Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

That's not a very good argument because it's based on your prejudice. You'll have to try harder if you want to convince someone <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, no, it's based on my experience of having watched buses.
9 out of 10 of the ones I see have either got no passengers on or less than 5. These could be carried by a car.

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

So the car isn't the quickest form of transport for getting to work in a lot of cases then? Therefore I would suggest it isn't necessarily an economic benefit. That's all I was trying to get across!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But in a vast number of cases it is the quickest, but more importantly in a vast number of cases it is the only feasible method.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

They didn't re-badge it. They removed road tax and replaced it with another tax that is not earmarked for road expenditure. Its just another tax, and it no more gives the motorist extra rights than paying VAT or duty on alcohol. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Wrong. Paying road tax gives the motorist the right to use the road*, in the same way that paying the duty or VAT on alcohol gives you the right to drink that alcohol. The only reason it's not earmarked for road expenditure is so that they can siphon it off for other things they want to use it for, like buses, or a load of dulux for some shared space, or the millennium dome, or paying half a million quid to design a logo for the olympics - it's often the case that petrol tax alone covers the cost of road maintenance.

*Obviously if you're going to be pedantic, he also requires a driving license to actually drive it on the road.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

It wasn't a dirt track; cyclists demanded, and got, improved roads suitable for their needs before cars were invented. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
WHEN did this happen then, smartarse, if you think you know so much about it?!

slowfen · June 2007

VED (what you call "road tax") is what you pay for the pleasure of owning a car. Its payment does not give you the right to drive on the road.

I see you still ignoring the cost of vehicles on the health, social, police and justice systems.

Unknown · 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 Peyote

That's not a very good argument because it's based on your prejudice. You'll have to try harder if you want to convince someone <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, no, it's based on my experience of having watched buses.
9 out of 10 of the ones I see have either got no passengers on or less than 5. These could be carried by a car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Forgive me, but I don't think your method and approach at assessing the use of buses is sufficient proof for me, not taking into account your previously mentioned prejudice!. Besides, in my experience, you're wrong.

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

But in a vast number of cases it is the quickest, but more importantly in a vast number of cases it is the only feasible method.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't believe that the majority of journeys are faster by car than other transport, especially those in urban areas. Indeed in your previous post you've pointed out the situations when trains and walking would be faster.

In a lot of rural cases it is the only feasible method, but if public tranpsort were subsidised to the same extent as private motor vehicle transport I think public transport would be a more viable option.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
it's often the case that petrol tax alone covers the cost of road maintenance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is not the case at all!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

VED (what you call "road tax") is what you pay for the pleasure of owning a car. Its payment does not give you the right to drive on the road.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Its payment and display of tax disc gives me the right to take my car onto the road. License and insurance give me the right to drive it.

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

I see you still ignoring the cost of vehicles on the health, social, police and justice systems.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What about the benefit of the road system and cars to these systems?

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 Road Fund was abolished in 1936, partially to disabuse motorists of this particular myth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
They've rebadged it you fool!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. The Road Fund was a mechanism for spending the licence fee ("Road Tax") on roads. The roads alresdy existed, of course, and they were paid for through general taxation but the Road Fund was intended to go towards the cost of making them better able to cope with the pressures of motor traffic. It was even proposed that eventually entirely new roads could be built that only licence-payers could use.
When the fund was abolished the licence fee went straight to the treasury and wasn't earmarked for anything at all. It's not a rebadging, it's a complete change in the way the money is managed.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Forgive me, but I don't think your method and approach at assessing the use of buses is sufficient proof for me<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What, watching them? Or should I be designing a statistical survey and sending it out to bus companies?

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

Besides, in my experience, you're wrong.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, "in your experience" you must view buses through extreme rose-tinted glasses then, or only ever see them after they've picked up a lot of people at a busy stop.

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

In a lot of rural cases it is the only feasible method, but if public tranpsort were subsidised to the same extent as private motor vehicle transport I think public transport would be a more viable option.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">More viable than it is now, but still not as viable as cars unfortunately. Which is why it isn't subsidised to the same extent.

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
The Road Fund was abolished in 1936, partially to disabuse motorists of this particular myth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
They've rebadged it you fool!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. The Road Fund was a mechanism for spending the licence fee ("Road Tax") on roads. The roads alresdy existed, of course, and they were paid for through general taxation but the Road Fund was intended to go towards the cost of making them better able to cope with the pressures of motor traffic. It was even proposed that eventually entirely new roads could be built that only licence-payers could use.
When the fund was abolished the licence fee went straight to the treasury and wasn't earmarked for anything at all. It's not a rebadging, it's a complete change in the way the money is managed.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
At the end of the day, it all goes into one big pot which Gordon Brown has the ultimate key to and the government dip into it whenever they feel like waxing some.

dondare · June 2007

Motorists do not have the right to drive on the road, they have permission, under licence and subject to conditions.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Motorists do not have the right to drive on the road, they have permission, under licence and subject to conditions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Right does not equal 'god-given' right. There are such things as conditional rights. Once they've earned the license and paid the road tax, then they've got the right. End of subject.

slowfen · June 2007

[/quote]What about the benefit of the road system and cars to these systems?
[/quote]

Does this outway the financial and human cost??

Or does the car have no downsides in your view?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Does this outway the financial and human cost??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It probably about equals it.

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

Or does the car have no downsides in your view?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
obviously it has its downsides, but it is an unfortunate necessity.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
What, watching them? Or should I be designing a statistical survey and sending it out to bus companies?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It would probably be more accurate, but I was thinking of simply taking an impartial view to the whole thing. I know from your previous posts that you dislike buses and have mentioned several times how they always appear empty to you. It could be argued that the only buses that stick in your mind are the ones that are empty, and that therefore your results are biased against those which are carrying passengers. I would guess there are other variables to consider to, such as location, time of day etc.

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

Well, "in your experience" you must view buses through extreme rose-tinted glasses then, or only ever see them after they've picked up a lot of people at a busy stop.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not a big fan of buses, but I don't harbour the same dislike you do, so I suspect my view isn't as biased as yours. Maybe you just see them through sh*t-tinted glasses?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
More viable than it is now, but still not as viable as cars unfortunately. Which is why it isn't subsidised to the same extent.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well no, in rural areas it will never be as viable as cars. There will always be a place for private motor vehicle transport. I'm not sure what the point of this is as I don't believe I ever suggested otherwise.

dondare · June 2007

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

At the end of the day, it all goes into one big pot which Gordon Brown has the ultimate key to and the government dip into it whenever they feel like waxing some.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's completely correct. It's not spent in any one area, and it certainly doesn't buy anything more than temporary permission to use the roads.
It's like buying a travel card, you can use the tubes but not claim that you've bought them, paid for them or own them.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

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

Motorists do not have the right to drive on the road, they have permission, under licence and subject to conditions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Right does not equal 'god-given' right. There are such things as conditional rights. Once they've earned the license and paid the road tax, then they've got the right. End of subject.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not God-given. Legal.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

End of subject.

Unknown · June 2007

Oh, that's a bit disappointing.

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
Not God-given. Legal.

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

Legal within certain constraints. Its hard to describe a permission that can be so readily removed as a 'right'.

The problem is that we seem to have rather forgotten, as a society, that it isn't a right. Hence people regularly do things that should cause this privilege to be removed (speeding and other forms of dangerous driving) and get away with it. I suppose its a self sustaining thing; the more people get away with breaking these rules, the more driving (once you've paid VED) is viewed as a 'right'.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Tourist Tony · June 2007

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

End of subject.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear, the Knob Bonj was getting so entertaining showing his complete lack of any knowledge of law, economics, history, tax, geography, scientific method, English comprehension, or even what has been posted so many times before.
Do you own a car, Knob?

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

Tourist Tony · June 2007

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

What about them. I don't drive a car! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Except for access" is normally the wording on the sign on pedstrianised roads. I count as 'Access' now Pauly, unlucky!! [:D]

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

Ah. I see.
Oh, and Bonj old Knob, we've explained the difference between licence and right to you many times, but you still lack the functioning neurones to understand it.
So here's another fact for you:
Your personal opinion in matters of law, historical fact and geography is irrelevant.

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

Jaded · June 2007

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

Well, no, it's based on my experience of having watched buses.
9 out of 10 of the ones I see have either got no passengers on or less than 5.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

However you have told us that you commute (in an unsustainable fashion) from a rural area to an edge of town business park. If you think that this is a fair way to assess the occupancy levels of busses then you are significantly thicker than you appear.

You also appear to believe that until the advent of the car the A1 petered out every few miles or so. Laughable. Ignorant.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Tourist Tony · June 2007

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

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

Well, no, it's based on my experience of having watched buses.
9 out of 10 of the ones I see have either got no passengers on or less than 5.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

However you have told us that you commute (in an unsustainable fashion) from a rural area to an edge of town business park. If you think that this is a fair way to assess the occupancy levels of busses then you are significantly thicker than you appear.
You also appear to believe that until the advent of the car the A1 petered out every few miles or so. Laughable. Ignorant.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Is that possible?

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

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

However you have told us that you commute (in an unsustainable fashion) from a rural area to an edge of town business park.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Er... NO! i don't think I said that I do that, did I?
Do we want to go back and read the post again, instead of jumping straight in there on the keyboard, arms flapping and feet stamping up and down?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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

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

Well, no, it's based on my experience of having watched buses.
9 out of 10 of the ones I see have either got no passengers on or less than 5.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

However you have told us that you commute (in an unsustainable fashion) from a rural area to an edge of town business park. If you think that this is a fair way to assess the occupancy levels of busses then you are significantly thicker than you appear.
You also appear to believe that until the advent of the car the A1 petered out every few miles or so. Laughable. Ignorant.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Is that possible?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear Tone, you do appear to be wound up about this one! Maybe you get some fly spray, take your bonnet off, and spray it liberally at your head, in order to kill the bee that's clearly buzzing around in there. It might also take most of your hair off, but that wouldn't matter. It'd probably be funny.

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

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

If anyone has 'more' right to the highway than anyone else (which they don't, but)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes they do. Have another read of that study I gave you a couple of <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If I remember rightly I did read it and it contained no such thing.
We've had this debate before, many times, and every time I win it.

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

No-one pays road tax. There's no such thing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You could have fooled me last time my tax disc ran out...

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

What about the roads that cars aren't allowed to drive on? Are they imaginary? Your license gives you no right to drive on them does it Bonjy? Because you have no right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What about them. I don't drive a car! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Except for access" is normally the wording on the sign on pedstrianised roads. I count as 'Access' now Pauly, unlucky!! [:D]

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

So do you drive or not?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Legal within certain constraints. Its hard to bring yourself to describe a permission that can be so readily removed as a 'right' if you're of pillow-biting do-gooding apologist tendencies which a lot of people here are, but it doesn't mean it isn't one.

The problem is that we seem to have rather forgotten, as a <s>society</s> forum, that it <s>isn't</s> is a right. Hence people regularly do things that should cause this <s>privilege</s> right to be removed (speeding and other forms of dangerous driving) and get away with it. I suppose its a self sustaining thing; the more people get away with breaking these rules, the more driving (once you've paid <s>VED</s> road tax) is viewed as <s>a 'right'</s> evil.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There you go, I've corrected your post for you.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

So do you drive or not?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes. Just not a car.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

There's the answer! He hates his job as a bus driver!!!

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