Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Personally I don't see that people should have a 'need' to use private motor transport. For myself its an enjoyable pasttime just to drive a car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree, but people who do enjoy using private vehicle, rather than just needing to, should be aware of the consequences of their actions, and the limitations this may pose on other users of the road. I.e. I imagine you wouldn't want to go for a drive on the North Circular at rush-hour, but for the sake of argument lets say you did! I would expect you to be aware that you were unecessarily contributing to congestion, pollution, etc. and to accept responsibility for the negative impacts that your behaviour would cause.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Its very difficult to take a complex equation like modern society and attempt to estimate the impact of various technological advances on social wellbeing - but I think its irrefutable that without the internal combustion engine our society as it exists today would be completely unsustainable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is a difficult impact to quantify, especially with regard to one specific technological development in the middle of so many others. Our society as it exists today is based on the engine, so, no it wouldn't exist (let alone be sustainable) without the engine. It's a bit self-fulfilling really!

We don't know what it would be like (without the engine), but I'm willing to believe that it would be more sustainable than the society we currently have. We certainly can't sustain our current behaviour for much longer!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Many people would say that the guns are unnecessary and that they should never have been invented - but without their invention and the need to improve their accuracy and reliability, the industrial revolution might never have happened with the speed or magnitude it did.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

War does seem to be a great way of encouraging innovation anyway. As for guns, that probably warrants another thread.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
[

Nope, invalid. Try again. It doesn't back up what you're trying to say.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked."

Your driving licence and your VED can both be conferred and revoked and driving is therefore a prvilege which is distinct from a right.

What is there here that you can now pretend that you don't understand?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

"In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked."

Your driving licence and your VED can both be conferred and revoked and driving is therefore a prvilege which is distict from a right.

What is there here that you can now pretend that you don't understand?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It says compare with privilege, which can be conferred and revoked. It doesn't say contrast. It doesn't say that a right CAN'T POSSIBLY be something that can be revoked.
Just because a privilege IS something which can be revoked, it doesn't mean a right ISN'T. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
It says compare with privilege, which can be conferred and revoked. It doesn't say contrast. It doesn't say that a right CAN'T POSSIBLY be something that can be revoked.
Just because a privilege IS something which can be revoked, it doesn't mean a right ISN'T. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You know those straws you're clutching at? Just quit it.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

What is there here that you can now pretend that you don't understand?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The issue is not, and never has been, that I don't understand. The issue is with the fact that you are unable to accept the difference between what you have always believed to be the case, and what is actually the case.

The Bosscp · June 2007

Back to the original subject, why have the spent all this taxpayer's money on merely requesting drivers if they wouldn't mind please only going 20mph?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Back to the original subject, why have the spent all this taxpayer's money on merely requesting drivers if they wouldn't mind please only going 20mph?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It could be that they're planning on introducing byelaws to make them enforcable.

Or maybe they're relying on the fact that most drivers don't know they aren't enforcable.

Who knows?!

Have you tried e-mailing them to ask?

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

What is there here that you can now pretend that you don't understand?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The issue is not, and never has been, that I don't understand. The issue is with the fact that you are unable to accept the difference between what you have always believed to be the case, and what is actually the case.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
God you're thick.
The problem is that you don't understand, because you're stupid; or that you're pretending that you don't understand. Because you're stupid.
A right is something that you don't need a licence for.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I don't care to name them but its fairly obvious to anybody with an open mind that the overall attitude in this thread is hardly encouraging of the use of a private motor car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its a cycling forum. The tone and overall attitude here is rarely encouraging of the use of private motor cars, because this forum isn't about the use of private motor cars. If you're looking for something that is thus encouraging, look elsewhere.

Few comments here are directly negative about motoring per se, but driving antisocially or dangerously will be generally criticised. What, precisely, do you expect from a forum full of people who are in a demographic more likely to suffer at the hands of such dangerous or antisocial driving than others?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Personally I don't see that people should have a 'need' to use private motor transport. For myself its an enjoyable pasttime just to drive a car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fine. I would prefer the cost of that passtime to correctly reflect the environmental, social and economic cost it incurs. That seems reasonable. I don't ask others to pick up the tab for what I do, I don't see why that shouldn't be applied to motorists. It has been convincingly demonstrated here that motoring does not pay its way; if you disagree with my preference then please explain why said demonstration is incorrect.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PeyoteI imagine you wouldn't want to go for a drive on the North Circular at rush-hour, but for the sake of argument lets say you did! I would expect you to be aware that you were unecessarily contributing to congestion, pollution, etc. and to accept responsibility for the negative impacts that your behaviour would cause.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No I wouldn't go for a drive on a congested road, there'd be no pleasure in doing so

I would however expect to be able to use that road in the pursuit of my personal needs free from state inteference based on what is, in my opinion, political dogma.

rothbook · June 2007

Cretin, to pop up on a CYCLING website, claim an attitude exists but refuse to provide evidence for and then start whining and snivelling that the CYCLING website doesn't promote cars. is asinine, cretinous and tediously dull.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

God you're thick.
The problem is that you don't understand, because you're stupid; or that you're pretending that you don't understand. Because you're stupid.
A right is something that you don't need a licence for.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you've given up all attempts at proving it, and just gone back to stating it. It's not true, then, is it.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
Its a cycling forum. The tone and overall attitude here is rarely encouraging of the use of private motor cars, because this forum isn't about the use of private motor cars. If you're looking for something that is thus encouraging, look elsewhere.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Many cyclists also hold driving licences, so I would actually expect a more balanced opinion than say, those motorists who do not cycle.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
Few comments here are directly negative about motoring per se, but driving antisocially or dangerously will be generally criticised. What, precisely, do you expect from a forum full of people who are in a demographic more likely to suffer at the hands of such dangerous or antisocial driving than others?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I myself am part of that demographic.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cretin
Personally I don't see that people should have a 'need' to use private motor transport. For myself its an enjoyable pasttime just to drive a car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fine. I would prefer the cost of that passtime to correctly reflect the environmental, social and economic cost it incurs. That seems reasonable. I don't ask others to pick up the tab for what I do, I don't see why that shouldn't be applied to motorists. It has been convincingly demonstrated here that motoring does not pay its way; if you disagree with my preference then please explain why said demonstration is incorrect.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I disagree - I think that the motorist per se contributes more than his fair share to these malefics, especially when you consider the economic benefits of private motoring to our society over the last century.

I'm massively in favour of fewer vehicles on the road - I'd love to see more cyclists as it would help engender respect from motorists to those of us who already use a bicycle - but I think the best way of doing this is to first improve driver standards. How you do this is perhaps another argument, but I do not think that 20mph limits will have any affect on overall road safety for anybody.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

Cretin, to pop up on a CYCLING website, claim an attitude exists but refuse to provide evidence for and then start whining and snivelling that the CYCLING website doesn't promote cars. is asinine, cretinous and tediously dull.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its interesting how many outright lies and insults there are from you, to a new poster.

I think I'll just be ignoring you from now on, since you have little to contribute to an interesting discussion.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

God you're thick.
The problem is that you don't understand, because you're stupid; or that you're pretending that you don't understand. Because you're stupid.
A right is something that you don't need a licence for.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you've given up all attempts at proving it, and just gone back to stating it. It's not true, then, is it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
No I wouldn't go for a drive on a congested road, there'd be no pleasure in doing so

I would however expect to be able to use that road in the pursuit of my personal needs free from state inteference based on what is, in my opinion, political dogma.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well I suspect this is the sticking point then. Your 'political dogma' may be another persons 'reasonable control'. To take an example from this thread, the 20mph speed limit. To some they are a way of controlling the motorist for political and/or financial ends, to others they provide controls that help safeguard human life, health and the environment.

I guess it's all about point of view, and being sufficiently aware of all the issues involved to be able to support that point of view.

rothbook · June 2007

You claimed an attitude exists.

You were asked for evidence.

You refused to provide any.

You're either a troll or a complete idiot, why be so offensive from the off?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote
Well I suspect this is the sticking point then. Your 'political dogma' may be another persons 'reasonable control'. To take an example from this thread, the 20mph speed limit. To some they are a way of controlling the motorist for political and/or financial ends, to others they provide controls that help safeguard human life, health and the environment.

I guess it's all about point of view, and being sufficiently aware of all the issues involved to be able to support that point of view.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I believe they are a system of control, but overall not actually a beneficial system of control, and certainly not as a method of reducing casualties in a particular area. I believe that road safety is best served by improved driver training. Myself, I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

I fully understand why speed limits have become such a hot topic - but as someone who loves both driving and cycling, I think I have a fairly balanced view on the subject.

rothbook · June 2007

Why do you think the DFT are wrong cretin?

Research
The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) reviewed results from 250 zones in England, Wales and Scotland. The outcome is described in TRL Report 215 - "Review of Traffic Calming Schemes in 20 mph zones". The main findings indicated that average speeds reduced by 9 mph, annual accident frequency fell by 60%, the overall reduction in child accidents was 67%, and there was an overall reduction in accidents to cyclists of 29%. Traffic flow in the zones was reduced by 27%, but flows on the surrounding boundary roads increased by 12%. There was generally little accident migration to surrounding roads.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... age=3#1001

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I think that the motorist per se contributes more than his fair share to these malefics, especially when you consider the economic benefits of private motoring to our society over the last century.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you're probably wrong here, especially as we are only now beginning to see the long term effects of excessive private vehicle use.

I think you may have a point from a historical perspective, the jobs the car industry has created, the road network has enabled goods to be tranpsorted farther and faster, new markets have opened up etc. But unfortunately along with the increased road network has come increased deaths, increased isolation for those (communities as well as single persons) who don't own private motor vehicles, increased pollution, erosion of local resources, homogenisation of economic markets, reduction in choice of travel options, increasingly sedentary society leading to knock-on health effects. The list goes on, with the majority of the newly realised and recognised impacts being negative.

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Many cyclists also hold driving licences, so I would actually expect a more balanced opinion than say,a those motorists who do not cycle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Had it occurred to you that the prevailing view is the balanced one, and that you have perhaps misjudged? If, rationally, this one should be the balanced one, perhaps your view is simply incorrect?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I myself am part of that demographic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

...and?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I disagree - I think that the motorist per se contributes more than his fair share to these malefics, especially when you consider the economic benefits of private motoring to our society over the last century.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then follow your argument up by refuting the arguments put forward in this discussion to the contrary. I'm not taking a stand here, but at present there is a well constructed argument against your opinion, and all you've done is say 'no, that ain't so'.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

rothbook · June 2007

Private motoring is a massive drain on the economy. Congestion alone costs œ400 million a year, according to those tree hugging hippies, errr, the CBI.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> all you've done is say 'no, that ain't so'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Or flatly refuse to offer a shred of evidence for the claim in Cretin's very fist post...

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I believe they are a system of control, but overall not actually a beneficial system of control, and certainly not as a method of reducing casualties in a particular area. I believe that road safety is best served by improved driver training. Myself, I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.

I fully understand why speed limits have become such a hot topic - but as someone who loves both driving and cycling, I think I have a fairly balanced view on the subject.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd agree with your point on driving training, it would be nice if standards were improved, but I also think it's only part of the bigger picture, especially when we have so many drivers currently using the roads who aren't (or don't appear to be!) sufficiently trained. To control these there has to be rules, including speed limits (however blunt that approach may appear to be to some of the more highly trained motorists!).

I've yet to be convinced that speed limits don't work as part of a package of measures designed to control the roads and make them safer.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote
I think you're probably wrong here, especially as we are only now beginning to see the long term effects of excessive private vehicle use.

I think you may have a point from a historical perspective, the jobs the car industry has created, the road network has enabled goods to be tranpsorted farther and faster, new markets have opened up etc. But unfortunately along with the increased road network has come increased deaths, increased isolation for those (communities as well as single persons) who don't own private motor vehicles, increased pollution, erosion of local resources, homogenisation of economic markets, reduction in choice of travel options, increasingly sedentary society leading to knock-on health effects. The list goes on, with the majority of the newly realised and recognised impacts being negative.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I agree, I have a reasonably busy B-road only 100 yards or so from my back gate. It has already claimed the lives of one of my cats. Its noisier when its been raining. Most of us would prefer not to live near a road, but we also recognise that without that road we likely wouldn't have a job - even if you cycle to work, many others do not.

Lets not forget the remarkable freedoms we now have because of the internal combustion engine - freedom to shop where we like. Freedom to travel anywhere we please. Freedom to go and climb a mountain, or visit a park. Freedom to visit distant relatives. Freedom to move far away from relatives we don't like!

I don't have the statistics to hand but I would guess that there is a strong correlation between the advancement of a society's well-being (China for example) and industrialisation, of which private motor vehicle use would seem to be an inherent feature.

rothbook · June 2007

None of those freedoms are dependent on the car. You are extremely blinkered!

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

God you're thick.
The problem is that you don't understand, because you're stupid; or that you're pretending that you don't understand. Because you're stupid.
A right is something that you don't need a licence for.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you've given up all attempts at proving it, and just gone back to stating it. It's not true, then, is it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How can I prove anything to you if you don't know the meanings of the words that I use or understand the concepts that I'm trying to explain? Either your stupidity, or your ignorance or your plain bloody-mindedness makes it impossible.
YOU prove me wrong. I have found a definition of the word "right" and you won't accept it. O.K. then find a definition that you will accept and cite it.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
Had it occurred to you that the prevailing view is the balanced one, and that you have perhaps misjudged? If, rationally, this one should be the balanced one, perhaps your view is simply incorrect?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes it has, although I don't agree that my view is incorrect just because I may be in a minority.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cretin<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I myself am part of that demographic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

...and?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I reiterated that point in case you think I'm trying to provoke.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CabThen follow your argument up by refuting the arguments put forward in this discussion to the contrary. I'm not taking a stand here, but at present there is a well constructed argument against your opinion, and all you've done is say 'no, that ain't so'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well to me, its quite simple; can our society function without private motor transport?

Can you think of any other country where people have the same living standards as we enjoy, but who do not have access to a car?

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I agree, I have a reasonably busy B-road only 100 yards or so from my back gate. It has already claimed the lives of one of my cats. Its noisier when its been raining. Most of us would prefer not to live near a road, but we also recognise that without that road we likely wouldn't have a job - even if you cycle to work, many others do not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have no issue with living next to a road, and I recognise that not everyone can live without a car. I'm trying to explain that the economic impact of car-culture is self-fulfilling and ultimatly unsustainable. IF it continues at the rate it's going at the moment and other alternatives aren't invested in and used, and behavioural changs don't happen then we're going to end up in a very sorry state. That's all.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Lets not forget the remarkable freedoms we now have because of the internal combustion engine - freedom to shop where we like. Freedom to travel anywhere we please. Freedom to go and climb a mountain, or visit a park. Freedom to visit distant relatives. Freedom to move far away from relatives we don't like!

I don't have the statistics to hand but I would guess that there is a strong correlation between the advancement of a society's well-being (China for example) and industrialisation, of which private motor vehicle use would seem to be an inherent feature.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As Rothbrook said, all these freedoms are available/would still be available without private motor vehicles. Interestingly, as more people get hold of private motor vehicles, the more these freedoms are curtailed (the old congestion conundrum rears it's head).

I suspect you're right that there is a strong correlation between societal advancement and industrialisation/private motor vehicle use, but that doesn't mean that one cannot happen without the other! (personally speaking I'm not sure that level of industrialistaion is advancement anyway!) It also doesn't mean that decades down the line China will suddenly have the same problems we have had and are going to have, but on a far, far bigger scale. I hope they think that it'll be worth it...

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'd agree with your point on driving training, it would be nice if standards were improved, but I also think it's only part of the bigger picture, especially when we have so many drivers currently using the roads who aren't (or don't appear to be!) sufficiently trained. To control these there has to be rules, including speed limits (however blunt that approach may appear to be to some of the more highly trained motorists!).

I've yet to be convinced that speed limits don't work as part of a package of measures designed to control the roads and make them safer.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think improving driver standards and training should be absolutely central to any road safety policy, I think it is the most important aspect of road safety.

I'd quite like to see a legal enforcement of a reduced licence fee, or insurance quotation, based on the skills a driver has, and his committment to retaining those skills through regular retesting. But you can call me selfish in that regard

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories