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
Well to me, its quite simple; can our society function without private motor transport?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes! It just requires a bit of innovative thinking, and behavioural change.

I'm not convinced it's really necessary though, and I don't think anyone has said that either.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CretinCan 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?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nope, not off the top of my head. Doesn't mean that it is an impossibility though. Theoretically speaking of course!

dondare · June 2007

The licence fee has nothing to do either with your level experience or how good you think you are.
Your insurance quotation does, because insurance companies penalize inexperienced or accident-prone drivers.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Unknown · June 2007

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

You're preaching to the converted here Bud!

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

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

Yep that is selfish, makes sense though!

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote
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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I completely agree. Its a shame that so many people who could commute to work by bicycle seem not to want to. I don't know what can be done about this, but in this country, punitive measures rarely have any effect.

Trust me, theres nothing I'd like to see more than loads of properly trained cyclists on the roads. Imagine the increase in fitness! We'd all be keeping up with the Jones's then!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote
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).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't think they would be. Its certainly not practical for most families to use public transport at their discretion to get anywhere interesting. With a car you just sling everything in the back and off you go - with public transport you are very much restricted in your options.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by PeyoteI 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...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think China may be fortunate in that they are rather late to the game and can learn from our experience. China however is difficult to compare with the western experience, since their populace is far more subjugated than ours.

Cretin · June 2007

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

The licence fee has nothing to do either with your level experience or how good you think you are.
Your insurance quotation does, because insurance companies penalize inexperienced or accident-prone drivers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I meant ved, not the driving licence. Apologies for the typo.

Insurance only works when people are insured - a growing problem these days, mainly unchecked by the authorities.

I'd just like to see some financial incentive for doing things right, rather than financial punishments for doing things wrong. I'm sure you know where I'm coming from. For instance, did you know that holding an advanced driving qualification from Rospa or the IAM doesn't actually give you a lower insurance quotation - and if it does, its usually from an insurance company whose basic quotes are higher?

Its a silly state of affairs.

Unknown · June 2007

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

I don't think they would be. Its certainly not practical for most families to use public transport at their discretion to get anywhere interesting. With a car you just sling everything in the back and off you go - with public transport you are very much restricted in your options.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you're right to a certain extent, public transport in this country is woefully underinvested in, but I've often been pleasantly surprised at where you can get to, and it wasn't always this way. Pre Dr Beeching the train system was brilliant for getting around, and before privatisation rural bus services weren't brilliant, but they were a lot better than now. Hopefully things will improve again as private motor vehicle ownership becomes more restrictive![;)]

Cretin · June 2007

Hey, if it wasn't for Beeching I wouldn't be able to cycle in half the places I do

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You haven't found a definition which defines a 'right' as something which is unconditional.
You've found some text which defines it in one sentence but without talking about conditionality, and then goes on to talk about a privilege in another sentence - but there is no link between the two, no implication of mutual exclusivity. Wikipedia just has a policy of listing other things that are related to a particular thing being discussed for further reading purposes, it doesn't mean "this is the OPPOSITE of...."

Since when did 'compare with' mean 'this is the opposite of' or 'this is mutually exclusive to'? It doesn't even infer that what it talks about as conditional, i.e. a privilege, is mutually exclusive to a right. You could just about infer it if it said 'Contrast this with a privilege which is conditional', but it doesn't. They quite clearly made the decision to use the word 'compare'.

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

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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You, and your fellow car-hating chums, are the ones who keep on swearing blind that you KNOW for a fact the legal definition of a right includes that it is unconditional - HOW do you know this? I'm saying that if you're that sure, show me a reason to believe it is not just what you WANT to be the case!

dondare · June 2007

The VED already has a scale that is based on emissions. Including another variable would increase the cost of implementing it.

If it wasn't for Beeching the railways would be in better shape and there'd be less motor traffic on the roads. Perhaps.

"When Dr. Beeching took the Axe,
And gave BR those mighty whacks,
A wond'rous gift came (free of tax),
To all who love to walk the tracks."

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cretin · June 2007

If it did increase the cost of the disc, I'd have no problem paying since it may well help reduce casualties on our roads - and thats what we all want?

