Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

slowfen · 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 slowfen

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

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

This as far as I'm concerned says it all, you feel 3500+ deaths a year are the acceptable price of motoring. As such nothing is worth saying to you any further until you come out of your selfish little hellhole and realise the amount of human grief the car produces

The Bosscp · June 2007

Ambulances rely on the road system, and they save more than 3,500 lives per year.

The Bosscp · June 2007

You need to accept that the car, while it does have some negative side effects associated with it, is a necessary and accepted part of modern society, and you need to stop holding your snotty little nose high up in the air and try entertaining a point of view slightly different to that that the car is something that needs to be apologised for.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by slowfen
This as far as I'm concerned says it all, you feel 3500+ deaths a year are the acceptable price of motoring.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That just made me remember to put an order in for Autogeddon, apparently when it was written the total death toll associated with motor vehicles since their inception was 17 000 000 people (worldwide). it's been suggested that this total is now at 25 000 000. That's a staggering amount of death to attribute to this one invention.

Puts nuclear weopans into perspective.

Unknown · June 2007

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

You need to accept that the car, while it does have some negative side effects associated with it, is a necessary and accepted part of modern society, and you need to stop holding your snotty little nose high up in the air and try entertaining a point of view slightly different to that that the car is something that needs to be apologised for.

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

I would argue that it is accepted and in some instances necessary (though it should be treated as last available option if at all possible), but it is also over-used and too often abused.

Unfortunately it's a bit of a viscious circle, we have created a society based around private motoring, therefore we need private motor vehicles to function in this society.

Fortunately it's circle that can be broken, it's just going to take a lot of behavioural changes, something which everyone has a natural reluctance to do.

The Bosscp · June 2007

It doesn't take into account the death toll that would have occurred if they hadn't been invented either though does it.

slowfen · June 2007

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

You need to accept that the car, while it does have some negative side effects associated with it, is a necessary and accepted part of modern society, and you need to stop holding your snotty little nose high up in the air and try entertaining a point of view slightly different to that that the car is something that needs to be apologised for.

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

I commute by car, and drive as part of my job as a district nurse. I see the mayhem of the deaths, paralysis, amputation, head injuries most of my working life. And am starting to see other health problems associated with the car. You can call me all the names etc you like it dosn't alter the fact that you accept that people are killed at the rate of 9+ a day by vehicles, and you feel that this is acceptable.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Tes, Slowfen, but they are probably just nimby city dwellers so in Bonjworld they don't count.

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

dondare · June 2007

The toxic waste squirted out of the exhaust pipe kills about 10 times as many road accidents.
The long-term deprivation of exercise which starts when children are taxied to school and continues when they drive to work as adults takes about 10 years off a person's life.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Unknown · June 2007

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

It doesn't take into account the death toll that would have occurred if they hadn't been invented either though does it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you really think the death toll would be higher if private motor vehicles hadn't been invented?

PS - I'm aware I'm starting to sound like a luddite car-hater, and to a certain extent that could be correct![:I] I just think that the negative effects of the car-centric society have been underplayed and the positive aspects (of which they are quite a lot!) overplayed to such an extent that the private motor vehicle has replaced religion as a worship object. That worries me a bit.

Cab · June 2007

So, 'the boss', you show yourself to be exactly what I thought; a troll.

Lets be clear; driving is not a fundamental human right. VED allows you to have a vehicle that can be driven on the road, but it does nothing else. That it can be taken away with no other restriction in your freedoms makes it a privilege.

You can rant all you like, but thats how it is.

Fingers crossed, more cities will follow suit with 20mph limits, and we'll see the muppets who break the speed limit in those towns banned soon enough. Wouldn't that be good?

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 Peyote

Ha ha! You've fallen for the old beleaguered-British-motorist line!

It's not true though, motorists never have, and probably never will pay for all the facilities they require and the damage they cause.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If you take into account all the money they save the economy not just the amount they pay directly in hard cash, e.g. things like not ALL having to use subsidised buses, getting to work quicker, etc. they do.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
They'd save a hell of a sight more if they cycled.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

dondare · June 2007

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

It doesn't take into account the death toll that would have occurred if they hadn't been invented either though does it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There'd be more rail traffic, which is safer and more efficient.
There'd be more walking and cycling, ditto.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

I commute by car, and drive as part of my job as a district nurse. I see the mayhem of the deaths, paralysis, amputation, head injuries most of my working life. And am starting to see other health problems associated with the car.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Like what, 'backne' ?

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

You can call me all the names etc you like it dosn't alter the fact that you accept that people are killed at the rate of 9+ a day by vehicles, and you feel that this is acceptable.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You can't expect me to see how this is a valid argument when you won't accept that motoring saves lives aswell.
If you want to explain your hatred of the roads and motor vehicles to the relatives of heart attack victims in remote villages who have recovered due to having been ambulanced to hospital, and explain to me how you'd propose to them a method by which their beloved would still be able to have been saved without motorised transport, then I'll start to think you might have a point, but until you address this issue, then you don't have a point I'm afraid because your argument is completely one-sided.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

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

It doesn't take into account the death toll that would have occurred if they hadn't been invented either though does it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you really think the death toll would be higher if private motor vehicles hadn't been invented? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you think it wouldn't, then find statistics on:
Total number of ambulance call outs
Subtract number that died / would have lived anyway
The remainder is the number of lives saved by ambulances.
I'm willing to bet that it'd be more than 3,500.
But if you want to prove me wrong go ahead.
And that's just ambulances, only one of the many life-saving benefits of road transport.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

They'd save a hell of a sight more if they cycled.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's quite common for people to live upwards of 30 miles from work. That's quite a long distance to cycle if you're not that fit, as a lot of people aren't.

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

It doesn't take into account the death toll that would have occurred if they hadn't been invented either though does it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There'd be more rail traffic, which is safer and more efficient.
There'd be more walking and cycling, ditto.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh right. So if you ever need urgent hospital treatment, you're perfectly willing to rely on the train to get there are you?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Lets be clear; driving is not a fundamental human right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, but it is a right that can be attained by satisfying all necessary conditions.

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

VED allows you to have a vehicle that can be driven on the road, but it does nothing else.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
VED, road tax, whatever.

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

That it can be taken away with no other restriction in your freedoms makes it a privilege.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
To call it a 'privilege' would suggest it's given out on a whim, only to certain people who are invited, and taken away on a whim. It isn't - it's available to everyone who satisfies the static prescribed conditions, and only taken away if someone commits an offence for which that is the punishment (and even then not always).

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 Cab

Lets be clear; driving is not a fundamental human right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, but it is a right that can be attained by satisfying all necessary conditions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. It allows you. And like I said yesterday, there are plenty of ways of that allowance being removed instantly.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
No, but it is a right that can be attained by satisfying all necessary conditions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A 'right' is something you get without satisfying conditions, only being removed if you violate some pretty fundamental rules. Driving is a privilege.

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

VED allows you to have a vehicle that can be driven on the road, but it does nothing else.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
VED, road tax, whatever.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And it does nothing else othwer than allowing to possess a vehicle that can be driven on the road. It does not pay for the roads, it does not give you any particular road access. Its part of what grants the privilege of being allowed to drive on the road, nothing more.

[quote
To call it a 'privilege' would suggest it's given out on a whim, only to certain people who are invited, and taken away on a whim. [/quote]

That might be how you read it, but it isn't anything to do with what the word means.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It isn't - it's available to everyone who satisfies the static prescribed conditions, and only taken away if someone commits an offence for which that is the punishment (and even then not always).
[/quote]

Not often enough IMHO. And there lies the problem with your definition of this as a 'right'; a 'right' is something you have automatically, you don't have to somehow fulfill any conditions to get it. Motoring is not therefore a right.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Mister Paul · June 2007

Bonj's behaviour seems to go from ok on re-registering, and then increases exponentially on buffoonery.

How fascinating.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

That might be how you read it, but it isn't anything to do with what the word means.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Cite the definition of 'what the word means' then please.

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

Not often enough IMHO. And there lies the problem with your definition of this as a 'right'<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah, so we're finally getting to the hub why you think this.
You think that it's 'not a right' because as far as you're concerned, motorists don't get banned often enough.
Whether motorists get banned often enough is nothing to do with whether it's a 'right' or a 'privilege' to drive on the road.

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

a 'right' is something you have automatically, you don't have to somehow fulfill any conditions to get it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Says who? Show me the legal definition of the word 'right'.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
And that's just ambulances, only one of the many life-saving benefits of road transport.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But the benefits of ambulances got nothing to do with the effects of the private car, have they? (And they'd probably save more lives if there wasn't so much traffic...)

And we've already established that roads are not there because of cars... and bikes are also 'road transport'.

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

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

And we've already established that roads are not there because of cars... and bikes are also 'road transport'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The tarmac is there because of cars, and it is this that ambulances need in order to operate.
They didn't put tarmac down just for ambulances and bikes. I'm sorry but if you think you're going to have me (or any more people than you could count on one hand for that matter) believe that then you're mistaken.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

No. It allows you. And like I said yesterday, there are plenty of ways of that allowance being removed instantly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not if I obey all road conditions though. And not on a whim. Certainly not your whim.

The Bosscp · June 2007

In fact it's actually the case that if I obey all road traffic laws and the highway code, then my license, and therefore my RIGHT to drive, CANNOT be taken off me.

Mister Paul · June 2007

Bonj,

What does your awful grasp of law, the English language and reading have to do with a 20mph limit in Portsmouth?

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

domd1979 · June 2007

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

Absolute tosh, the motorist has been milked under Blair's government. Petrol tax alone probably covers road maintenance, then they've got speed camera fines, road tax, tolls, other fines, etc. etc.

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

Er, no. In real terms, motoring costs have remained constant for years. If anyone's being "milked" its public transport users, since fares have been rising well above inflation. The cost of private motorised transport to the individual does not reflect the much greater external costs it imposes.

Cunobelin · June 2007

Excuse me if I backtrack.......

I work in one of those low paid services that "The Boss" is so superior to, and although I live in a nice house, with god neighbours, it is within commuting distance by bike and therefore I am poor and underprivielged as well!

So what I find unacepatable is the continuing "I have more rights than you" crap.....

What people have to realise is that we are a "Community", and the arrogant, selfish attitude displayed by some posters on this thread typifies most of what is wrong with society.

If you are on a pedestrian crossing the get out of my way

You dare to ask for a lower speed limit, - How dare you curtail MY rights

You have no rights because only drivers contribute to the local community - the locals are poor and don't

You can subsidise my car, but if the vulnerable, elderly, disabled, who can't drive a bus require a similar subsidy then "please go away"..

What a contemptible, selfish and arrogant attitucde!

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.)

domd1979 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
If you take into account all the money they save the economy not just the amount they pay directly in hard cash, e.g. things like not ALL having to use subsidised buses, getting to work quicker, etc. they do.

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

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?

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories