Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 17:49

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: Wed Jan 02, 2008 15:49 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
glaikie wrote:
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%.
My bold...
This expression (usually used by politicians, just before announcing a rise in something) always means to me that in REALITY (not real terms) I'm going to be paying more for something, but to try and convince me that I'm not, I'll be dazzled by loads of stats, bent/skewed/falsified, that will state otherwise. My wallet, in real terms, hasn't seen an overflowing of dosh and I've had the same wallet for some 7 years...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 00:14 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
glaikie wrote:
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.


Ah, drivel eh? Would that be the same brand of drivel as your nonsense about not making money being the same thing as costing money?

Presumably, other than your argument about the spelling of London, you accept the veracity of all other points and concede.

Thanks for playing, I'm off to get my gold star for my homework! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 14:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
Paul Smith got considerable mileage out of that tactic: declaring himself to have prevailed in an argument before ending the discussion. That he was able to muzzle people by banning them helped, of course. Until your coronation as new king of safespeed, this isn’t a facility available to you.

There's no argument about the spelling of London. I note your New Year's resolution not to start lying when being embarrassed on internet forums didn't last long.

Having watched you blunder around drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from a set of figures you brought to this thread, I’m sticking with the DfT as a more reliable source of information, thanks. The figure of £300 - £500 for the cost of a parking space to the provider is neither nonsense, nor mine. It's the DfT's figure, or rather their out of date figure. I suggest you dispute it with them. That this cost is borne by the tax-payer, mediated by the organisation, makes it a form of subsidy to employees who choose to travel by car. And it's exclusive; no other commuting transport choices qualify for such subsidy, even though we are freighted with policy pledging us to support sustainable and active commuting and discourage private motoring. Were a charge levied on the beneficiaries of work-place parking, to cover the costs of work-place parking, £180000 to £300000 - conservatively - could be freed up to help meet rather more pressing needs.

Opportunity costs? That value is bound up in assets is something this LA understands, albeit you don't. Obliged to reduce a significant deficit, we're flogging a proportion of buildings and sites to space hungry developers to realise their cash value. That you work and park on Gruinard Island - a toxic swamp and financial liability - is irrelevant. Apples to apples after all. I'm talking the peachy asset of 4 acres of prime building land in the centre of an historic market town undergoing an orgy of residential development.

It's taken Robin to point out that on top of all the other advantages conferred upon Copenhageners by more progressive transport policies, they're materially more prosperous than people in the UK as well! They’ve got loadsamoney! I wonder which essential freedoms they've had to sacrifice en route. I'm guessing they're not at liberty to determine their own safe speed when sharing public space in their cars. Shucks.

You’ve failed to present any work, so I’ve had to fail you on this module.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 14:37 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
glaikie wrote:
Paul Smith got considerable mileage out of that tactic: declaring himself to have prevailed in an argument before ending the discussion. That he was able to muzzle people by banning them helped, of course. Until your coronation as new king of safespeed, this isn’t a facility available to you.
I think you've overstepped the mark with this comment.
:trolls:

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 14:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
glaikie wrote:
Paul Smith got considerable mileage out of that tactic: declaring himself to have prevailed in an argument before ending the discussion. That he was able to muzzle people by banning them helped, of course. Until your coronation as new king of safespeed, this isn’t a facility available to you.


There comes a point in debating were people with strong options won’t concede. Both parties believe they are in right and nothing will change their minds, the debate has run its course, so somebody has to back down somewhere. You and anyone else on here can put their points across and leave it up to those that read them to make up their own minds. Mine was made up along time ago, thanks :)

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
Putting it to a vote of self-selecting safespeeders?
In other words, 'open review'?
:D

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:03 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
glaikie wrote:
The figure of £300 - £500 for the cost of a parking space to the provider is neither nonsense, nor mine. It's the DfT's figure, or rather their out of date figure. I suggest you dispute it with them. That this cost is borne by the tax-payer, mediated by the organisation, makes it a form of subsidy to employees who choose to travel by car. And it's exclusive; no other commuting transport choices qualify for such subsidy, even though we are freighted with policy pledging us to support sustainable and active commuting and discourage private motoring. Were a charge levied on the beneficiaries of work-place parking, to cover the costs of work-place parking, £180000 to £300000 - conservatively - could be freed up to help meet rather more pressing needs.



We pay for our desk space from a commercial landlord.
I could argue that companies use expensive city centre locations that cost considerably more than out of town office space so that pedestrians and public transport users can access the site at great cost. Desk space in a city centre office is £2200 per year and on the industrial estate £1200 per year. It could be counter argued that public transport users are being indirectly subsidised at a cost to business.
Getting/keeping the right staff is the pressing need.
Many of those staff do not live on bus routes or have to fit in with schools and child care and busses do not fit within the schedule.

and prey how do you come to £18-30k cost to be levied? I don't understand?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
glaikie wrote:
Paul Smith got considerable mileage out of that tactic: declaring himself to have prevailed in an argument before ending the discussion. That he was able to muzzle people by banning them helped, of course. Until your coronation as new king of safespeed, this isn’t a facility available to you.


...and yet you were the one crowing about being 'done', when you clearly hadn't, and still don't, understand the issues at hand!

Do you consider yourself 'big' for deriding the deceased? You're debating here with the living, and have taken quite a confrontational tone with me personally, which I suggest you restrict yourself to, rather than the cowardly tactic of maligning those who cannot speak out in their own defence.

glaikie wrote:
I note your New Year's resolution not to start lying when being embarrassed on internet forums didn't last l ong.


Is your tactic when embarrassed on internet forums to accuse people of lying, and lie yourself? Comments like the above certainly make it seem so!

glaikie wrote:
That this cost is borne by the tax-payer, mediated by the organisation, makes it a form of subsidy to employees who choose to travel by car. And it's exclusive; no other commuting transport choices qualify for such subsidy


So, given that logic, and the fact that you are paid by the same local authority, must we therefore conclude that your angry little existence is also to be considered subsidised by the tax-payer?

glaikie wrote:
Opportunity costs? That value is bound up in assets is something this LA understands, albeit you don't.


Ah, the inevitable change of tack when the realisation of error hits home. There was never any dispute that assets had worth, the mistake you and the 'iGreens' made was to purport that not liquidating those assets was tantamount to an expenditure. Convenient to push your rabid agenda, but utter, utter piffle.

glaikie wrote:
It's taken Robin to point out that on top of all the other advantages conferred upon Copenhageners by more progressive transport policies, they're materially more prosperous than people in the UK as well! They’ve got loadsamoney!


Dear god! Please don't attempt to attribute such tripe to me! Correlation does not imply causation, as anyone with the slightest intelligence should be able to grasp. You're really clutching at straws if you have to now attempt to attribute the fact that Danes earn more on average than Brits to the fact that more of them cycle! Norwegians earn more on average than Danes, that must be due to the fact that they eat more fish! You'd like Norway, incidentally, there is some cycling, but more importantly, they're very fond of trolls! :lol:

Incomprehensibly illogical nonsense such as the above and 'cars make us fat' really illustrate admirably why there is little need to further indulge your 'furious pedaling'. You have clearly been duped by partisan propoganda on several issues Tthere is no shame in that, many of us here initially believed the claims surrounding speed cameras; the shame is not having an open, inquiring mind, and a willingness to unearth the truth oneself.

You quite clearly have no interest in opening your mind, you have been handed your gospel, and simply intend to preach to us from it. Such is your prerogative, but it is incumbent upon you to remain civil when people point out the gaping holes in your received logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:20 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
RobinXe wrote:
So, given that logic, and the fact that you are paid by the same local authority, must we therefore conclude that your angry little existence is also to be considered subsidised by the tax-payer?
Oh God - have we been trying to debate with a LA employee? What a waste of time...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
Cars make us fat. You can do the forum equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming, like a tantrum throwing toddler, if you wish. Fact remains.

Remind me, where was the dispute about the spelling of London? I'm saying you're a liar. You're saying not so. Resolving this one by linking me to the post or posts in question ought to be as simple as it is conclusive. Can you do that?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
glaikie wrote:
Cars make us fat.


Cars don’t make us fat. I’ve not put any more weight on in the last 10 years. And I’ve driven more than 53,000 miles in the last three years :P

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 15:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Please substantiate 'fact'. Its that simple.

The 'dispute about the spelling of London' was a tongue in cheek response to the fact that you felt it more appropriate to compare Copenhagen to somewhere else that started with a 'C'. Interesting that you chose Colchester in particular, since to the best of my knowledge, it is not even a city!

You're starting to sound rather similar to another poster with your unsubstantiated accusations of lying and demands for post links. Surely you're above re-registering in order to evade restrictions, aren't you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 18:07 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
Glaikie, why not cut the crap and tell us why you actually don't like cars? There's obviously an emotional reason behind all the pretend logic and carefully selected and manipulated figures. Let's hear it. If you won't tell us then it indicates that you know you won't be able to defend it.

Are you also going to admit that your primary reason for liking speed cameras is that they make drivers suffer, rather than safety (as in the 1995 Friends of the Earth quote "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all the glamour out of motoring")? Put it this way, has anyone ever come across someone who's anti-car (for emotional/ideological/otherwise crap reasons) but doesn't like cameras? Unfortunately, of course, what is best for "taking the glamour out of motoring" is almost certainly not best for safety, and vice versa. But as long as motorists are being punished, who cares about the odd thousand lives here and there, eh? The carnage is for a good cause after all.

If you're going to come on this forum with your vitriol and nastiness, particularly towards those who are no longer around to defend themselves, at least be truthful about the reasons for your stances. Then we can talk about them instead of things which you don't really care about and are just using as excuses.

Why don't you like cars? Why do you like speed cameras? The truth please, unless of course you're scared that it will lose you the debate (not that you haven't lost it already).

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 20:34 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
glaikie wrote:
Cars make us fat.


