Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 06:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:33 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
glaikie wrote:
I'm pleased to note that you've stopped quibbling about the existence of a subsidy gradient heavily in favour of private motoring.


Thanks for pointing out my geographical error - must try harder.

I don't quibble about the "gradient" I current doubt it completely.

The most comprehensive sets of figures for full costs of different types of transport are now quite old (1998 as far as I know, I'd be grateful for being pointed at some more recent authoritative figures).

However this paper from 2003 examined the methods for calculation of social etc costs across Europe and clearly shows that in 1998 UK revenue from road transport was a multiple of UK social cost. Whilst cars have got much cheaper in the meantime, other taxation and costs have increased. I also agree that social costs will have increased as well, but would take a lot of persuading and some proper figures to be persuaded that the balance has reversed in 9 years.

See:

http://www.stellaproject.org/FocusGroup ... s/link.doc


The full 1998 report by an eminent Prof at Cambridge is here:

Link to Report

(long link hidden by moderator)

(Thanks to Turbobloke for the links)

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 13:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
A point often overlooked by those who quote "social costs" of motoring is that they can't be considered in isolation. It's not as if you either have "motoring" or "no motoring". People wouldn't just sit at home and do nothing - there has to be an alternative scenario to compare it against. Would we, for example, make much more use of horse-drawn transport, which carries its own risks and dangers? And roads where the only traffic was buses, goods vehicles and official limousines would not be free of danger either.

Also it is intellectually dishonest to look at social costs while ignoring the social benefits that come from faster, more convenient, cheaper and more flexible transport of goods and people.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 19:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
PeterE wrote:
A point often overlooked by those who quote "social costs" of motoring is that they can't be considered in isolation. It's not as if you either have "motoring" or "no motoring". People wouldn't just sit at home and do nothing
Couple of points; your monochrome either/or filters are a bit restrictive. I'm not aware of any proponents of sustainable and active transport alternatives who would subscribe to your clumsy dichotomies. But are you agreeing that the end of private motoring wouldn't herald the end of personal mobility?
Quote:
Also it is intellectually dishonest to look at social costs while ignoring the social benefits that come from faster, more convenient, cheaper and more flexible transport of goods and people.

As would be the reverse.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 19:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
glaikie wrote:
PeterE wrote:
A point often overlooked by those who quote "social costs" of motoring is that they can't be considered in isolation. It's not as if you either have "motoring" or "no motoring". People wouldn't just sit at home and do nothing
Couple of points; your monochrome either/or filters are a bit restrictive. I'm not aware of any proponents of sustainable and active transport alternatives who would subscribe to your clumsy dichotomies. But are you agreeing that the end of private motoring wouldn't herald the end of personal mobility?

It would herald the end of a large measure of personal freedom, though - and is something that no developed society on the Earth has remotely contemplated.

glaikie wrote:
PeterE wrote:
Also it is intellectually dishonest to look at social costs while ignoring the social benefits that come from faster, more convenient, cheaper and more flexible transport of goods and people.

As would be the reverse.

Indeed, which is why it is simplest to consider just tangible costs.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 19:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
beard, I'm naturally going to be leery of a report commissioned by the AA and hosted on the IAM site. There's a lot of it. Figure 4 (Road costs and charges 96/97) doesn't seem to take any account of the cost of road casualties. Currently running at @£19billion per annum.
Both links are to pre-Stern Review work.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 20:06 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
glaikie wrote:
beard, I'm naturally going to be leery of a report commissioned by the AA and hosted on the IAM site. There's a lot of it. Figure 4 (Road costs and charges 96/97) doesn't seem to take any account of the cost of road casualties. Currently running at @£19billion per annum.
Both links are to pre-Stern Review work.


I understand, but the Prof in question is highly respected! What's your problem with the Stella project work?

Similarly, you don't expect me to have problems with a piece of research with one of the most biased approaches to selecting its sample population I think I have seen? (I refer to the Anable article). Have said that, I have more problem with the way you have used it on here than the paper itself.

Sorry - edited to add - if you are going to start on the Climate Change issues a la Stern Review, please leave me out of the discussion - that is a political agenda - on here, I'm interested in road safety.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 01:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
glaikie wrote:
If you've got an average for the walking done by public transport users in the course of their commute, then by all means substitute that.


No, you're the one that ought to be doing that if you're to stand any chance of convincing me that your arguments are credible. YOU, after all, are trying to convince ME of the benefits. Naturally, I am quite willing to accept that commuting by any form of public transport (other than a taxi) is likely to involve SOME degree of additional exercise, but for you to quote figures based on your particular circumstances and then expect me to take it as some kind of indication of the figures in general only undermines your credibility. In fact, as we're talking personal experiences, in my last job in the centre of Manchester, Oxford Road train station was actually CLOSER to my office than my space in the car park!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 02:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
You've got slaver down your front.
I'm not answerable for your lack of comprehension. It's wholly clear from the text that I used my experience for purely illustrative purposes and not as definitive of every commute.
So, a smidgen of walking, as confirmed by the articles I linked you, and as is often a component of commuting by public transport, can play a significant part in fighting obesity.
Why this should so enrage you is anybody's guess.
Were you to commute by public transport you could probably dispense with any walking and burn up enough calories by bringing to mind some resentment, and grinding your teeth.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 02:22 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
glaikie wrote:
beard, I'm naturally going to be leery of a report commissioned by the AA and hosted on the IAM site.


Though happy to accept one from the RAC, so long as it appears to push your agenda. Of course that never survived due to the mistake of only considering vehicles purchased new on finance, with first year depreciation values, then reduced to a per unit comparison.

You also continue to happily tout the Copenhagen clips, without acknowledging the fact that such a system would not be, and indeed is not, practical beyond the confines of a dense urban environment.

Whilst bemoaning to sociological costs of road fatalities, did you factor in the costs of casualties hit by public transport or emergency services. How about those killed on the railways? You seem perfectly happy to attribute all tarmac-related costs to private motoring, which is a major flaw in your stance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 03:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
So you're saying motoring is much cheaper than the RAC figures! That's fantastic news, isn't it? So why are you all so glum and angry?
You're right. If only we had some dense urban environments like Copenhagen here in the UK. Sigh... I'm being flippant. Did you think you were making a serious point? Are you serious in suggesting that because Copenhagen is a city, sustainable transport principles are only applicable to dense urban environments? You have a think about that one and get back to me.
No it isn't. Are we done?

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
glaikie wrote:
So you're saying motoring is much cheaper than the RAC figures! That's fantastic news, isn't it? So why are you all so glum and angry?
You're right. If only we had some dense urban environments like Copenhagen here in the UK. Sigh... I'm being flippant. Did you think you were making a serious point? Are you serious in suggesting that because Copenhagen is a city, sustainable transport principles are only applicable to dense urban environments? You have a think about that one and get back to me.
No it isn't. Are we done?


Nope, thats not what I'm saying, I am saying that your now-debunked analysis of the RAC figures to try to show motoring is so much cheaper was wholly wrong, as you used the 'extra costs' the RAC assumed in order to suggest that the proportion of costs spent on fuel are less significant than they actually are. That is not to mention the fact that the average mpg from the vehicles considered is much more respectable than many cars of an older vintage.

Its a nice try at a strawman, but even reading my immediate antecedent one can see that I do not suggest anywhere that 'sustainable transport principles are only applicable to dense urban environments'. What I do suggest is that the Copenhagen model will not, and does not, apply outside a dense urban environment. As mentioned previously, and studiously ignored by you as inconvenient to your rhetoric, people will not cycle vast distances as a commute or for shopping, so such amenities must be close to residential areas. The UK has a far greater cost for central urban living than Europe, so less people will live within cycling distance. I'm sure you don't class any motorised vehicles as 'sustainable transport' since they all utilise non-renewable energy sources to some degree.

Your arrogance does not mask the weakness of your standpoint, are we done?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 17:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
I don't recall your estimate for the percentage change in the cost of motoring over the last 30 years, and/or over the last 2 years. I'm going to be led by govt figures which claim a 10% drop in real terms over the 30 yrs to 2005, and a 3.5% (over 2 years, hence below level of inflation) rise since then. Construct and substantiate something by all means, but until you do I'm not going to give credibility to the disaffected anecdotage of livid safespeeders fulminating against the long overdue diminution of their subsidy. Were you bus users you'd have grounds to complain, and my sympathy.
Quote:
The UK has a far greater cost for central urban living than Europe, so less people will live within cycling distance

You might want to substantiate the cost claim, and the cycling distance claim. I don't recognise your picture of a UK of de-populated cities, people having fled to the country where old rectories are ten a penny. Not that you need to substantiate really; it's all a bit of a red herring. With 72% of all journeys made in the UK being of less than 5 miles length, and 50% being less than 2 miles, we needn't fear running out of journeys that are amenable to a cycling or walking solution. Happily.
'Sustainable' isn't coterminous with 'human powered'. Bear that in mind as you have another stab at your homework.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 18:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Let's see,

selective baseline?
glaikie wrote:
claim a 10% drop in real terms over the 30 yrs
Check!

selective memory?
glaikie wrote:
to 2005, and a 3.5% (over 2 years, hence below level of inflation) rise since then.

glaikie previously wrote:
3.5% between October 2006 to 2007.
Check!

Selective filtering?
The AA fuel price report Dec 2007 wrote:
"Fuel prices, that have soared in the last three months seven per cent for petrol and 11 per cent for diesel..."
Check!

Selective arguments?
smeggy previously wrote:
increase in VED and the extortionate parking charges (when it used to be free). And what of the CC charge to London motorists?
Check!

Yup, you’re ready to be led!

Why should anyone give credibility to the disaffected anecdotage of livid car-haters?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 18:46 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Quite smeggy!

glaikie, you're happy to be led by government figures, yet pages ago I showed you a means by which you could get a real result. Incidentally, the RAC, despite their name, are not a govt organisation. I have no need to show you anything, I already know my motoring is getting more expensive.

You have yet to demonstrate any level of public subsidy for private motoring. The best you could come up with is a parking space provided by your employer, who happens to be a public agency. It is disingenuous to continue making these unsubstantiated claims when you have been given every opportunity to back them up!

For cost of living, Mercer Consultancy conducts an annual study, which puts London as the 2nd most expensive city in the world for 2007, whereas Copenhagen is down at 6th. A UBS study puts London first, with Copenhagen still in 6th. Both these studies are done as a comparison to New York, given a baseline score of 100, and London returns 105.5, whilst Copenhagen only scores 86.3. That means that London is more expensive than Copenhagen by almost 20% of the cost to live in NY. Add to this the fact that Denmark has the fifth highest average income in Europe, with the UK not being in the top four, and it means city living in Copenhagen is much more affordable then London. In the Mercer study the UK has two other cities in the top 50, Glasgow and Birmingham, whereas Denmark has none. Consider the claim substantiated, if only you would be as fastidious in substantiating your own hollow claims.

Please enlighten us as to what non-human-powered forms of transport you consider sustainable, in that they use renewable energy sources. I guess horse/ox-drawn carts, land yachts, solar cars. Are any of these considered viable options?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 21:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
Remind me, what was the 'real' result your means led to?

I've pointed out that over a 30 year period that has seen the RPI more than double and the costs of public transport rise by 50% - in real terms - the cost of private motoring has fallen by 10%.
I've explained that the dominance of the private car isn't the normative, spontaneously arising natural order of things, but a consequence of generations of political decision making favouring the car; "the americans are rich, let's copy them". I've shown that where investment is spread more equitably between different modes of transport to permit choice, modal shifts in personal transport are achieved; the suppression of other modes of transport is evidence of preference being given to motoring.
If the cost of RTA casualties (@£19bn) isn't excluded from the costs column in Newbury's 'Fair Payment from Road-users' a yawning deficit (10 - 20 billion) opens up. That's without considering the health bill from 38,500 annual victims of air pollution, 45,000 victims of CHD caused by sedentary lifestyle choices, and an obesity epidemic (bear in mind cars make us fat) with attendent increases in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes, stroke and sundry cancers.
And I've said I'm more persuaded by the Green's analysis than by the peevish anecdotes of safespeeders http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_tr ... ubsidy.htm

This is pretty much all upthread. You didn't respond. So this
Quote:
You have yet to demonstrate any level of public subsidy for private motoring. The best you could come up with is a parking space provided by your employer, who happens to be a public agency. It is disingenuous to continue making these unsubstantiated claims when you have been given every opportunity to back them up!
makes you look something of a jerk, if you don't mind me saying.

Copenhagen and London? Chortle. Do you really want to do this? Look, were London the only city in the UK (and were cycling not growing fast there) you may have a point. As it is, London is the only UK city above Copenhagen on Mercer's list. So by your, er, 'analysis' all other UK cities, being far cheaper than Copenhagen to live in, will have a denser urban environment and be more amenable to a human powered transport revolution than Copenhagen. Which isn't really the point you were trying to make, is it? Shame about London though. Will you tell the growing tide of London cycle commuters that London is too costly and insufficiently dense an urban environment for them to be getting around by bike? Could you wait 'til I've off-loaded my Condor shares? A black day in the offing for the burgeoning London bike trade once Robin's put everyone straight.

Consider the claim fastidiously substantiated? Hey safespeeders, your search for a successor to Paul Smith is over. This is your man, get him anointed.

You're not doing very well with your homework. This, from Wiki, should help you get started:
Quote:
Colloquially, sustainable transport is used to describe all forms of transport which minimise emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants. It can refer to public transport, car sharing, walking and cycling as well as technology such as electric and hybrid cars and biodiesel.
Will you be OK from here?

Are we done? Pretty much I'd say.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 21:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Ah well, colloquially then, so not the normal use of the term then. :lol: Colloquially a glaikie is known as a disingenuous troll, picking and choosing from the rebuttals his debating opponents offer, in such a way that he need not acknowledge how their entirety dismantles his assertions. Why would I do my research on Wackypedia, its famous for it's unreliability and subjectivism, its a lazy way to get incomplete and often inaccurate information on a wide range of topics.

I'm sorry that you lack the mental alacrity to differentiate the issues, and see the ways in which they interlink. I don't really know how I can make things easier for you, perhaps you should just try reading the posts out loud to yourself a couple of times. Then stop and engage your brain before rushing to fire off a pithy retort that misses points and shows lack of understanding.

You are quick to jump on the fact that London is the only UK city above Copenhagen in the league table, but have conveniently glossed over the fact that the average salary in Copenhagen is much higher than that of the UK. Furthermore, apples to apples, London to Copenhagen is a direct comparison of two capital cities, so it doesn't go along with you in the manner you want to crow about, there are no other Danish cities in the top 50, but there are two other UK cities. Are you getting the picture yet? Try to keep up!

As an aside, the London Underground network is not bike friendly, unless you have lots of time or are particularly athletically gifted, not to mention negligent to the inconvenience your cycle would cause other passengers at peak time. London is more of a sprawl than Copenhagen, and so those living in, say Harrow, are not within practical cycle commuting distance of the City.

The issue of the Green report, your ad hominem aside, has already been addressed. Besides the fact that there are some extraordinarily tenuous links in it's reasoning, adding huge arbitrary sums to the 'costs' of motoring in order that it reflect their agenda, it also does not take into account the fact that private motoring is not the only use of the road network, it is also used by public transport, as well as the logistics that keep the country running. Did you miss where I said that in your effort to rush out an arrogant reply?

We've also dealt with the issue of RTA casualties, and if it takes a £19bn figure to open up a £10-20bn deficit then I would suggest that no real deficit exists!! The air is less polluted than it was during the time of the Industrial Revolution, and cars do not make us fat, butter makes us fat (if you don't get the historical reference, try your beloved Wackypedia)! Just because one drives a car, it does not prevent one from getting adequate exercise or making sensible dietary choices!

I'd say we're pretty much done, yes, theres plenty here to show an intelligent reader the bias and closed-mindedness in your stance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 23:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
Drivel.
Would I be right in guessing Wiki isn't as respectful of safespeed as safespeeders would like?
London, Copenhagen, UK cities etc? Cut and dried, thanks, though wouldn't an 'apples to apples' comparison between Copenhagen and Colchester be more telling, given they both begin with C? Seems you're also saying that cities become more prosperous and incomes higher when motoring subsidy is re-directed towards cycling and public transport alternatives. This is great stuff you're dredging up. There has to be a downside to all those people getting around without cars somewhere though, surely? Best you keep digging.
Cars make us fat, and your homework is now late.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 15:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
Purleeeese!


Stop feeding the troll. :x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 15:32 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
glaikie wrote:
All commuting, whether 'large scale into cities' or not, insofar as people are making regular predictable journeys from places of residence to places of work, is amenable to public transport solutions.

But not always convenient, nor time-effective, nor safer, nor clean....

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 15:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
glaikie wrote:
Would I be right in guessing Wiki isn't as respectful of safespeed as safespeeders would like?

What do you expect when those with an obsessive grudge against the campaign (and cars) repeatedly vandalise the pages?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.724s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]