|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
Tom Crispin wrote:
JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Well, exactly. It *isn't* true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, That's generous of you. but I do think that motoring should be severely curtailed. That's anything but generous. Cutting out the school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile of their school would be a good first step. Cutting out a workplace commute for any physically able person with a suitable public transport alternative would be a good second step. Have you always been so mean-spirited and self-serving, or is it an acquired condition? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
On 2 Sep, 18:35, Tom Crispin
wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, but I do think that motoring should be severely curtailed. *Cutting out the school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile of their school would be a good first step. *Cutting out a workplace commute for any physically able person with a suitable public transport alternative would be a good second step. If you want to go and live in North Korea then don't let us keep you |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
On Sep 2, 1:42*pm, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote: JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Well, exactly. It *isn't* true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, That's generous of you. Well we need to get the food and beer delivered. but I do think that motoring should be severely curtailed. That's anything but generous. Sounds generous to me. No more fumes, noise, eye sores of parking lots. I expect the public would be ecstatic. Cutting out the school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile of their school would be a good first step. *Cutting out a workplace commute for any physically able person with a suitable public transport alternative would be a good second step. Have you always been so mean-spirited and self-serving, or is it an acquired condition? Why? For wanting to improve health and quality of life? Most cars are a curse so a few less would be lovely. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 10:49:19 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
wrote: On 2 Sep, 18:35, Tom Crispin wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, but I do think that motoring should be severely curtailed. *Cutting out the school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile of their school would be a good first step. *Cutting out a workplace commute for any physically able person with a suitable public transport alternative would be a good second step. If you want to go and live in North Korea then don't let us keep you I already own a third share of two flats in communist China. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/su...-in-China.html One of the few regions worldwide to show a growth in property values last year (6% down from 20%+ the previous three years I have owned the flats). Unfortunately, rental income is very low. Rich Chinese prefer hotels to self-catering; poor chinese cannot afford the flight to Hainan. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, I thought the biggest study ever, over several decades, studying non-smoking spouses of smokers in the U.S., found that the secondary smoke caused _no_ increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer and only a small increased risk of getting a respiratory disease. yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. Another policy based on "common-sense" and junk-science induced hysteria, rather than sound scientific evidence perhaps? I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, No? You need a car I suppose. but I do think that motoring should be severely curtailed. Why? Cutting out the school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile of their school would be a good first step. Cutting out a workplace commute for any physically able person with a suitable public transport alternative would be a good second step. What other post industrial "mod cons" would you "curtail" the use of? Would you ban the use of washing machines in households with an able-bodied woman on hand, and with a river within half a days walking distance? -- Matt B |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, I thought the biggest study ever, over several decades, studying non-smoking spouses of smokers in the U.S., found that the secondary smoke caused _no_ increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer and only a small increased risk of getting a respiratory disease. yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. Another policy based on "common-sense" and junk-science induced hysteria, rather than sound scientific evidence perhaps? I thought it was based on the fact that smoking is filthy and stinky, and that normal, unaddicted, people don't deserve to have their clothing and other possessions (not to mention their respiratory tracts) contaminated with foul carcinogens whenever they are in a public building or workplace. The smokers had it all their way for over a hundred years. It's everyone else's century that's just started. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
JNugent wrote:
Matt B wrote: Tom Crispin wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring, I thought the biggest study ever, over several decades, studying non-smoking spouses of smokers in the U.S., found that the secondary smoke caused _no_ increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer and only a small increased risk of getting a respiratory disease. yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited. Another policy based on "common-sense" and junk-science induced hysteria, rather than sound scientific evidence perhaps? I thought it was based on the fact that smoking is filthy and stinky, and that normal, unaddicted, people don't deserve to have their clothing and other possessions (not to mention their respiratory tracts) contaminated with foul carcinogens whenever they are in a public building or workplace. I don't think so - that sounds too rational a reason to be true. ;-) The smokers had it all their way for over a hundred years. It's everyone else's century that's just started. The start of the slippery slope? -- Matt B |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
JNugent writes:
Tom Crispin wrote: JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Well, exactly. It *isn't* true. OK, so how about the line "Motoring cannot in general be considered a 'safe' activity by a reasonable person"? I don't think there's much purpose in discussing what the criminally insane or senile might consider safe or unsafe, so let's amend Tom's claim to exclude them. I think that the legal requirement for motorists to demonstrate competence to drive, and the regulatory burden associated with it in general, is prima facie evidence that successive governments at least don't think the practice is intrinsically safe. What do you think? It's more regulated than the use of knives or keeping of Dangerous Dogs, less regulated than the use of shotguns - would you say that's a fair reflection of the risk involved? -dan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes: Tom Crispin wrote: JNugent wrote: But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely. Not if it is true. Well, exactly. It *isn't* true. OK, so how about the line "Motoring cannot in general be considered a 'safe' activity by a reasonable person"? That's not different. Don't tell me you also are a creation of Doug. I don't think there's much purpose in discussing what the criminally insane or senile might consider safe or unsafe, so let's amend Tom's claim to exclude them. I think that the legal requirement for motorists to demonstrate competence to drive, and the regulatory burden associated with it in general, is prima facie evidence that successive governments at least don't think the practice is intrinsically safe. Neither is the removal of tonsils or an inflamed appendix - except by someone suitably trained and qualified. So medical treatment is also not safe according to your "logic". So is nothing safe unless an untrained and unqualified person can do it? I can see where you're coming from with that... What do you think? It's more regulated than the use of knives or keeping of Dangerous Dogs, less regulated than the use of shotguns - would you say that's a fair reflection of the risk involved? Much of the regulation *is* to do with ensuring safety. Much of it isn't. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:43:54 +0100, Matt B
wrote: What other post industrial "mod cons" would you "curtail" the use of? 100 watt light bulbs. Oh...! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Have you ever been fined or stopped for pavement cycling? | bornfree | UK | 69 | February 10th 08 12:52 AM |
Jeremy bloody Vine | Paul Boyd | UK | 22 | March 6th 07 06:35 PM |
Jeremy Vine - Radio 2 NOW | Paul Boyd | UK | 5 | August 2nd 06 08:36 AM |
Jeremy Vine TODAY | wafflycat | UK | 19 | June 23rd 06 06:53 PM |
Vine forum | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 3 | November 12th 04 07:34 PM |