Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Cretin · June 2007

To those wondering what I am on about, Mister Paul has edited his post while I was responding.

Cretin · June 2007

And now there will be a short intermission while I go for a ride.

The Bosscp · 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

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?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well not IS, but can be.
A right is simply something that you are validly entitled to do.
However all too often these days, people take it to mean that in addition to being entitled to do something, that no-one can possibly prevent you from doing it, which is false - and the bulk of the problem behind the 'rights-based' society where people are constantly banging on about human rights is the insistance that they be upheld at all cost. This, I'm guessing, is why you believe that motorists' entitlement to be on the road is not a 'right', but it is.

Cunobelin · June 2007

Again we have the myths.....

The majority of the population do NOT have open access to a car.

The elderly, the poor, the disadvantaged and the disabled do not have access to a car.

Public Transport actually caters for more people than private transoport, and it is the private transporttaht is the irrelevance

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.)

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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">
Well, reach easily.

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

Please show me where your response above addresses this correct statement. Where a cart can go, a bike can go.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, current bikes! And even then not as quickly as on tarmac. I'd like to see you ride a penny farthing down a rock-strewn dirt track!

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

No. Some people drive cars because it is the only option they have. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can agree with that. But it's not what you said is it?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Relocating so as not to use that car is not an option for most people.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I disagree. For some maybe. you'd be surprised at how many don't rely on cars. But again, it's not as easy as whether or not it is an option. It's more about someone's values (where they are prepared to/want to live for example) affecting their choices.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

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

Tell me about it. I was talking with a Cycling Officer about it today. There are groups in Birmingham who are pushing for cycle rental facilites in the city centre, but people don't use them. They're unnecessarily frightened of cycling (and in some ways 20mph limits would help this), they think it is more of a hassle than it is, and they've grown up in a culture that says that cars are better.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

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

We need to make the distinction between national culture and regional success. The Netherlands has a high level of private vehicle ownership, but cycling is ingrained takes natural priority in somewhere like Amsterdam.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

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

There is a difference between cars being blamed for the historical deterioration in public transport, and cars today holding back adequate progress and development in public transport.

__________________________________________________________
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

To those wondering what I am on about, Mister Paul has edited his post while I was responding.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not to catch you out, I add. I just realised that the argument had moved on, and I hadn't.

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

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If YOU haven't even bothered to read it to find where the supposed 'proof' is in order to quote it, then you can't expect me to read it, or just assume that because you've pasted the link that the 'proof' will be in there somewhere. If you'd found the proof in the article, you'd post it. The fact is you can't be bothered to read it, but hope it looks complicated and official enough to convince me that it might contain the 'proof' somewhere.

The Bosscp · 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 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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But the 'benefits' aren't clear. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

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

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">
Well, reach easily.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you just move that jumper a bit nearer to the other one then. you're saying something different now.
<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

Please show me where your response above addresses this correct statement. Where a cart can go, a bike can go.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, current bikes! And even then not as quickly as on tarmac. I'd like to see you ride a penny farthing down a rock-strewn dirt track!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You've lost it haven't you? Go back a few pages and have a look at the evidence of roads improving because of the efforts of cyclists, not thanks to car drivers.

__________________________________________________________
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

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

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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If YOU haven't even bothered to read it to find where the supposed 'proof' is in order to quote it, then you can't expect me to read it, or just assume that because you've pasted the link that the 'proof' will be in there somewhere. If you'd found the proof in the article, you'd post it. The fact is you can't be bothered to read it, but hope it looks complicated and official enough to convince me that it might contain the 'proof' somewhere.

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

you still haven't read that poster then? What are you scared of?

Oh, and while you're at it, perhaps you'd explain who are the car haters you speak of.

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

The Bosscp · 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?

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

No - because if buses aren't subsidised like you keep claiming (which I don't believe, but you seem to, so let's go with it hypothetically), then how would they make a profit putting one out to a hamlet of 20 or 30 people? Most services would never get anybody on (like they don't anyway, but still...)

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You don't hate cars? Well you could have fooled me.

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

Exactly. This is exactly what I've been trying to drill through these thick, thick skulls, but it doesn't seem to be getting through.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
YES! At last! What a complete U-turn.
So it's obviously just me you disagree with, rather than the point I was making.

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 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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You don't hate cars? Well you could have fooled me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've never said that I hate cars. The reality is quite the opposite.

It's largely the poor, selfish and inconsiderate drivers that I have issues with.

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

cuddy duck · June 2007

I hate cars.
Hope that helps.

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

Mister Paul · June 2007

I think if we're getting to the crux of it Bonj, is that you've been using the wrong word all along. Unless you're now accepting that your place on the road is not what you would want it to be. Which is exactly what many people have been trying to explain to you for a long, long time.

The standing of cars in comparison to horses, cycles and pedestrians on the road is completely different. I think everyone has been obsessing, thanks to you, over one particular word.

Read that link I gave to you. You'll understand it a lot better then.

__________________________________________________________
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

<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 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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But the 'benefits' aren't clear. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

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

Yes they are. The evidence suggest that there are safety benefits, there are environmental benefits and there are benefits to others who use the roads.

What do you think are the disadvantages? you must have an idea, and you must also have a measure in order to make the statement above.

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

domd1979 · June 2007

bonj you really are brain dead aren't you? As explained before: the majority of the bus network (other than in London, where different legislation applies) is run on a commercial basis (for profit). Some socially necessary services are operated under contract to local authorities or passenger transport executives - however, most services operate WITHOUT subsidy. There's nothing hypothetical about it, that's how it is.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
No - because if buses aren't subsidised like you keep claiming (which I don't believe, but you seem to, so let's go with it hypothetically), then how would they make a profit putting one out to a hamlet of 20 or 30 people? Most services would never get anybody on (like they don't anyway, but still...)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

domd1979 · June 2007

Public transport is "unsuccessful"? Put it like this, no major conurbation would continue to thrive without it.

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

domd1979 · 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 domd1979

bonj, you evidently know nothing about buses and how they are operated. Bus services were de-regulated in 1986 (21 years ago, you ought to have noticed by now) and are largely run on a commercial basis - i.e. operators only put a bus on the road because they are making a profit from it. Under the Transport Act 1985, local authorities and passenger transport executives can supplement the commercially provided network by going out to tender for services deemed to be "socially necessary". However, the vast majority of the network is operated commercially (without subsidy). Within London, regulation still applies, and everything operates under contract to Transport for London. Its really not difficult to understand..... is it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Yes, taxpayer's money.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Only taxpayer's money if the buses you see happen to be the small proportion operated under contract. But you're too ignorant to know whether or not that's the case.

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

No. Some people drive cars because it is the only option they have. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can agree with that. But it's not what you said is it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I apologise for not being absolutely scrupulous in repeating my arguments. I think my meaning was clear.

<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

Relocating so as not to use that car is not an option for most people.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I disagree. For some maybe. you'd be surprised at how many don't rely on cars. But again, it's not as easy as whether or not it is an option. It's more about someone's values (where they are prepared to/want to live for example) affecting their choices. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Considering the costs inherent in moving to a different home, I don't blame them, and I won't judge them for not considering it as an option.

<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 agree that some people are lazy. I wish they'd discover the benefits of cycling, I can't actually see why they wouldn't.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Tell me about it. I was talking with a Cycling Officer about it today. There are groups in Birmingham who are pushing for cycle rental facilites in the city centre, but people don't use them. They're unnecessarily frightened of cycling (and in some ways 20mph limits would help this), they think it is more of a hassle than it is, and they've grown up in a culture that says that cars are better.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not particularly concerned with the speed of vehicles on the roads I use (and I use a variety of them). I'm more concerned with their observation and their ability to pass me safely. Very rarely have I been troubled by cars driving too fast for the conditions, it tends to be idiots who only give me 2 feet of room as they pass, and often by my reckoning within the speed limit.

But I am disappointed that so many people feel cycling is unsafe - its like the fear of crime, or the fear of paedophiles - its completely disproportionate to the real likelyhood.

<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

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

We need to make the distinction between national culture and regional success. The Netherlands has a high level of private vehicle ownership, but cycling is ingrained takes natural priority in somewhere like Amsterdam.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Netherlands are a very different proposition to England - within cities, great - but they have the space. They've planned for these things, wide open streets, huge pavements with dedicated turning points for cyclists, etc. I can't see that happening in many cities in the UK, and its a shame. In the Netherlands, between cities, many people will still use cars.

<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

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

There is a difference between cars being blamed for the historical deterioration in public transport, and cars today holding back adequate progress and development in public transport.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't see that there is much development to be made in public transport. Everything that needs doing (more tracks, double decker trains, cheaper fares etc) is prohibitively expensive. I can't see any government ever doing anything about it. They'll tax motorists as a cash cow but nothing will ever change.

The Bosscp · 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 The Boss

But the 'benefits' aren't clear. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

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

Yes they are. The evidence suggest that there are safety benefits, there are environmental benefits and there are benefits to others who use the roads.

What do you think are the disadvantages? you must have an idea, and you must also have a measure in order to make the statement above.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What about the fact that the traffic is going to be much more likely merge as one constant stream rather than bunched up groups released from traffic lights as one 'convoy', making it much harder for pedestrians to cross? It is the fact that it is going unnaturally slow that leads to this.

domd1979 · June 2007

External costs means ALL costs imposed to society and the environment, and is not a comparison of road maintenance costs. Incidentally, damage to road surfaces by different vehicles cannot be inferred by simple ratios.

<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 domd1979

The cost of private motorised transport to the individual does not reflect the much greater external costs it imposes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">The impact upon the road of a bus compared to that of a car is a lot greater than the ratio of the maximum capacity of the bus to the maximum capacity of the car, i.e. it's well in excess of 6 times more damaging to the road.

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

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 Mister Paul

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">
Well, reach easily.

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

Please show me where your response above addresses this correct statement. Where a cart can go, a bike can go.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, current bikes! And even then not as quickly as on tarmac. I'd like to see you ride a penny farthing down a rock-strewn dirt track!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The huge wheel of the old penny-farthing coped with bad roads very well. But cyclists wanted a better surface which is why roads started to be improved at that time.... before there were cars.

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

Public transport is "unsuccessful"? Put it like this, no major conurbation would continue to thrive without it.

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

I am referring to the desires of some to see public transport replace almost completley private transport.

As an afterthought, how much exactly is the rail network subsidised financially by the taxpayers of this country?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

I think if we're getting to the crux of it Bonj, is that you've been using the wrong word all along. Unless you're now accepting that your place on the road is not what you would want it to be. Which is exactly what many people have been trying to explain to you for a long, long time.

The standing of cars in comparison to horses, cycles and pedestrians on the road is completely different. I think everyone has been obsessing, thanks to you, over one particular word.

Read that link I gave to you. You'll understand it a lot better then.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I think you're the one that's been using the wrong word in the wrong assertion, i.e. one that is false.
The issue is not with my understanding, but the fact that what you've believed up to now is not actually the case.

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

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

But the 'benefits' aren't clear. The disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

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

Yes they are. The evidence suggest that there are safety benefits, there are environmental benefits and there are benefits to others who use the roads.

What do you think are the disadvantages? you must have an idea, and you must also have a measure in order to make the statement above.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What about the fact that the traffic is going to be much more likely merge as one constant stream rather than bunched up groups released from traffic lights as one 'convoy', making it much harder for pedestrians to cross? It is the fact that it is going unnaturally slow that leads to this.

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

Uniform traffic progresses faster than stop-stop traffic.

Your repeated argument about pedestrians not being able to cross the road if cars are going slower is a red herring, and is something that could only come out of your head.

Now, put that made up disadvantage against the advantages. Which comes out top?

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

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I would suggest you do some research into the trie costs of running a car. The majority of taxpayers subsidise the minority who own cars. The cost of running a car has come down steadily in real terms year on year. I do not count fines imposed for criminal behaviour as a motoring "cost". And Bonj, your opinion on costs remains irrelevant. Try coming up with some facts.
As for public transport, when quoted the best example of the nasty effects of free-matket deregulation, which happen to be where Bonjboss claims to live, he ended up admitting he was too young to remember it.
But he still argued the point.

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

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories