is massive amounts of labour.
>
So does road building and repair. Have you noticed all the potholes
lately?
>
> >> often overcrowded and slow.
> >> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
> >> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
> >> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
> >> this.
> > Yes its great in the snow isn't it.
> > The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
> > car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
> > properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> This must be some specialised and little-used sense of "distinct disadvantage".
>
No. By not using pubic transport one becomes unfamiliar with its use,
obviously.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Nov 30, 7:46*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking
provisions.
>
> > I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
> > the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
> > is massive amounts of labour.
>
> So does road building and repair. Have you noticed all the potholes
> lately?

Very much so, which means that not enough resources are being put into
maintenance of the roads. Potholes are worse for cyclists than for
cars with bigger tyres and suspension.

>.
> > > Yes its great in the snow isn't it.
> > > The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
> > > car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
> > > properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> > This must be some specialised and little-used sense of "distinct disadvantage".
>
> No. By not using pubic transport one becomes unfamiliar with its use,
> obviously.
>
I use buses, trains and London Underground for appropriate journeys,
but not if the journey would require several changes and take much
longer than by car or bicycle.

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C > wrote:

> I use buses, trains and London Underground for appropriate journeys,
> but not if the journey would require several changes and take much
> longer than by car or bicycle.
>

I use a bike all the time in London. It's much quicker than the Tube,
bus or taxi for most journeys, especially yesterday when the motorists
were holding a London wide Critical Mass to protest the Tube strike.

--
Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 30/11/2010 07:46, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:44 pm, > wrote:
>> On 26/11/2010 08:23, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 8:29 am, Derek > wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> Public Transport is now hugely expensive,
>>> Due to government underfunding which is diverted into the car culture
>>> instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking provisions.
>>
>> I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
>> the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
>> is massive amounts of labour.
>>
> So does road building and repair. Have you noticed all the potholes
> lately?
>>
>>>> often overcrowded and slow.
>>>> Even if you have sit in a traffic jam for a few minutes it is usually
>>>> much quicker, cheaper and more comfortable to use your car if you
>>>> already have one. I will exclude journeys into central London from
>>>> this.
>>> Yes its great in the snow isn't it.
>>> The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
>>> car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
>>> properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
>>
>> This must be some specialised and little-used sense of "distinct disadvantage".
>>
> No. By not using pubic transport one becomes unfamiliar with its use,
> obviously.

But you said that this was a *disadvantage*.

There's a bus-stop outside my house. I know where the bus goes (within a
reasonable degree of accuracy). But it plays no part in my family's life
(well, maybe once a year I ride the bus to the garage to pick up my var from
servicing if I can't get a lift there and I don't feel like walking). That's
because we have other and better facilities. No "disadvantage" whatsoever.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 30/11/2010 09:35, Tony Raven wrote:

> Derek > wrote:

>> I use buses, trains and London Underground for appropriate journeys,
>> but not if the journey would require several changes and take much
>> longer than by car or bicycle.

> I use a bike all the time in London. It's much quicker than the Tube,
> bus or taxi for most journeys, especially yesterday when the motorists
> were holding a London wide Critical Mass to protest the Tube strike.

For Central London and much of Inner London, that is very credible.

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 30, 9:07*am, Derek C > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:46*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> *> > instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking
> provisions.
>
>
>
> > > I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
> > > the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
> > > is massive amounts of labour.
>
> > So does road building and repair. Have you noticed all the potholes
> > lately?
>
> Very much so, which means that not enough resources are being put into
> maintenance of the roads. Potholes are worse for cyclists than for
> cars with bigger tyres and suspension.
>
So you agree that roads require expensive resources, including massive
amounts of labour?
> >.
> > > > Yes its great in the snow isn't it.
> > > > The truth is that people have allowed themselves to become addicted to
> > > > car use and have lost familiarity with how to use public transport
> > > > properly, which places them at a distinct disadvantage.
>
> > > This must be some specialised and little-used sense of "distinct disadvantage".
>
> > No. By not using pubic transport one becomes unfamiliar with its use,
> > obviously.
>
> I use buses, trains and London Underground for appropriate journeys,
> but not if the journey would require several changes and take much
> longer than by car or bicycle.
>
Have you ever though of moving to somewhere more convenient and
thereby reducing your car dependency at the same time?

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 6:50*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:07*am, Derek C > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 7:46*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > *> > instead, including perpetual roadbuilding and car parking
> > provisions.
>
> > > > I'd have thought that the reason why public transport is expensive is due to
> > > > the fact it requires and uses up expensive resources, not the least of which
> > > > is massive amounts of labour.
>
> > > So does road building and repair. Have you noticed all the potholes
> > > lately?
>
> > Very much so, which means that not enough resources are being put into
> > maintenance of the roads. Potholes are worse for cyclists than for
> > cars with bigger tyres and suspension.
>
> So you agree that roads require expensive resources, including massive
> amounts of labour?> >.

Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
for.

>
> > I use buses, trains and London Underground for appropriate journeys,
> > but not if the journey would require several changes and take much
> > longer than by car or bicycle.
>
> Have you ever though of moving to somewhere more convenient and
> thereby reducing your car dependency at the same time?

What and pay a small fortune to the Treasury in Stamp Duty plus Estate
Agent's and Solicitor's fees? No thanks!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
> for.
>

Which roads are those then?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 8:56*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> > Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
> > for.
>
> Which roads are those then?
>
> Tony

All roads other than Motorways of course!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 8:56 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
>>> for.
>> Which roads are those then?
>>
>> Tony
>
> All roads other than Motorways of course!
>

So how are those roads paid for then?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 10:25*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 8:56 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
>
> >>> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
> >>> for.
> >> Which roads are those then?
>
> >> Tony
>
> > All roads other than Motorways of course!
>
> So how are those roads paid for then?
>
> Tony

Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/12/2010 10:35, Derek C wrote:
> Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
> roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
> Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.

....is the wrong answer. I know you'd love to be able to ignore all
externalities, but society can't. Motoring revenues are about equal now
with the costs of private motoring to the economy but there's more than
a hundred years of deficit to make up.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM+2vUAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/Kb4H/j8miNXRR+ISqNR3L015C2mv
6TeUUVv1l+kjAk65qYz0PZRtAloy18MUBTyVS3j/1kcYVAJx/hbqOqG+ZpJ+0TuM
59ZF7d1y/jJX4AiL42udL18pCRPYkxHTQL7V3mP7n2PBJy7/IUDdKK3BFP1o0zTk
pA5bnllaB8m0MLwiguagCRhEttVPx8wwluO4nBOn6QXvecJwKD nX8920jeu+zJkx
I18Bbkv8lkh8nP89Jqgo16zngt4qtQyrg/ikFiuhRflioqhg1NN5dOPpdH1nORDg
/2zpP34sPy70nKCeC8MDwkC6rt1zdgJ0WqLgsgVf16q2e3V9ley DwquS2wUy7/Q=
=Z0aC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 10:25 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 8:56 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>>>> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
>>>>> for.
>>>> Which roads are those then?
>>>> Tony
>>> All roads other than Motorways of course!
>> So how are those roads paid for then?
>>
>> Tony
>
> Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
> roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
> Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.
>

That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked how are these
roads paid for?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 10:44*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 10:25 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
> >>> On Dec 5, 8:56 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >>>> Derek C wrote:
> >>>>> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
> >>>>> for.
> >>>> Which roads are those then?
> >>>> Tony
> >>> All roads other than Motorways of course!
> >> So how are those roads paid for then?
>
> >> Tony
>
> > Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
> > roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
> > Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.
>
> That's not an answer to the question I asked. *I asked how are these
> roads paid for?
>
> Tony- Hide

You mean not the answer YOU wanted. Roads are paid for out of non-
hypothecated general taxation, to which motorists contribute far more
than their fair share in VED, fuel duty and VAT on fuel and new
vehicles. A very small number of roads are toll roads which the
motorists have to pay an additional amount to use. The signage for the
M6 toll road around the east of Birmingham is a bit confusing and it
is quite possible to end up on the toll road when you don't really
want to use it.

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 10:44 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:

>>> Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
>>> roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
>>> Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.
>> That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked how are these
>> roads paid for?
>>
>> Tony- Hide
>
> You mean not the answer YOU wanted. Roads are paid for out of non-
> hypothecated general taxation, to which motorists contribute far more
> than their fair share in VED, fuel duty and VAT on fuel and new
> vehicles.

No it wasn't an answer to the question I asked. I asked how roads were
paid for and you told me something entirely different about the taxes
motorists pay.

But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
taxation. Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 11:07*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 10:44 am, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
> >>> Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
> >>> roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
> >>> Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.
> >> That's not an answer to the question I asked. *I asked how are these
> >> roads paid for?
>
> >> Tony- Hide
>
> > You mean not the answer YOU wanted. Roads are paid for out of non-
> > hypothecated general taxation, to which motorists contribute far more
> > than their fair share in VED, fuel duty and VAT on fuel and new
> > vehicles.
>
> No it wasn't an answer to the question I asked. *I asked how roads were
> paid for and you told me something entirely different about the taxes
> motorists pay.
>
> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
> taxation. *Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
> So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?
>
> Tony

Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
6% for their compulsory insurance.

What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>
>
>
>
A tax evader!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
>>
>> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
>> taxation. Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
>> So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?
>>
>> Tony
>
> Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
> VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
> the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
> 6% for their compulsory insurance.

I bet I pay a lot more tax than you do. So explain to me again why I
haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on.
>
> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>

Healthier and better off?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 12:10*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
>
> >> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
> >> taxation. *Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
>>>> taxation. Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
>>>> So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?
>>>> Tony
>>> Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
>>> VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
>>> the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
>>> 6% for their compulsory insurance.
>> I bet I pay a lot more tax than you do. So explain to me again why I
>> haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>> Healthier and better off?
>>
>> Tony
>
> If they ride bikes they could end up being disabled and brain damaged,
> or even dead, especially if they don't wear cycle helmets!
>

Instead of dying from cardiac or obesity problems you mean? The health
benefits of cycling outweigh the health risks 20:1

But I missed your answer to my question "I bet I pay a lot more tax than
you do. So explain to me again why I haven't paid towards the roads I
cycle on."

Do you have an answer?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 12:35*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >> Derek C wrote:
>
> >>>> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
> >>>> taxation. *Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
> >>>> So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?
> >>>> Tony
> >>> Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
> >>> VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
> >>> the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
> >>> 6% for their compulsory insurance.
> >> I bet I pay a lot more tax than you do. So explain to me again why I
> >> haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on.
>
> >>> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
> >> Healthier and better off?
>
> >> Tony
>
> > If they ride bikes they could end up being disabled and brain damaged,
> > or even dead, especially if they don't wear cycle helmets!
>
> Instead of dying from cardiac or obesity problems you mean? *The health
> benefits of cycling outweigh the health risks 20:1
>
> But I missed your answer to my question "I bet I pay a lot more tax than
> you do. So explain to me again why I haven't paid towards the roads I
> cycle on."
>
> Do you have an answer?
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
tyre.

Derek C

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/12/2010 12:17, Derek C wrote:
>>> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>> >
>> > Healthier and better off?
>> >
>> > Tony
> If they ride bikes they could end up being disabled and brain damaged,
> or even dead, especially if they don't wear cycle helmets!

Guess what? Most cyclists who do end up severely injured or dead, it's
the result of being hit by a motorist. Where blame can be assigned, it
is usually the motorist who's at fault.

Just one of the many externalities that car apologists like to ignore.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM+5hbAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/reYH/3IBkY4w1j6/lRjs0f5bzJPQ
DpS3N3G4W120Oz6jIe5ZfpB5WuElOEXyxzx7LshTK/lrEpQ3NLMp8ckta4krx8bI
sbAgxxA+oECaGFhZNArJKxW5ZvlNzERfz7UYYCOWDNgT0W8dOk o0JDwnhMrBATxa
W6c9Pul1FfWG40Fb8hb6xOuSTGHtRXmcjRjSjXckpXaUnrVuC5 jUYFY7d3iuKsg8
ICNq/oavJtp1Is2OICBRmL4OnG7hrFwZltHIL5agHpq+YeQsg2Fe0R6 DsW9GaXAR
Skh/l5/aQ3dWPzdOeInZTUdax1+uQaiUDN8tp5OuwkVrBjM3GutX4ylL0 gYVh3s=
=kDq4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 05/12/2010 12:54, Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:35 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 12:10 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But glad to see you recognise that they are paid for out of general
>>>>>> taxation. Now as it happens I'm a cyclist and I pay general taxation.
>>>>>> So why do you think I haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on?
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>> Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
>>>>> VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
>>>>> the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
>>>>> 6% for their compulsory insurance.
>>>> I bet I pay a lot more tax than you do. So explain to me again why I
>>>> haven't paid towards the roads I cycle on.
>>
>>>>> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>>>> Healthier and better off?
>>
>>>> Tony
>>
>>> If they ride bikes they could end up being disabled and brain damaged,
>>> or even dead, especially if they don't wear cycle helmets!
>>
>> Instead of dying from cardiac or obesity problems you mean? The health
>> benefits of cycling outweigh the health risks 20:1
>>
>> But I missed your answer to my question "I bet I pay a lot more tax than
>> you do. So explain to me again why I haven't paid towards the roads I
>> cycle on."
>>
>> Do you have an answer?
>>
>> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
> which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
> motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
> VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
> push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
> tyre.


You are Vince Cable & I Claim My Five Pounds.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM+5iqAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/GFcH/1QUaSYonCN51Bn73UiXmkIl
sv/66t0VG31cjlql+x8BSF5XCWD2T4+wu2Gh/CoZ1DqSzjIfiAsLQGTDVxpDTJmz
HrfyP8qk3TdQuW749Jz5IAhYUfrH9nDbSKgCorZ9TyknCGNsSH MGIE/j8lNjkqG7
xsm84J7udCxfWx9WMVRnTpTosVWXgETVxQTQA1Rf5exDod/7cwuqhTA8xWqCr/T7
RnBh3/vkBF4Wbf5rr2hX6n0QHBs+Sxsf5qvxttphbHUf6BJvLP3lrH+p LVjpVo0H
s+cCH1bgoiV69hWcbTRWqmtE8bTtkNxpBTVi9aTLrOZVLhLrsP avqhiHvoCeqmE=
=VmXb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam Lea[_3_]]

On 05/12/10 11:23, Derek C wrote:
>
> Because you are a cheapskate psycholist who pays no VED, fuel duty, or
> VAT on fuel and new vehicles. I also forgot that motorists pay VAT at
> the full rate for repairs and servicing, and Insurance Premium Tax at
> 6% for their compulsory insurance.
>
> What do you call somebody who doesn't run a car?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> A tax evader!
>
> Derek C
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Adam Lea[_3_]]

On 05/12/10 10:35, Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 10:25 am, Tony > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 8:56 am, Tony > wrote:
>>>> Derek C wrote:
>>
>>>>> Cyclists also use and take advantage of the roads that they don't pay
>>>>> for.
>>>> Which roads are those then?
>>
>>>> Tony
>>
>>> All roads other than Motorways of course!
>>
>> So how are those roads paid for then?
>>
>> Tony
>
> Motorists pay far more in VED, fuel taxes and VAT than is spent on the
> roads. Whether it is hypothecated or non-hypothecated under the
> Treasury accounting rules is totally irrelevant.
>
> Derek C

http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/G/facts/road.costs.html

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 12:35 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>>
>> But I missed your answer to my question "I bet I pay a lot more tax than
>> you do. So explain to me again why I haven't paid towards the roads I
>> cycle on."
>>
>> Do you have an answer?
>>
>> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
> which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
> motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
> VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
> push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
> tyre.
>

Take it from me I pay a lot more tax than you do. So again could you
please explain, since you have acknowledged that roads are paid for out
of general taxation, why you think I haven't paid towards the roads I
cycle on?

Tony

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 2:28*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
> > Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
> > which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
> > motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
> > VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
> > push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
> > tyre.
>
> Take it from me I pay a lot more tax than you do. *So again could you
> please explain, since you have acknowledged that roads are paid for out
> of general taxation, why you think I haven't paid towards the roads I
> cycle on?
>
> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So what are you then? A banker with a million Pound salary and bonus.
A rock star? If so why do you ride around on a humble push bike rather
than in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce? You sound like a Harry Enfield
character and are equally pathetic!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
>>> Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
>>> which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
>>> motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
>>> VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
>>> push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
>>> tyre.
>> Take it from me I pay a lot more tax than you do. So again could you
>> please explain, since you have acknowledged that roads are paid for out
>> of general taxation, why you think I haven't paid towards the roads I
>> cycle on?
>>
>> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So what are you then? A banker with a million Pound salary and bonus.
> A rock star? If so why do you ride around on a humble push bike rather
> than in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce? You sound like a Harry Enfield
> character and are equally pathetic!
>

What does it matter? So now how about answering the question and
stopping the diversionary tactics? Why you think I haven't paid towards
the roads I cycle on?

Tony

P.S. You might ask the same question of why the bike of Alan Sugar,
John Caudwell, Madonna, David Walliams, David Cameron, Donald Trump,
Robin Williams, Woody Harrelson..... the list goes on.

[Derek C]

On Dec 5, 4:09*pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 2:28 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> >>> Without knowing your income and circumstances and you knowing mine,
> >>> which is none of your business anyway, I can't really say. I run two
> >>> motor vehicles, so I am contributing quite a lot in VED, fuel duty,
> >>> VAT and IPT on top of income and property taxes. I also run several
> >>> push bikes that cost me almost nothing, beyond the occasional new
> >>> tyre.
> >> Take it from me I pay a lot more tax than you do. *So again could you
> >> please explain, since you have acknowledged that roads are paid for out
> >> of general taxation, why you think I haven't paid towards the roads I
> >> cycle on?
>
> >> Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So what are you then? A banker with a million Pound salary and bonus.
> > A rock star? If so why do you ride around on a humble push bike rather
> > than in a chauffeur driven Rolls Royce? You sound like a Harry Enfield
> > character and are equally pathetic!
>
> What does it matter? *So now how about answering the question and
> stopping the diversionary tactics? *Why you think I haven't paid towards
> the roads I cycle on?
>
> Tony
>
> P.S. *You might ask the same question of why the bike of Alan Sugar,
> John Caudwell, Madonna, David Walliams, David Cameron, Donald Trump,
> Robin Williams, Woody Harrelson..... the list goes on.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If it where any of the above, the chauffeur in the Roller would be
waiting around the corner to pick them up at the end of their rides.
You I believe take your folding bike on the tube or train. Not quite
the same thing really!

Derek C

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Derek C wrote:
>
>> What does it matter? So now how about answering the question and
>> stopping the diversionary tactics? Why you think I haven't paid towards
>> the roads I cycle on?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>> P.S. You might ask the same question of why the bike of Alan Sugar,
>> John Caudwell, Madonna, David Walliams, David Cameron, Donald Trump,
>> Robin Williams, Woody Harrelson..... the list goes on.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If it where any of the above, the chauffeur in the Roller would be
> waiting around the corner to pick them up at the end of their rides.
> You I believe take your folding bike on the tube or train. Not quite
> the same thing really!
>

Still avoiding answering the question I see.

Tony

P.S. Not everyone is as you imagine them. Check out the lifestyles of
richest and third richest men in the world: Carlos Slim and Warren Buffett.


"Slim's enormous wealth stands starkly against his frugal lifestyle. He
has lived in the same house for about 40 years and drives an aging
Mercedes Benz, although it is armored and trailed by bodyguards. He
eschews private jets, yachts and other luxuries popular among Mexico's
elite."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6295GU20100311?pageNumber=2

"Warren Buffett, perennially ranked among the world's richest men, lives
a lifestyle that hasn't changed much since before he before he made his
billions. He is often referred to as the world's greatest investor, and
his long-term track record suggests the title is well deserved. He is
also legendarily frugal, residing in the same house in Omaha, Nebraska,
that he bought in 1958 for $31,500. He is well known for his simple
tastes, including McDonald's hamburgers and cherry Coke, and his disdain
for technology, including computers and luxury cars."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Warren-Buffetts-Frugal-So-Why-investopedia-1012408202.html?x=0