WHO WANTS TO SCRAP ROAD TAX???

Jaded · June 2007

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

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

Tell you what.

Just for once, try looking life from a completely different perspective. You might then begin to see.

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

I've asked really nicely for an explanation of exactly what it is you are suggesting more than once.
You don't have to tell me if you don't want to, but it really does put an end to the discussion!

Yours, bemused,[:D]

Matt Black.[:)]

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

I think you are taking the pee too.

The answer is in the posts I have already made. You may wish to end the discussion, but that is your prerogative.

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

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
What you get for your road tax is permission to use on the public roads a dangerous piece of machinery that poisons the air we all breathe. How the Govenment spends the money is neither here nor there. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How is a car inherently dangerous? I could ride my bike at a pedestrian and easily kill him. Does that make my bike a dangerous piece of machinery?

If the VED is merely an exercise in the granting of permissions, then why does the charge vary depending on engine size, fuel type, vehicle age, and co2 output? And why do I not need permission to drive a car registered before 1973?

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I suggest you check the rules on that one. The disc may be free, but you still need the permission.

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

Archcp · June 2007

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

<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 MattBlackBigBoysBMX

What are you suggesting instead though, that we return to a simpler way of life and live off the land?
Serious question, I really can't see what it is that you are actually suggesting in place of what we have.[?]

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

Yup - make it black or white, why don't you.

You can't see because you won't see. Quite soon you'll have to see.

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

I might be able to see if you pointed my eyes in the right direction!
Honestly, I still don't know what you are suggesting?

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

I can't speak for Jaded, but I would suggest that just cutting the need for car use isn't 'living off the land'. You've reduced it to a choice between 'have a car' and 'live in the stone age', which is absurd. The point is that we should be encouraging people not to need to travel - to live and work close together. If people can commute 30 miles to a job, and don't really notice the cost of fuel, they will. And they have to live where they live, don't they, because they can have a driveway to park the car on, and a big garden to put decking over, and a lots of quiet roads and cul-de-sacs to drive along (but no actual amenities, like shops, post offices, etc. Those are all in the edge of town centre, which you have to drive to...). Meanwhile the call centre, or whatever has to be on some out of town industrial estate to be near the motorway, and to allow car parking for all the workers who commute by car....

It's a vicious circle. Time was, people lived in town, near the place they worked, and they walked or cycled to work, because it was only a mile or so. Now, all the old factories in town are blocks of luxury apartments, to house the folk who drive out of town to work in the call centres and the shopping malls etc...

OK, I'm making it a bit simple. But with a little bit better organisation, more forethought, and a change of mindset, a lot of people could still work and shop within easy distance of home - reducing the need for car use.

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

Jaded · June 2007

Exactly Arch!

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

Tourist Tony · June 2007

"Rush hour": lots of folk who live at A and work at B, passing lots of folk who live at B and work at A.

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

mjones · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
And as for you last question, well in new car sales Band G is "down to a 7.5% share compared to one of 11.% in 2005.". From SMMT.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yet further down it states:

"The new MINI Cooper for example, built in Oxford, is 19% better on fuel economy with 16% lower CO2 emissions than its predecessor, Halewood's Land Rover Freelander2 petrol boasts a 10% improvement on fuel consumption and emissions over the model it replaced, while a new range of fuel-efficient diesel models has helped Jaguar cut average tailpipe CO2 by 31.5% since 1997."

This goes against your quoted expert's opinion that companies might buy different cars due to the increasing VED, it suggests that they are buying the same cars which now happen to be in a lower band.
Hence one of my previous comments about looking at raw data rather than compiled statistics. As someone that uses statistics I am all too aware of their ability to manipulate.[;)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear. You aren't the first person to make the mistake of assuming that you are more expert in the use of statistics than others on this forum... Expect to find this claim coming back to bite you where the sun don't shine![}:)]

Sticking to grad VED for the time being, you have entirely missed the point of what graduated VED is intended to achieve, which is to shift the market towards lower CO2 cars. So instead of contradicting my argument, your Mini Cooper example demonstrates that this is exactly what is happening! If you look hard enough you will find a very useful SMMT publication showing how the CO2 linked company car tax has changed the market towards lower emission vehicles. VED will support this trend. I'm not going to give you the full reference because you are clearly an expert in these matters anyway, so I'm sure you know exactly what I'm referring to![;)]

dondare · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
What you get for your road tax is permission to use on the public roads a dangerous piece of machinery that poisons the air we all breathe. How the Govenment spends the money is neither here nor there. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How is a car inherently dangerous? I could ride my bike at a pedestrian and easily kill him. Does that make my bike a dangerous piece of machinery?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Don't be silly<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

If the VED is merely an exercise in the granting of permissions, then why does the charge vary depending on engine size, fuel type, vehicle age, and co2 output? And why do I not need permission to drive a car registered before 1973?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You pay more to poison more.
You pay more to drive a bigger or more powerful vehicle.
"Vintage" cars still need to be licenced, dunno why the licence is free. Ask Gordon Brown.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

dondare · June 2007

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

Except that I can tell you first hand that any villain worth their salt buys their cars cash in the paper, cash at auction or just plain steals them) so the vehicle licence is no use for tracking villains - it's only of use for tracking honest taxpayers who are already getting screwed.
There are so many untaxed vehicles (take walk round thorplands inNorthampton one night if you don't believe me) that the government have no control anyway. It's simply about revenue. When the DVLa have an enorcement crackdown the soundbites in the local media are always about the millions in lost revenue - never about the government maintaining control of vehccles on the road.

Eating baby elephants since 1969
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You could say the same about unlicenced firearms. There's lots of them and they're in the hands of criminals but that isn't a reason for abandoning gun control.

Governments just like to regulate things, even more than they like tax money. Papers always report the money bit, such as emphasizing how much congestion charging or road pricing is expected to raise, rather than how it will affect traffic levels.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

Cretin · 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 Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
What you get for your road tax is permission to use on the public roads a dangerous piece of machinery that poisons the air we all breathe. How the Govenment spends the money is neither here nor there. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How is a car inherently dangerous? I could ride my bike at a pedestrian and easily kill him. Does that make my bike a dangerous piece of machinery?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Don't be silly<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So my point is silly, but yours is not? The misuse of either can result in death - do bicycles somehow operate in some dimension to which the laws of physics do not apply?

Theres nothing inherently dangerous about a car or a road for that matter. Its how one uses either that may introduce the element of danger.

<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 Cretin
If the VED is merely an exercise in the granting of permissions, then why does the charge vary depending on engine size, fuel type, vehicle age, and co2 output? And why do I not need permission to drive a car registered before 1973?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You pay more to poison more.
You pay more to drive a bigger or more powerful vehicle.
"Vintage" cars still need to be licenced, dunno why the licence is free. Ask Gordon Brown.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But I pay tax on the fuel I buy - the more my car consumes, the more tax I pay.

Why should someone with a 3 litre engine doing 1000 miles a year pay more in VED than someone with a 1 litre engine doing 3000 miles a year? It doesn't make sense.

dondare · June 2007

Actually you've answered your own question. Since fuel has duty and tax on it, the driver who does more miles pays more to the government.
VED is not about how much you use the car, any more than a FAC is about how often you fire your gun.

Far too many people are killed or injured in accidents involving motor vehicles for any argument that cars aren't inherently dangerous to be valid. You might claim that they're only dangerous when someone is driving them (and even that wouldn't be true) but since that's how they're used then they are dangerous.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

Tourist Tony · June 2007

You have already and repeatedly shown that logic and reason don't "make sense" to you.
Go back to your ponytailed geeklord.

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

Cretin · June 2007

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

Actually you've answered your own question. Since fuel has duty and tax on it, the driver who does more miles pays more to the government.
VED is not about how much you use the car, any more than a FAC is about how often you fire your gun.

Far too many people are killed or injured in accidents involving motor vehicles for any argument that cars aren't inherently dangerous to be valid. You might claim that they're only dagerous when someone is driving them (and even that wouldn't be true) but since that's how they're used then they are dangerous.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fortunately I'm VAT registered so they don't get that from me, and my fuel is tax deductable. My point stands that if VED is designed to discourage use of cars with high co2 output, it is flawed because it does not take into account actual use. I could own 5 cars, I can only drive one at a time, yet I have to pay VED on each one regardless. Stupid.

Many people are killed by ladders, bathtubs, beer bottles, wasps, tables, and hospitals. I don't see anybody suggesting that they're inherently dangerous.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

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

"Getting political", but that is inevitable, transport issues are decided by our politicians. Comparing with other countries only clouds the issue, road tolling is not uncommon overseas for example. Regarding subsidy,the private motorist is subsidised in the same way that a pensioner gets subsidised bus travel. The pensioner does not get a payment towards bus fares, but does not pay the full cost of the fare. Likewise motorists do not pay the full cost to the nation of motoring.
I think you are taking the p***[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not taking the wee, just never seen the annual expenditure for roads against the tax raised from motorists, and would be surprised if the former is greater than the latter.
Feel free to show me otherwise, I am an open minded individual.[:)]

Wheelies ARE cool.

dondare · June 2007

Once upon a time there were no cars on roads. There were self-powered vehicles and they used a segregated system of tracks: the railways. One day someone suggested running railway-type engines on the roads. At the time this was considered a very hazardous proposition, and use of "light locomotives" on the public roads was subject to many rules that did not apply to other vehicles, including the requirement for each vehicle to be licenced. Some rules have been repealed and others considered necessary, but the licence has remained and so has the general perception that most people have that these powerful vehicles bring danger to the roads in a way that bicycles, ladders and tables don't.
If you don't like it then vote for a party that promises to allow the unregulated ownership and use of unlicenced motor vehicles; or form your own and stand for election.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

dondare · June 2007

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

Not taking the wee, just never seen the annual expenditure for roads against the tax raised from motorists, and would be surprised if the former is greater than the latter.
Feel free to show me otherwise, I am an open minded individual.[:)]

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

There is no connection either in theory or in practice between the two, nor any reason why there should be.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

ACcp · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
What you get for your road tax is permission to use on the public roads a dangerous piece of machinery that poisons the air we all breathe. How the Govenment spends the money is neither here nor there. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How is a car inherently dangerous? I could ride my bike at a pedestrian and easily kill him. Does that make my bike a dangerous piece of machinery?

If the VED is merely an exercise in the granting of permissions, then why does the charge vary depending on engine size, fuel type, vehicle age, and co2 output? And why do I not need permission to drive a car registered before 1973?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

A car is obviously inherently dangerous. That's because something heavy made of metal travelling at x mph inherently constitutes a greater risk than something not heavy not made of metal not travelling at x mph.

It isn't difficult.

Risk appears to be defined by SS as likelihood of having an accident or summat like that. However I think it needs to be wider than that. Can you tell me how one can safely speed without increasing the dangers to wildlife compared to staying within speed limits?

I don't eat newly created species of marine life, or even newly discovered species of marine life for that matter, but if I did eat any sort of marine life, I would use this guide: -www.fishonline.org/information/MCSPocket_Good_Fish_Guide.pdf

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

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

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
And as for you last question, well in new car sales Band G is "down to a 7.5% share compared to one of 11.% in 2005.". From SMMT.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yet further down it states:

"The new MINI Cooper for example, built in Oxford, is 19% better on fuel economy with 16% lower CO2 emissions than its predecessor, Halewood's Land Rover Freelander2 petrol boasts a 10% improvement on fuel consumption and emissions over the model it replaced, while a new range of fuel-efficient diesel models has helped Jaguar cut average tailpipe CO2 by 31.5% since 1997."

This goes against your quoted expert's opinion that companies might buy different cars due to the increasing VED, it suggests that they are buying the same cars which now happen to be in a lower band.
Hence one of my previous comments about looking at raw data rather than compiled statistics. As someone that uses statistics I am all too aware of their ability to manipulate.[;)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear. You aren't the first person to make the mistake of assuming that you are more expert in the use of statistics than others on this forum... Expect to find this claim coming back to bite you where the sun don't shine![}:)]

Sticking to grad VED for the time being, you have entirely missed the point of what graduated VED is intended to achieve, which is to shift the market towards lower CO2 cars. So instead of contradicting my argument, your Mini Cooper example demonstrates that this is exactly what is happening! If you look hard enough you will find a very useful SMMT publication showing how the CO2 linked company car tax has changed the market towards lower emission vehicles. VED will support this trend. I'm not going to give you the full reference because you are clearly an expert in these matters anyway, so I'm sure you know exactly what I'm referring to![;)]

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

As in my other reply, I have not stated or assumed I am more of an expert on statistics than others on this forum. I wish you would stop sensationalising, it adds nothing to the debate.

Firstly you claimed that graduated VED had caused companies to alter their buying habits, and I used the same stats to show that the whole story might not be being told, and that you might have overlooked a part of it.
You then state that I have proved your (totally new) argument that graduated VED has caused manufacturers to change their design habits, which I'm sure you were feeling quite smug about, and rightly so if it wasn't for the fact that manufacturers were researching more efficient, more environmentally friendly cars decades ago, before these new rules and before even catalytic convertors were made compulsory.
Both Ford and Honda (they are the only two that I have personally looked into) were developing high efficiency, low emission lean burn engines a long time ago. Unfortunately, for the consumer and the environment, the catalytic convertor laws were passed which don't work with the lean burn engines being developed, so the research stopped.

If you need proof, look it up. There is plenty of info about it available from what I remember.

Again, I am not stating that I categorically disagree with you, just that I appreciate the complexity of such matters and am therefore not willing to jump to over-simplified conclusions that I then consider fact.

xxx
Matt Black

Wheelies ARE cool.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

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

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

<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 MattBlackBigBoysBMX

What are you suggesting instead though, that we return to a simpler way of life and live off the land?
Serious question, I really can't see what it is that you are actually suggesting in place of what we have.[?]

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

Yup - make it black or white, why don't you.

You can't see because you won't see. Quite soon you'll have to see.

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

I might be able to see if you pointed my eyes in the right direction!
Honestly, I still don't know what you are suggesting?

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

I can't speak for Jaded, but I would suggest that just cutting the need for car use isn't 'living off the land'. You've reduced it to a choice between 'have a car' and 'live in the stone age', which is absurd. The point is that we should be encouraging people not to need to travel - to live and work close together. If people can commute 30 miles to a job, and don't really notice the cost of fuel, they will. And they have to live where they live, don't they, because they can have a driveway to park the car on, and a big garden to put decking over, and a lots of quiet roads and cul-de-sacs to drive along (but no actual amenities, like shops, post offices, etc. Those are all in the edge of town centre, which you have to drive to...). Meanwhile the call centre, or whatever has to be on some out of town industrial estate to be near the motorway, and to allow car parking for all the workers who commute by car....

It's a vicious circle. Time was, people lived in town, near the place they worked, and they walked or cycled to work, because it was only a mile or so. Now, all the old factories in town are blocks of luxury apartments, to house the folk who drive out of town to work in the call centres and the shopping malls etc...

OK, I'm making it a bit simple. But with a little bit better organisation, more forethought, and a change of mindset, a lot of people could still work and shop within easy distance of home - reducing the need for car use.

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thank you for the clarification that Jaded was so unwilling to submit.
([?])
In essence, I totally agree with you. People should be encouraged to walk and cycle instead of drive, it's better for everyone.
However, it is not that simple, and realistically I do not think you will ever see change to the degree that you wish.
Due to the size of population, and the demands of the consumer (that's us!), regressing to the way you mention will almost certainly never happen, and whilst it is possible to convince some people to use their cars less by using the methods you describe, I think it is unfair and wrong to punish those that don't have the choice because of the way our society has changed.

ps, my Dad used to commute 30 miles each way as in your above example.
Except by bike!

Wheelies ARE cool.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · 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 MattBlackBigBoysBMX

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

Tell you what.

Just for once, try looking life from a completely different perspective. You might then begin to see.

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

I've asked really nicely for an explanation of exactly what it is you are suggesting more than once.
You don't have to tell me if you don't want to, but it really does put an end to the discussion!

Yours, bemused,[:D]

Matt Black.[:)]

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

I think you are taking the pee too.

The answer is in the posts I have already made. You may wish to end the discussion, but that is your prerogative.

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

I've now replied in our little discussion, thanks to Arch, but please don't pretend that I want to end the discussion just because you refuse to clearly state your views.[}:)]

Thank you in advance,
Matt Black.
xxx

Wheelies ARE cool.

Jaded · June 2007

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

In essence, I totally agree with you. People should be encouraged to walk and cycle instead of drive, it's better for everyone.
[b}However, it is not that simple, and realistically I do not think you will ever see change to the degree that you wish.
Due to the size of population, and the demands of the consumer (that's us!), regressing to the way you mention will almost certainly never happen, and whilst it is possible to convince some people to use their cars less by using the methods you describe, I think it is unfair and wrong to punish those that don't have the choice because of the way our society has changed.[/B]

ps, my Dad used to commute 30 miles each way as in your above example.

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

So - you are saying that society has changed from what it was like 50 years ago, but isn't going to change any more? Of course if can change! You probably don't remember the fuel crisis of 1973(?). 50mph limit. Car sharing rife etc. You may remember how little traffic there was on the roads in the middle of one week in 2000. It may well change way faster than you think, unless a viable replacement for oil can be found in the next 20 years or so.

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

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

I'm not saying society won't change, that's ridiculous, but it will not change back to how people used to live, ie locally.
Certainly not by way of political policy anyway.

Wheelies ARE cool.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by AC
A car is obviously inherently dangerous. That's because something heavy made of metal travelling at x mph inherently constitutes a greater risk than something not heavy not made of metal not travelling at x mph.

It isn't difficult.

Risk appears to be defined by SS as likelihood of having an accident or summat like that. However I think it needs to be wider than that. Can you tell me how one can safely speed without increasing the dangers to wildlife compared to staying within speed limits?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Given the choice of being hit by a modern saloon at 20mph, or a bicycle at 20mph, I know which I'd take.

I couldn't care less about wildlife. If it appears I'll try and avoid it. If it runs out in front of me, that could be at any time and at any speed and it isn't going to be pretty.

Tell me, what measures do you undertake to avoid swallowing flies while riding? How can you reduce the danger to insects while riding? And what makes insects less important than sheep or deer?

BigWomble · June 2007

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

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

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

<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 MattBlackBigBoysBMX

What are you suggesting instead though, that we return to a simpler way of life and live off the land?
Serious question, I really can't see what it is that you are actually suggesting in place of what we have.[?]

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

Yup - make it black or white, why don't you.

You can't see because you won't see. Quite soon you'll have to see.

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

I might be able to see if you pointed my eyes in the right direction!
Honestly, I still don't know what you are suggesting?

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

I can't speak for Jaded, but I would suggest that just cutting the need for car use isn't 'living off the land'. You've reduced it to a choice between 'have a car' and 'live in the stone age', which is absurd. The point is that we should be encouraging people not to need to travel - to live and work close together. If people can commute 30 miles to a job, and don't really notice the cost of fuel, they will. And they have to live where they live, don't they, because they can have a driveway to park the car on, and a big garden to put decking over, and a lots of quiet roads and cul-de-sacs to drive along (but no actual amenities, like shops, post offices, etc. Those are all in the edge of town centre, which you have to drive to...). Meanwhile the call centre, or whatever has to be on some out of town industrial estate to be near the motorway, and to allow car parking for all the workers who commute by car....

It's a vicious circle. Time was, people lived in town, near the place they worked, and they walked or cycled to work, because it was only a mile or so. Now, all the old factories in town are blocks of luxury apartments, to house the folk who drive out of town to work in the call centres and the shopping malls etc...

OK, I'm making it a bit simple. But with a little bit better organisation, more forethought, and a change of mindset, a lot of people could still work and shop within easy distance of home - reducing the need for car use.

If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thank you for the clarification that Jaded was so unwilling to submit.
([?])
In essence, I totally agree with you. People should be encouraged to walk and cycle instead of drive, it's better for everyone.
However, it is not that simple, and realistically I do not think you will ever see change to the degree that you wish.
Due to the size of population, and the demands of the consumer (that's us!), regressing to the way you mention will almost certainly never happen, and whilst it is possible to convince some people to use their cars less by using the methods you describe, I think it is unfair and wrong to punish those that don't have the choice because of the way our society has changed.

ps, my Dad used to commute 30 miles each way as in your above example.
Except by bike!

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

If you want to get rid of all (or most) of the cars, it will involve a fundamental re-imagining of the transport system. It would have to be done one town or city at a time. Somewhere dry and flat, where there are already lots of bicycles - Cambridge for example - would be an interesting choice for a town or city built around bicycles. It would take a lot of effort, given how many cars we have and how little of anything else there is. Even if all the cars went, though, there would still be freight and the emergency services. 'Car free' (in absolute terms) is basically impossible, although there have been some impressive ideas:

http://www.carfree.com/

Usually, someone at this point pipes up with the observation that they live in a village in the countryside, and so therefore they must drive an SUV right into the centre of the town or city. In reality, they could always leave their car at the outskirts.

What are the benefits of getting rid of the car? - the answer is, a better standard of living. Surprised? Well, a large number of people prefer to live in the countryside (largely car free), in a cul-de-sac (largely car free) and would have no problems with going on holiday to Venice (ditto). The much-vaunted 'freedom of mobility' has been eroded by congestion and by the fact that companies now built further away from each other. The corner shop has been replaced by the supermarket. Anyway, all that a car does is to take people further from their home, and put like that it's not too clever.

PS: My grandfather used to cycle 8 miles over the local hills on a traditional bicycle, pick up some coal, and then walk the bicycle back home. They were either more hardy or more unlucky than us.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

dondare · June 2007

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

Given the choice of being hit by a modern saloon at 20mph, or a bicycle at 20mph, I know which I'd take.

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

According to a current public information film, a child hit by a motor vehicle at 20 mph has an 80% chance of survival. I'd guess that a child hit by a bike going at that speed (and most cars go faster, and most bikes go slower) has a better than an 80% chance of survival. But probably there haven't been enough deaths caused by bikes hitting pedestrians to estimate the real figure.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

MattBlackBigBoysBMX · June 2007

Isn't it 40mph = 80% dead, 30mph = 80% alive?
Hence the tag line "It's 30[mph] for a reason".
I'm sure I saw it over the weekend.

Wheelies ARE cool.

dondare · June 2007

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

Isn't it 40mph = 80% dead, 30mph = 80% alive?
Hence the tag line "It's 30[mph] for a reason".
I'm sure I saw it over the weekend.

Wheelies ARE cool.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I stand corrected.

But I suspect that at 20, 30 or 40 cars do more damage than bikes. There simply aren't enough bike casualties to provide a comparison.

"da sapienti et addetur ei sapientia doce iustum et festinabit accipere."

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I don't understand the debate here. Hasn't it already been proved that cyclists are more dangerous than white vansd?

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

Unknown · June 2007

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

I don't understand the debate here. Hasn't it already been proved that cyclists are more dangerous than white vansd?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's so incredibly funny and clever! You're a genius!

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Ah! Another stalker!
I shall call you Mongo.

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

WHO WANTS TO SCRAP ROAD TAX???

Comments

Categories