Rather a sweeping statement. Where is the "peer reviewed" back up.. bearuing in mind we medics just published a research paper proclaiming that a mere walk or even just pottering around the house doing some household chores can be a decent enough amount of exercise.

Also fat .. obesity.. sigh.. bmi has a lot to answer for as people who are normal size to look at are being classed as "obese". Correctable with a spot of hooverin' the carpets :wink: .. but the term conjures up folk the size of three large trucks. :popcorn:


But some folk are just naturally "big" all the same .. just as some will have hereditary tendencies to large build, weak hearts, and so on.

There have been plump/stocky and plain fat folk in each generation. :roll:

Quote:

You can do the forum equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and humming, like a tantrum throwing toddler, if you wish. Fact remains.




I can list umpteem research papers from Harvard to Aberdeen on what causes obesity and sedentary travel's part is almost zero in causation.

We do, admittedly, have way too much stodge and processed crap in our diets plus office labour as opposed to hard physical grafting.


By the way - it seems the MART Group have made a significant wave in their campaign to keep Manchester toll free in that they have collected enough signatures to force a referendum in one of the GM Councils. I gather there has been zero hesitation in signing for this as the folk of Manchester are very much against any charges.

By the way.. I drive a nice car. So does my wife .. and our three eldest kids.. and the combined families of our marriage.

None of them are fat. None of us are obese either.

Admittedly we have a healthy diet and we do ride bicycles for fun - but I have to say because of the commutes and the fact we have far too many kids mean that our travel is mostly by car as this is the easiest, simplest and cheapest way to get the entire family transported from A to B and do the shopping. :popcorn:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 20:40 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Oh an by the way.. bicycle parking space takes up almost as much room as car bays ..

Look at them closely :popcorn: . You need rails. and you need space to lock the bikes to them and have space to dismount.. mount up again and not block in another cyclist.

So if it costs to provide a car parking bay .. it also costs as much if not more to accommodate 32 million bikes assuming we all travel that way according to the dicatorship of the State of Cyclotopia :wink: which will fine its citizens plenty in its bid to get them on foot again :wink: :P

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 02:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Just think, a hundred years ago, I bet there was someone moaning that having running water in the house made us fat too! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 08:52 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Just think 30 years ago we were so concerned about malnutrition that children were given milk at school. We have achieved our goals. :lol:

You were trapped to employment within your own villiage or bus route.
(now the buggers expect me to drive across two counties to keep my job)

You had to rely on hospital treatment from your nearest hospital.
Now you can drive all over the UK to get treatment (and frequently do).

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 01:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
:rotfl:


Quote:

cars make us fat



It's eating too much that makes a person fat... :rotfl:


Plus some genetic tendency for some.. a gland disorder for others.


Blimey.. glad he he's not a medic.. Nanny. :wink:


Copenhagen...


Look.. I drive quite often in France cos I like to stock up on me clarets and I like the place.


Apart from the big towns.. France is pure pleasure to drive, cycle and catch a train.

Likewise Switzerland, Germany . Austria .. Italy .. because they run to time and are integrated so that you can go where you want to go ..and take the bike on board with you very easily and relatively cheaply.


But UK towns? Durham was the first to introduce a charge to enter the city. Works fine ,, but they have a decent Park and Ride.. like Oxford .. Canterbury .. York .. Chester and quite a few other places which do not have a charge ,.. but which have various no-go times during the day anyway.

Not many UK cities have an Underground/subway system and not all have tramways and there is opposition to the Manchester link to Leigh becuase it will plough through some green belt and be too close to back gardens with a further worry for families with small kids... per the Mad Doc's sisters and the local press. :roll:

You cannot compare a foreign city with a completely different setting and infrastructure to the UK whose great plethora of fine cities are all unique and have their own characters anyway.

Those cities have decent cycle lanes. I know cos I've ridden 'em in the past. They can accommodate because they were designed differently.

Here we have to work with what we have .. and it ain't so easy.

But cars do not make anyone fat. Over-eating and bingeing on various processed foods do. :popcorn:

Still not laughed so much for a long time and I just wrecked another lap top.. :roll:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 16:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:42
Posts: 310
Location: North West England
glaikie wrote:
That you work and park on Gruinard Island - a toxic swamp and financial liability - is irrelevant.


Ehh???

"On 24 April, 1990, the then junior Defence Minister, Michael Neubert, made the half-mile journey from the mainland to declare Gruinard safe by removing its red warning sign"

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 23:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 23:24
Posts: 94
here's another shocker for you, barking; Robin never worked there. What on earth's going on?

"We're not preaching rectitiude here: we're preaching hedonism."
Wonderful stuff. Have a look at some of these, and rejoice that PeterE's dull manifestos - autistic listings of the ways drivers' 'freedoms' (priviledges in any other tongue) can be consolidated and extended - are becoming irrelevant.

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/tra ... on-ethics/
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/ill ... -dr-shoup/
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/por ... able-city/

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


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.902s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]