The demise of the school run

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.

QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.

"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

--
Simon Mason

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go to http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:53:14 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go to http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.


Well done Mr Nugent - I started exactly the same analysis - but you are way
ahead of me.

I sometimes wonder why more people here do not look in to these claims which on
the face of it seem to be quite unlikely - they just repeat then and that must
make it true.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:53:14 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go to http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.

Your rant is almost as glorious as Nuxxy's rants. Well done!

On 19/08/2011 19:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:53:14 +0100,
wrote:

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper reportwww.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go tohttp://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.

Your rant is almost as glorious as Nuxxy's rants. Well done!

If what I have written contains any inaccuracies or non-sequiturs, you will
be able to point them out.

You will also no doubt be able to explain how bullying (or attempting to
bully) people out of their chosen travel mode constitutes "giving them choice".

On 19/08/2011 19:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:53:14 +0100,
wrote:

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper reportwww.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go tohttp://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.

Your rant is almost as glorious as Nuxxy's rants. Well done!

Clearly there speaks someone who believes any statistical claim made in
newspapers. Well, here's some news for you. Just about ALL such claims
never stand up to scrutiny once you look at the source data. No matter
what is trying to be claimed, a healthy dose of skepticism is a good
thing. Even more so when the so-called news source is actually nothing
more than a press release from a body (private
company/charity/council/government) who has some "agenda".

I didn't look at the source data, but immediately was very suspicious
about the initial claim.

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:32:30 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:53:14 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm

70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we
then go to http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in the
country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car, compared to 73%
nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking justified
pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging consumer /
citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style, it
immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport policies
encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as walking,
cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or even a
bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of these
consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these "policies"
which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives, you see. No, I
don't know where they think they get off either.

This must be the bit referred to, though: "Walking (50%) and travel by
car/taxi (31%) are the most popular modes of transport to school for
Hertfordshire pupils, with bus accounting for 11% of pupils. 69% of 5 to 16
year olds travel to school by a sustainable mode".

Now, if 100% - 69% of schoolchildren don't travel by an apparently
"sustainable mode", they must mean that the 31% who are apparently taken by
car or taxi are the ones travelling by an "non-sustainable" mode.

But hang on... why is the bus (or is that "passenger transport"?)
"sustainable" (whatever that may mean) but a car or taxi not? Do they not all
rely on fossil fuels? If one is sustainable, the others must also be. But
simple logic clearly isn't the long suit of interfering councils.

Wisely, the creators of the document move quickly past that little fib,
although perhaps interestingly, two descriptions are used in one thought
without their being distinguished: "Hertfordshire pupils" and "5-16 yr olds".

But then, a little further back up the page, we had come to a quite
astounding lie:

"Hertfordshire County Council is committed to improving travel choice for
everybody".

Oh no, it *isn't*. Not unless it has a new definition of "choice" which means
something quite different from the dictionary definition.

But wait a moment... "the demise of the school run"?

There must be something in the document to suggest that 31% of schoolchildren
going to school by car or taxi is a reduction on last year (or any previous
years)... right?

Wrong. There is no such claim made.

Well, not unless you count this bit: "According to latest figures in the
Herts County Council’s traffic and transport data report for 2010 almost 70
per cent of children no longer travel to school by car", which either means
that 100% of all Hertfordshire's children used to go to school by car, or is
a blatant lie.

I know which one I think it is. But it apparently fooled at least one poster.

Your rant is almost as glorious as Nuxxy's rants. Well done!


Yes - it is appalling when someone goes to the trouble to show how wrong the
previous poster's utterings were.

On 19/08/2011 20:36, Mark O'Knee wrote:

I didn't look at the source data,

Ah, another that can 'never stand up to scrutiny'

Next !

On 19/08/2011 17:53, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm


70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report
www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we then go to
http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in
the country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car,
compared to 73% nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking
justified pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging
consumer / citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style,
it immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport
policies encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as
walking, cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or
even a bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost
missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of
these consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these
"policies" which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives,
you see. No, I don't know where they think they get off either.

So, if the council have 'initiatives' that mean that the 'consumer
choice' is against high cost car ownership and allows lower cost
alternatives, what's your complaint?

On 20/08/2011 00:48, Jim Newman wrote:
On 19/08/2011 17:53, JNugent wrote:
On 19/08/2011 16:17, Simon Mason wrote:

A massive 70% no longer use their car to ferry their children to
school in the county of Hertfordshire.
QUOTE:
"The report also praises residents for meeting their ‘green’ targets
for walking, cycling and using public transport – with the number of
bicycle journeys up by 11 per cent. Cllr Stuart Pile (Con Hatfield
South), executive member for highways and transport, said:
"Hertfordshire’s a busy county with lots of traffic on our roads and
it’s encouraging to see people are exploring alternatives to car
travel.
"It’s vital that more and more people do walk, cycle or use public
transport as our population grows. "It’s not just about easing
congestion. Getting our children walking and cycling to school is
great exercise for them.
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...l-19082011.htm



70% of what?

Let's see...

Taking the link posted in the newspaper report
www.hertsdirect.org/ttdr, we then go to
http://www.hertsdirect.org/docs/pdf/h/htf2010.pdf.

And what does that tell us about it?

Well, not much of any value.

But it does make a reasonable start by making two good news bull points:

(a) "Hertfordshire has one of the highest car/ van ownership levels in
the country. 82% of Hertfordshire residents have access to a car,
compared to 73% nationally.

(b) "The car is the most popular mode of travel in Hertfordshire".

So far, so good: the council seems to be recognising and taking
justified pleasure in the affluence of its residents and acknowledging
consumer / citizen choice, doesn't it?

But after that promising start, in true "we always know better" style,
it immediately starts to falter: "However the Council’s transport
policies encourage the use of more sustainable means of travel such as
walking, cycling and passenger transport".

There's a nice little touch there, in trying to claim that a car (or
even a bike) isn't a form of "passenger transport". I bet you almost
missed it, eh?

Of course, no explanation is given as to what on God's Earth any of
these consumer choices have to do with the council. It just has these
"policies" which it "thinks" entitle it to interfere in private lives,
you see. No, I don't know where they think they get off either.

So, if the council have 'initiatives' that mean that the 'consumer choice' is
against high cost car ownership and allows lower cost alternatives, what's
your complaint?

"Consumer choice" is indicated by 82% of Hertfordshire residents having
access to a car. They are *hardly* likely to want not to travel by car.

IOW, you are making a nonsensical attempt at a point.

But you knew that. And you were trying to make bricks without straw. Weren't you?