Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Perhaps even some evidence as to the notion that imperial college have been nominated official responsibility for publishing the correct legal definitions of such terms like 'rights' and 'privileges' - but no, I doubt it will be forthcoming...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Deja vu.......

A bit like the other thread where you denied any evidence existed of SafeSpeed's condoning illegal alteration of number plates, and then when the proof was provided spent the next few pages avoiding request for comments on the evidence?ing requests to comment.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

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

Then you're making a fundamental mistake. The current public transport situation is based on need. The need is low because of private transport.

Can you not understand that?

And why do you not think that public transport can be successful?

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

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Oh yes, YES! - a ray of sunshine emerging from the horizon, a golden glimmer of hope, a vision of the promised land!
It's obviously evident that within the next few weeks we are to be visited from above and delivered from evil as the entire country is basqued in a cool blue aura of 20mph speed limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Basqued
?

Shouldn't this be on the "Girls in Lycra thread?

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

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

Better to reduce the occurance of 'it' than to mitigate the effects IMO.

By every measure driving standards are worsening across the board - I don't believe any improvements are being made, much to my regret.

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

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

I've lurked for a while. As to your other questions I don't see the relevance to my arguments. If you want to do a little witch-hunt feel free, just don't expect me to participate.

dondare · June 2007

Cretin, your posts aren't trollish but your name is, what kind of reception were you hoping for when you chose it?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

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

Better to reduce the occurance of 'it' than to mitigate the effects IMO.

By every measure driving standards are worsening across the board - I don't believe any improvements are being made, much to my regret.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You didn't read my post. I'll simplify it-

What do you do in the mean time?

BTW -sorry, but you do sound ever so familiar. Are you sure we don't know you?

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

Cunobelin · June 2007

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

Apart from the majority who don't have this freedom. A little egocentric?

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister PaulThen you're making a fundamental mistake. The current public transport situation is based on need. The need is low because of private transport.

Can you not understand that?

And why do you not think that public transport can be successful?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again with the subtle insults. Its not a very good debating tactic.

Public transport cannot ever be successful because it cannot be tailored to suit the needs of everybody. Perhaps if our society regressed 30 years to a time where everybody had roughly the same hours, where Saturday shopping was only a half day, and where everything was closed on a Sunday - but this isn't going to happen.

I'm self employed, as are a very large number of people in this country. It is impossible for me to use any form of public transport.

My neighbour works at the hospital 2 miles away. There is no direct route from the nearest bus stop to that hospital - he would have to change twice, which changes a 5 minute journey to a 30 minute journey.

He could go by bicycle if he wanted, but he doesn't want. I wish he would, because its what I'd do - however I wouldn't presume to restrict his freedoms to try and get him to think the way I do.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
You didn't read my post. I'll simplify it-

What do you do in the mean time?

BTW -sorry, but you do sound ever so familiar. Are you sure we don't know you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Another subtle insult. I did read your post, and I've already told you what we do in the mean time - we increase the number of traffic patrols on our roads. If a government can enact a ban on handguns in a matter of months, or a severe restriction in civil rights (post 11/9/01) in the same time frame, I'm fairly certain it can also act to save some of the 3500 deaths we suffer annually. So I would like to see improvements in driving standards, through better training.

Somehow I can't see it happening though, its probably not very newsworthy.

Regulator · June 2007

Just to settle the argument:

A fundamental right is something that is not granted by the state, but which arises from social mores and is immutable (e.g. a human right). Fundamental rights cannot be revoked, but may be derogated from under certain conditions (for example see the derogations in the Human Rights Act 1998) and only in the wider interest.

There are also conditional rights (often referred to as privileges). These are granted by the state and can be revoked. A driving license is a conditional right - it is granted by the state and can be revoked if you don't stick to the rules.

Fundamental rights do not carry obligations on the individual - other than to respect the same rights for other individuals.

Conditional rights normally carry obligations (hence the use of 'conditional') - you can have a driving license but in order to do so you must pass a test, keep to the rules of the road, etc.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

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 Mister PaulThen you're making a fundamental mistake. The current public transport situation is based on need. The need is low because of private transport.

Can you not understand that?

And why do you not think that public transport can be successful?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again with the subtle insults. Its not a very good debating tactic.

Public transport cannot ever be successful because it cannot be tailored to suit the needs of everybody. Perhaps if our society regressed 30 years to a time where everybody had roughly the same hours, where Saturday shopping was only a half day, and where everything was closed on a Sunday - but this isn't going to happen.

I'm self employed, as are a very large number of people in this country. It is impossible for me to use any form of public transport.

My neighbour works at the hospital 2 miles away. There is no direct route from the nearest bus stop to that hospital - he would have to change twice, which changes a 5 minute journey to a 30 minute journey.

He could go by bicycle if he wanted, but he doesn't want. I wish he would, because its what I'd do - however I wouldn't presume to restrict his freedoms to try and get him to think the way I do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No need to get defensive, there is no insult there.

You didn't answer my question. You have not explained why cars categorically hold no responsibility for the current public transport climate, when they so obviously have.

Secondly, you seem to think that successful=perfect. Nothing is perfect, not least private transport. But public transport could be far more successful than it is now.

Of course there are examples of where public transport would not be ideal. But no-one is suggesting banning cars, are they?

Out of interest, what are you self employed as?

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

Cretin · June 2007

Why would I bother to explain to you something which you have already decided cannot be? I would be wasting my time.

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 Mister Paul
You didn't read my post. I'll simplify it-

What do you do in the mean time?

BTW -sorry, but you do sound ever so familiar. Are you sure we don't know you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Another subtle insult. I did read your post, and I've already told you what we do in the mean time - we increase the number of traffic patrols on our roads. If a government can enact a ban on handguns in a matter of months, or a severe restriction in civil rights (post 11/9/01) in the same time frame, I'm fairly certain it can also act to save some of the 3500 deaths we suffer annually. So I would like to see improvements in driving standards, through better training.

Somehow I can't see it happening though, its probably not very newsworthy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not a subtle insult. You just didn't appear to understand what I was saying. You seem to be suggesting that we can't have 30mph limits, because driving standards should be improved. Which doesn't make sense.

Re policing- fair enough. No-one would disagree that we would benefit hugely from more police. But 20mph limits work, can supplement an increase in policing, are cost effective and don't make driving standards worse and have no real negatives. So what's the problem with them?

__________________________________________________________
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

Why would I bother to explain to you something which you have already decided cannot be? I would be wasting my time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.

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

dondare · June 2007

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

Just to settle the argument:

A fundamental right is something that is not granted by the state, but which arises from social mores and is immutable (e.g. a human right). Fundamental rights cannot be revoked, but may be derogated from under certain conditions (for example see the derogations in the Human Rights Act 1998) and only in the wider interest.

There are also conditional rights (often referred to as privileges). These are granted by the state and can be revoked. A driving license is a conditional right - it is granted by the state and can be revoked if you don't stick to the rules.

Fundamental rights do not carry obligations on the individual - other than to respect the same rights for other individuals.

Conditional rights normally carry obligations (hence the use of 'conditional') - you can have a driving license but in order to do so you must pass a test, keep to the rules of the road, etc.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is also a "Legal Right". It is not a fundamental right as it depends on the law of the land. But it is not conditional as it cannot be revoked without the law being changed.
I suppose you could argue that a legal right (such as the pedestrian's right to walk on the pavement) can be revoked, for instance by placing him in jail. A legal right is always therefore a conditional right.
Would you say that?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
It's not a subtle insult. You just didn't appear to understand what I was saying. You seem to be suggesting that we can't have 30mph limits, because driving standards should be improved. Which doesn't make sense.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have suggested no such thing.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Re policing- fair enough. No-one would disagree that we would benefit hugely from more police. But 20mph limits work, can supplement an increase in policing, are cost effective and don't make driving standards worse and have no real negatives. So what's the problem with them?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I do not agree that 20mph limits 'work' when it comes to improving road safety. I do not see why they are needed to supplement policing (which isn't there anyway), I disagree that they are cost effective as they are generally unenforceable and in my opinion make no road safety contribution. I believe the focus on speed limits as the be-all and end-all of road safety is to the detriment of overall driving standards.

Those are my problems with the proposal.

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

Why would I bother to explain to you something which you have already decided cannot be? I would be wasting my time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sorry. I thought this was the Cycling Plus forum, not the Mister Paul forum.

Regulator · 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 Regulator

Just to settle the argument:

A fundamental right is something that is not granted by the state, but which arises from social mores and is immutable (e.g. a human right). Fundamental rights cannot be revoked, but may be derogated from under certain conditions (for example see the derogations in the Human Rights Act 1998) and only in the wider interest.

There are also conditional rights (often referred to as privileges). These are granted by the state and can be revoked. A driving license is a conditional right - it is granted by the state and can be revoked if you don't stick to the rules.

Fundamental rights do not carry obligations on the individual - other than to respect the same rights for other individuals.

Conditional rights normally carry obligations (hence the use of 'conditional') - you can have a driving license but in order to do so you must pass a test, keep to the rules of the road, etc.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is also a "Legal Right". It is not a fundimental right as it depends on the law of the land. But it is not conditional as it cannot be revoked.
I suppose you could argue that a legal right (such as the pedestrian's right to walk on the pavement) can be revoked, for instance by placing him in jail. A legal right is always therefore a conditional right.
Would you say that?

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

Legal rights are conditional rights, granted through common or statute law. However, you don't always have to have a right in order to do something - the UK operates a system of law which means everything is OK unless there is a law banning or restricting it. The best way to think of conditional rights (legal rights) is as 'permission' to do something.

Pedestrians do not have 'a right' to walk on the pavement as no permission is required. However, cyclists, horseriders and motor vehicles are barred from using pavements. Cyclists do have the right to cycle on certain pavements if permission is given to the cyclists (e.g. the pavement is designated shared use) - this is a conditional right.

Cyclists do not have 'the right' to cycle on the road, as permission is not required for non-motorised road use. However, motorists do have the right to be on the road if they hold a driving license - but again that is a conditional right, and it can be revoked by the state.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Mister Paul · June 2007

Have you not read the evidence that 20mph limits reduce accidents? How is that not showing that they work? If putting up a few signs makes a road safety contriution then it is cost effective. If they work, they are needed. And the evidence suggests that they do work. Please justify your opposition to this.

Are you going to suggest next that policing hasn't increased because those in power don't need to as they have alternatives?

And you are categorically mistaken if you think that anyone thinks that "the focus on speed limits as the be-all and end-all of road safety[/]". Not the police, not the government, and certainly no-one on here. Accepting this will help you to see things a lot more clearly.

__________________________________________________________
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

<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

Why would I bother to explain to you something which you have already decided cannot be? I would be wasting my time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm sorry. I thought this was the Cycling Plus forum, not the Mister Paul forum.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh, ok. So if I ask someone else to put the question to you, justification of which is critical to your position, then you'll answer it? you're not just trying to cop out?

Debating is where two sides who hold opposing views discuss the reasons for their views.

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

Cretin · June 2007

To oppose your claims I first need to see evidence of them.

Policing hasn't increased because of the call for more 'bobbies on the beat' and fewer 'cops in cars eating donuts'.

Agreeing with you is somehow a prerequisite to 'seeing things clearly'?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Debating is where two sides who hold opposing views discuss the reasons for their views.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wasn't aware I was on anybody's side. Is that how things work here?

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 Mister Paul
Debating is where two sides who hold opposing views discuss the reasons for their views.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wasn't aware I was on anybody's side. Is that how things work here?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I must say that you are very defensive. Any debate has two sides, whether there is one person on each side of the argument, or a thousand.

Why so touchy?

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

Cretin · June 2007

Having lurked here for some time and read many of your arguments, I remain unconvinced by your ability to get your points across. You seem to enjoy stringing things along for the fun of it, and insulting people in a merry way.

Look at how Peyote responds - he disagrees with me on some points but there are areas where we do agree - and hes gracious enough to let that be the end of it.

Somehow I don't think that will happen with you. And thats why I'm reluctant to discuss the matter with you in any detail, and I think you know this. I don't do posturing.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

To oppose your claims I first need to see evidence of them.

Policing hasn't increased because of the call for more 'bobbies on the beat' and fewer 'cops in cars eating donuts'.

Agreeing with you is somehow a prerequisite to 'seeing things clearly'?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

OK. Public transport. An example. Bus companies need to make money to survive. If everyone drives a car then there is a smaller market and they make less money. In a car-driven culture there is less incentive for anyone to improve public transport. So the car shares some responsibility. That's very simple. Comments?

I don't understand your 'policing' comment. Are you suggesting that there are less police covering the roads because of the increase of Community Suport Officers?

Finally, please explain who you think sees "the focus on speed limits as the be-all and end-all of road safety[/]"

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

Cretin · June 2007

Many people drive cars because they're better and more convenient for them. The challenge is for public transport to make what it offers an appealing alternative. They're doomed to failure because public transport is not a viable alternative for the majority of working folk in this country. Public transport can only accomodate the requirements of a certain demographic.

The policing comment - I made no such suggestion.

Who I think sees.... - the people who sit in vans or erect speed cameras and made vacuous claims on their worth, and the people in this forum who seem to enjoy rattling on about it without pause.

Cunobelin · June 2007

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/residential20/

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

Many people drive cars because they're better and more convenient for them. The challenge is for public transport to make what it offers an appealing alternative. They're doomed to failure because public transport is not a viable alternative for the majority of working folk in this country. Public transport can only accomodate the requirements of a certain demographic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you've put aside the question of the car's responsibility for our current state of public transport. Fair enough.

We live in a car culture. Other places in the world which don't share the same culture are completely different.

Your statement in bold is a gross exaggeration. Not viable for some perhaps, but by no means the majority.

Some people drive out of necessity. Some people drive because they think that there is no viable alternative. Some people are just plain lazy, and don't recognise the benefits of the alternatives. Some people are selfish.

I drive. I love driving. I also love cycling. I'll do both. I use public transport regularly, as I recognise the benefits to me and to others. Sometimes I'll use public transport when the car would be more convenient. In these cases it could be because it is cheaper, because it means less congestion for others and because I have no reason not to.

Oh, and also because it's fun for the children and I don't want them growing up thinking that the car is the only viable option when it isn't. If they recognise this then it benefits everyone.

I have no problem agreeing with your comments that make sense. I'll question those that don't (to me) and I'll challenge those, like the one in bold, which are clearly incorrect. And exploring those statements can reveal the reason behind them.

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

Cretin · June 2007

No. Some people drive cars because it is the only option they have. Relocating so as not to use that car is not an option for most people.

I agree that some people are lazy. I wish they'd discover the benefits of cycling, I can't actually see why they wouldn't - but then again, Cricket bores me stiff and yet there are people who enjoy it.

Most countries that do not have a car culture are not economically comparable to Britain. Virtually all first-world nations have high levels of private vehicle ownership.

Your assertion is not fact. Public transport is not actually something that has much history. It was adequate for the times when it was popular, in a heavily industrialised society, but our country is not like that now and it is for most people, an irrelevence. People do not have the same work patterns as they once did, unless I've somehow gone back in time 30 years.

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories