Re: Critical Mass Cycle Ride - 30th June Nottingham

[Andy]

"tom bender" > wrote in message
...
> so it will be a pretty
> peaceful and fun event.
>

Or at least that's the plan!

[tom bender]

Hi, :-)

The link between cycling and leftist political causes is historic.

(http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/clarion/clarion.html)

The Left is for democracy and freedom (workers rights, justice,
fraternity, egalitarian, liberal) , the Right for Dictatorship and
submission (anti-worker, individualistic, conservative, hierarchical).
Society has benefited greatly from the former sentiments (that's why we
have a (semblance of) democracy, schools, hospitals, holidays, sick pay).

Personally I think it is good to associate cycling with the positive
aspects that Leftism promotes rather than the constrictive selfishness
of the Right.

Anyway I don't know a single person who refuses to ride a bike because
it is associated with the Left. And methinks It would be an highly
irrational decision if it was based on such an irrelevant fact.
Can we responsible for the acts of irrational people? Not I.

On other hand, I don't know anyone who has taken up cycling solely
because it has leftish overtones. Guess that would be irrational too.

Methinks the dominant drives towards cycling are to keep fit, cost,
convenience and environmental. (probaly in that order)

FYI

GreenPeace - http://www.greenpeace.org.uk
WDM (World Development Movement) - http://www.wdm.org.uk

Regards
Tom B

PS It's a big and busy roundabout :-)

> Don't get me wrong, I was as against this foolish war as the next man
> but I really wish we could break the link between leftish political
> causes and cycling. It doesn't do our cause (cycling as transport for
> everyone) any good whatsoever.
>
> Break with stereotypes; next time CND have an event, have a convoy of
> trucks, cars and tractors on a go slow. In return, I'll ride my bike
> at the next Countryside Alliance demo.

[Nathaniel Porter]

"tom bender" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, :-)
>
> The link between cycling and leftist political causes is historic.
>
>
(http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/clarion/clarion.h
tml)
>
> The Left is for democracy and freedom (workers rights, justice,
> fraternity, egalitarian, liberal) , the Right for Dictatorship and
> submission (anti-worker, individualistic, conservative, hierarchical).
> Society has benefited greatly from the former sentiments (that's why we
> have a (semblance of) democracy, schools, hospitals, holidays, sick pay).
>

If the right is for dictatorship, and if this is wrong, why do you attempt
to dictate to others through the means of slowing traffic? :-)

Dictatorship or democracy isn't measured on the left-right scale - this is
purely an scale to judge economic policy on the notion of "ownership". See
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html.

Might make you think when you realise the BNP are, in fact, *left* wing :-)

I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
cycling.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:23:39 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>If the right is for dictatorship, and if this is wrong, why do you attempt
>to dictate to others through the means of slowing traffic? :-)

The most famous dictatorship of the Right, if I can discuss this
without invoking Godwin's Law, famously promoted motor traffic,
introducing a whole raft of controls on foot and cycle traffic so as
not to impede the flow of motorists. The result was - amazingly -
fast motor traffic and much handwringing about the high rate of
crashes...

>Dictatorship or democracy isn't measured on the left-right scale - this is
>purely an scale to judge economic policy on the notion of "ownership". See
>http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html.

Good, that, innit? Sobering to realise that Blair and the Maggon are
more right-wing than Hitler.

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

>I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
>would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
>cycling.

It's a defence mechanism against the guilt inherent in knowing that
driving is a selfish choice.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Tumbleweed]

"Nathaniel Porter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "tom bender" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi, :-)
> >
> > The link between cycling and leftist political causes is historic.
> >
> >
>
(http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/thinkingcyclist/clarion/clarion.h
> tml)
> >
> > The Left is for democracy and freedom (workers rights, justice,
> > fraternity, egalitarian, liberal) , the Right for Dictatorship and
> > submission (anti-worker, individualistic, conservative, hierarchical).
> > Society has benefited greatly from the former sentiments (that's why we
> > have a (semblance of) democracy, schools, hospitals, holidays, sick
pay).
> >
>
> If the right is for dictatorship, and if this is wrong, why do you attempt
> to dictate to others through the means of slowing traffic? :-)
>
> Dictatorship or democracy isn't measured on the left-right scale - this is
> purely an scale to judge economic policy on the notion of "ownership". See
> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html.
>
> Might make you think when you realise the BNP are, in fact, *left* wing
:-)
>


Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.

Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I was as against this foolish war as the next man
> but I really wish we could break the link between leftish political
> causes and cycling. It doesn't do our cause (cycling as transport for
> everyone) any good whatsoever.

I think that the boot is on the other foot. People who are concerned
about the environment are more likely to use non-polluting transport;
people who reject the materialist values which motivate people to self
identify by the consumer choices they make are more likely not to have
cars. So greens and leftists are likely to be cyclists.

I certainly got into cycling as a reflection and consequence of my
political viewpoint, rather than vice-versa. The fact that I liked it
and have continued to cycle despite having sold out to the
man^W^W^W^W^W my political views having mellowed doesn't alter that
fact. There isn't much you can do about it. If you will persist in
riding a bike, you'll have to put up with being associated with people
like us. Just be careful you don't grow a beard.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Nathaniel Porter
') wrote:

> I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
> would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
> cycling.

Well, you know what Ghandi said when he was asked whether he minded
being called a crank.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote in message
>:

>Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
>Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.

Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 16:23:39 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >If the right is for dictatorship, and if this is wrong, why do you
attempt
> >to dictate to others through the means of slowing traffic? :-)
>
> The most famous dictatorship of the Right, if I can discuss this
> without invoking Godwin's Law, famously promoted motor traffic,
> introducing a whole raft of controls on foot and cycle traffic so as
> not to impede the flow of motorists. The result was - amazingly -
> fast motor traffic and much handwringing about the high rate of
> crashes...
>

And the most famous dictatorship of the Left sent many, many people to their
deaths to build a public transport system to suit their particular ideology.
What's your point?

> >Dictatorship or democracy isn't measured on the left-right scale - this
is
> >purely an scale to judge economic policy on the notion of "ownership".
See
> >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html.
>
> Good, that, innit? Sobering to realise that Blair and the Maggon are
> more right-wing than Hitler.
>
> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html
>

Yes but as I pointed out that merely indicates economic policy, so your
comparison is flawed.

After all, I could easily say from your link and this:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html that the
Liberal Democrats are more right-wing than Hitler, or the BNP. But then I'm
not after cheap political points :-p

> >I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
> >would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
> >cycling.
>
> It's a defence mechanism against the guilt inherent in knowing that
> driving is a selfish choice.
>

From dictionary.com:

self·ish (slfsh)
adj.
1.. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself:
By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
selfishness. If they actually thought about themselves, they wouldn't sit in
traffic jams, pay lots of money for the car etc. to get no-where fast in a
manner that most people seem to find rather stressful and frustrating. They
do so out of ignorance, and because it is "the done thing".

If people *were* selfish, we arguably wouldn't have so much of a problem.

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
> >Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.
>
> Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.
>

As you have already illustrated elesewhere in this thread, they were
relatively socialist - they are left of all three main political parties in
the UK, for instance.

Incidentally, this
(http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.html) test may
be of interest to those who are so sure of their preconceptions :-)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:35:49 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> The most famous dictatorship of the Right, if I can discuss this
>> without invoking Godwin's Law, famously promoted motor traffic,
>> introducing a whole raft of controls on foot and cycle traffic so as
>> not to impede the flow of motorists. The result was - amazingly -
>> fast motor traffic and much handwringing about the high rate of
>> crashes...

>And the most famous dictatorship of the Left sent many, many people to their
>deaths to build a public transport system to suit their particular ideology.
>What's your point?

The Right tends to promote the motor cause, and opposing the motor
cause is more of a Leftist attitude than a Rightist one, even if done
in an authoritarian style.

>> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

>Yes but as I pointed out that merely indicates economic policy, so your
>comparison is flawed.

It is a good model. You can be left-wing but authoritarian. To use
left and right to imply authoritarian / libertarian seems to me to be
misleading.

>After all, I could easily say from your link and this:
>http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html that the
>Liberal Democrats are more right-wing than Hitler, or the BNP. But then I'm
>not after cheap political points :-p

But it's true. It's a model which improves (my in any case)
understanding of politics and the ideological differences between
politicians.

>> >I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
>> >would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
>> >cycling.

>> It's a defence mechanism against the guilt inherent in knowing that
>> driving is a selfish choice.

>From dictionary.com:

>self·ish (slfsh)
>adj.
> 1.. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself:
>By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
>selfishness.

Oh, right, so they drag their personal space around to the detriment
of the environment as a selfess gesture of support for the oil
industry? ;-)

>begin 666 ebreve.gif
>M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(4A ^!H<P(
>0S3LJ24I=BQ7V/T6B2* `.P``
>`
>end

Oh bloody hell, not you as well?!?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
>> Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
>> Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.
>
> Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.
>

Neither were Stalin, Brezhnev etc, Mao, Tito, Castro, Pol Pot..... in fact
has there been a "socialist" leader that wasn't actually a dictator?

Given the choice of people who seek power for money and people who seek power
for ideology, I prefer to suffer the former any day.


Tony

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:35:49 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> The most famous dictatorship of the Right, if I can discuss this
> >> without invoking Godwin's Law, famously promoted motor traffic,
> >> introducing a whole raft of controls on foot and cycle traffic so as
> >> not to impede the flow of motorists. The result was - amazingly -
> >> fast motor traffic and much handwringing about the high rate of
> >> crashes...
>
> >And the most famous dictatorship of the Left sent many, many people to
their
> >deaths to build a public transport system to suit their particular
ideology.
> >What's your point?
>
> The Right tends to promote the motor cause, and opposing the motor
> cause is more of a Leftist attitude than a Rightist one, even if done
> in an authoritarian style.
>

That may be true - but its coincidental. There is nothing right-wing about
promoting motor cars. Indeed, many of the means motor cars have been
promoted (i.e. by funding roads from general taxation) are left wing.

Indeed, most policies regarding motor vehicles go on the other axis (i.e.
authoritarian-libertarian). Back on topic, I find it amusing that a group
which is often considered to be anarchist (i.e. extreme libertarian)
supports policies to restrict motor vehicles, which is rather, erm,
authoritarian.

> >> http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html
>
> >Yes but as I pointed out that merely indicates economic policy, so your
> >comparison is flawed.
>
> It is a good model. You can be left-wing but authoritarian. To use
> left and right to imply authoritarian / libertarian seems to me to be
> misleading.
>

Absolutely. This was my point :-)

> >After all, I could easily say from your link and this:
> >http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html that
the
> >Liberal Democrats are more right-wing than Hitler, or the BNP. But then
I'm
> >not after cheap political points :-p
>
> But it's true. It's a model which improves (my in any case)
> understanding of politics and the ideological differences between
> politicians.
>

Yes.

It's just "Sobering to realise that Blair and the Maggon are more right-wing
than Hitler." seems to be little more than a cheap shot at Blair and
Thatcher, especially coming from someone who continually refers to the
Conservative party as "the monster raving Tory party" ;-)

Of course, the point we've spent the last 100+ years proving that the notion
of attempting to run anything on the basis of ideology doesn't work - be it
left wing or right wing. What we need to do is start looking a things in
terms of problems and solutions. Of course, this would make politicians
redudant, and goes against human nature, so I'm not holding my breath.

The other point is that politicians and policital groups aren't all they
seem or claim to be (as this quiz
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/iconochasms.html
illustrates)


> >> >I do think [Not Responding] is right. People do associate cycling with
> >> >would-be revolutionaries, and this blinds them to genuine benefits of
> >> >cycling.
>
> >> It's a defence mechanism against the guilt inherent in knowing that
> >> driving is a selfish choice.
>
> >From dictionary.com:
>
> >self·ish (slfsh)
> >adj.
> > 1.. Concerned chiefly or only with oneself:
> >By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
> >selfishness.
>
> Oh, right, so they drag their personal space around to the detriment
> of the environment as a selfess gesture of support for the oil
> industry? ;-)
>

No, they do it because they don't know better :-)

Ignorance != selfishness.

> >begin 666 ebreve.gif
> >M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(4A ^!H<P(
> >0S3LJ24I=BQ7V/T6B2* `.P``
> >`
> >end
>
> Oh bloody hell, not you as well?!?
>

D'oh!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:38:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> The Right tends to promote the motor cause, and opposing the motor
>> cause is more of a Leftist attitude than a Rightist one, even if done
>> in an authoritarian style.

>That may be true - but its coincidental. There is nothing right-wing about
>promoting motor cars.

Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
promotion of public and sustainable transport. The right tend to
promote the car, the vehicle of the individual, while the left are
more likely to promote more egalitarian modes. How the money is
raised is a sude issue.

>Indeed, many of the means motor cars have been
>promoted (i.e. by funding roads from general taxation) are left wing.

But the result has been to promote an individualistic mode over more
egalitarian modes.

>"Sobering to realise that Blair and the Maggon are more right-wing
>than Hitler." seems to be little more than a cheap shot at Blair and
>Thatcher, especially coming from someone who continually refers to the
>Conservative party as "the monster raving Tory party" ;-)

Why? They represent the dominant ideologies of the two major parties.
Is it not sobering to find that the two longest-serving British Prime
Ministers of recent times are more right-wing than Hitler? I thought
it was.

The term "monster raving tory party" is a reference to the reported
dissolution of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party on the gorunds
that their role had been taken over by the Tories.

>Of course, the point we've spent the last 100+ years proving that the notion
>of attempting to run anything on the basis of ideology doesn't work

Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)

>> >By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
>> >selfishness.

>> Oh, right, so they drag their personal space around to the detriment
>> of the environment as a selfess gesture of support for the oil
>> industry? ;-)

>No, they do it because they don't know better :-)

Er, they do, though. Or at least they have been told often enough.
Listening to the excuses from cagers for driving pathetically short
distances to work (which always sound like Jake's protestations to
Carrie Fisher in the Blues Brothers) one can hardly escape the
conclusion that they know perfectly well that driving is stupid and
selfish, and have to work really hard to excuse it to themselves,
leaving very little imagination left over for rationalising the
decision to anyone else.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:38:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> The Right tends to promote the motor cause, and opposing the motor
> >> cause is more of a Leftist attitude than a Rightist one, even if done
> >> in an authoritarian style.
>
> >That may be true - but its coincidental. There is nothing right-wing
about
> >promoting motor cars.
>
> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
> promotion of public and sustainable transport.

Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true merits,
for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public transport,
for what its good for and on its true merits.

And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's the
common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
run on thin air.

> The right tend to
> promote the car, the vehicle of the individual, while the left are
> more likely to promote more egalitarian modes.

Which is entirely coincidence.

> How the money is
> raised is a sude issue.
>

On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)

The entire point of the left-right scale is to measure how things are
funded.

> >Indeed, many of the means motor cars have been
> >promoted (i.e. by funding roads from general taxation) are left wing.
>
> But the result has been to promote an individualistic mode over more
> egalitarian modes.
>

To a point, there is nothing wrong with individualism (would you be happy
with being permitted to do things which are only beneficial to society?).

And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?

> >"Sobering to realise that Blair and the Maggon are more right-wing
> >than Hitler." seems to be little more than a cheap shot at Blair and
> >Thatcher, especially coming from someone who continually refers to the
> >Conservative party as "the monster raving Tory party" ;-)
>
> Why? They represent the dominant ideologies of the two major parties.
> Is it not sobering to find that the two longest-serving British Prime
> Ministers of recent times are more right-wing than Hitler? I thought
> it was.
>

It was a cheap shot as most peoples perception of "right wing" is facism -
which is incorrect.

It is not sobering to consider that Blair and Thatcher are more right-wing
than Hitler if you know what right wing actually means.

> The term "monster raving tory party" is a reference to the reported
> dissolution of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party on the gorunds
> that their role had been taken over by the Tories.
>
> >Of course, the point we've spent the last 100+ years proving that the
notion
> >of attempting to run anything on the basis of ideology doesn't work
>
> Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)
>

If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out her
ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.

> >> >By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
> >> >selfishness.
>
> >> Oh, right, so they drag their personal space around to the detriment
> >> of the environment as a selfess gesture of support for the oil
> >> industry? ;-)
>
> >No, they do it because they don't know better :-)
>
> Er, they do, though. Or at least they have been told often enough.
>

Are they told, or do people preach to them? There is a difference.

>
> Listening to the excuses from cagers for driving pathetically short
> distances to work (which always sound like Jake's protestations to
> Carrie Fisher in the Blues Brothers) one can hardly escape the
> conclusion that they know perfectly well that driving is stupid and
> selfish,

Driving isn't always stupid or selfish (or put another way, are you stupid
and selfish when you drive your Volvo?)

> and have to work really hard to excuse it to themselves,
> leaving very little imagination left over for rationalising the
> decision to anyone else.
>

But the point is they aren't doing it for their own benefit - because there
isn't one :-)

[1] Forgive me for being a bit slow tonight :-)

[MartinM]

"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message

>
> Don't get me wrong, I was as against this foolish war as the next man
> but I really wish we could break the link between leftish political
> causes and cycling. It doesn't do our cause (cycling as transport for
> everyone) any good whatsoever.
>
> Break with stereotypes; next time CND have an event, have a convoy of
> trucks, cars and tractors on a go slow. In return, I'll ride my bike
> at the next Countryside Alliance demo.

don't wear a top with a circular pattern on ;-)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
>> > wrote in message
>> >:
>>
>>> Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
>>> Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.
>>
>> Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.
>
> Neither were Stalin, Brezhnev etc, Mao, Tito, Castro, Pol Pot.....
> in fact has there been a "socialist" leader that wasn't actually a
> dictator?

Salvador Allende? Oh, but he, err, died, didn't he.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
>> promotion of public and sustainable transport.

>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true merits,
>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public transport,
>for what its good for and on its true merits.

And what planet does that happen on, then?

>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's the
>common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
>run on thin air.

How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?

>> The right tend to
>> promote the car, the vehicle of the individual, while the left are
>> more likely to promote more egalitarian modes.

>Which is entirely coincidence.

I don;t think so.

>> How the money is raised is a side issue.

>On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)

No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.

>To a point, there is nothing wrong with individualism (would you be happy
>with being permitted to do things which are only beneficial to society?).

Correct. To a point. It is the location of that point which forms
the up/down axis, obv. ;-)

>And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
>particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?

Yes. Age, infirmity, cost, temporary unfitness (illness /
intoxication) - lots of reasons. It is in fact pretty unlikely that
ownership and use of a private car will ever be universal even in
affluent countries.

>> Why? They represent the dominant ideologies of the two major parties.
>> Is it not sobering to find that the two longest-serving British Prime
>> Ministers of recent times are more right-wing than Hitler? I thought
>> it was.

>It was a cheap shot as most peoples perception of "right wing" is facism -
>which is incorrect.

Er, wasn't that the sobering thought, then? And I thought it was.
Silly of me.

>> Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)

>If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out her
>ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.

Yes, the dead hand on British politics. I genuinely feel that we will
not achieve any kind of progress in UK politics until she's six foot
under.

>> >> >By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
>> >> >selfishness.
>> [...] they do it because they don't know better :-)

>> Er, they do, though. Or at least they have been told often enough.

>Are they told, or do people preach to them? There is a difference.

See below. They know.

>> Listening to the excuses from cagers for driving pathetically short
>> distances to work (which always sound like Jake's protestations to
>> Carrie Fisher in the Blues Brothers) one can hardly escape the
>> conclusion that they know perfectly well that driving is stupid and
>> selfish,

>Driving isn't always stupid or selfish (or put another way, are you stupid
>and selfish when you drive your Volvo?)

Driving is the most selfish way of getting from A to B. It is also
often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
when it is plainly obvious that it is not). Was I selfish driving to
a wedding today to sing in the choir for nothing? Collecting one
other chorister on the way? And taking the kids along to sing as
well? And only using the car becaue Peter's asthma is playing up?
Yes, it was selfish: I couldn't be arsed to do the extra cajoling and
monitoring necessary to get there with Peter not in a foul mood and
wheezing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
> >> promotion of public and sustainable transport.
>
> >Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true
merits,
> >for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public
transport,
> >for what its good for and on its true merits.
>
> And what planet does that happen on, then?
>

I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
happen.

> >And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's
the
> >common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
> >run on thin air.
>
> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
>

Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.

Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.

> >> The right tend to
> >> promote the car, the vehicle of the individual, while the left are
> >> more likely to promote more egalitarian modes.
>
> >Which is entirely coincidence.
>
> I don;t think so.
>
> >> How the money is raised is a side issue.
>
> >On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
>
> No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.
>

I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
matters.

Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by
taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing means
that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals as
and when they require the service.

> >To a point, there is nothing wrong with individualism (would you be happy
> >with being permitted to do things which are only beneficial to society?).
>
> Correct. To a point. It is the location of that point which forms
> the up/down axis, obv. ;-)
>

Quite

> >And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
> >particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
>
> Yes. Age, infirmity, cost, temporary unfitness (illness /
> intoxication) - lots of reasons. It is in fact pretty unlikely that
> ownership and use of a private car will ever be universal even in
> affluent countries.
>

Isn't this true of bicycles too? Blind people can't really ride bikes, can
they?
Ever tried getting on the tube in a wheelchair?

> >> Why? They represent the dominant ideologies of the two major parties.
> >> Is it not sobering to find that the two longest-serving British Prime
> >> Ministers of recent times are more right-wing than Hitler? I thought
> >> it was.
>
> >It was a cheap shot as most peoples perception of "right wing" is
facism -
> >which is incorrect.
>
> Er, wasn't that the sobering thought, then? And I thought it was.
> Silly of me.
>

TBH, it didn't sober me - I knew people didn't understand this before. And
when I also didn't know this, it wasn't sobering to find out I was ignorant,
for I am well aware that in the great scheme of things I know nothing.

> >> Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)
>
> >If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out her
> >ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.
>
> Yes, the dead hand on British politics. I genuinely feel that we will
> not achieve any kind of progress in UK politics until she's six foot
> under.
>

She may as well be six foot under now, given her ill health. And I doubt her
death would make any difference at all, let alone a positive one.

Lets not forget, Nazism outlives Hitler, Marxism outlives Marx and so on.

> >> >> >By this definition, I would suggest that people do not drive out of
> >> >> >selfishness.
> >> [...] they do it because they don't know better :-)
>
> >> Er, they do, though. Or at least they have been told often enough.
>
> >Are they told, or do people preach to them? There is a difference.
>
> See below. They know.
>
> >> Listening to the excuses from cagers for driving pathetically short
> >> distances to work (which always sound like Jake's protestations to
> >> Carrie Fisher in the Blues Brothers) one can hardly escape the
> >> conclusion that they know perfectly well that driving is stupid and
> >> selfish,
>
> >Driving isn't always stupid or selfish (or put another way, are you
stupid
> >and selfish when you drive your Volvo?)
>
> Driving is the most selfish way of getting from A to B.

Personal helicopter? :-p

> It is also
> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).

?

> Was I selfish driving to
> a wedding today to sing in the choir for nothing? Collecting one
> other chorister on the way? And taking the kids along to sing as
> well? And only using the car becaue Peter's asthma is playing up?
> Yes, it was selfish: I couldn't be arsed to do the extra cajoling and
> monitoring necessary to get there with Peter not in a foul mood and
> wheezing.
>

Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> >> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
>> >> promotion of public and sustainable transport.

>>>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true merits,
>>>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public transport,
>>>for what its good for and on its true merits.

>> And what planet does that happen on, then?

>I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
>happen.

Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.

>>>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's
>>>the common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
>>>run on thin air.

>> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?

>Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
>out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.

Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?

>Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.

Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.

>> >> How the money is raised is a side issue.
>> >On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
>> No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.

>I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
>left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
>matters.

OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
keen on promoting a car economy either.

>Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by
>taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing means
>that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals as
>and when they require the service.

Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
taxation to pay for their roads?

>> >And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
>> >particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?

>> Yes. Age, infirmity, cost, temporary unfitness (illness /
>> intoxication) - lots of reasons. It is in fact pretty unlikely that
>> ownership and use of a private car will ever be universal even in
>> affluent countries.

>Isn't this true of bicycles too? Blind people can't really ride bikes, can
>they? Ever tried getting on the tube in a wheelchair?

It is also true of bikes, yes. But at least bikes impose minimal
costs on those who are not riding them. And my blind friend Bob does
ride a bike (if someone sits at the front and steers).

Walking is the most egalitarian mode. Bikes have few economic
barriers to usage, but some physical barriers. Cars have different
physical barriers to usage and much higher costs to society.

>> >> Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)
>> >If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out her
>> >ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.
>> Yes, the dead hand on British politics. I genuinely feel that we will
>> not achieve any kind of progress in UK politics until she's six foot
>> under.

>She may as well be six foot under now, given her ill health. And I doubt her
>death would make any difference at all, let alone a positive one.

Did you read the Friedman has now said essentially that monetarism was
naive, and that money supply as a single measure was wrong? I only
read a digest, I'll need to go back and see the whole article, but I
thought it sounded interesting.

>Lets not forget, Nazism outlives Hitler, Marxism outlives Marx and so on.

But most personality cults are greatly diminished by the death of
their leaders. Unless Thatcherism is actually a religion, which I
suppose is possible, in which case the opposite may happen.

>>>> Driving is the most selfish way of getting from A to B.
>Personal helicopter? :-p

OK, the most selfish whch most of us will ever use :-)

>> It is also
>> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
>> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).

Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
effort. Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
half mile to the shop to get his paper?

>> Was I selfish ...
>Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?

Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
without driving the car at all - and I find that my life is better as
a result.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> keen on promoting a car economy either.
>

I don't think the Pope or Dalai Lama are leaders of the left, they are
religious leaders. The Pope for example leads the religions of countries both
on the extreme left and extreme right although he does have the characteristic
of a left leader in leading a church primarily of the poor from a position of
great opulence. If you take though for example the right wing leaders of the
west vs the left wing leaders of the east the primary difference is the former
have presided over economies where the private individual can aspire to own
and run a car whereas the latter presided over economies where the private
individuals were not allowed to have those aspirations while the leaders sped
round in luxury limosines. Remember those polluting gems, the Trabant and
Wartburg, reserved as rewards for good party workers? Anyone who watched the
traffic stop in Moscow for the presidential cavalcade to drive unimpeded at
high speed down its own reserved lanes can have had little doubt where their
leaderships motoring sympathies lay.

By the way, bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven luxury
while discouraging his people from using cars because the country can no
longer afford to import oil.

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 12:30:29 +0100, "Tony Raven"
> wrote in message
>:

>bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven luxury
>while discouraging his people from using cars because the country can no
>longer afford to import oil.

No takers.

Did you know that mugabe is an anagram of E Ba Gum?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Tony W]

"MartinM" > wrote in message
om...
> "[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I was as against this foolish war as the next man
> > but I really wish we could break the link between leftish political
> > causes and cycling. It doesn't do our cause (cycling as transport for
> > everyone) any good whatsoever.
> >
> > Break with stereotypes; next time CND have an event, have a convoy of
> > trucks, cars and tractors on a go slow. In return, I'll ride my bike
> > at the next Countryside Alliance demo.
>
> don't wear a top with a circular pattern on ;-)

Would this be more suitable?

http://www.wams.de/data/2004/06/20/294203.html

{from Welt am Sonntag, today}

Loose translation:

Madrid (warm then!!) -- several dozen naked cyclists protesting about the
danger to cyclists from motor vehicles. They wanted to make it clear that
in a collision with a motor vehicle they have little chance. "Our only
vehicle body is our own body" said Juan Gamba.

Stupid boys, none of them is wearing a helmet! No wonder they are in
danger.

T

[Andy]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
>
> OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> keen on promoting a car economy either.
>


Hitler was way over to the left on that particular compass.....

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> No takers.
>

Spoilsports

> Did you know that mugabe is an anagram of E Ba Gum?
>

Well. Buga me (that's another anagram by the way, not an invitiation)

Tony

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> >> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
> >> >> promotion of public and sustainable transport.
>
> >>>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true
merits,
> >>>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public
transport,
> >>>for what its good for and on its true merits.
>
> >> And what planet does that happen on, then?
>
> >I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
> >happen.
>
> Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
> I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.
>

So? Doesn't mean it can't be done.

> >>>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's
> >>>the common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses
don't
> >>>run on thin air.
>
> >> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
>
> >Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
> >out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
>
> Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
> effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
> space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?
>

But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).

Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a car. I
would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.

> >Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
>
> Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.
>

True. But I would say no oil consumption is sustainable.

> >> >> How the money is raised is a side issue.
> >> >On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
> >> No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.
>
> >I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
> >left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
> >matters.
>
> OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> keen on promoting a car economy either.
>

The left wing BNP promote the car economy.
The right wing Liberal Democrats aren't so hot on the car economy.

> >Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded
by
> >taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing
means
> >that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals as
> >and when they require the service.
>
> Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
> taxation to pay for their roads?
>

Yes, they did. And do. As I said earlier.

My last two points suggest that leftism/rightism and promotion of motor cars
are unrelated.

> >> >And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
> >> >particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
>
> >> Yes. Age, infirmity, cost, temporary unfitness (illness /
> >> intoxication) - lots of reasons. It is in fact pretty unlikely that
> >> ownership and use of a private car will ever be universal even in
> >> affluent countries.
>
> >Isn't this true of bicycles too? Blind people can't really ride bikes,
can
> >they? Ever tried getting on the tube in a wheelchair?
>
> It is also true of bikes, yes. But at least bikes impose minimal
> costs on those who are not riding them.

Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society, when
ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed sensible bus
use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.

>And my blind friend Bob does
> ride a bike (if someone sits at the front and steers).
>

Lots of blind people use cars - if someone sits next to them and drives.

> Walking is the most egalitarian mode. Bikes have few economic
> barriers to usage, but some physical barriers. Cars have different
> physical barriers to usage and much higher costs to society.
>

I would suggest that while the costs of motoring to society are high - so
(when cars are used properly) are the benefits to society.

> >> >> Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)
> >> >If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out
her
> >> >ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.
> >> Yes, the dead hand on British politics. I genuinely feel that we will
> >> not achieve any kind of progress in UK politics until she's six foot
> >> under.
>
> >She may as well be six foot under now, given her ill health. And I doubt
her
> >death would make any difference at all, let alone a positive one.
>
> Did you read the Friedman has now said essentially that monetarism was
> naive, and that money supply as a single measure was wrong? I only
> read a digest, I'll need to go back and see the whole article, but I
> thought it sounded interesting.
>

IDEOLOGY DOESN'T WORK SHOCK. MORE AT TEN! :-p

> >Lets not forget, Nazism outlives Hitler, Marxism outlives Marx and so on.
>
> But most personality cults are greatly diminished by the death of
> their leaders.

I would suggest that the cults of Hitler, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Lady Diana,
all outlived (and still outlive) the lives of the actual people concerned,
and grew on the death of the people cornered (compared with immeadiately
before their respectvie deaths).

> Unless Thatcherism is actually a religion, which I
> suppose is possible, in which case the opposite may happen.
>

Is there much (if any) difference between ideology and religion?

> >>>> Driving is the most selfish way of getting from A to B.
> >Personal helicopter? :-p
>
> OK, the most selfish whch most of us will ever use :-)
>
> >> It is also
> >> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
> >> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
>
> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> effort.

Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.

> Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
> traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
> they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
> saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
> half mile to the shop to get his paper?
>

So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.

But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.

> >> Was I selfish ...
> >Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?
>
> Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
> the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
> them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
> that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
> without driving the car at all -

Which is a fair point. But we all have to tolerate each other, as anything
we do (bar nothing) will impose a cost on someone else

> and I find that my life is better as
> a result.
>

Some people enjoy driving. Their lives are better as a result.

Some people don't like cyclists. You cycling makes their lives worse.

Thing is, people like to be able to justify what they do, claiming its for
the greater good. But who decides what is the greater good?

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> > include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> > Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> > sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> > keen on promoting a car economy either.
> >
>
> I don't think the Pope or Dalai Lama are leaders of the left, they are
> religious leaders. The Pope for example leads the religions of countries
both
> on the extreme left and extreme right although he does have the
characteristic
> of a left leader in leading a church primarily of the poor from a position
of
> great opulence. If you take though for example the right wing leaders of
the
> west vs the left wing leaders of the east the primary difference is the
former
> have presided over economies where the private individual can aspire to
own
> and run a car whereas the latter presided over economies where the private
> individuals were not allowed to have those aspirations while the leaders
sped
> round in luxury limosines. Remember those polluting gems, the Trabant and
> Wartburg, reserved as rewards for good party workers? Anyone who watched
the
> traffic stop in Moscow for the presidential cavalcade to drive unimpeded
at
> high speed down its own reserved lanes can have had little doubt where
their
> leaderships motoring sympathies lay.
>
> By the way, bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven luxury
>

Which Google reveals to be the most expensive car in the world:
http://www.malawihere.com/viewnews.asp?id=216&recnum=1801&catid=

*Maximum* economy of 45 l/100km, or 6mpg(!)

But he's left wing, so it can't be true.....

[Tony Raven]

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> Which Google reveals to be the most expensive car in the world:
> http://www.malawihere.com/viewnews.asp?id=216&recnum=1801&catid=
>
> *Maximum* economy of 45 l/100km, or 6mpg(!)
>

Who would have believed it? ;-^)

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> >> And what planet does that happen on, then?
>> >I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
>> >happen.
>> Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
>> I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.

>So? Doesn't mean it can't be done.

The fact that it hasn't happened seems, in context, to be a reasonable
indication of the likelihood of it happening in future.

>> >> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
>> >Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
>> >out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
>> Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
>> effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
>> space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?

>But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
>manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).

Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
Sustainability is not binary.

>Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a car. I
>would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.

Evasion.

>> >Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
>> Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.

>True. But I would say no oil consumption is sustainable.

Not really. Biodiesel is renewable, and buses can be made to run on
other things (as can cars). Cars take up more road space and use more
fuel per passenger mile and emit more pollution per passneger mile
(unless the bus is old and knackered; modern ones are very clean), and
generally has a shorter service life, and spends more of its time
running cold, and so on.

>The left wing BNP promote the car economy.
>The right wing Liberal Democrats aren't so hot on the car economy.

And whewre ios the BNP policy statement on cars? Or is it just a copy
& paste from the ABD?

>> Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
>> taxation to pay for their roads?

>Yes, they did. And do. As I said earlier.

In which case the entire discussion in pointless as every government
in the world is left-wing by vrtue of using taxation.

>Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society, when
>ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed sensible bus
>use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.

Ah, "when used sensibly". I'll keep an eye out for that, if I ever
see one I'll be sure to let you know ;-)

>> Walking is the most egalitarian mode. Bikes have few economic
>> barriers to usage, but some physical barriers. Cars have different
>> physical barriers to usage and much higher costs to society.

>I would suggest that the cults of Hitler, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Lady Diana,
>all outlived (and still outlive) the lives of the actual people concerned,
>and grew on the death of the people cornered (compared with immeadiately
>before their respectvie deaths).

I see few recent converts to the cause of the Blessed Diana
(thankfully); only a few lone nutters who admire Hitler (are we back o
the BNP here?). I would suggest that none of these characters has a
fraction of the following they did at their peak.

>> Unless Thatcherism is actually a religion, which I
>> suppose is possible, in which case the opposite may happen.

>Is there much (if any) difference between ideology and religion?

Depends how you view it, I suppose. Maggie certainly had a touch of
"Dieu et mon droit"[1].

>> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>> effort.

>Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.

But we aren't using early cars. Very few people did.

>So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.
>But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.

It is usually more selfish than at least one alternative.

>> Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
>> the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
>> them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
>> that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
>> without driving the car at all -

>Which is a fair point. But we all have to tolerate each other, as anything
>we do (bar nothing) will impose a cost on someone else

Indeed. So do we give up and do evberythign in the most selfish way
possible, or do we aim to miitigate our selfishness in some way? For
example, by voting for a party which raises tax so that everybody can
have a doctor, not just the rich?

>> and I find that my life is better as
>> a result.

>Some people enjoy driving. Their lives are better as a result.
>Some people don't like cyclists. You cycling makes their lives worse.
>Thing is, people like to be able to justify what they do, claiming its for
>the greater good. But who decides what is the greater good?

I improve the lot of those who allegedly enjoy driving by reducing the
amount of congestion they have holding them up. I improve the
worthless lives of the Clarksonites by giving them something to rant
about and saving them the bother of having to come up with something
constructive to say about anything. There is no downside :-D

[1] "God and me are right - but not necessarily in that order" (Barry
Cryer or Graeme Garden, I'm sorry, I haven't a clue which)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[tom bender]

How can the BNP be left wing? They believe in the private ownership of
property and they are not democratic.


Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:
>>
>>
>>>>>>Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
>>>>>>promotion of public and sustainable transport.
>>
>>>>>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true
>
> merits,
>
>>>>>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public
>
> transport,
>
>>>>>for what its good for and on its true merits.
>>
>>>>And what planet does that happen on, then?
>>
>>>I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
>>>happen.
>>
>>Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
>>I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.
>>
>
>
> So? Doesn't mean it can't be done.
>
>
>>>>>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's
>>>>>the common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses
>
> don't
>
>>>>>run on thin air.
>>
>>>>How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
>>
>>>Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
>>>out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
>>
>>Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
>>effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
>>space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?
>>
>
>
> But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
> manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).
>
> Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a car. I
> would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.
>
>
>>>Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
>>
>>Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.
>>
>
>
> True. But I would say no oil consumption is sustainable.
>
>
>>>>>>How the money is raised is a side issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
>>>>
>>>>No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.
>>
>>>I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
>>>left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
>>>matters.
>>
>>OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
>>include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
>>Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
>>sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
>>keen on promoting a car economy either.
>>
>
>
> The left wing BNP promote the car economy.
> The right wing Liberal Democrats aren't so hot on the car economy.
>
>
>>>Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded
>
> by
>
>>>taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing
>
> means
>
>>>that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals as
>>>and when they require the service.
>>
>>Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
>>taxation to pay for their roads?
>>
>
>
> Yes, they did. And do. As I said earlier.
>
> My last two points suggest that leftism/rightism and promotion of motor cars
> are unrelated.
>
>
>>>>>And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
>>>>>particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
>>
>>>>Yes. Age, infirmity, cost, temporary unfitness (illness /
>>>>intoxication) - lots of reasons. It is in fact pretty unlikely that
>>>>ownership and use of a private car will ever be universal even in
>>>>affluent countries.
>>
>>>Isn't this true of bicycles too? Blind people can't really ride bikes,
>
> can
>
>>>they? Ever tried getting on the tube in a wheelchair?
>>
>>It is also true of bikes, yes. But at least bikes impose minimal
>>costs on those who are not riding them.
>
>
> Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society, when
> ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed sensible bus
> use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.
>
>
>>And my blind friend Bob does
>>ride a bike (if someone sits at the front and steers).
>>
>
>
> Lots of blind people use cars - if someone sits next to them and drives.
>
>
>>Walking is the most egalitarian mode. Bikes have few economic
>>barriers to usage, but some physical barriers. Cars have different
>>physical barriers to usage and much higher costs to society.
>>
>
>
> I would suggest that while the costs of motoring to society are high - so
> (when cars are used properly) are the benefits to society.
>
>
>>>>>>Shhh! She'll hear you ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>If "she" is Thatcher[1], then you're absolutely correct to point out
>
> her
>
>>>>>ideology was as ineffective as every other ideology.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, the dead hand on British politics. I genuinely feel that we will
>>>>not achieve any kind of progress in UK politics until she's six foot
>>>>under.
>>
>>>She may as well be six foot under now, given her ill health. And I doubt
>
> her
>
>>>death would make any difference at all, let alone a positive one.
>>
>>Did you read the Friedman has now said essentially that monetarism was
>>naive, and that money supply as a single measure was wrong? I only
>>read a digest, I'll need to go back and see the whole article, but I
>>thought it sounded interesting.
>>
>
>
> IDEOLOGY DOESN'T WORK SHOCK. MORE AT TEN! :-p
>
>
>>>Lets not forget, Nazism outlives Hitler, Marxism outlives Marx and so on.
>>
>>But most personality cults are greatly diminished by the death of
>>their leaders.
>
>
> I would suggest that the cults of Hitler, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Lady Diana,
> all outlived (and still outlive) the lives of the actual people concerned,
> and grew on the death of the people cornered (compared with immeadiately
> before their respectvie deaths).
>
>
>>Unless Thatcherism is actually a religion, which I
>>suppose is possible, in which case the opposite may happen.
>>
>
>
> Is there much (if any) difference between ideology and religion?
>
>
>>>>>>Driving is the most selfish way of getting from A to B.
>>>
>>>Personal helicopter? :-p
>>
>>OK, the most selfish whch most of us will ever use :-)
>>
>>
>>>>It is also
>>>>often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
>>>>when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
>>
>>Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>>effort.
>
>
> Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
>
>
>>Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
>>traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
>>they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
>>saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
>>half mile to the shop to get his paper?
>>
>
>
> So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.
>
> But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.
>
>
>>>> Was I selfish ...
>>>
>>>Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?
>>
>>Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
>>the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
>>them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
>>that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
>>without driving the car at all -
>
>
> Which is a fair point. But we all have to tolerate each other, as anything
> we do (bar nothing) will impose a cost on someone else
>
>
>>and I find that my life is better as
>>a result.
>>
>
>
> Some people enjoy driving. Their lives are better as a result.
>
> Some people don't like cyclists. You cycling makes their lives worse.
>
> Thing is, people like to be able to justify what they do, claiming its for
> the greater good. But who decides what is the greater good?
>
>

[tom bender]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message >, Tony Raven
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote in message
>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
>>>>Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.
>>>
>>>Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.
>>
>>Neither were Stalin, Brezhnev etc, Mao, Tito, Castro, Pol Pot.....
>>in fact has there been a "socialist" leader that wasn't actually a
>>dictator?
>
>
> Salvador Allende? Oh, but he, err, died, didn't he.
>

Killed by (Maggie's friend) Pinochet's thugs in a coup supported by the
US administration. Pinochet, (he was right wing), did it for the money,
then went on to slaughter thousands more opponents of his regime.

TB

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>> I would suggest that the cults of Hitler, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Lady
>> Diana, all outlived (and still outlive) the lives of the actual
>> people concerned, and grew on the death of the people cornered
>> (compared with immeadiately before their respectvie deaths).
>
> I see few recent converts to the cause of the Blessed Diana
> (thankfully); only a few lone nutters who admire Hitler (are we back o
> the BNP here?). I would suggest that none of these characters has a
> fraction of the following they did at their peak.
>
Two subthreads in the same thread about people who(se chauffeurs) drive
incredibly irresponsibly in armoured Mercedes Benzes.

Amazing

A

[Ambrose Nankivell]

"Nathaniel Porter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> > > include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> > > Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> > > sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> > > keen on promoting a car economy either.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think the Pope or Dalai Lama are leaders of the left, they are
> > religious leaders. The Pope for example leads the religions of
countries
> both
> > on the extreme left and extreme right although he does have the
> characteristic
> > of a left leader in leading a church primarily of the poor from a
position
> of
> > great opulence. If you take though for example the right wing leaders
of
> the
> > west vs the left wing leaders of the east the primary difference is the
> former
> > have presided over economies where the private individual can aspire to
> own
> > and run a car whereas the latter presided over economies where the
private
> > individuals were not allowed to have those aspirations while the leaders
> sped
> > round in luxury limosines. Remember those polluting gems, the Trabant
and
> > Wartburg, reserved as rewards for good party workers? Anyone who watched
> the
> > traffic stop in Moscow for the presidential cavalcade to drive unimpeded
> at
> > high speed down its own reserved lanes can have had little doubt where
> their
> > leaderships motoring sympathies lay.
> >
> > By the way, bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven
luxury
> >
>
> Which Google reveals to be the most expensive car in the world:
> http://www.malawihere.com/viewnews.asp?id=216&recnum=1801&catid=
>
> *Maximum* economy of 45 l/100km, or 6mpg(!)
>
Particularly when you add in the fact that there's another 20 cars going
around with it. And the vulnerability that results from refuelling so often
would surely negate the armour plating.

The people who make these cars should be ashamed of themselves because they
know that the vast majority of the money they earn comes from people like
this who are starving people to get it. It's a sick situation.

A

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:39:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:
>
>>> >> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite of
>>> >> promotion of public and sustainable transport.
>
>>>>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true merits,
>>>>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public transport,
>>>>for what its good for and on its true merits.
>
>>> And what planet does that happen on, then?
>
>>I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
>>happen.
>
>Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
>I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.

What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
enhancement by non-private car modes.

A private car simply adds luxury to the utilitarian function; just as
a large house both serves the function of "dwelling" with the added
luxury of guest suites, grounds and a pool.

While society should attempt to offer transport to all, in much the
same way as housing, I see no need for luxury transport to be a
government issue than the provision of jacuzzis.

>>>>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's
>>>>the common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
>>>>run on thin air.
>
>>> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
>
>>Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
>>out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
>
>Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
>effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
>space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?
>
>>Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
>
>Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.
>
>>> >> How the money is raised is a side issue.
>>> >On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
>>> No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.
>
>>I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
>>left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
>>matters.
>
>OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
>include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
>Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
>sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
>keen on promoting a car economy either.
>
>>Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by
>>taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing means
>>that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals as
>>and when they require the service.
>
>Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
>taxation to pay for their roads?

Quite. I have nothing against people choosing to spend money on cars
any more than I object to those rich enough to buy yachts or light
aircraft. However, I do object when the government expects me to pay
for these luxuries.

What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
external costs.

So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
costs, health costs etc).

snip

>>> It is also
>>> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
>>> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
>
>Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>effort. Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
>traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
>they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
>saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
>half mile to the shop to get his paper?

Fine, as long as the people that make that choice of convenience are
happy to pay for it. Currently, they do not have to.

>>> Was I selfish ...
>>Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?
>
>Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
>the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
>them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
>that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
>without driving the car at all - and I find that my life is better as
>a result.
>
>Guy

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:27:16 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
> wrote in message
>:

>in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
>stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
>the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
>costs, health costs etc).

If they did that (and introduced the single transferrable vote) I
would vote for them :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Just zis Guy,
you know? ') wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>>Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
>
> Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.

Absolutely not. If a thing is sustainable, it is sustainable for
indefinite time. If it is not sustainable for indefinite time, it is
not sustainable. The use of the word 'indefinite' is intentional;
nothing we do on earth is sustainable for ever, because sooner or later
the sun will blow up and then everything changes. But if a thing is not
sustainable through lesser events than that, it is not sustainable.
Sustainability is as near binary as it is possible to get.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

X-no-archive: No, I'm not *that* naive.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, [Not
Responding] ') wrote:

> What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
> utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
> greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
> enhancement by non-private car modes.

Surely the only fundamental purpose of the private motor vehicle is
recreation? For all its other functions, as you yourself illustrate,
other means of transport are more efficient.

Not that recreation is necessarily a bad thing, of course.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

[Nathaniel Porter]

"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:39:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
> >
> >>> >> Promotion of private motor transport is, to my mind, the opposite
of
> >>> >> promotion of public and sustainable transport.
> >
> >>>>Not necessarily. Promoting the motor car realistically on its true
merits,
> >>>>for what its good for, is not incompatable with promoting public
transport,
> >>>>for what its good for and on its true merits.
> >
> >>> And what planet does that happen on, then?
> >
> >>I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
> >>happen.
> >
> >Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
> >I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.
>
> What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
> utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
> greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
> enhancement by non-private car modes.
>

But the car does have flexibility over long distances that other modes
cannot cater for (for example).

> A private car simply adds luxury to the utilitarian function; just as
> a large house both serves the function of "dwelling" with the added
> luxury of guest suites, grounds and a pool.
>

You could say the same of busses. Why walk if you can stay dry and be
chauffered for your journey?

> While society should attempt to offer transport to all, in much the
> same way as housing, I see no need for luxury transport to be a
> government issue than the provision of jacuzzis.
>

Because public transport isn't effective for everything.

Additionally, isn't transport itself a luxury? No-one really needs to go
anywhere.

> >>>>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport.
It's
> >>>>the common technology that drives both which causes the problem.
Busses don't
> >>>>run on thin air.
> >
> >>> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis lifetime?
> >
> >>Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly
running
> >>out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
> >
> >Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
> >effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
> >space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?
> >
> >>Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
> >
> >Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.
> >
> >>> >> How the money is raised is a side issue.
> >>> >On a scale to measure economic policy?!?!? Pur-lease :-)
> >>> No, in a discussion of promotion of different modes of transport.
> >
> >>I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were discussion was on the
> >>left-right scale of political ideology in the context of tranportation
> >>matters.
> >
> >OK, so look at your political compass again. Leaders of the right
> >include Hitler, Thatcher, Bush. All ardent fans of the motor car.
> >Leadres of the left include the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Mandela - no
> >sign of motor obsession from any of them. Mugabe doesn't seem too
> >keen on promoting a car economy either.
> >
> >>Left wing means that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded
by
> >>taking the wealth of society and distributing it equally. Right wing
means
> >>that the service (car, train, bike, whatever) is funded by individuals
as
> >>and when they require the service.
> >
> >Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
> >taxation to pay for their roads?
>
> Quite. I have nothing against people choosing to spend money on cars
> any more than I object to those rich enough to buy yachts or light
> aircraft. However, I do object when the government expects me to pay
> for these luxuries.
>

I trust you object as much to receiving the benefits cars (and other
luxuries) bring?

By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to fund
the paving of roads for your benefit?

This is the problem with the notion of internalisation - its always what
everyone *else* does thats the problem, and no-one wants to pay for what
they enjoy. Now ultimately everyone benefits from the paving of roads
(cyclists more so than motorists), so it seems sensible that society as a
whole pays for these benefits, rather than going through the rather
vindictive (and expensive) process of billing everyone for these costs.

> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
> external costs.
>

A fair point

> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically)

The left right scale only measure economic policies :-)

> to
> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
> costs, health costs etc).
>

Which is a fair point.

> snip
>
> >>> It is also
> >>> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
> >>> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
> >
> >Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> >effort. Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
> >traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
> >they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
> >saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
> >half mile to the shop to get his paper?
>
> Fine, as long as the people that make that choice of convenience are
> happy to pay for it. Currently, they do not have to.
>

Thats true of everything. We all get electricity too cheaply, for example.

Picking on cars is easy. None of us truly pay for any of the luxuries we
enjoy as a society. This includes your bicycle.

I would suggest that however half-hearted the attempt at internalising the
cost of motoring, motorists pay far more towards the true cost of their
luxury than users of other luxuries.

> >>> Was I selfish ...
> >>Fair enough. I trust you would tolerate others doing the same?
> >
> >Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
> >the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
> >them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
> >that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
> >without driving the car at all - and I find that my life is better as
> >a result.
> >
> >Guy
>

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, [Not
> Responding] ') wrote:
>
> > What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
> > utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
> > greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
> > enhancement by non-private car modes.
>
> Surely the only fundamental purpose of the private motor vehicle is
> recreation? For all its other functions, as you yourself illustrate,
> other means of transport are more efficient.
>
> Not that recreation is necessarily a bad thing, of course.
>

That pretty accurately somes it up IMV.

[Nathaniel Porter]

"tom bender" > wrote in message
...
> How can the BNP be left wing? They believe in the private ownership of
> property and they are not democratic.
>

See http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html

Being democratic or otherwise isn't measured on the left-right scale.

The BNP do believe in many socialist policies, like free health and
education regardless of wealth, for all of their society. They just wish to
remove certain people from society. This isn't left or right wing - its
authoritarian, which is on another scale.

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:02:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:27:16 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
> wrote in message
>:
>
>>in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
>>stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
>>the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
>>costs, health costs etc).
>
>If they did that (and introduced the single transferrable vote) I
>would vote for them :-)
>
>Guy

I suspect the Lib Dems are safe to count on your vote for some time to
come:)

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:16:24 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote:

snip

>>
>> What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
>> utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
>> greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
>> enhancement by non-private car modes.
>>
>
>But the car does have flexibility over long distances that other modes
>cannot cater for (for example).

Convenience is just one of the luxuries that the private car offers;
private space, cd players and leather trim being among the others.

>> A private car simply adds luxury to the utilitarian function; just as
>> a large house both serves the function of "dwelling" with the added
>> luxury of guest suites, grounds and a pool.
>>
>
>You could say the same of busses. Why walk if you can stay dry and be
>chauffered for your journey?

Yup. And if I make the choice to hop on a bus, I would be happy to pay
for the luxury.

>> While society should attempt to offer transport to all, in much the
>> same way as housing, I see no need for luxury transport to be a
>> government issue than the provision of jacuzzis.
>>
>
>Because public transport isn't effective for everything.

I don't have a car. I can assure you that I lack for nothing.

And don't think that's because I lead a quiet life. At work I cover a
wide area and several establishments; meetings with suppliers &
customers all over the country. I have a second "job" that adds its
own diverse travel.

A combination of Human Powered Transport (HPT), PT, taxis and sensible
living (ie not 50 miles from work) is quite capable of delivering
anyone's private transport needs. I put the word private in so that
some pedant doesn't come back with "but I drive an ambulance; how do I
do that by bus.

>Additionally, isn't transport itself a luxury? No-one really needs to go
>anywhere.

We're rather getting to the nub of it here. You're right, no one
really needs to travel long distance regularly. People only live 50
miles from work, 20 from the shops and 10 from school because our
bizarre subsidy of private cars not only allows it but encourages it.

snip

>> >Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
>> >taxation to pay for their roads?
>>
>> Quite. I have nothing against people choosing to spend money on cars
>> any more than I object to those rich enough to buy yachts or light
>> aircraft. However, I do object when the government expects me to pay
>> for these luxuries.
>>
>
>I trust you object as much to receiving the benefits cars (and other
>luxuries) bring?

What benefits? The fact that so many people spend so much of their
excess income on commuting by car might add luxury to their life but I
can assure you it has brought me only great disbenefit.

>By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to fund
>the paving of roads for your benefit?

I don't quite get you. This is precisely my point.

Do you mean should a pedestrian fund the paving of roads for cyclists?
In an ideal free market world; no.

But I wouldn't argue for that; the real world costs of providing for
pedestrians and cyclists are so small (compared to that for cars) that
they would be dwarfed by any administrative effort that tried to
seperate the costs between the two classes of user.

>This is the problem with the notion of internalisation - its always what
>everyone *else* does thats the problem, and no-one wants to pay for what
>they enjoy. Now ultimately everyone benefits from the paving of roads
>(cyclists more so than motorists), so it seems sensible that society as a
>whole pays for these benefits, rather than going through the rather
>vindictive (and expensive) process of billing everyone for these costs.
>
>> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
>> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
>> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
>> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
>> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
>> external costs.
>>
>
>A fair point
>
>> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically)
>
>The left right scale only measure economic policies :-)
>
>> to
>> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
>> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
>> costs, health costs etc).
>>
>
>Which is a fair point.
>
>> snip
>>
>> >>> It is also
>> >>> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so even
>> >>> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
>> >
>> >Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>> >effort. Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
>> >traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
>> >they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
>> >saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
>> >half mile to the shop to get his paper?
>>
>> Fine, as long as the people that make that choice of convenience are
>> happy to pay for it. Currently, they do not have to.
>>
>
>Thats true of everything. We all get electricity too cheaply, for example.

Yes, there are several anomolies where damaging behaviour (ie
unsustainablity) is subsidised either directly or through incomplete
internalising of external costs.

I pick on cars because that's what we started talking about. I don't
see how this degrades my argument.

>Picking on cars is easy. None of us truly pay for any of the luxuries we
>enjoy as a society. This includes your bicycle.

Explain, please?

>I would suggest that however half-hearted the attempt at internalising the
>cost of motoring, motorists pay far more towards the true cost of their
>luxury than users of other luxuries.
>

I think you have to be a bit more specific there than to say "other
luxuries". I'd hazard a guess that you're thinking of air travel as an
example; and I'd agree. Don't see how this degrades the argument about
private car travel, though.

snip

[Daniel Barlow]

"Nathaniel Porter" > writes:

> By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to fund
> the paving of roads for your benefit?

I'd like to see what it would cost to maintain the road system if cars
and heavier vehicles were not permitted to use them, remembering that
road damage from vehicles rises with the fourth (fifth?) power of axle
weight. I imagine there'd still be some repair work needed due to
extreme weather conditions, but probably quite a lot less than we
presently put up with.

I suspect that cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and private car owners
are all pretty much in the noise for most roads, when compared with
the impact of 38 ton lorries.

> I would suggest that however half-hearted the attempt at internalising the
> cost of motoring, motorists pay far more towards the true cost of their
> luxury than users of other luxuries.

In what way are the owners of expensive musical instruments being
subsidised by society? How about hand-made shoes? Lingerie? I
suspect that in many cases these people are paying a price for their
luxury that /more/ fairly represents the actual costs involved in
producing it, at least insofar as the luxury item is more likely to be
made somewhere that has e.g. human rights and employment laws than the
equivalent commodity product


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):
....
>And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
>particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
....

Insufficient road space to go around, leading to rationing by price,
by queue, or by lot.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):
....
>And public transport is precisely as sustainable as car transport. It's the
>common technology that drives both which causes the problem. Busses don't
>run on thin air.
....

Busses are not the only form of public transport.

But even putting that point to one side, busses are not /precisely/ as
sustainable as car transport, unless the fuel consumption per
person-mile is /exactly/ the same across both modes.

In rush hour periods, (i.e. for commuting) busses transport many more
people per gallon than cars do.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Tony Raven]

Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> In rush hour periods, (i.e. for commuting) busses transport many more
> people per gallon than cars do.

Yebbut they waste that advantage by running around all day mostly empty. They
could not do that and retain their advantage but then my car sits there all
day with its engine off ready to be started and go as soon as I need it. The
buses need to keep running if they are to be a viable alternative so that they
are running when I need one.

Tony

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:20:12 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):
....
>Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly running
>out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
>
> Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
....

Only to the extent that 'will run out of fuel tomorrow' is the same as
'will run out of fuel in 100,000 years'.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:56:43 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote (more or less):
....
>>But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
>>manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).
>
>Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
>Sustainability is not binary.
....

Not to mention biogenic methane. (Although technically, even fossil
methane is biogenic).


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):
....
>Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a car. I
>would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.
....

The Sinclair C5 is a bicycle. (Specifically, a recumbent bicycle with
electric pedal assist).

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):
> Guy wrote:
>> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>> effort.
>
>Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.

Which is why almost no-one drove early cars.

But I thought we were discussing cars as mass transport?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:58:45 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
> wrote (more or less):

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:16:24 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote:
....
>>By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to fund
>>the paving of roads for your benefit?
>
>I don't quite get you. This is precisely my point.
>
>Do you mean should a pedestrian fund the paving of roads for cyclists?
>In an ideal free market world; no.
>
>But I wouldn't argue for that; the real world costs of providing for
>pedestrians and cyclists are so small (compared to that for cars) that
>they would be dwarfed by any administrative effort that tried to
>seperate the costs between the two classes of user.
....

In actual fact, roadway damage (and therefore roadway design specs)
are proportional to axle load (which is a point load for both cyclists
and pedestrians) to the fourth power.

A typical SUV creates more than 300,000 times as much damage per mile
as a typical cyclist, who creates about the same damage per mile as a
pedestrian.

i.e roadway build and maintenance costs are 300,000 times higher for
an SUV as for a cyclist or a pedestrian.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:35:07 +0100, "Tony W" >
wrote (more or less):
....
>Madrid (warm then!!) -- several dozen naked cyclists protesting about the
>danger to cyclists from motor vehicles. They wanted to make it clear that
>in a collision with a motor vehicle they have little chance. "Our only
>vehicle body is our own body" said Juan Gamba.
>
>Stupid boys, none of them is wearing a helmet! No wonder they are in
>danger.

Were none of the cyclists male then?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 05:36:06 +0100, "Tony Raven"
> wrote (more or less):

>Gawnsoft wrote:
>>
>> In rush hour periods, (i.e. for commuting) busses transport many more
>> people per gallon than cars do.
>
>Yebbut they waste that advantage by running around all day mostly empty. They
>could not do that and retain their advantage but then my car sits there all
>day with its engine off ready to be started and go as soon as I need it. The
>buses need to keep running if they are to be a viable alternative so that they
>are running when I need one.

Busses round my way get round this by running more bus services, more
frequently during rush hours, and then they still are running with
significant loadings (tho' not packed to capacity) the rest of the
time.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Paul - xxx]

[Not Responding] posted:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:38:06 +0100, tom bender > wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> There will be a critical mass cycle ride around and about
>> Nottingham London Road traffic island outside the BBC on 30th
>> June.
>
> Gosh, a ride round a traffic island. That sounds fun.

It is in rush-hour .. ;)

It's a ******* island for a cyclist ... local yobs use it as part of their
'race-track' when traffic's relatively quiet too, so it's never a very nice
place to be. Though the grass and flower arrangements in the centre have
been quite entertaining occasionally.

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
...
> "Nathaniel Porter" > writes:
>
> > By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to
fund
> > the paving of roads for your benefit?
>
> I'd like to see what it would cost to maintain the road system if cars
> and heavier vehicles were not permitted to use them, remembering that
> road damage from vehicles rises with the fourth (fifth?) power of axle
> weight. I imagine there'd still be some repair work needed due to
> extreme weather conditions, but probably quite a lot less than we
> presently put up with.
>
> I suspect that cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and private car owners
> are all pretty much in the noise for most roads, when compared with
> the impact of 38 ton lorries.
>

Yebbut it still costs money to pave them in the first place :-)

That and theres still damage from landslips, freeze-thaw effect and so on to
be paid for.

Take a look at your average footpath these days - just because pedestrians
and so on cause far less damage than cars, they still need maintinaing.


> > I would suggest that however half-hearted the attempt at internalising
the
> > cost of motoring, motorists pay far more towards the true cost of their
> > luxury than users of other luxuries.
>
> In what way are the owners of expensive musical instruments being
> subsidised by society? How about hand-made shoes? Lingerie? I
> suspect that in many cases these people are paying a price for their
> luxury that /more/ fairly represents the actual costs involved in
> producing it, at least insofar as the luxury item is more likely to be
> made somewhere that has e.g. human rights and employment laws than the
> equivalent commodity product
>

But they aren't paying for the energy required to produce those goods (for
example)

>
> -dan
>
> --
> "please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Nathaniel Porter]

"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:16:24 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>
> >> What purpose *should* the private car be actively promoted for? It's
> >> utilitarian function is transport; a function that can be met with far
> >> greater energy efficiency, environmental protection & social
> >> enhancement by non-private car modes.
> >>
> >
> >But the car does have flexibility over long distances that other modes
> >cannot cater for (for example).
>
> Convenience is just one of the luxuries that the private car offers;
> private space, cd players and leather trim being among the others.
>

None of which have to be in cars (yes, even the private space).

> >> A private car simply adds luxury to the utilitarian function; just as
> >> a large house both serves the function of "dwelling" with the added
> >> luxury of guest suites, grounds and a pool.
> >>
> >
> >You could say the same of busses. Why walk if you can stay dry and be
> >chauffered for your journey?
>
> Yup. And if I make the choice to hop on a bus, I would be happy to pay
> for the luxury.
>

Do you pay the full cost, or just what the driver charges? ;-)

> >> While society should attempt to offer transport to all, in much the
> >> same way as housing, I see no need for luxury transport to be a
> >> government issue than the provision of jacuzzis.
> >>
> >
> >Because public transport isn't effective for everything.
>
> I don't have a car. I can assure you that I lack for nothing.
>
> And don't think that's because I lead a quiet life. At work I cover a
> wide area and several establishments; meetings with suppliers &
> customers all over the country. I have a second "job" that adds its
> own diverse travel.
>
> A combination of Human Powered Transport (HPT), PT, taxis and sensible
> living (ie not 50 miles from work) is quite capable of delivering
> anyone's private transport needs.
> I put the word private in so that
> some pedant doesn't come back with "but I drive an ambulance; how do I
> do that by bus.
>

But there are some recreational activies where a car is very useful. Just
these don't interest you it doesn't mean they don't exist.

> >Additionally, isn't transport itself a luxury? No-one really needs to go
> >anywhere.
>
> We're rather getting to the nub of it here. You're right, no one
> really needs to travel long distance regularly. People only live 50
> miles from work, 20 from the shops and 10 from school because our
> bizarre subsidy of transport not only allows it but encourages it.
>

I corrected your typo. The idiots who cram onto commuter trains every day to
travel 50 miles to work are just as bad.

> snip
>
> >> >Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
> >> >taxation to pay for their roads?
> >>
> >> Quite. I have nothing against people choosing to spend money on cars
> >> any more than I object to those rich enough to buy yachts or light
> >> aircraft. However, I do object when the government expects me to pay
> >> for these luxuries.
> >>
> >
> >I trust you object as much to receiving the benefits cars (and other
> >luxuries) bring?
>
> What benefits? The fact that so many people spend so much of their
> excess income on commuting by car might add luxury to their life but I
> can assure you it has brought me only great disbenefit.
>

What about the benefits of reasonable car use?

After all, everything can be misused, and this only ever brings disbenefit.

> >By the same logic - should someone who only ever walks places have to
fund
> >the paving of roads for your benefit?
>
> I don't quite get you. This is precisely my point.
>
> Do you mean should a pedestrian fund the paving of roads for cyclists?
> In an ideal free market world; no.
>
> But I wouldn't argue for that; the real world costs of providing for
> pedestrians and cyclists are so small (compared to that for cars) that
> they would be dwarfed by any administrative effort that tried to
> seperate the costs between the two classes of user.
>
> >This is the problem with the notion of internalisation - its always what
> >everyone *else* does thats the problem, and no-one wants to pay for what
> >they enjoy. Now ultimately everyone benefits from the paving of roads
> >(cyclists more so than motorists), so it seems sensible that society as a
> >whole pays for these benefits, rather than going through the rather
> >vindictive (and expensive) process of billing everyone for these costs.
> >
> >> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
> >> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
> >> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
> >> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
> >> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
> >> external costs.
> >>
> >
> >A fair point
> >
> >> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically)
> >
> >The left right scale only measure economic policies :-)
> >
> >> to
> >> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
> >> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
> >> costs, health costs etc).
> >>
> >
> >Which is a fair point.
> >
> >> snip
> >>
> >> >>> It is also
> >> >>> often the most convenient (although many people continue to do so
even
> >> >>> when it is plainly obvious that it is not).
> >> >
> >> >Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> >> >effort. Some people still use cars to travel two miles in gridlocked
> >> >traffic where they would get there quicker and suffer less stress if
> >> >they went by bike. Remember the man who wrote to the local paper
> >> >saying traffic was so bad that it would now be quicker to walk to the
> >> >half mile to the shop to get his paper?
> >>
> >> Fine, as long as the people that make that choice of convenience are
> >> happy to pay for it. Currently, they do not have to.
> >>
> >
> >Thats true of everything. We all get electricity too cheaply, for
example.
>
> Yes, there are several anomolies where damaging behaviour (ie
> unsustainablity) is subsidised either directly or through incomplete
> internalising of external costs.
>

i.e. everything.

> I pick on cars because that's what we started talking about. I don't
> see how this degrades my argument.
>
> >Picking on cars is easy. None of us truly pay for any of the luxuries we
> >enjoy as a society. This includes your bicycle.
>
> Explain, please?
>

I don't believe you truly pay for the cost of maintaining roads (which are
still damaged by the elements and so on, and still need maintenance - and
lets not forget pot holes pose more of a problem to bikes than cars), the
true cost of the energy required to manufacture your bike and all the
accessories for your bike etc.

> >I would suggest that however half-hearted the attempt at internalising
the
> >cost of motoring, motorists pay far more towards the true cost of their
> >luxury than users of other luxuries.
> >
>
> I think you have to be a bit more specific there than to say "other
> luxuries". I'd hazard a guess that you're thinking of air travel as an
> example; and I'd agree.

Thats an obvious example. I was thinking things like electricty, toilet
paper that for some reason is bleached white, the various noxious cleaning
chemicals everyone uses to, the production of the food we eat and so on.

>Don't see how this degrades the argument about
> private car travel, though.
>

It don't mean to - I am just pointing out that you can't simply pick on
cars - you have to have the same policy for absolutely everything.

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote (more or less):
> > Guy wrote:
> >> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> >> effort.
> >
> >Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
>
> Which is why almost no-one drove early cars.
>
> But I thought we were discussing cars as mass transport?
>

I thought we were the true costs of motoring, period?

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> >> And what planet does that happen on, then?
> >> >I don't know anywhere it actually happens. This doesn't mean it can't
> >> >happen.
> >> Right. But it doesn't happen, not on this planet, not in any place
> >> I've lived in, worked in or read about anyway.
>
> >So? Doesn't mean it can't be done.
>
> The fact that it hasn't happened seems, in context, to be a reasonable
> indication of the likelihood of it happening in future.
>

Well, we may as well say that about reasonable treatment of cyclists on our
roads. May as well give up and go home :-p

> >> >> How many passenger-miles does an average bus rack up in tis
lifetime?
> >> >Irrelevant. They still rely on a finite resource, that is rapidly
running
> >> >out - and thus they are unsustainable given current technology.
> >> Relevant. If you have one gallon of oil remaining, will you get most
> >> effect by transporting a single person in their executive personal
> >> space, or a large number of people in their shared bus?
>
> >But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
> >manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).
>
> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
> Sustainability is not binary.
>

Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).

> >Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a car.
I
> >would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.
>
> Evasion.
>
> >> >Being "a little unsustainable" is like being a little big pregnant.
> >> Nope. Sustainability is a continuum.
>
> >True. But I would say no oil consumption is sustainable.
>
> Not really. Biodiesel is renewable, and buses can be made to run on
> other things (as can cars). Cars take up more road space and use more
> fuel per passenger mile and emit more pollution per passneger mile
> (unless the bus is old and knackered; modern ones are very clean), and
> generally has a shorter service life, and spends more of its time
> running cold, and so on.
>

But just as buses can be made to run on other things, cars can be made
smaller, more efficient and less polluting.

> >The left wing BNP promote the car economy.
> >The right wing Liberal Democrats aren't so hot on the car economy.
>
> And whewre ios the BNP policy statement on cars? Or is it just a copy
> & paste from the ABD?
>

http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies.html#transport

"...Motorists must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel
tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras
should be banned. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use
of cleaner fuels"

[1]

> >> Ah, so the US and the UK didn't use the left-wing mechanism of general
> >> taxation to pay for their roads?
>
> >Yes, they did. And do. As I said earlier.
>
> In which case the entire discussion in pointless as every government
> in the world is left-wing by vrtue of using taxation.
>

Yes, thus proving my point way up there somewhere that ideology doesn't
work.

> >Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society, when
> >ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed sensible
bus
> >use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.
>
> Ah, "when used sensibly". I'll keep an eye out for that, if I ever
> see one I'll be sure to let you know ;-)
>

You probably don't notice it. Like Firth not noticing the many cyclists who
don't break red lights etc.

> >> Walking is the most egalitarian mode. Bikes have few economic
> >> barriers to usage, but some physical barriers. Cars have different
> >> physical barriers to usage and much higher costs to society.
>
> >I would suggest that the cults of Hitler, Lenin, Kim Il-sung, Lady Diana,
> >all outlived (and still outlive) the lives of the actual people
concerned,
> >and grew on the death of the people cornered (compared with immeadiately
> >before their respectvie deaths).
>
> I see few recent converts to the cause of the Blessed Diana
> (thankfully); only a few lone nutters who admire Hitler (are we back o
> the BNP here?). I would suggest that none of these characters has a
> fraction of the following they did at their peak.
>

Read my point again. The cults I cited all grew upon the death of those I
mentioned (even if in some cases (i.e. that of Hitler) the cult had already
peaked)

I would suggest in the case of Diana the peak *was* the months after her
death.

> >> Unless Thatcherism is actually a religion, which I
> >> suppose is possible, in which case the opposite may happen.
>
> >Is there much (if any) difference between ideology and religion?
>
> Depends how you view it, I suppose. Maggie certainly had a touch of
> "Dieu et mon droit"[1].
>

You really need to see a doctor about this Thatcher obsession :-p

> >> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> >> effort.
>
> >Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
>
> But we aren't using early cars. Very few people did.
>

But is there any particular reason why cars have to have roofs, power
steering, CD players etc? Hint: Cars don't have to be like your Volvo. ;-)

> >So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.
> >But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.
>
> It is usually more selfish than at least one alternative.
>

Thats true of everything except maybe walking. (or maybe not - walking is
more selfish than not travelling at all)

> >> Like I said, it was a selfish choice. I can tolerate others making
> >> the same selfish choice,. That won't stop me seeking to influence
> >> them not to make the selfish choice as much of the time. I don't make
> >> that selfish choice very often - I sometimes go for several weeks
> >> without driving the car at all -
>
> >Which is a fair point. But we all have to tolerate each other, as
anything
> >we do (bar nothing) will impose a cost on someone else
>
> Indeed. So do we give up and do evberythign in the most selfish way
> possible, or do we aim to miitigate our selfishness in some way? For
> example, by voting for a party which raises tax so that everybody can
> have a doctor, not just the rich?
>

I say we be reasonable. Unless you wish to ban everything that isn't for the
"greater good", we have to tolerate that sometimes people are going to be
selfish. It would be wrong (and, err, selfish) to expect everyone to bend
over backwards for everyone else. Given this, we should let people do things
for their own pleasure that aren't for the greater good. Of course, we
should expect them to be sensible and reasonable in doing so - but we have
to be tolerant.

> >> and I find that my life is better as
> >> a result.
>
> >Some people enjoy driving. Their lives are better as a result.
> >Some people don't like cyclists. You cycling makes their lives worse.
> >Thing is, people like to be able to justify what they do, claiming its
for
> >the greater good. But who decides what is the greater good?
>
> I improve the lot of those who allegedly enjoy driving by reducing the
> amount of congestion they have holding them up. I improve the
> worthless lives of the Clarksonites by giving them something to rant
> about and saving them the bother of having to come up with something
> constructive to say about anything. There is no downside :-D
>

Except there is a downside. For example - you are introducing dangerous
machinery to the roads I walk on.

Now I trust (or perhaps blindly hope) that you make a reasonable effort to
ensure the safety of others around you, and if you do I'm willing to
tolerate it (as I should be). But that doesn't make you less selfish for
putting your fun, convenience, whatever other that of others. :-)


[1] If I disappear because Blunkett decides me looking that up makes me
dangerous to society I'm holding you accountable :-p

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Gawnsoft
t') wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote (more or less):
> ...
>>Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a
>>car. I would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.
> ...
>
> The Sinclair C5 is a bicycle. (Specifically, a recumbent bicycle with
> electric pedal assist).

Tricycle. The Zike was Uncle Clive's bicycle.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:52:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote in message
>:

>> The fact that it hasn't happened seems, in context, to be a reasonable
>> indication of the likelihood of it happening in future.

>Well, we may as well say that about reasonable treatment of cyclists on our
>roads. May as well give up and go home :-p

Not as such. Reasonable treatment is alive and well and living in a
subset of drivers - all we need to do is extend it.

>> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
>> Sustainability is not binary.

>Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
>and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).

Alcohol, then. Or any biomass power. Most alternative fuel sources
are more practical in larger scale, either through electrical
generation and trams or through engines powering trains or buses.

>> Not really. Biodiesel is renewable, and buses can be made to run on
>> other things (as can cars). Cars take up more road space and use more
>> fuel per passenger mile and emit more pollution per passneger mile
>> (unless the bus is old and knackered; modern ones are very clean), and
>> generally has a shorter service life, and spends more of its time
>> running cold, and so on.

>But just as buses can be made to run on other things, cars can be made
>smaller, more efficient and less polluting.

And you still can't get around the issues of road space, thermal
efficiencies of smaller engines, resources required to build the
things in the first place and so on.

On my personal economic sustainability scale, my annual season ticket
for the train costs a third of the price of running a car for a year.
I can sustain that level of spend much more easily than I can sustain
the cost of another car.

>> And whewre ios the BNP policy statement on cars? Or is it just a copy
>> & paste from the ABD?

>http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies.html#transport

Yes, copy & paste from the ABD, as suspected. The set of whackos is
obviously small, and the various whacko groups have a large
intersection ;-)

>> In which case the entire discussion in pointless as every government
>> in the world is left-wing by vrtue of using taxation.

>Yes, thus proving my point way up there somewhere that ideology doesn't
>work.

Well let's bugger off and ride our bikes, then.

>> >Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society, when
>> >ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed sensible
>bus
>> >use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.

>> Ah, "when used sensibly". I'll keep an eye out for that, if I ever
>> see one I'll be sure to let you know ;-)

>You probably don't notice it. Like Firth not noticing the many cyclists who
>don't break red lights etc.

What I see is a lot of people who, having taken the hit of the large
fixed costs of cars, get into the habit of using them for everything,
and being in the habit of using them for everything, continue to take
the hit of the large fixed costs.

Breaking the vicious circle is difficult but worthwhile.

>Read my point again. The cults I cited all grew upon the death of those I
>mentioned (even if in some cases (i.e. that of Hitler) the cult had already
>peaked)

"dead cat bounce."

>I would suggest in the case of Diana the peak *was* the months after her
>death.

The cult was of the dead Diana; after she was buried and all, the cult
of the dead Diana died. Mostly.

>> Depends how you view it, I suppose. Maggie certainly had a touch of
>> "Dieu et mon droit"[1].

>You really need to see a doctor about this Thatcher obsession :-p

Nope. I am one of Thatcher's Children, I was at school and university
during the Falklands and the miners' strike - they are defining
experiences. I saw Britain become harsher and more selfish. Some of
that was necessary to be more competitive, some of it is undesirable
and leads to the Carl Baxters of this world.

>> >> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>> >> effort.
>> >Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
>> But we aren't using early cars. Very few people did.

>But is there any particular reason why cars have to have roofs, power
>steering, CD players etc? Hint: Cars don't have to be like your Volvo. ;-)

But most of them are, more or less. Only rather less comfortable,
obviously. And less powerful. And noisier. And with rather less
leather on the seats... ;-)

>> >So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.
>> >But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.
>> It is usually more selfish than at least one alternative.

>Thats true of everything except maybe walking. (or maybe not - walking is
>more selfish than not travelling at all)

This is an old argument. Because I cannot conveniently live without
being at least slightly selfish, I am not justified in being utterly
selfish.

>> So do we give up and do evberythign in the most selfish way
>> possible, or do we aim to miitigate our selfishness in some way? For
>> example, by voting for a party which raises tax so that everybody can
>> have a doctor, not just the rich?

>I say we be reasonable. Unless you wish to ban everything that isn't for the
>"greater good", we have to tolerate that sometimes people are going to be
>selfish. It would be wrong (and, err, selfish) to expect everyone to bend
>over backwards for everyone else. Given this, we should let people do things
>for their own pleasure that aren't for the greater good. Of course, we
>should expect them to be sensible and reasonable in doing so - but we have
>to be tolerant.

Nobody (well, not me anyway) wants to ban private cars, just restrict
the damage they inflict on others, and encourage people to think
harder about their transport choices. You know we still have one car
between us.

>> I improve the lot of those who allegedly enjoy driving by reducing the
>> amount of congestion they have holding them up. I improve the
>> worthless lives of the Clarksonites by giving them something to rant
>> about and saving them the bother of having to come up with something
>> constructive to say about anything. There is no downside :-D

>Except there is a downside. For example - you are introducing dangerous
>machinery to the roads I walk on.

I introduce machinery which presents a very low level of danger in
preference to the default, in this country, of using a vehicle which
presents a much higher level of danger.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Nathaniel Porter > typed:
> Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for
> food) and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-)
> ).

It's got an 82% energy yield, as compared to 83% for petrodiesel. It would
take up land, though, although the cake from which the oil had been pressed
could be used for animal (or human) food.

A

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Nathaniel Porter
') wrote:

> "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> By the way, bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven
>> luxury
>
> Which Google reveals to be the most expensive car in the world:
> http://www.malawihere.com/viewnews.asp?id=216&recnum=1801&catid=
>
> *Maximum* economy of 45 l/100km, or 6mpg(!)
>
> But he's left wing, so it can't be true.....

If you think Mugabe is in any sense left wing, I think any possibility
of meaningful political discussion is out the window.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Nathaniel Porter
> ') wrote:
>
> > "Tony Raven" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> By the way, bet you Mugabe swans around in his own chauffer driven
> >> luxury
> >
> > Which Google reveals to be the most expensive car in the world:
> > http://www.malawihere.com/viewnews.asp?id=216&recnum=1801&catid=
> >
> > *Maximum* economy of 45 l/100km, or 6mpg(!)
> >
> > But he's left wing, so it can't be true.....
>
> If you think Mugabe is in any sense left wing, I think any possibility
> of meaningful political discussion is out the window.
>

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis.html

Mugabe is left wing, for he is for the redistribution of wealth (From each
according to his ability, to each according to his need is left wing after
all), and against the free market, and the notion of ownership of land
(hence his policy of land redistribution)

Of course, like all leaders, they only stick to their ideology when it suits
them (hence be driven in a 6mpg tank). The example [Not Responding] posted
of Thatcher supporting state subsidisation of roads is a good example of
this.

He is of course also a racist - but this isn't measured on the left right
scale as many people think. See
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html .

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:52:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >> The fact that it hasn't happened seems, in context, to be a reasonable
> >> indication of the likelihood of it happening in future.
>
> >Well, we may as well say that about reasonable treatment of cyclists on
our
> >roads. May as well give up and go home :-p
>
> Not as such. Reasonable treatment is alive and well and living in a
> subset of drivers - all we need to do is extend it.
>

I would suggest there is a subset of people who promtoe the car on its true
merits. They may be too small to be heard, but I would suggest they are
there.

> >> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
> >> Sustainability is not binary.
>
> >Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
> >and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).
>
> Alcohol, then. Or any biomass power. Most alternative fuel sources
> are more practical in larger scale, either through electrical
> generation and trams or through engines powering trains or buses.
>

True to a point - but some are more suited to lots of small applications
over one big one. Electric cars have so far been more successful than
electric buses (even if the cars haven't been that successful, milk floats
aside). Its horses for courses really.

Of course, electric cars are only as sustainable as the power station.

> >> Not really. Biodiesel is renewable, and buses can be made to run on
> >> other things (as can cars). Cars take up more road space and use more
> >> fuel per passenger mile and emit more pollution per passneger mile
> >> (unless the bus is old and knackered; modern ones are very clean), and
> >> generally has a shorter service life, and spends more of its time
> >> running cold, and so on.
>
> >But just as buses can be made to run on other things, cars can be made
> >smaller, more efficient and less polluting.
>
> And you still can't get around the issues of road space,

Suppose you placed all the working parts underneath the occupants (like a
truck cab). If you can get them smaller than the footprint of the occupant,
then the size wouldn't matter right? Now you could do this with a small
engine (obviously the car would need to be alot lighter if the engine was
less powerful because of this - but then theres alot of crap that could be
stripped out of a modern car (and regularily is)). Then your foot print is
that of the occupants. Do the same for a bus - but the bus additionally
needs a driver - and this takes up more space :-) But then you could put the
driver on top, and so on....

The car (or anything) needn't be limited to the current implementation of
the car (or anything). I think people need to open their minds a bit more
:-)

> thermal
> efficiencies of smaller engines, resources required to build the
> things in the first place and so on.
>

As above, where there's a will there's a way.

> On my personal economic sustainability scale, my annual season ticket
> for the train costs a third of the price of running a car for a year.
> I can sustain that level of spend much more easily than I can sustain
> the cost of another car.
>

Thats your choice, and you are welcome to it :-)

> >> And whewre ios the BNP policy statement on cars? Or is it just a copy
> >> & paste from the ABD?
>
> >http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies.html#transport
>
> Yes, copy & paste from the ABD, as suspected.

Well you could dismiss any political policy as a cut and paste from
somewhere :-)

> The set of whackos is
> obviously small, and the various whacko groups have a large
> intersection ;-)
>

Quite :-)

> >> In which case the entire discussion in pointless as every government
> >> in the world is left-wing by vrtue of using taxation.
>
> >Yes, thus proving my point way up there somewhere that ideology doesn't
> >work.
>
> Well let's bugger off and ride our bikes, then.
>

:-)

> >> >Cars, when used sensibly, don't have that great a cost on society,
when
> >> >ofset by the benefits especially if compared to what is deemed
sensible
> >bus
> >> >use , or sensible electricity use, or so on.
>
> >> Ah, "when used sensibly". I'll keep an eye out for that, if I ever
> >> see one I'll be sure to let you know ;-)
>
> >You probably don't notice it. Like Firth not noticing the many cyclists
who
> >don't break red lights etc.
>
> What I see is a lot of people who, having taken the hit of the large
> fixed costs of cars, get into the habit of using them for everything,
> and being in the habit of using them for everything, continue to take
> the hit of the large fixed costs.
>
> Breaking the vicious circle is difficult but worthwhile.
>

Yes. But this isn't selfishness, its stupidity :-)

After all, why would someone selfish want to get stuck in a traffic jam, in
a tunnel of pollution, going nowhere fast? :-)

> >Read my point again. The cults I cited all grew upon the death of those I
> >mentioned (even if in some cases (i.e. that of Hitler) the cult had
already
> >peaked)
>
> "dead cat bounce."
>
> >I would suggest in the case of Diana the peak *was* the months after her
> >death.
>
> The cult was of the dead Diana; after she was buried and all, the cult
> of the dead Diana died. Mostly.
>

Mostly, but not entirely. I would suggest that in the states its still very
much alive (hence the tapes that were aired recently on US TV, that no-one
here cared about)

> >> Depends how you view it, I suppose. Maggie certainly had a touch of
> >> "Dieu et mon droit"[1].
>
> >You really need to see a doctor about this Thatcher obsession :-p
>
> Nope. I am one of Thatcher's Children, I was at school and university
> during the Falklands and the miners' strike - they are defining
> experiences. I saw Britain become harsher and more selfish. Some of
> that was necessary to be more competitive, some of it is undesirable
> and leads to the Carl Baxters of this world.
>

Yebbut that doesn't mean you have to bring Thatcher into everything! At
least, I hope I won't be bringing Blair into everything in 20 years time ;-)

> >> >> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
> >> >> effort.
> >> >Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
> >> But we aren't using early cars. Very few people did.
>
> >But is there any particular reason why cars have to have roofs, power
> >steering, CD players etc? Hint: Cars don't have to be like your Volvo.
;-)
>
> But most of them are, more or less. Only rather less comfortable,
> obviously. And less powerful. And noisier. And with rather less
> leather on the seats... ;-)
>

:-)

> >> >So driving is stupid and selfish some of the time. No **** sherlock.
> >> >But it isn't stupid or selfish all of the time.
> >> It is usually more selfish than at least one alternative.
>
> >Thats true of everything except maybe walking. (or maybe not - walking is
> >more selfish than not travelling at all)
>
> This is an old argument. Because I cannot conveniently live without
> being at least slightly selfish, I am not justified in being utterly
> selfish.
>

You cant actually live at all without being selfish - but as you say there
is compromise.

> >> So do we give up and do evberythign in the most selfish way
> >> possible, or do we aim to miitigate our selfishness in some way? For
> >> example, by voting for a party which raises tax so that everybody can
> >> have a doctor, not just the rich?
>
> >I say we be reasonable. Unless you wish to ban everything that isn't for
the
> >"greater good", we have to tolerate that sometimes people are going to be
> >selfish. It would be wrong (and, err, selfish) to expect everyone to bend
> >over backwards for everyone else. Given this, we should let people do
things
> >for their own pleasure that aren't for the greater good. Of course, we
> >should expect them to be sensible and reasonable in doing so - but we
have
> >to be tolerant.
>
> Nobody (well, not me anyway) wants to ban private cars, just restrict
> the damage they inflict on others, and encourage people to think
> harder about their transport choices. You know we still have one car
> between us.
>

Absolutely. But getting back on topic, I don't see how riding a bike round a
roundabout does anything to achieve this :-)

I think it is fair to assert from all the grim faces you see in traffic that
most people don't like driving. So let's point out the alternatives and make
things easier for those who like to drive and reduce the impact of silly
travel decisions, and improve the lives of people who for some reason are
forcing themselves to do something they really don't like :-)

> >> I improve the lot of those who allegedly enjoy driving by reducing the
> >> amount of congestion they have holding them up. I improve the
> >> worthless lives of the Clarksonites by giving them something to rant
> >> about and saving them the bother of having to come up with something
> >> constructive to say about anything. There is no downside :-D
>
> >Except there is a downside. For example - you are introducing dangerous
> >machinery to the roads I walk on.
>
> I introduce machinery which presents a very low level of danger in
> preference to the default, in this country, of using a vehicle which
> presents a much higher level of danger.
>

But more so than walking :-)

Thing is, like the danger from motor vehicles, if its managed properly its
minimal - so its needn't be the issue some make it :-)

[Daniel Barlow]

"Nathaniel Porter" > writes:

> "Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'd like to see what it would cost to maintain the road system if cars
>> and heavier vehicles were not permitted to use them, remembering that
[...]
> Yebbut it still costs money to pave them in the first place :-)

I said "I'd like to see what it would cost", you said "it would still
cost money". That's not really helpful in answering the question, you
know... I'm sure it does cost /something/ - and indicated as much -
I'd like to know /how much/

I should point out also that pedestrians and cyclists are (usually) much
narrower and shorter than cars, greatly reducing the number of places
that these roads would need to be the width of four large motor
vehicles. So the cost of paving them in the first place is probably
less, at least if we assume that it's somehow related to the area
needing paving.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Tony Raven]

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:56:43 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote (more or less):
> ...
>>> But its still unsustainable. You will still run out of oil (unless you
>>> manage to make that gallon oil last for several thousand years).
>>
>> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
>> Sustainability is not binary.
> ...
>
> Not to mention biogenic methane. (Although technically, even fossil
> methane is biogenic).

I'm not up to date but last I recall of the Brazilian biofuel from sugar cane
programme there was some debate as to whether it generated energy more than
was consumed from non-renewable sources producing it. Anyone know the latest?

Tony

[Tony Raven]

Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> Busses round my way get round this by running more bus services, more
> frequently during rush hours, and then they still are running with
> significant loadings (tho' not packed to capacity) the rest of the
> time.

That works our quite expensive though in that they then have buses sat around
all day doing nothing which is a big capital investment. I guess you can get
part time drivers for rush hours only but most companies, if they have the
equipment, like to have it in use.

Piece on the Today programme this morning on a report that intercity trains
were now less fuel efficient per passenger than modern cars.

Tony

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> If you think Mugabe is in any sense left wing, I think any possibility
> of meaningful political discussion is out the window.

The trouble is the same is said of virtually every regime that claims to be
left wing. The former Easter Bloc, China under Mao, Mugabe..... For some
reason when people with left wing ideologies get into power the wealth seems
to be redistributed to them and away from the people who move to uniform
poverty (patronised party workers excepted). Whether they are still left wing
at this point is an interesting debate.

Tony

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Piece on the Today programme this morning on a report that intercity
> trains were now less fuel efficient per passenger than modern cars.

Hardly a surprise - the HST stock is seriously outdated. Compare it with an
early Volvo 240 or a Mk. 1 Escort for a fairer comparison :-)

The Adelantes and Voyagers are much more fuel efficient.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> Piece on the Today programme this morning on a report that intercity
>> trains were now less fuel efficient per passenger than modern cars.
>
> Hardly a surprise - the HST stock is seriously outdated. Compare it
> with an early Volvo 240 or a Mk. 1 Escort for a fairer comparison :-)
>
> The Adelantes and Voyagers are much more fuel efficient.

And the Pendolinos have regenerative braking as well, which should make a
fair old difference.

A

[Tony Raven]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> And the Pendolinos have regenerative braking as well, which should make a
> fair old difference.
>

As someone said, they bend over sideways to help

Tony

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Tony Raven > typed:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>
>> And the Pendolinos have regenerative braking as well, which should
>> make a fair old difference.
>>
>
> As someone said, they bend over sideways to help
>
Once the HSE and the track permits. And indeed some of the Voyagers, too.

A

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:52:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
....
>> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
>> Sustainability is not binary.
>>
>
>Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
>and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).

Then you're changing your definition of unsustainable.

From "will run out" to "won't run out, but <some other criterion>".


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:24:27 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> > wrote (more or less):
>> > Guy wrote:
>> >> Cars are warm and dry, quick, and involve no significant physical
>> >> effort.
>> >
>> >Not necessarily. The early cars were none of the above.
>>
>> Which is why almost no-one drove early cars.
>>
>> But I thought we were discussing cars as mass transport?
>>
>
>I thought we were the true costs of motoring, period?

But you seem to have drifted onto the pros and cons of period
motoring.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:09:43 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
....
>> I suspect that cyclists, pedestrians, skaters, and private car owners
>> are all pretty much in the noise for most roads, when compared with
>> the impact of 38 ton lorries.
>>
>
>Yebbut it still costs money to pave them in the first place :-)
....

But a paving design to cope with axle loads of 1.3Mg (an SUV) is much
more expensive to build than a paving design that can cope with
point/axle loads 50Kg (car or bicycle).

The damage to the roadway from the SUV is more than 300,000 times as
much as that from the cyclist/pedestrian, (as it varies with the
square of the square of the axle load).

Next time you see a motorway being laid, note how much deeper and
tougher they're built than the average footpath.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke >
wrote (more or less):

>in message >, Gawnsoft
t') wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:07:37 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> > wrote (more or less):
>> ...
>>>Addionally, this isn't a "car or bus" question. The Sinclair C5 is a
>>>car. I would suggest this is more efficient than getting on a bus.
>> ...
>>
>> The Sinclair C5 is a bicycle. (Specifically, a recumbent bicycle with
>> electric pedal assist).
>
>Tricycle.

You got me. I failed to count up to three! <hangs head in shame>


>The Zike was Uncle Clive's bicycle.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[tom bender]

Actually the BNP use workerist rhetoric to further the leaders' own
individual aims.
When the workerist rhetoric looks like being taken too seriously the
leaders dispatch the advocates cf: The Night of the Long Knives.
This is true for many so called leaders of the left or right. Anything
that appeals to the masses that can win them power. cf Mugabe, Stalin,
Mussolini, Hitler etc etc

Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.

BTW Sustainability is also about climate change. Organic fuels do not
contribute to the Carbon loading of the atmosphere since they are part
of the carbon cycle.

TB

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "tom bender" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>How can the BNP be left wing? They believe in the private ownership of
>>property and they are not democratic.
>>
>
>
> See http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html
>
> Being democratic or otherwise isn't measured on the left-right scale.
>
> The BNP do believe in many socialist policies, like free health and
> education regardless of wealth, for all of their society. They just wish to
> remove certain people from society. This isn't left or right wing - its
> authoritarian, which is on another scale.
>
>

[Tumbleweed]

"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
> external costs.
>
> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
> costs, health costs etc).
>

Chances are that is already the case, the road fund tax (or whatever its
called )plus fuel duty is probably an order of magnitude more than the
amount spent on the roads so plenty of money left over for the other stuff
you mention. Though as people who are motorists during congested times
directly pay for the congestion costs themselves by being in the congestion
I dont see the point of charging them again for it.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
,snip>
>
> Next time you see a motorway being laid, note how much deeper and
> tougher they're built than the average footpath.

Not much, thats why they keep repairing them.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:52:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote (more or less):
>
> >
> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
> ...
> >> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
> >> Sustainability is not binary.
> >>
> >
> >Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
> >and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).
>
> Then you're changing your definition of unsustainable.
>
> From "will run out" to "won't run out, but <some other criterion>".
>

It's not one criterion or the other - its all of them. It ain't sustainable
if it means we lose the ability to grow enough food :-)

[Nathaniel Porter]

"tom bender" > wrote in message
news:QuIBc.197$cT4.92@newsfe1-win...
> Actually the BNP use workerist rhetoric to further the leaders' own
> individual aims.
> When the workerist rhetoric looks like being taken too seriously the
> leaders dispatch the advocates cf: The Night of the Long Knives.
> This is true for many so called leaders of the left or right. Anything
> that appeals to the masses that can win them power. cf Mugabe, Stalin,
> Mussolini, Hitler etc etc
>

All rhetoric is used to further the aims of people who want power. That's
the point of ideology, to convince the people that if you follow some leader
you'll be lead to some utopia which cannot actually exist.

> Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.
>

So does the right wing. Isn't that what the free market was supposed to do?
:-)

> BTW Sustainability is also about climate change. Organic fuels do not
> contribute to the Carbon loading of the atmosphere since they are part
> of the carbon cycle.
>

So are fossil fuels - they are the remains of plants and animals.

The problem is not that we are introducing Carbon compunds into the
atmosphere- it;s that we are re-introducing them too quickly.

Of course, in theory the growing of the crops to produce organic fuels
removes the carbon emitted upon burning them - but I'm not convinced that
the cycle will work fast enough to turn all the carbon around fast enough.
But I'd be interested in any research on this issue.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> If you think Mugabe is in any sense left wing, I think any
>> possibility of meaningful political discussion is out the window.
>
> The trouble is the same is said of virtually every regime that claims
> to be
> left wing. The former Easter Bloc, China under Mao, Mugabe.....
> For some reason when people with left wing ideologies get into power
> the wealth seems to be redistributed to them and away from the people
> who move to uniform
> poverty (patronised party workers excepted). Whether they are still
> left wing at this point is an interesting debate.

I think there's a distinction to be made between Lenin's Russia, Mao's
China and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I believe (and possibly incorrectly) that
certainly Lenin and probably Mao were idealists with a real vision of
how they thought society could be improved. I'll agree that in practice
any improvement either did achieve was at best flawed, and I personally
wouldn't defend either, but I believe that their motivations were
essentially altruistic.

But Mugabe is something different and I believe always was something
different. I had (white) friends who were in ZANU during the civil war
and their view then was that he was always essentially a gangster, that
(as often happens in such circumstances, as the Russian Revolution
illustrates) the most ruthless, bloodthirsty and greedy elements were
rising to the top.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

[AndyMorris]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:03:54 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
>> > wrote in message
>> >:
>>
>>> Indeed, the Nazi's were the National >>Socialist<< Party.
>>> Socialist=Dictator. No other way to make it 'work' than compulsion.
>>
>> Except that they weren't socialist except in name, of course.
>>
>
> Neither were Stalin, Brezhnev etc, Mao, Tito, Castro, Pol Pot.....
> in fact has there been a "socialist" leader that wasn't actually a
> dictator?
>

Do you think they'd allow any one to get away with that?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

[Nathaniel Porter]

"Tumbleweed" > wrote in message
.. .
>
<snip>

>Though as people who are motorists during congested times
> directly pay for the congestion costs themselves by being in the
congestion
> I dont see the point of charging them again for it.
>

Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they are
the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through the
nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport. Would increasing the
disbenefit a bit (eg through taxes) really make much difference?

As I said - people don't make stupid car journeys through selfishness -
they do so because of ignorance.

[tom bender]

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
[snip]

>>Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.
>>
>
>
> So does the right wing. Isn't that what the free market was supposed to do?
> :-)

The right wing do not recognize that we gain freedoms by working
together as a community - it believes in freedom through individual
power - the will to power.
The free market introduces economic incentives into the equation, which
is flawed, because not everuthing that is profitable is concomitant(?)
with human well-being, and not all competition creates the most
beneficial outcomes.
>
>>BTW Sustainability is also about climate change. Organic fuels do not
>>contribute to the Carbon loading of the atmosphere since they are part
>>of the carbon cycle.
>>
>
> So are fossil fuels - they are the remains of plants and animals.
>
> The problem is not that we are introducing Carbon compunds into the
> atmosphere- it;s that we are re-introducing them too quickly.
>
You have a point, but it doesn't negate the fact that the use of
bio-fuels prevents the to-quick-introduction of Carbon into the atmosphere.

>
> Of course, in theory the growing of the crops to produce organic fuels
> removes the carbon emitted upon burning them - but I'm not convinced that
> the cycle will work fast enough to turn all the carbon around fast enough.
> But I'd be interested in any research on this issue.
>

Well. If for every one ton of plants you burn you grow another ton it
*must* balance. Apart from the energy required to grow the plants in the
first place, which hopefully would be minimal - however modern
agriculture is pretty energy inefficient. (It seems that for every 6
units of energy put into food crops, we get 1 unit of food energy out!)

It is probably quicker to burn a ton than grow a ton though.

I really do think future societies have to look at using *less* energy
rather than looking for new sources.

:-)
TB

[[Not Responding]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:31:28 +0100, tom bender > wrote:

>Actually the BNP use workerist rhetoric to further the leaders' own
>individual aims.

Or, quite possibly, they actually believe their rather objectionable
philosophy just like adherents to any political outlook.

>When the workerist rhetoric looks like being taken too seriously the
>leaders dispatch the advocates cf: The Night of the Long Knives.
>This is true for many so called leaders of the left or right. Anything
>that appeals to the masses that can win them power. cf Mugabe, Stalin,
>Mussolini, Hitler etc etc
>
>Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.

Absolute and total cobblers. All socialism I've seen is based on big
taxation and big government spending. The straightforward removal of
the spending decision away from individuals, families and communities
to the government.

>BTW Sustainability is also about climate change. Organic fuels do not
>contribute to the Carbon loading of the atmosphere since they are part
>of the carbon cycle.

Climate impact is just one element of sustainability. Ask the people
of Easter Island if it was actually really that sustainable to burn
all their trees.

>TB
>
>Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>> "tom bender" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>How can the BNP be left wing? They believe in the private ownership of
>>>property and they are not democratic.
>>>
>>
>>
>> See http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/extremeright.html
>>
>> Being democratic or otherwise isn't measured on the left-right scale.
>>
>> The BNP do believe in many socialist policies, like free health and
>> education regardless of wealth, for all of their society. They just wish to
>> remove certain people from society. This isn't left or right wing - its
>> authoritarian, which is on another scale.
>>
>>

[Tumbleweed]

"Nathaniel Porter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tumbleweed" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> <snip>
>
> >Though as people who are motorists during congested times
> > directly pay for the congestion costs themselves by being in the
> congestion
> > I dont see the point of charging them again for it.
> >
>
> Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
> disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they
are
> the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through
the
> nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport. Would increasing the
> disbenefit a bit (eg through taxes) really make much difference?
>
> As I said - people don't make stupid car journeys through selfishness -
> they do so because of ignorance.


Could you give an example of a stupid journey in your terms? Concentrating
on defining 'stupid'?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote (more or less):
> ...
> >And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
> >particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
> ...
>
> Insufficient road space to go around, leading to rationing by price,
> by queue, or by lot.
>

If its by the latter two, thats perfectly egalitarian.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> I think there's a distinction to be made between Lenin's Russia, Mao's
> China and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. I believe (and possibly incorrectly) that
> certainly Lenin and probably Mao were idealists with a real vision of
> how they thought society could be improved. I'll agree that in practice
> any improvement either did achieve was at best flawed, and I personally
> wouldn't defend either, but I believe that their motivations were
> essentially altruistic.

We'll never really know with Lenin because he wasn't around long enough to
tell although some of his actions in shutting down all opposition and
suppressing rebellions didn't look good. If his successor was altruistic he
showed in strange ways. Having visited China just after Mao's death, if he
had a real vision it was one that left the people in fear and destitution
unless you were a loyal party worker when you did relatively well. In my view
the only vision all these leaders had, and shared with the likes of Hitler, is
one of unbridled and unopposed power and sod the people.

>
> But Mugabe is something different and I believe always was something
> different. I had (white) friends who were in ZANU during the civil war
> and their view then was that he was always essentially a gangster, that
> (as often happens in such circumstances, as the Russian Revolution
> illustrates) the most ruthless, bloodthirsty and greedy elements were
> rising to the top.

He fits in with my view above perfectly as does the one remaining "true left
wing" state, North Korea.

Tony

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:23:51 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:52:31 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> > wrote (more or less):
>>
>> >
>> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> ...
>> >> Biodiesel. Less energy per passenger mile = more sustainable.
>> >> Sustainability is not binary.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Actually its more unsustainable. Takes up too much land (needed for food)
>> >and fertiliser (and guess where this ultimately comes from :-) ).
>>
>> Then you're changing your definition of unsustainable.
>>
>> From "will run out" to "won't run out, but <some other criterion>".
>>
>
>It's not one criterion or the other - its all of them. It ain't sustainable
>if it means we lose the ability to grow enough food :-)

Lose the ability to have a diet based primarily on red meat proteins,
perhaps.

But 'enough food'? No.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:17:24 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
>message ...
>,snip>
>>
>> Next time you see a motorway being laid, note how much deeper and
>> tougher they're built than the average footpath.
>
>Not much, thats why they keep repairing them.

Not at all. They keep repairing them because they're designed only
for a life-span of 20-25 years (otherwise they become phenomenally
expensive, rather than just extremely expensive), and they get a /lot/
of fast, heavy traffic.

Try running hundreds of artics up and down your nearest footpath every
day, and see if it lasts 20 - 25 years.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Nathaniel Porter > wrote:
> Take a look at your average footpath these days - just because pedestrians
> and so on cause far less damage than cars, they still need maintinaing.

Hmm. The main wear mechanism on pavements is cars (and lorries) parking
one wheel on them. Absent that, they'd last a lot longer. Outside
pavements, most footpaths are made to a pretty low standard on very
shallow footings and with poor drainage, and just get washed out over
the years. If footpaths were built as baby sideroads, to the standard
of the typical urban minor road, they'd last essentially forever.

ian

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Gawnsoft > wrote:
> It would for the 40% of households which don't use cars.

I don't believe that figure. Got a citation.

ian

[Gawnsoft]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:14:07 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>
>"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
...
><snip>
>> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
>> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
>> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
>> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
>> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
>> external costs.
>>
>> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
>> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
>> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
>> costs, health costs etc).
>>
>
>Chances are that is already the case, the road fund tax (or whatever its
>called )plus fuel duty is probably an order of magnitude more than the
>amount spent on the roads

No, it isn't. Unless you've got some interesting newevidence you'd
like to share?

>so plenty of money left over for the other stuff
>you mention. Though as people who are motorists during congested times
>directly pay for the congestion costs themselves by being in the congestion
>I dont see the point of charging them again for it.

Because they're the ones who wish access to the limited road space,
and they currently object to the congestion levels.

It's a good in short supply, so the only way to match demand is
rationing (by queue, by prive or by lot)

We've tried rationing by queue - that's what congestion is.

Think of road-pricing as a /de/congestion charge. It's a method of
rationing by price. So you spend money on the decongestion charge
/instead/ of the (hidden) costs of queueing as much as you used to.

Other places have tried various ways of rationing by lot (e.g. when
you get to use the road depends on what number or letter your number
plate ends with). People just buy extra entries into the lottery
(e.g. another car that has a number plate with a different ending)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 01:06:58 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Tumbleweed" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
><snip>
>
>>Though as people who are motorists during congested times
>> directly pay for the congestion costs themselves by being in the
>congestion
>> I dont see the point of charging them again for it.
>>
>
>Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
>disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they are
>the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through the
>nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport. Would increasing the
>disbenefit a bit (eg through taxes) really make much difference?

It would for the 40% of households which don't use cars.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:44:36 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):

>
>"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
>message ...
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 20:11:09 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
>> > wrote (more or less):
>> ...
>> >And there is nothing inegalitarian about the motor car. Is there any
>> >particular reason why everyone can't drive a car if they choose?
>> ...
>>
>> Insufficient road space to go around, leading to rationing by price,
>> by queue, or by lot.
>>
>
>If its by the latter two, thats perfectly egalitarian.

Well, rationing by queue is what we have at the moment.

It's called 'congestion'.



--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Daniel Barlow]

"Nathaniel Porter" > writes:

> Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
> disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they are
> the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through the
> nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport.

They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
avoid congestion on the nearby motorway. They are not the ones kept
awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass, or the light
pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps. They are not the ones
likely to come off worst when due to "a moment's inattention" they
collide with a less well-armoured road user. They are not the ones
unable to walk to the local shop because the local shop has been
driven (ha!) out of business by the out-of-town superstore only
accessible by car.

And they are not the only ones stuck in the corridor of pollution:
they share the streets with all the other road users - at least, on
roads that they've not yet managed to intimidate other road users away
from - and while it might be the case that CO levels are typically
higher inside a car than out (something I read somewhere; don't know
if it's true, don't have a reference), the effect is also
non-negligible outside.

> Would increasing the
> disbenefit a bit (eg through taxes) really make much difference?

Given the amount of whinging that people are doing about it, it's
clearly making /some/ kind of difference. You don't often hear
motorists saying "82p a litre? Motoring is so crap anyway, I doubt
it'll make any difference to me"

> As I said - people don't make stupid car journeys through selfishness -
> they do so because of ignorance.

Ignorance which would be readily fixed with a few minutes of research
and thinking around the problem; if this is /really/ a fair
description of anyone, then I think they're still culpable for their
lack of will to do anything about their own lack of knowledge


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:27:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> wrote (more or less):

>In article >,
>Gawnsoft > wrote:
>> It would for the 40% of households which don't use cars.
>
>I don't believe that figure. Got a citation.


"20-02.-2004 11:48 AM Reply w/Quote


This article was in yesterday's Edinburgh Herald & Post:
================
Around 40% of people in Edinburgh survive without a car, according to
.... the latest Scottish Household Survey "

I posted the above on uk.rec.cycling

The Herald and Post does not have a web-site. I did try searching for
the headline across the entire Scotsman Newspaper Group site.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Tony Raven]

Gawnsoft wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:27:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> > wrote (more or less):
>
>> In article >,
>> Gawnsoft > wrote:
>>> It would for the 40% of households which don't use cars.
>>
>> I don't believe that figure. Got a citation.
>
>
> "20-02.-2004 11:48 AM Reply w/Quote
>
>
> This article was in yesterday's Edinburgh Herald & Post:
> ================
> Around 40% of people in Edinburgh survive without a car, according to
> ... the latest Scottish Household Survey "
>

In London 37% of households do not have a car while the average for GB is 28%
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk/tfl/ltr2003/road-related-trends-3.shtml

Tony

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Gawnsoft > wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:27:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
> > wrote (more or less):
>
> >In article >,
> >Gawnsoft > wrote:
> >> It would for the 40% of households which don't use cars.
> >
> >I don't believe that figure. Got a citation.

> Around 40% of people in Edinburgh survive without a car, according to

40% of people is not the same as 40% of households, unless you can show
that the distribution of household sizes is the same in both
populations. I'd be stunned if it is. I would suspect that people
living on their own will be disproportionately likely not to have a car,
and people with families will be disproportionately like to have a car.

ian

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
Tony Raven > wrote:
> In London 37% of households do not have a car while the average for GB is 28%

So 40% is wrong, then. I thought so.

ian

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:14:07 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote (more or less):
>
> >
> >
> >"[Not Responding]" > wrote in message
> ...
> ><snip>
> >> What baffles me is the view private car promotion is (or should be) a
> >> Conservative policy. The Tories were (in their heyday) in the vanguard
> >> of understanding the importance of free markets; moving costs (and
> >> choice) away from government and on to individuals. Yet the car
> >> economy remained untouched; funded through taxation and with massive
> >> external costs.
> >>
> >> So, in response to Guy, it would be rather rightist (economically) to
> >> stop funding roads through taxation and to internalise all costs onto
> >> the motorist (ie congestion costs, environmental costs, policing
> >> costs, health costs etc).
> >>
> >
> >Chances are that is already the case, the road fund tax (or whatever its
> >called )plus fuel duty is probably an order of magnitude more than the
> >amount spent on the roads
>
> No, it isn't. Unless you've got some interesting newevidence you'd
> like to share?
>

As I understand it from a quick search;

Annual revenues generated by the Government from motorists total £42bn
(2003) S1
Annual Expenditure on roads (2002) £4bn S2

S1 RAC web site (taken from govt stats)
S2 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7809.xls

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email addresslevels.

[Tumbleweed]

"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
...
> "Nathaniel Porter" > writes:
>
> > Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
> > disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they
are
> > the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through
the
> > nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport.
>
> They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
> having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
> avoid congestion on the nearby motorway.

Well then they need a bypass. IME people dont use villages as rat runs to
avoid motorways they use villages because there is no better alternative,
such as a motorway or bypass.

>They are not the ones kept
> awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass,

hang on if they have a bypass their village isnt divided in half any more!
And the traffic is further away than if it was in their village.

>or the light
> pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps.

Dahn sarf where I live we have invented a natty little gadget called 'the
curtain'.

> They are not the ones
> likely to come off worst when due to "a moment's inattention" they
> collide with a less well-armoured road user.

they shouldnt be on the bypass, they should be on the pavement and shopping
at their local store .

> They are not the ones
> unable to walk to the local shop because the local shop has been
> driven (ha!) out of business by the out-of-town superstore only
> accessible by car.
>

Hmm, what about the 40% of households we were just told (by you?) who dont
have access to a car? That must be, what, maybe 80% of people? Surely they
wouldnt be able to use that OOTS then?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[[Not Responding]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:58:44 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote:

>
>"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
...
>> "Nathaniel Porter" > writes:
>>
>> > Which is a very good point. Motorists actually bear the brunt of the
>> > disbenefits of motor vehicles - they are the ones stuck in traffic, they
>are
>> > the ones in the corridor of pollution, they are the ones paying through
>the
>> > nose for an relatively inefficient mode of transport.
>>
>> They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
>> having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
>> avoid congestion on the nearby motorway.
>
>Well then they need a bypass. IME people dont use villages as rat runs to
>avoid motorways they use villages because there is no better alternative,
>such as a motorway or bypass.

Let's look at the village I live in. 30 years ago; Nothern Bypass
built. 25 years ago Eastern Bypass built. 20 years ago Motorway built.
Today the village remains a hugely popular rat run because roads (a),
(b) and (c) described above are all chocka.

Bypasses solve absolutely nothing (even if you could locate one in the
unpopulated meadow you imply, below).

>>They are not the ones kept
>> awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass,
>
>hang on if they have a bypass their village isnt divided in half any more!
>And the traffic is further away than if it was in their village.
>
>>or the light
>> pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps.
>
>Dahn sarf where I live we have invented a natty little gadget called 'the
>curtain'.

I get the feeling you don't know much about roads or have spent all
your life without venturing off the curly cul de sac of some 70s urban
sprawl suburban estate.

>> They are not the ones
>> likely to come off worst when due to "a moment's inattention" they
>> collide with a less well-armoured road user.
>
>they shouldnt be on the bypass, they should be on the pavement and shopping
>at their local store .
>
>> They are not the ones
>> unable to walk to the local shop because the local shop has been
>> driven (ha!) out of business by the out-of-town superstore only
>> accessible by car.
>>
>
>Hmm, what about the 40% of households we were just told (by you?) who dont
>have access to a car? That must be, what, maybe 80% of people? Surely they
>wouldnt be able to use that OOTS then?

[Jon Senior]

Gawnsoft opined the
following...
> Not at all. They keep repairing them because they're designed only
> for a life-span of 20-25 years (otherwise they become phenomenally
> expensive, rather than just extremely expensive), and they get a /lot/
> of fast, heavy traffic.
>
> Try running hundreds of artics up and down your nearest footpath every
> day, and see if it lasts 20 - 25 years.

But they don't last 20-25 years at all. Partly because most roads get
dug up long before then by various utility companies. I'd bet good money
that the A1(M) between Brampton (or thereabouts) and Grantham (or
thereabouts) will be resurfaced long before 2022.

Jon

[Jon Senior]

Ian G Batten opined the following...
> 40% of people is not the same as 40% of households, unless you can show
> that the distribution of household sizes is the same in both
> populations. I'd be stunned if it is. I would suspect that people
> living on their own will be disproportionately likely not to have a car,
> and people with families will be disproportionately like to have a car.

I think you'd find that the correlation was more closely tied to
population density. Hence London and Edinburgh average ~38% and the
country as a whole is lower. If you are in a country village somewhere,
a car is far more essential than in a city where there are often
supermarkets within walking distance and more regular / frequent public
transport.

And if you want to get picky over the people / households thing, bear in
mind that a significant proportion of the population is under 17 and
thus remarkably unlikely to own a car.

Jon

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:48:34 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote in message
>:

>Annual revenues generated by the Government from motorists total £42bn
>Annual Expenditure on roads (2002) £4bn S2

Annual expenditure on policing?
Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?
Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
Annual cost of the national debt run up building the roads?
Annual cost of inquiries and judicial reviews of road schemes?

Even the uk.tosspot faq admits that the costs outweigh the revenues.

In any case, none of the money raised on alcohol duty is spent on
building better pubs.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Gawnsoft > typed:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 22:23:51 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
> > wrote (more or less):
>> It's not one criterion or the other - its all of them. It ain't
>> sustainable if it means we lose the ability to grow enough food :-)
>
> Lose the ability to have a diet based primarily on red meat proteins,
> perhaps.

Actually, chicken's the most commonly eaten meat in the UK. In all other
European countries it's pork, which is sometimes considered to be white
meat. OTOH, producing large amounts of biodiesel would produce a surplus of
vegetable protein which would probably be fed to animals to produce food,
rather than directly given to people.

A

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In ,
Daniel Barlow > typed:
>
> They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
> having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
> avoid congestion on the nearby motorway. They are not the ones kept
> awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass, or the light
> pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps.

I spent the day more than a mile away from a 70mph road for the first time
in months today. It took me a while to realise how nice the silence was
(well apart from the wind on top of the Malverns).

Living less than a mile downwind of one of the countries busiest sections of
road, it's certainly a stress factor in my life.

A

[Daniel Barlow]

"Tumbleweed" > writes:

> "Daniel Barlow" > wrote
>> They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
>> having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
>> avoid congestion on the nearby motorway.
>
> Well then they need a bypass. IME people dont use villages as rat runs to
> avoid motorways they use villages because there is no better alternative,
> such as a motorway or bypass.

So more of the countryside gets torn up and covereed with tar. I
would consider that to be a disbenefit, and one suffered by
non-motorists as well as motorists. Wouldn't you?

>>They are not the ones kept
>> awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass,
>
> hang on if they have a bypass their village isnt divided in half any more!

You'll have to point out to me where I said that all these
disadvantages of private motor vehicles apply to the same person all
the time. Some people live in towns, some in villages with bypasses,
some in villages without bypasses. Private motor traffic has
different effects in each of these cases, and in pretty much any
situation some of those effects are deletorious.

> And the traffic is further away than if it was in their village.

And going faster on average, so making more noise. And there are nice
flat concrete bridges and overpasses for it to echo off.

>>or the light
>> pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps.
>
> Dahn sarf where I live we have invented a natty little gadget called 'the
> curtain'.

Right, and I suppose you would also blame people complaining about
vehicle-induced air pollution for their own misfortune, on the grounds
that they shouldn't have opened the windows. Don't you ever like to
look at the stars at night? Don't you think that not being able to do
so might be considered a disbenefit?

>> They are not the ones
>> likely to come off worst when due to "a moment's inattention" they
>> collide with a less well-armoured road user.
>
> they shouldnt be on the bypass, they should be on the pavement and shopping
> at their local store .

Cyclists should be on the pavement? Who are you trying to troll?

> Hmm, what about the 40% of households we were just told (by you?) who dont
> have access to a car? That must be, what, maybe 80% of people? Surely they
> wouldnt be able to use that OOTS then?

I didn't mention 40%, and I have no idea at all how you get from there
to 80%. But numbers aside, yes. What's your point? There's a bunch
of people out there who used to be able to lead independent lives and
are now dependent on others for trivial little things like buying a
box of tea. What are you going to do when you're 85 and you fail the
driving eyesight test? Assuming, that is, that the oil hasn't run out
by then.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Keith Willoughby]

[Not Responding] wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:31:28 +0100, tom bender > wrote:
>>When the workerist rhetoric looks like being taken too seriously the
>>leaders dispatch the advocates cf: The Night of the Long Knives.
>>This is true for many so called leaders of the left or right. Anything
>>that appeals to the masses that can win them power. cf Mugabe, Stalin,
>>Mussolini, Hitler etc etc
>>
>>Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.
>
> Absolute and total cobblers. All socialism I've seen

You've never seen socialism. There's never been a socialist state bigger
than a village.

> is based on big taxation and big government spending.

Socialism is based on the common ownership of the means of production,
and an equitable distribution of capital and resources. If you're
predisposed against it, you'll call that "big taxation and big
government spending".

> The straightforward removal of the spending decision away from
> individuals, families and communities to the government.

Well, to the "people". Socialism was as a step towards communism, at
which point the need for government would evaporate. Pie in the sky
stuff.

Of course, it never happened. We've had a bunch of Social Democratic
states, where private capital and common ownership co-existed unhappily
in a democracy, and we've had "common" ownership that was actually mass
slavery in aid of the "common" goal of the luxury of the *******s at the
top. This may prove that Communism is unworkable in practice, but it
wasn't Communism.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
I have seen the enemy, and he is quite short.

[Tumbleweed]

"Keith Willoughby" > wrote in message
...
> [Not Responding] wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:31:28 +0100, tom bender > wrote:
> >>When the workerist rhetoric looks like being taken too seriously the
> >>leaders dispatch the advocates cf: The Night of the Long Knives.
> >>This is true for many so called leaders of the left or right. Anything
> >>that appeals to the masses that can win them power. cf Mugabe, Stalin,
> >>Mussolini, Hitler etc etc
> >>
> >>Socialism aims to minimise coercion and maximise freedom.
> >
> > Absolute and total cobblers. All socialism I've seen
>
> You've never seen socialism. There's never been a socialist state bigger
> than a village.
>
> > is based on big taxation and big government spending.
>
> Socialism is based on the common ownership of the means of production,
> and an equitable distribution of capital and resources. If you're
> predisposed against it, you'll call that "big taxation and big
> government spending".

Since a major means of production is nowadays people brains, does that mean
socialists propose to nationalise brains?

And who decides "equitable"? Is it me? Or someone else? If you're a resource
because of your brain, who distributes it and what if you dont like it? Off
to the gulag?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
...
> "Tumbleweed" > writes:
>
> > "Daniel Barlow" > wrote
> >> They are not the ones who've had their villages divided in two by
> >> having the main road become a rat run for speeding lorries trying to
> >> avoid congestion on the nearby motorway.
> >
> > Well then they need a bypass. IME people dont use villages as rat runs
to
> > avoid motorways they use villages because there is no better
alternative,
> > such as a motorway or bypass.
>
> So more of the countryside gets torn up and covereed with tar. I
> would consider that to be a disbenefit, and one suffered by
> non-motorists as well as motorists. Wouldn't you?

No, I'd rather an unoccupied meadow, which might not be a meadow (nice use
of emotive description there) but a field with GM crops in it, has traffic
roaring through it than a village, where the people are.

>
> >>They are not the ones kept
> >> awake at night by the roar of traffic from the bypass,
> >
> > hang on if they have a bypass their village isnt divided in half any
more!
>
> You'll have to point out to me where I said that all these
> disadvantages of private motor vehicles apply to the same person all
> the time. Some people live in towns, some in villages with bypasses,
> some in villages without bypasses. Private motor traffic has
> different effects in each of these cases, and in pretty much any
> situation some of those effects are deletorious.
>
> > And the traffic is further away than if it was in their village.
>
> And going faster on average, so making more noise. And there are nice
> flat concrete bridges and overpasses for it to echo off.

Thats an issue of construction that can be fixed if you want to spend the
money. Plenty left over from the money taken in motoring related taxes.

>
> >>or the light
> >> pollution from six lanes worth of sodium lamps.
> >
> > Dahn sarf where I live we have invented a natty little gadget called
'the
> > curtain'.
>
> Right, and I suppose you would also blame people complaining about
> vehicle-induced air pollution for their own misfortune, on the grounds
> that they shouldn't have opened the windows. Don't you ever like to
> look at the stars at night? Don't you think that not being able to do
> so might be considered a disbenefit?

You have to balance the benefits and disbenefits. Given the alternative
seems to be a divided in two village with people being run over (as per this
thread), I go for the one that removes that and needs curtains. Though the
road neednt have lighting either, or it could have better designed lighting
that didnt have this problem.

>
> >> They are not the ones
> >> likely to come off worst when due to "a moment's inattention" they
> >> collide with a less well-armoured road user.
> >
> > they shouldnt be on the bypass, they should be on the pavement and
shopping
> > at their local store .
>
> Cyclists should be on the pavement? Who are you trying to troll?

I thought we were talking pedestrians. As its a local village they could
walk.And I wouldnt want to cycle on a bypass anyway. Too much traffic, too
fast, I'll be the one going through the village.

>
> > Hmm, what about the 40% of households we were just told (by you?) who
dont
> > have access to a car? That must be, what, maybe 80% of people? Surely
they
> > wouldnt be able to use that OOTS then?

>
> I didn't mention 40%, and I have no idea at all how you get from there
> to 80%.

Sorry, I thought it was you that mentioned that 40% of households didnt have
a car (thats why I put a '?' there. 80% is a guess derived from 40%
households, depends how many people live in the average household.

>
> But numbers aside, yes. What's your point? There's a bunch
> of people out there who used to be able to lead independent lives and
> are now dependent on others for trivial little things like buying a
> box of tea.

My point was that if 80% of people didnt have a car (or 40% of households)
how come the OOTSS is prospering? But thats moot if it wasnt you who said
that.

> What are you going to do when you're 85 and you fail the
> driving eyesight test?

Use an online shopping service.

>Assuming, that is, that the oil hasn't run out by then.

Obviously oil will never run out*, why do you think it would?

--
Tumbleweed

*no irony implied

Remove my socks for email address

[Keith Willoughby]

Tumbleweed wrote:

> "Keith Willoughby" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Socialism is based on the common ownership of the means of production,
>> and an equitable distribution of capital and resources. If you're
>> predisposed against it, you'll call that "big taxation and big
>> government spending".
>
> Since a major means of production is nowadays people brains, does that mean
> socialists propose to nationalise brains?

"From each according to ability, to each according to need" implies
working for the common good, yes.

> And who decides "equitable"? Is it me? Or someone else? If you're a resource
> because of your brain, who distributes it and what if you dont like it? Off
> to the gulag?

Pretty much, yes. I'm not defending it. I was explaining a part of it.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Leave it, he's not worth it

[Tumbleweed]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:48:34 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote in message
> >:
>
> >Annual revenues generated by the Government from motorists total £42bn
> >Annual Expenditure on roads (2002) £4bn S2
>
> Annual expenditure on policing?

Minimal (compared to 38 billion) its just a few extra cars on the roads, an
dspeed cameras which seemingly pay for themselves as they seem to be placed
where they gain most revenue not most savings in reducing accidents.

> Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?

Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service (4,000
deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for the maths)

lets say each crash costs £50,000 on average , (some will be major ops, some
a few hours in hosp), thats only £2.5Bn.

> Annual expenditure on revenue collection?

Minimal its all done by the oil companies you are scraping the barrel here
:-)

> Annual cost of the national debt run up building the roads?

Dunno but its been paid for by the tax excess many times over, thats a
?£30Bn excess every year, not just in one year.

> Annual cost of inquiries and judicial reviews of road schemes?

Minimal compared to billions. Enquiries cost only millions. So you could
have 1,000 enquiries a year that cost a million each and still only spend a
billion.

So, it all seems easily do-able out of 38 billion pounds. Probably out of 3
or 4 billion. That leaves say £35Bn that could be spent on proper bike
lanes, more and quieter bypasses, better lighting, restrictions on cars
using 'rat runs' after bypasses have been built, etc.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tony Raven]

Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
> You've never seen socialism. There's never been a socialist state bigger
> than a village.
>

Why is that? Why have all the attempts at socialism ended in dictatorship and
socialism excused itself by saying "that wasn't socialism"? Either that is
what socialism is or socialism is intrinsically unable to resist being
subverted by the power-corrupt.

Tony

[Daniel Barlow]

"Tumbleweed" > writes:

>> So more of the countryside gets torn up and covereed with tar. I
>> would consider that to be a disbenefit, and one suffered by
>> non-motorists as well as motorists. Wouldn't you?
>
> No, I'd rather an unoccupied meadow, which might not be a meadow (nice use
> of emotive description there) but a field with GM crops in it, has traffic
> roaring through it than a village, where the people are.

If the cars were not present at all, there would be no need to build a
second road through the village /or/ through the countryside (which
you seem to have arbitrarily decided is a meadow - this would be
easier if you'd stick to reading what I actually /said/ and not what
you fondly imagine I said).

I would describe the need to build extra roads as a disbenefit of
motoring, and one that affects non-motorists as well as motorists.

> Thats an issue of construction that can be fixed if you want to spend the
> money. Plenty left over from the money taken in motoring related taxes.

So the occupants of the village bypassed by the bypass now have to
spend extra money to reduce the deletorious effect of a road that
they're not even using. Disbenefit. To people not using that road

> You have to balance the benefits and disbenefits. Given the alternative
> seems to be a divided in two village with people being run over (as per this
> thread), I go for the one that removes that and needs curtains. Though the
> road neednt have lighting either, or it could have better designed lighting
> that didnt have this problem.

At least you admit that there are disbenefits. The original post to
which I was responding (not yours) claimed that the disbenefits of
private motoring applied only or chiefly to the motorists.

>> Cyclists should be on the pavement? Who are you trying to troll?
>
> I thought we were talking pedestrians. As its a local village they could

We were talking non-motorists. Given that this is uk.rec.cycling, I
think we'd be off-topic is cyclists weren't included in the discussion

>> What are you going to do when you're 85 and you fail the
>> driving eyesight test?
>
> Use an online shopping service.

Which is of course ideal when you realise that you're missing an
ingredient you need for dinner. Unless someone runs an online
shopping service with a guaranteed ten minute delivery service. I
admit I haven't checked, but I think it's unlikely outside of urban
areas.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Keith Willoughby]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Keith Willoughby wrote:
>>
>> You've never seen socialism. There's never been a socialist state bigger
>> than a village.
>>
>
> Why is that? Why have all the attempts at socialism ended in
> dictatorship and socialism excused itself by saying "that wasn't
> socialism"? Either that is what socialism is or socialism is
> intrinsically unable to resist being subverted by the power-corrupt.

If I had to guess, I'd say the latter. Democratic capitalism also seems
unable to resist being subverted by the power-corrupt, either, but it
does have the large benefits of producing reasonably efficient economies
that can feed most of its people, and has so far not needed mass slavery
in the western nations (although how much those two points have to do
with poverty and effective slavery in third-world nations would take
someone far cleverer than I to answer)

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese."
- G.K. Chesterton

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Why is that? Why have all the attempts at socialism ended in
> dictatorship and socialism excused itself by saying "that wasn't
> socialism"? Either that is what socialism is or socialism is
> intrinsically unable to resist being subverted by the power-corrupt.

Probably for the same reason that attempts at unrestrained capitalism end up
in feudalism ;-)

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Tumbleweed wrote:

> Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service
> (4,000 deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for
> the maths)

250,000 crashes involving injury, 3,000 deaths (expensive) and about ten
times that number of serious injuries.

Not all the costs are direct.

Even the uk.tosspot faq admits that the revenues don't meet the costs.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
>> Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service
>> (4,000 deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for
>> the maths)
>

Ah, but what do you mean by injury? ;-)

Tony

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:37:42 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Gawnsoft opined the
>following...
>> Not at all. They keep repairing them because they're designed only
>> for a life-span of 20-25 years (otherwise they become phenomenally
>> expensive, rather than just extremely expensive), and they get a /lot/
>> of fast, heavy traffic.
>>
>> Try running hundreds of artics up and down your nearest footpath every
>> day, and see if it lasts 20 - 25 years.
>
>But they don't last 20-25 years at all. Partly because most roads get
>dug up long before then by various utility companies. I'd bet good money
>that the A1(M) between Brampton (or thereabouts) and Grantham (or
>thereabouts) will be resurfaced long before 2022.

Resurfacing isn't a rebuild.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:41:33 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Ian G Batten opined the following...
>> 40% of people is not the same as 40% of households, unless you can show
>> that the distribution of household sizes is the same in both
>> populations. I'd be stunned if it is. I would suspect that people
>> living on their own will be disproportionately likely not to have a car,
>> and people with families will be disproportionately like to have a car.
>
>I think you'd find that the correlation was more closely tied to
>population density. Hence London and Edinburgh average ~38% and the
>country as a whole is lower. If you are in a country village somewhere,
>a car is far more essential than in a city where there are often
>supermarkets within walking distance and more regular / frequent public
>transport.

Believe it or not, utility cycling is and has been more prevalent in
rural areas than urban areas.

(It's another counter-intuitive fact.)

It is, however on a downward trend, as local rural facilites get
traded for a long haul to the nearest out-of-town supercentre.



>And if you want to get picky over the people / households thing, bear in
>mind that a significant proportion of the population is under 17 and
>thus remarkably unlikely to own a car.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:04:12 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote (more or less):

>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:48:34 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote in message
>:
>
>>Annual revenues generated by the Government from motorists total £42bn
>>Annual Expenditure on roads (2002) £4bn S2
>
>Annual expenditure on policing?

Traffic policing used to be 15% of all policing spend.

Unfortunately, nowadays it's only 5%.

>Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?
>Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
>Annual cost of the national debt run up building the roads?
>Annual cost of inquiries and judicial reviews of road schemes?

Annual cost of health impairment from air and noise pollution.

Annual cost from previously incurred health impairments from air and
noise pollution that don't heal well, quickly or at all.


>Even the uk.tosspot faq admits that the costs outweigh the revenues.

Several of the posters obviously don't believe the faqs... :-(

>In any case, none of the money raised on alcohol duty is spent on
>building better pubs.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):
>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
....
>> Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?
>
>Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service (4,000
>deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for the maths)
>
>lets say each crash costs £50,000 on average , (some will be major ops, some
>a few hours in hosp), thats only £2.5Bn.

The actual figures are available, and are much higher than this, even
if we only include those direct costs you discuss.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):
>
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>> Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
>
>Minimal its all done by the oil companies you are scraping the barrel here
>:-)

VED is collected by the oil companies?

The DVLA is run by the oil companies?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> The DVLA is run by the oil companies?

By proxy, for sure ;-)

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Tumbleweed]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> > Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service
> > (4,000 deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for
> > the maths)
>
> 250,000 crashes involving injury, 3,000 deaths (expensive) and about ten
> times that number of serious injuries.
>
> Not all the costs are direct.
>
> Even the uk.tosspot faq admits that the revenues don't meet the costs.
>

Spending on the NHs is about 50bn/annum. If 10% of nhs spending was for road
accidents that would only be 5bn. Still loads of dosh to go. Even if it was
50% (which it obviously isnt) that would still leave about 15Bn.

Perhaps you'd care to do the maths?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote (more or less):
> >
> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
> ...
> >> Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?
> >
> >Lets say there are 50,000 crashes that involve the health service (4,000
> >deaths so that seems a reasonable guess and its an easy no for the maths)
> >
> >lets say each crash costs £50,000 on average , (some will be major ops,
some
> >a few hours in hosp), thats only £2.5Bn.
>
> The actual figures are available, and are much higher than this, even
> if we only include those direct costs you discuss.
>
>
What are they then, I couldnt find them.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote (more or less):
> >
> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> >> Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
> >
> >Minimal its all done by the oil companies you are scraping the barrel
here
> >:-)
>
> VED is collected by the oil companies?

VED is minimal compared to fuel duty on petrol & diesel. About 10% I'd guess
without looking up the exact nos.


> The DVLA is run by the oil companies?
>

Trivial point, besides which its paid for by motorists if you hadnt noticed
licences cost money. Abuut £40 for a new one IIRC, and £2/year for an
ordinary one.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:04:12 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote (more or less):
>
> >On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:48:34 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote in message
> >:
> >
> >>Annual revenues generated by the Government from motorists total £42bn
> >>Annual Expenditure on roads (2002) £4bn S2
> >
> >Annual expenditure on policing?
>
> Traffic policing used to be 15% of all policing spend.
>
> Unfortunately, nowadays it's only 5%.
>
> >Annual expenditure on health service costs of crashes?
> >Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
> >Annual cost of the national debt run up building the roads?
> >Annual cost of inquiries and judicial reviews of road schemes?
>
> Annual cost of health impairment from air and noise pollution.
>
> Annual cost from previously incurred health impairments from air and
> noise pollution that don't heal well, quickly or at all.
>
>


Which are?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Jon Senior]

Gawnsoft opined the
following...
> (It's another counter-intuitive fact.)

Scary. But then that's cycling only. Public transport and walking are
still more useable in a city that in a village.

> It is, however on a downward trend, as local rural facilites get
> traded for a long haul to the nearest out-of-town supercentre.

Usually on cycle-unfriendly roads, with few footpaths or cycle networks
to reach them. Perhaps it should be part of the "goodwill gestures" that
form planning permission applications. "We will provide and maintain a
cycle path to our new store from the centre of town."

Jon

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:32:13 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):
>"Gawnsoft" wrote
>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed" wrote (more or less):
>> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote
>> >> Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
>> >
>> >Minimal its all done by the oil companies you are scraping the barrel
>here
>> >:-)
>>
>> VED is collected by the oil companies?
>
>VED is minimal compared to fuel duty on petrol & diesel. About 10% I'd guess
>without looking up the exact nos.
>
>> The DVLA is run by the oil companies?
>
>Trivial point,

Hmm?

You claim all revenue collection is done by the oil companies.
This is demonstrated to be untrue.
Your response is that this is trivial?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Tumbleweed]

"Gawnsoft" > wrote in
message ...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:32:13 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> > wrote (more or less):
> >"Gawnsoft" wrote
> >> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:48:05 +0100, "Tumbleweed" wrote (more or less):
> >> >"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote
> >> >> Annual expenditure on revenue collection?
> >> >
> >> >Minimal its all done by the oil companies you are scraping the barrel
> >here
> >> >:-)
> >>
> >> VED is collected by the oil companies?
> >
> >VED is minimal compared to fuel duty on petrol & diesel. About 10% I'd
guess
> >without looking up the exact nos.
> >
> >> The DVLA is run by the oil companies?
> >
> >Trivial point,
>
> Hmm?
>
> You claim all revenue collection is done by the oil companies.
> This is demonstrated to be untrue.
> Your response is that this is trivial?
>


I agree I was wrong, but the point is trivial, ie the cost of collection of
VED is very low compared to the overall revenue of 42Bn. Thats the important
point.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Tumbleweed wrote:

>> Even the uk.tosspot faq admits that the revenues don't meet the
>> costs.

> Spending on the NHs is about 50bn/annum. If 10% of nhs spending was
> for road accidents that would only be 5bn. Still loads of dosh to go.
> Even if it was 50% (which it obviously isnt) that would still leave
> about 15Bn.

> Perhaps you'd care to do the maths?

Whyt should I? The suggestion that road revenues do not cover the costs of
road transport to the economy is not mine, after all.

And none of the alcohol duty levied is spent on better pubs.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:52:06 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> wrote (more or less):

>I agree I was wrong, but the point is trivial, ie the cost of collection of
>VED is very low compared to the overall revenue of 42Bn. Thats the important
>point.

The point at issue is : what is the total cost of revenue collection,
and how does the cost of VED collection compare as a proportion.

May be trivial, may not be.


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk