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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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...!