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

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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You haven't found a definition which defines a 'right' as something which is unconditional.
You've found some text which defines it in one sentence but without talking about conditionality, and then goes on to talk about a privilege in another sentence - but there is no link between the two, no implication of mutual exclusivity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, there is.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Wikipedia just has a policy of listing other things that are related to a particular thing being discussed for further reading purposes, it doesn't mean "this is the OPPOSITE of...."

Since when did 'compare with' mean 'this is the opposite of' or 'this is mutually exclusive to'? It doesn't even infer
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> imply, you ignoramus <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
that what it talks about as conditional, i.e. a privilege, is mutually exclusive to a right. You could just about infer it if it said 'Contrast this with a privilege which is conditional', but it doesn't. They quite clearly made the decision to use the word 'compare'.

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

The wikipedia article gave references. Read them and stop trolling.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

dondare · June 2007

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

If it did increase the cost of the disc, I'd have no problem paying since it may well help reduce casualties on our roads - and thats what we all want?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There'd be more who didn't pay, and who therefore became unnacountable.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cretin · June 2007

Not unaccountable to traffic police armed with ANPR, surely?

dondare · June 2007

There'd need to be one in the back of every car.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

The wikipedia article gave references. Read them and stop trolling.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
... references that don't back up what you're saying. Is your definition of trolling 'failing to agree with you'?

dondare · June 2007

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

You, and your fellow car-hating chums, are the ones who keep on swearing blind that you KNOW for a fact the legal definition of a right includes that it is unconditional - HOW do you know this? I'm saying that if you're that sure, show me a reason to believe it is not just what you WANT to be the case!

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

If you think that a Right is something subject to licence, something that is conditional and transitory and ephemoral, what word would you use for something that isn't?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Yes it has, although I don't agree that my view is incorrect just because I may be in a minority.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So to summarise... Your minority view is balanced, but the majority view here (which is one generally unsympathetic towards bad motoring) is somehow unbalanced?

I know, I'm being harsh here, but can you see where I'm coming from with this implied criticism of how you've introduced yourself to the forum?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I reiterated that point in case you think I'm trying to provoke.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So, respectfully, if you're not trying to provoke then what are you doing?

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

Which does not refute the arguments put forward here. It doesn't even address the arguments on whether or not motoring pays for itself; tell me, would our society suddenly fall to pieces if motorists had to fully pay their way?

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

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

The wikipedia article gave references. Read them and stop trolling.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
... references that don't back up what you're saying. Is your definition of trolling 'failing to agree with you'?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Trolling as in arguing for no other reason than to pass the time.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cretin · June 2007

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

There'd need to be one in the back of every car.

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There are ANPR systems on board just about every traffic car in the country. They operate continuously as the driver patrols. I have absolutely no problem with having more traffic patrols, its certainly better than the current system of enforcement.

Regulator · June 2007

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

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

There'd need to be one in the back of every car.

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There are ANPR systems on board just about every traffic car in the country. They operate continuously as the driver patrols. I have absolutely no problem with having more traffic patrols, its certainly better than the current system of enforcement.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree. The UK should have a dedicated Traffic Police, as they do in other countries. The Traffic Officers in NZ are notorious for being strict.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Mister Paul · 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 Mister Paul

It has only made places more accesable to cars than before. Your original claim was that we have cars to thank for being able to reach places that couldn't be reached before by other methods of transport. That's complete rubbish. Flower.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You don't know that, you'd just like to believe it.
Frankly I think in the strictest sense of being accessible at all, you're probably right. i.e. if it hadn't been for cars and the roads that have been built because of their widespread use, most journeys by bike would still be possible. But a lot of them would be a lot more difficult. Oh, and, contrary to another myth that I'm sure your deluded head likes to believe, the friction coefficient of a bike wheel on burgundy tarmac is no different than that of a bike wheel on black tarmac.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your original claim was that we have cars to thank for being able to reach places that couldn't be reached before by other methods of transport. That's complete rubbish. Flower.

Please show me where your response above addresses this correct statement. Where a cart can go, a bike can go.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<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
Yes it has, although I don't agree that my view is incorrect just because I may be in a minority.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So to summarise... Your minority view is balanced, but the majority view here (which is one generally unsympathetic towards bad motoring) is somehow unbalanced?

I know, I'm being harsh here, but can you see where I'm coming from with this implied criticism of how you've introduced yourself to the forum?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I am in no way sympathetic to 'bad motoring', but I do not agree that a 20mph limit is the best way to eliminate 'it'. Disagreeing with the majority in no way infers that my view on the subject is unbalanced.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
So, respectfully, if you're not trying to provoke then what are you doing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Contributing to a discussion on road safety, a subject that I find interesting? Perhaps provoke was the wrong word.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab
Which does not refute the arguments put forward here. It doesn't even address the arguments on whether or not motoring pays for itself; tell me, would our society suddenly fall to pieces if motorists had to fully pay their way?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I believe motorists more than pay their way; you do not. I don't think thats something that can be resolved without clear unbiased statistics on the matter, and I wouldn't know where to get those. I therefore rely on my educated opinion, as do you.

Mister Paul · 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">

Probably because we don't all need something to be illegal before we decide to stop doing it, if the benefits are clear.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

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

You can't prove anything to Bonj because if you show him the proof he refuses to read it, and then says that you have no proof.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

I don't think they would be. Its certainly not practical for most families to use public transport at their discretion to get anywhere interesting. With a car you just sling everything in the back and off you go - with public transport you are very much restricted in your options.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you not think that the car has a large responsibility for the poor state of public transport that we have today. And that it is possible to have a public transport system that allows us to have a comparable, though possibly less convenient in some cases, freedom?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

You, and your fellow car-hating chums, are the ones who keep on swearing blind that you KNOW for a fact the legal definition of a right includes that it is unconditional - HOW do you know this? I'm saying that if you're that sure, show me a reason to believe it is not just what you WANT to be the case!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonj

It would make things a whole lot easier for you if you saw the people talking to you for what they are. Claiming that we are all car haters, when you've been given no evidence of this, makes you look stupid and stands you on the wrong rock for your response.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Tourist Tony · June 2007

For those embroileed in LALALALALAland and Bonj the Knob, he has had the definition of of right versus licence explained many times, with strict academic references. His reply is always "But that's just what you/your mate/that judge/some stupid law think(s) and I don't agree...."
He's a toSSer out for a wind-up and has ceased being funny.
Cretin, on the other hand, is very familiar. Clippy-clop.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

<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
Yes it has, although I don't agree that my view is incorrect just because I may be in a minority.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So to summarise... Your minority view is balanced, but the majority view here (which is one generally unsympathetic towards bad motoring) is somehow unbalanced?

I know, I'm being harsh here, but can you see where I'm coming from with this implied criticism of how you've introduced yourself to the forum?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I am in no way sympathetic to 'bad motoring', but I do not agree that a 20mph limit is the best way to eliminate 'it'. Disagreeing with the majority in no way infers that my view on the subject is unbalanced.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't think anyone is being unrealistic enough to think that 20mph limits will eliminate 'it'. What they do though is to reduce the damage caused by 'it'.

Improving driving standards is the core to improving safety and the environment on and around the roads. But the fact is that this isn't going to change overnight, and measures need to be in place to manage the present risk, while things are done to improve driving.

It's no good just complaining about current measures and claiming that there is an alternative, as some do, without dealing realistically with what we have now while getting on with the improvements.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

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

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

I don't think they would be. Its certainly not practical for most families to use public transport at their discretion to get anywhere interesting. With a car you just sling everything in the back and off you go - with public transport you are very much restricted in your options.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you not think that the car has a large responsibility for the poor state of public transport that we have today. And that it is possible to have a public transport system that allows us to have a comparable, though possibly less convenient in some cases, freedom?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In both cases, categorically no.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

Its interesting how many outright lies and insults there are from you, to a new poster.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Firstly, welcome.

Secondly, apologies for asking but given the history I think the questions need to be asked...

-you say you are a new poster. Are you also a new reader, or have you lurked for a while?

-Are you really a new poster, or have you been here before under a diferent name?

-Has contact with any other internet discussion areas brought you to this forum?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories