'No more war on the motorist'
Comments
-
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:TailWindHome wrote:CTRL + C
CTRL + V
and repeat ad nauseam
Pertinent to the thread, I would have thought. Don't read it if you're not interested, you rude person. The thread's about the spurious "War Against Motorists" and so is that article. I thought just posting the linkwould be less helpful than posting the article. If that annoys you then please go and boil your head.
Cuttting and pasting an 'opinion piece' is not pertinent. Even if the author's opinion coincides with your own.
It is mildly irritating to read a post, then click on the link only to find that the link is to the original article which I've already read. That and of course the frequency and volume of your similar posts.
This posting style is also a hallmark of your previously banned proflies.rude personplease go and boil your head
Nice!“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
jds_1981 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Nor did the transport secretary quote his own civil servants' figures, which show that the cost of motoring fell 14% between 1997 and 2009 – even while rail fares went up 13% and bus and coach ticket prices shot up 24%.
& yet the 'real cost' of running a car has increased by almost a quarter over the same period...
I could carry on, but then I'd just be cherry picking figures much as the guardian article has done (bias, really?)
Well I think the point was that the price of oil went up a lot, due to factors entirely outside Brown/Cameron's control. That being so, they did in fact reduce the tax a couple of times.
If anything the 'war on the motorist' began in 1993, under Kenneth Clarke, Conservative chancellor, who introduced the Fuel Price Escalator. It was scrapped by Gordon Brown in 2000, following protests - the Major government did much more to make motoring more expensive than Brown/Blair.
Petrol tax in 1992 was 27.79p/litre. It is now 57.19p/litre. That's an increase of 4.1% per annum, hardly outrageous.
By comparison tobacco duty has gone from 4.9p/cigarette plus 20% of retail to 11.9p/cigarette plus 24% of retail.0 -
jds_1981 wrote:Anyway, I was of the opinion that 'war on the motorist' wasn't so much general running costs of cars, but more along the lines of additional street parking costs, speed humps which damage cars and so on.
I think both of these are outside the control of central government in any case.With regards to competitiveness to public transport isn't one of the major problems that public transport is not convenient or competitive in many cases?
What do you think the government policy to reverse these trends should be? large subsidies for the overly expensive public transport, or more punitive measures on motoring?
There aren't really any punitive measures against motoring. For example nervous cyclists are encouraged to use shared-use paths (often the pavement). But these are generally awful because they have to give way to cars often every few yards. In Holland these routes give bikes priority over motor vehicles.
For instance:
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2 ... 56344.html
The road is designed entirely around cars. The road has been narrowed to protect pedestrians from speeding motorists. No provision has been made for cyclists to pass through and the narrowed road is actually dangerous, as motor vehicles will still pass at pinch points.
It's not so much attacking motorists for the sake of it but considering that roads made less attractive for driving (or pedestrianised) are generally more liveable and much safer. If you stop thinking about attacking cars but instead think about how to make other options more attractive (which might cause some collateral damage to motoring - for instance the West London Tram was to have shut a few roads, in the cause of reducing the public transport journey time from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge, but shutting roads certainly wasn't the motivation) then that works better. Clearly subsidising inconvenient bus servicees isn't going to make them significantly more attractive for most people,, but reducing road space for cars in order to provide safe, segregated space for bicycles is going to make more motorists think twice.0 -
Good point TWH. If they've been banned before, surely coming back under a different username means they get banned again?TailWindHome wrote:This posting style is also a hallmark of your previously banned proflies."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lets get one thing straight here - I don't care to argue either way, my post with regards to the guardian article was pointing out somewhat biased picking of data.
However, I will point out things contrary to your assertions
But central government can push policies and allow and disallow things. In addition, many councillors are aligned to parties.thelawnet wrote:I think both of these are outside the control of central government in any case.
Proliferation ofThere aren't really any punitive measures against motoring.
20mph limit roads where they are not required
speed humps which damage suspension
zoning streets for parking when there isn't need.
?
Yup, they're crap, don't think you'll find many people disagreeing.For example nervous cyclists are encouraged to use shared-use paths (often the pavement). But these are generally awful because they have to give way to cars often every few yards.
Roads tend to be designed for the major transport of the day? Anyway, you claim it has then been engineered around pedestrians? I'd claim it has been badly designed to work against road vehicles including motorists.The road is designed entirely around cars. The road has been narrowed to protect pedestrians from speeding motorists.
& if there has been a bike bypass people would end up having to merge immediately after the pinch point - potentially as bad.. Normally they have cars parked on either side too. I don't take bypasses like that as there's not going to be enough room for a driver to overtake.No provision has been made for cyclists to pass through and the narrowed road is actually dangerous, as motor vehicles will still pass at pinch points.
Reminds me of an incident earlier today. I was driving back from Epping Forest and got stuck behind a few roadies. Sat behind them for a little while then got on to a straight piece of road. I stayed behind them because I could see a pinch point coming up in the distance which I might have made but would have been a stretch. The guy behind me pipped his horn so I flipped him the bird :twisted:
Got a wave off the roadie as I went past too.
Remove cars, less accidents? Great. Anecdotally, the road I'm on has recently been changed to a 20. As far as I can see there are no fewer cars, no decrease in speed and no groups of kids who have decided it'll be grand to play on the road..It's not so much attacking motorists for the sake of it but considering that roads made less attractive for driving (or pedestrianised) are generally more liveable and much safer.
If it's pedestrianised presumably it isn't going to be good for getting anywhere at pace on a bike?
I wasn't thinking about attacking carsIf you stop thinking about attacking cars
I generally think people who willingly drive into London quite mad. However, I have to occasionally when I try to get to the other side. Generally I think we should be trying to get all traffic flowing as quickly as possible.but instead think about how to make other options more attractive (which might cause some collateral damage to motoring - for instance the West London Tram was to have shut a few roads, in the cause of reducing the public transport journey time from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge, but shutting roads certainly wasn't the motivation) then that works better.
Ah, the war on motorists :PClearly subsidising inconvenient bus servicees isn't going to make them significantly more attractive for most people,, but reducing road space for cars in order to provide safe, segregated space for bicycles is going to make more motorists think twice.
Don't think you necessarily need to reduce road space for cars to 'encourage' cycling. Although I understand for many it is different I am quite happy to share the road with cars. My main issue is lots of the anti-car devices inconvenience me as much as the cars - not much fun being stuck behind a car as it tries to navigate speed bumps.
Agree that a lot better could be done than then current situation.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
And that brings me on to my rant - I use the roads in to London every day on my road bike. If I had the choice between councils spending money on roads bumps and councils spending money on keeping the road surface nice and smooth I'm sure you know which I'd go for..
(oh, and move some of those slippery metal covers - didn't cause me issues on my mtb but now notice them on my road bike)FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
thelawnet wrote:Have we really had a 'war on the motorist'? As far as I can tell the motorist is at war with us, while no motorists have been killed as a result of this 'war', motorists kill people, usually entirely avoidably, on a daily basis, and the general policy is to appease the aggressor rather than making any attempt to curtail its violent power.
I guess we'd best not expect any better cycle provision under this government....
There has never been a war on anybody, unless you talk about Iraqui and Afghani people.
Some kn0bheads with very low IQ think that any measure to curtail pollution by reducing traffic levels - and at the same time getting people a bit more active and healthy - is a war on poor little them, because they buy the notion spat at them by the mass media that life without a car is completely worthless. And those kn0bheads happen to write for the Daily Mail.0 -
A bit extreme - are you and 'Mybreakfastconsisted' the same person?MadammeMarie wrote:Some kn0bheads with very low IQ think that any measure to curtail pollution by reducing traffic levels - and at the same time getting people a bit more active and healthy - is a war on poor little them, because they buy the notion spat at them by the mass media that life without a car is completely worthless. And those kn0bheads happen to write for the Daily Mail."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
MadammeMarie wrote:thelawnet wrote:Have we really had a 'war on the motorist'? As far as I can tell the motorist is at war with us, while no motorists have been killed as a result of this 'war', motorists kill people, usually entirely avoidably, on a daily basis, and the general policy is to appease the aggressor rather than making any attempt to curtail its violent power.
I guess we'd best not expect any better cycle provision under this government....
There has never been a war on anybody, unless you talk about Iraqui and Afghani people.
Some kn0bheads with very low IQ think that any measure to curtail pollution by reducing traffic levels - and at the same time getting people a bit more active and healthy - is a war on poor little them, because they buy the notion spat at them by the mass media that life without a car is completely worthless. And those kn0bheads happen to write for the Daily Mail.
Daily Mail: 20 mph zones don't save lives:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dents.html
Oh yes they do:
Contrary to what you may have read in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, 20mph zones do reduce the number of road injuries and vehicle speeds,
A report into the first scheme to be introduced in England found casualties fell 22 per cent a year while average speeds decreased by 1.3 per cent.
http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2010/10/de ... safer.html
Pure spin, designed to reinforce this notion that anything done to curtail driver's behaviour is repressive and extreme.0 -
So anyway.... if there was a megashark and a giant octopus....
And they had a fight....
:P0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:So anyway.... if there was a megashark and a giant octopus....
And they had a fight....
:P
A still from the awesome Sharktopus:
I can only speculate that Sharktopus is the bizarre love child of Megashark and Giant Octopus. Perhaps the winner ravaged the bodice of the loser's missus.
Well, you would, wouldn't you?0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:So anyway.... if there was a megashark and a giant octopus....
And they had a fight....
:P
A still from the awesome Sharktopus:
I can only speculate that Sharktopus is the bizarre love child of Megashark and Giant Octopus. Perhaps the winner ravaged the bodice of the loser's missus.
Well, you would, wouldn't you?
Yeah, of course, in battles of mega-creatures, anglo-saxon rules apply.
Like, d'uh.
A sharktopus.... but the shark in the picture looks to be being attacked by some manner of octopus rather than having its own tentacles. What's going on?0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:So anyway.... if there was a megashark and a giant octopus....
And they had a fight....
:P
A still from the awesome Sharktopus:
I can only speculate that Sharktopus is the bizarre love child of Megashark and Giant Octopus. Perhaps the winner ravaged the bodice of the loser's missus.
Well, you would, wouldn't you?
Yeah, of course, in battles of mega-creatures, anglo-saxon rules apply.
Like, d'uh.
A sharktopus.... but the shark in the picture looks to be being attacked by some manner of octopus rather than having its own tentacles. What's going on?
It's a theory (and could only really ever be a theory, because these are very private creatures), but I think Sharktopus is giving one of his/her/its in-laws a bit of a going over.
You know how family arguments can get...0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2PwwlktImU&feature=sub
The estimable Carlton Reidof "Ipayroadtax" -clip of Hammond at the Tory Party Conference today.
Rail is "subsidised"; roads are "investments".
Fram a bod who drives from Pimlico to Westminster, stone me.0 -
Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Greg66 wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:So anyway.... if there was a megashark and a giant octopus....
And they had a fight....
:P
A still from the awesome Sharktopus:
I can only speculate that Sharktopus is the bizarre love child of Megashark and Giant Octopus. Perhaps the winner ravaged the bodice of the loser's missus.
Well, you would, wouldn't you?
Yeah, of course, in battles of mega-creatures, anglo-saxon rules apply.
Like, d'uh.
A sharktopus.... but the shark in the picture looks to be being attacked by some manner of octopus rather than having its own tentacles. What's going on?
It's a theory (and could only really ever be a theory, because these are very private creatures), but I think Sharktopus is giving one of his/her/its in-laws a bit of a going over.
You know how family arguments can get...
Interesting theory.
I had hypothesised that it might be part of the mating ritual...0 -
Let's hope they invest serious money improving the roads.
It's like Paris-Roubaix where I live.
I'd prefer my Road Tax isn't wasted on an outdated, expensive and inflexible transport system such as railways.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:
I'd prefer my Road Tax isn't wasted on an outdated, expensive and inflexible transport system such as railways.
Extra £800m
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... speed-rail
Hammond told delegates that nothing was more symbolic of Labour's indiscriminate war on motorists.
He said he would "spoil" the retirement of Lord Prescott, the former deputy prime minister who initiated the scheme, by announcing that the bus lane would be suspended from Christmas Eve this year until the Olympics in the summer of 2012.
"Once the Olympics are over, my intention is to scrap it permanently: shortening average journey times, reducing congestion, restoring a sense of fairness, consigning to the dustbin of history this hated symbol of the Prescott era,"
Hammond said.
What a bellend.0 -
So Hammond wants to spend £800 million on improving the Rail network.
I know what my problem is with that, but can't understand why you have an issue. I would have thought you'd be all for that.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
More rail funding is fan double doozie, it's Hammond's repeated claim that someone's been "At War" with motorists that makes the man a snivelling piss weasel.0
-
The war on the motorist won't begin until Jeremy Clarkson's severed head is ceremoniously nailed to the door of number 10.What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0
-
Stevo 666 wrote:A bit extreme - are you and 'Mybreakfastconsisted' the same person?
Nope, I'm unique, the one and only MadammeMarie.....who tells fortunes better than the cops do! ;-)0 -
It's not "extreme" to support the claim that The Mail and other tabloids propogate this "War Against Motorists" myth, as The Mail's complete misreading of the 20mph limits story above shows.
If a bank robber claimed his conviction was unfair because CCTV in banks constitute a "War Against Bank Robbers" then it would never stand up in court, but I'm the same in a crowd.
Average tenure Transport Secretaries= 18 months. Hammond's ignorance and dangerous tabloid-sating may result in a swifter exit for the silly chuffer.0 -
OK then - you were starting to sound a bit similar for a minute. Although I see you have a sense of humourMadammeMarie wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:A bit extreme - are you and 'Mybreakfastconsisted' the same person?
Nope, I'm unique, the one and only MadammeMarie.....who tells fortunes better than the cops do! ;-)
Anyway, must dash - Top Gear is on the box shortly."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Reversing any decision made by that well known mensa member Lord Prescott, aka 'Two Jags', has to be a good decision. Well done that Hammond chapmybreakfastconsisted wrote:Average tenure Transport Secretaries= 18 months. Hammond's ignorance and dangerous tabloid-sating may result in a swifter exit for the silly chuffer. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Reversing any decision made by that well known mensa member Lord Prescott, aka 'Two Jags', has to be a good decision. Well done that Hammond chapmybreakfastconsisted wrote:Average tenure Transport Secretaries= 18 months. Hammond's ignorance and dangerous tabloid-sating may result in a swifter exit for the silly chuffer.
+1. Prescott was never more than a token old Labour face used to give the impression of a link to the past. He was (yet) another example of a Labour cabinet member promoted miles beyond his ability.0 -
jds_1981 wrote:
But central government can push policies and allow and disallow things. In addition, many councillors are aligned to parties.thelawnet wrote:I think both of these are outside the control of central government in any case.
Proliferation ofThere aren't really any punitive measures against motoring.
20mph limit roads where they are not required
speed humps which damage suspension
zoning streets for parking when there isn't need.
?
I think it's been demonstrated very well that traffic calming measures are very necessary.
"28,567 people were killed or seriously injured last year, a decline of 7% on 2007."
That's a lot of people killed or seriously injured, many of whom, unlike most other causes of death, will be young and in good health.
I don't know why you seriously think that the purpose of speed humps is to damage people's suspension.
Fact is that a very substantial proportion of drivers are simply dangerous, and measures are put in place to protect us from them. The idea that trying to save lives is 'punitive' is ludicrous. If you don't believe me, take a look at the developing world, where road deaths kill more children than AIDS or malaria. If it wasn't for the 'punitive' measures we wouldn't have succesfully reduced road deaths as we have.
Streets are zoned for parking I believe in order to generate revenue. This is not a 'punitive' measure either, merely a way to attract revenue. There's not that many ways councils can do this.
Roads tend to be designed for the major transport of the day? Anyway, you claim it has then been engineered around pedestrians? I'd claim it has been badly designed to work against road vehicles including motorists.The road is designed entirely around cars. The road has been narrowed to protect pedestrians from speeding motorists.
No no, it's engineered to protect pedestrians from motorists, something which is clearly necessary. You can't say it's been engineered around pedestrians, because a road for pedestrians would admit no motor vehicles at all. That the road features protect pedestrians is not the same as saying it's designed for them.
& if there has been a bike bypass people would end up having to merge immediately after the pinch point - potentially as bad..No provision has been made for cyclists to pass through and the narrowed road is actually dangerous, as motor vehicles will still pass at pinch points.
Not really, no. The cyclist can make it through the bypass quicker than the car, which has to slow right down in order to judge the gap, and it's much better to be master of your own destiny, choosing when to rejoin the traffic, than to be at the mercy of impatient car drivers overtaking you where there's no room.
Remove cars, less accidents? Great. Anecdotally, the road I'm on has recently been changed to a 20. As far as I can see there are no fewer cars, no decrease in speed and no groups of kids who have decided it'll be grand to play on the road..It's not so much attacking motorists for the sake of it but considering that roads made less attractive for driving (or pedestrianised) are generally more liveable and much safer.
And your problem, anecdotally, is what?If it's pedestrianised presumably it isn't going to be good for getting anywhere at pace on a bike?
Bikes don't need to travel at 30mph. Most people just want to get to the shops. 10mph is quite adequate, and not really any slower than driving for 2-3 mile journeys, considering parking, etc.
I generally think people who willingly drive into London quite mad. However, I have to occasionally when I try to get to the other side. Generally I think we should be trying to get all traffic flowing as quickly as possible.but instead think about how to make other options more attractive (which might cause some collateral damage to motoring - for instance the West London Tram was to have shut a few roads, in the cause of reducing the public transport journey time from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge, but shutting roads certainly wasn't the motivation) then that works better.
Well not necessarily, no. The point of the tram scheme was to make the tram more attractive and faster, with predictable journey times, compared with on-road options. As you say, there's not really much logic in driving in London, so making that traffic flow more smoothly needn't be a priority at all.
Ah, the war on motorists :PClearly subsidising inconvenient bus servicees isn't going to make them significantly more attractive for most people,, but reducing road space for cars in order to provide safe, segregated space for bicycles is going to make more motorists think twice.
Don't think you necessarily need to reduce road space for cars to 'encourage' cycling.
I think the point is that a proper bike lane is going to take as much room as a typical urban motor vehicle lane - not because bikes take up as much space, but to provide physical separation from both pedestrians and motor vehicles. That generally does mean less road space. And again, it does encourage cycling if people see that bicycles take priority over cars, which clearly isn't the case at the moment; many people are somewhat elitist and want to travel the 'best' way, which clearly isn't the vomit-ridden bus, but if they perceive that bikes are more convenient, then many will certainly switch.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Reversing any decision made by that well known mensa member Lord Prescott, aka 'Two Jags', has to be a good decision. Well done that Hammond chapmybreakfastconsisted wrote:Average tenure Transport Secretaries= 18 months. Hammond's ignorance and dangerous tabloid-sating may result in a swifter exit for the silly chuffer.
I very much doubt he thought it up. It would have originated from someone in the Highways Agency.
My understanding was they were simply going to close the lane at J3, so as to merge 3 into 2 at an exit, rather than further down the road, but then it was decided that they might as well use it for buses.0 -
thelawnet wrote:
"28,567 people were killed or seriously injured last year, a decline of 7% on 2007."
That's a lot of people killed or seriously injured, many of whom, unlike most other causes of death, will be young and in good health.
Afraid I'm not really interested in playing, even to the extend of correcting your (deliberate?)misinterpretations of what I've said.
Parting shot is: -62% of all road fatalities in 2007 occurred on rural roads, which carry only 42% of traffic;FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Greg66 wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Reversing any decision made by that well known mensa member Lord Prescott, aka 'Two Jags', has to be a good decision. Well done that Hammond chapmybreakfastconsisted wrote:Average tenure Transport Secretaries= 18 months. Hammond's ignorance and dangerous tabloid-sating may result in a swifter exit for the silly chuffer.
+1. Prescott was never more than a token old Labour face used to give the impression of a link to the past. He was (yet) another example of a Labour cabinet member promoted miles beyond his ability.
"Lord" Prescott is a total yob. I just wish he'd sod off and eat some more pies, rather than giving his ignorant and fat-faced "opinion" on anything ever again.
Hateful hypocrite.0
