Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

domd1979 · June 2007

If that was the case, the operator would be going out of business.

<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. These could be carried by a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

speshcp · June 2007

So far as I can see, we have two pages of discussion on the new speed limits in Pompey, and 10 pages* of bonj demonstrating that the only way anyone will ever get through to him is with the assistance of a trepanning drill... [}:)]

* At the time of posting.

<hr noshade size="1">"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

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

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

You're assuming all other things would be equal though Bonj, if private motor vehicles weren't available, you would have to factor in many other factors, two that spring to mind:

1) Instances where lives were lost due to excess congestion caused by said vehicles.
2) Instances caused by the use/abuse of private vehicles.

I think you're viewing this in far to simplistic manner and haven't thought out the repercussions of the effect private motoring has on society. Don't worry though, millions of other motorists are in exactly the same boat as you![V]

drossall · June 2007

The VED argument is silly. Even if you accept that VED gives a right to the roads (which you can't, because Road Tax was stopped precisely to avoid that argument), car ownership is higher among cyclists than among the population in general. Virtually all cyclists are just motorists who have paid VED, got the "right" to use the roads, and decided not to wear the roads out today. Most pedestrians too.

And the argument that tarmac is there because of cars is wrong too. Early motorists tried to join the Cyclists' Touring Club to take part in its campaigning for better roads. It was only when a court said they couldn't that they started the Johnny-come-lately AA and RAC by using the CTC as a model [:D]

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

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.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
30 miles is a quite a long way if you are fit, as a lot more people would be in a car-free world.
I live within cycling distance of my work because that was one of the criteria for deciding where to buy a house. Other people decide to live within driving distance, others a long train journey away.
But in our hypothetical car-free world, no-one would buy a house 30 miles away and then think "5hit! I've just remembered. Cars haven't been invented yet. Now how am I going to get to work?"
In fact, with no motor-traffic on the roads the inner cities would be much nicer places and you wouldn't need dormitory towns 30 miles out.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cunobelin · June 2007

If it was from here, my apologies for not crediting the original author.

I read on one forum the following suggestion......

The VED argument is silly because it is based on emissions.

Even if cycles and shoes (pedestrians) were included fully they would be exempt under present regulations, due to the level of emissions!

Bring it on!

As for the ambulance and public service argument........

The service could be improved by removing private vehicles, freeing the roads, anyone got figures for the cost in lives of ambulances having to slow down because of other trafffic?

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.)

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

<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?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Do you know the derivation of the word ambulance?

We are not thinking of today's car-centric society with the cars taken out; we are thinking of an alternative society which never had them. Communities would be more compact and essential services more local.

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 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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
"Methods to stabilize macadam roads with tar date back to at least 1834, when Henry Cassell patented "Pitch Macadam". This method involved spreading tar on the subgrade, then placing a typical macadam layer and then sealing the macadam with a mixture of tar and sand."
From Wikipedia.
Concrete can also be used to create a stable, durable road surface.
Good roads, and good road surfaces, predate the motor car.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Cunobelin · June 2007

Don't forget that car users are a minority!

Even in households with a car it is usually the "breadwinner" who uses it with the women and children carless.

(Probably no rights as they are female?)

According to 2004 figures, 40% of London households have no access to a car, so add the ones sitting useless in a workplace car park, and we get a minority!

In central London (Classic commuter country) less than 10% oj journeys are by car or van.

Overall (National statistics) 27 % of households have no access to a car, and 45% one car.

In many areas the actual number of households without is greater than 50%

Car drivers are a minority.......Why are we subsidisingthem and allowing them to attempt to dictate.

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.)

Richrd2205 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Unless you develop one of a number of medical conditions....
So that would be a fallacious statement, wouldn't it? Thus, there is no such "RIGHT" at all, is there?
I could add that developing any of the said conditions wouldn't (legally) stop me using the roads on a horse, bike or on foot, but that would probably just be far to obvious...

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

If anyone's being "milked" its public transport users<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Er, no ... since if you get on a bus, you're sharing it with, say, 1 other person, so you've got half of it to yourself. Half a bus for œ1.60. That's pretty good value.

<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.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<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.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

1) Instances where lives were lost due to excess congestion caused by said vehicles.
2) Instances caused by the use/abuse of private vehicles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Yes, 3500 per year.
The presence of the road network saves a lot mroe than this.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

But in our hypothetical car-free world, no-one would buy a house 30 miles away and then think "5hit! I've just remembered. Cars haven't been invented yet. Now how am I going to get to work?"
In fact, with no motor-traffic on the roads the inner cities would be much nicer places and you wouldn't need dormitory towns 30 miles out.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you want to basically reinvent the world, right from the word go, rejig the whole course of evolution, keeping it all the same but factoring out the invention of the car. OK. So we've hit the nail on the head.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

The VED argument is silly. Even if you accept that VED gives a right to the roads (which you can't, because Road Tax was stopped precisely to avoid that argument), car ownership is higher among cyclists than among the population in general. Virtually all cyclists are just motorists who have paid VED, got the "right" to use the roads, and decided not to wear the roads out today. Most pedestrians too.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My beef isn't with cyclists and pedestrians*, it's with buses, and the notion that the car is a wholly unnecessary luxury toy that the rich use to bully the poor with, and that since it's being subsidised right left and centre** we would be better off without it.

*Apart from ones that saunter across the road wihtout looking, and who stop cars at crossings unnecessarily.
**Which it's not.

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

And the argument that tarmac is there because of cars is wrong too. Early motorists tried to join the Cyclists' Touring Club to take part in its campaigning for better roads. It was only when a court said they couldn't that they started the Johnny-come-lately AA and RAC by using the CTC as a model [:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It might not have been invented because of the car, but most of the current network is there because of the rise in the use of the car.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

We are not thinking of today's car-centric society with the cars taken out; we are thinking of an alternative society which never had them. Communities would be more compact and essential services more local.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well YOU are. I've not seen anybody else trying to rewrite the course of history. Imagine a world where nuclear fusion had been invented in the 18th century. We wouldn't have oil problems. Imagine a world where all the countries had fused together and there was never any need for ships. It's all what-ifs, and imagination. What's the point? It didn't happen like that. So what are you getting at?
The use of the car is something which evolved from its invention. But as it did, so did the need for the use of it. So we're stuck with it, I'm afraid - contrary to the designs of your fantasy world.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

"Methods to stabilize macadam roads with tar date back to at least 1834, when Henry Cassell patented "Pitch Macadam". This method involved spreading tar on the subgrade, then placing a typical macadam layer and then sealing the macadam with a mixture of tar and sand."
From Wikipedia.
Concrete can also be used to create a stable, durable road surface.
Good roads, and good road surfaces, predate the motor car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm not talking about the invention of it or the reason it first appeared, I'm talking about the reason most of what we see today is there.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Don't forget that car users are a minority!

Even in households with a car it is usually the "breadwinner" who uses it with the women and children carless.

(Probably no rights as they are female?)

According to 2004 figures, 40% of London households have no access to a car, so add the ones sitting useless in a workplace car park, and we get a minority!

In central London (Classic commuter country) less than 10% oj journeys are by car or van.

Overall (National statistics) 27 % of households have no access to a car, and 45% one car.

In many areas the actual number of households without is greater than 50%

Car drivers are a minority.......Why are we subsidisingthem and allowing them to attempt to dictate.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why does the notion that they're in a minority lead you to believe that they're subsidised? That's not a valid inference.

Jaded · 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

But in our hypothetical car-free world, no-one would buy a house 30 miles away and then think "5hit! I've just remembered. Cars haven't been invented yet. Now how am I going to get to work?"
In fact, with no motor-traffic on the roads the inner cities would be much nicer places and you wouldn't need dormitory towns 30 miles out.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you want to basically reinvent the world, right from the word go, rejig the whole course of evolution, keeping it all the same but factoring out the invention of the car. OK. So we've hit the nail on the head.

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

Do you think that evolution and the invention of the car are the same? Like bacteria and viruses are the same?

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

Cunobelin · June 2007

**Which it's not. [/QOUTE]

Which fails to explain why the cost of running a car in tyhe UK is almostthe cheapest in Europe.

Most countries put the real cost to the Community at between œ100 and œ1500 per annum more than the UK

Private Transoportis effectively subsidised!

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.)

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

1) Instances where lives were lost due to excess congestion caused by said vehicles.
2) Instances caused by the use/abuse of private vehicles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Yes, 3500 per year.
The presence of the road network saves a lot mroe than this.

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

Like I said, that was only two particular reasons that you missed out of your previous thinking, hypothetically if the volume of private traffic was reduced on the roads the numbers killed* would drop and the numbers of people dieing because ambulances could get through the traffic would drop too. There's also the other impacts caused by excess private vehicle use to consider too, specifically the health benefits, the increase in sedentary lifestyle, the elevated levels of local air pollution (possible cause of the increase in Asthma and other respiratory problems?).

It's a win-win situation. I'm staggered you seem unable to appreciate this!

* the above quoted 3500 figure.

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

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

There are plenty of examples of where your allowance to drive on the road can be removed. For example, if there is a pedestrian on the road ahead, you have no right of way.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Mister Paul · June 2007

Read this again Bonjy-

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/docume ... r00845.pdf

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

It might not have been invented because of the car, but most of the current network is there because of the rise in the use of the car.

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

OK. So which roads weren't there before the car came along? Which places could not be reached by road?

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Do you think that evolution and the invention of the car are the same? Like bacteria and viruses are the same?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
When I say evolution I don't mean natural evolution but evolution in the wider sense that the use of the car has evolved.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Like I said, that was only two particular reasons that you missed out of your previous thinking, hypothetically if the volume of private traffic was reduced on the roads the numbers killed* would drop and the numbers of people dieing because ambulances could get through the traffic would drop too. There's also the other impacts caused by excess private vehicle use to consider too, specifically the health benefits, the increase in sedentary lifestyle, the elevated levels of local air pollution (possible cause of the increase in Asthma and other respiratory problems?).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The people that ambulances can't save because they can't get throught the traffic has got to be very minimal. You can pretend that it's a lot if you want to, which you probably are going to, but you're deluding yourself.

Air pollution, yes you might get slightly less pollution if you didn't have cars. Not by a great deal though. Again, what's your point? We have got cars, so there's no point postulating. Go and join the other greens and campaign for cars to get banned if you feel that strongly about it. You'll only be listened to by people who are similarly deluded.

And the sedentary lifestyle guff, well that's only a problem if you let it be. You can perfectly well go to the gym, or go swimming after work, or simply go for a walk in the evening with the dog, or whatever. The car doesn't FORCE people to become couch potatoes. The fact is they WANT to be couch potatoes.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

There are plenty of examples of where your allowance to drive on the road can be removed. For example, if there is a pedestrian on the road ahead, you have no right of way.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake shut up you're like a stuck record. You make that stupid claim, I tell you why you're wrong, you try and nitpick and weedle your way out of it, then it's quiet for a bit, then you simply restate the claim again because you think it will wind me up. You've made clear your imagination, and I've explained to you why it's not reality, now give it a rest.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

OK. So which roads weren't there before the car came along? Which places could not be reached by road?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My flat, for instance. They're still building new roads around there as we speak.
Most places could be reached, but not all by a nice smooth tarmac road.

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Cite the definition of 'what the word means' then please.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Get a dictionary. 'Privilege' does not imply that someone gets something in a whim; thats just in your head.

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

(further tedious ranting cut)

Sorry everyone, didn't mean to feed the troll.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

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

OK. So which roads weren't there before the car came along? Which places could not be reached by road?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My flat, for instance. They're still building new roads around there as we speak.
Most places could be reached, but not all by a nice smooth tarmac road.

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

You dimwit. That doesn't answer my question. They build new roads around your flat to reach places which have just been created/built. If they weren't there, there would be no need for the road. It has nothing to do with cars being responsible.

__________________________________________________________
campaigning for a national White Bicycle Plan

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories