Safe Speed Forums

Correct, its about evolution. In this sense the short and long term goals and interests remain the same, viz a transport network that meets the nations needs.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing what the future holds, a transport system based around private and individual vehicles which works today may not suit our needs in future.
Fine, I hear you utter, we can evolve. The problem is that the change that sparks off the need for evolution may come unexpectedly. There is no saying that the comfortable existence we currently enjoy is going to last, the change may come suddenly or unexpectedly. Political upheaval, denial of resources, eco-change or whatever.
Unfortunately when faced with such a propositon we find it easier to adopt a position of denial which permits us to carry on making bad market driven choices. We (or our ancestors) will cross that bridge when we come to it seems to be the mantra, e.g.
Global warming? Nah...its all part of natural cycles
Obesity time-bomb caused by fast food and over-use of the private car? Nah
Cigarette sir? Don't mind if I do, if you've got to go you've got to go.
A generation of semi-literate imbeciles caused by TV? So what, its easier than having to read the little sods bed-time stories

I could of course go on.

Tearing up the railways and paving them over with roads may suit todays car centred society, but I for one would feel ashamed to have been a part of the same society to which future generation point in disgust uttering "Look what those selfish SOBs did to the railways, we really need them right now"

So we shouldn't pave the railways because we might need them in the future, yet we can't REALLY imagine any realistic scenario where we would be likely to need them in the future?

It's all looking like clutching at straws to me. Sorry. I know I'm being hard on you - and it's still 40% devil's advocate - but I find these arguments far from convincing.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So a de-stabilised geo-political climate is unimaginable is it? In the aftermath of WW1 it wasn't imagined that WW2 would follow just a few years later, and brother did we need the railways then.
Would anyone have imagined a mid-oceanic earthquake would send a tsunami to wipe out, what, 100,000+ souls on boxing day 2004?

Your stance, devil's advocate though it may be looks like one of 'denial for a convenient today' to me.

And besides, I don't believe this discusion is about convincing you of anything, particularly when all you need do is entrench yourself in an 'I don't believe scenario X,Y or Z will come to pass' standpoint; intransigence is a bit of a cop-out I'm afraid. Ultimately I'm pretty certain in my own mind that removing our rail network would be a foolhardy thing to do, if I can't articulate and communicate those worries in a more convincing manner......<shrugs> I'm not overly concerned.

"Huh.....We have several alternatives to Oil.....Hydrogen for example.
Brazil also uses Alcohol as an alternative...both are limitless in availability.

All the major motor manufacturers and some governments are investing in Hydrogen technology and infrastructure.

Within the next 10-15 years motoring will not depend on oil."

For every unit of forward propulsion energy a tram uses 1.5 units, a diesel bus 2.0, a car approx 4.5 and a hydrogen bus 10. This mythiical energy source is extremely polluting and energy consumptive due to the manufacturing processes necessary.

P.S. could one of you bright sparks tell me how you quote people in this forum?

The biggest crime of the last century was probably Marples, whose wife owned Marples-Ridgeway of motorway construction fame, closed the Great Central Railway (GC). A line built to continental loading guage capable of taking millions of polluting lorry miles off the roads around London. This was built in 1899 as part of Edward Watkins Manchester to Paris railway. He had men digging under the channel and some of his works were used 90 years later. By 1965 the GC needed electrifying and some modernisation before being fit for the next 60-70 years. I seem to remember huge sections of Marples built motorways needed rebuilding soon after with massive disruption and no alternative route. - Him and Beeching had burnt our boats by then.

There was a proposal to re-open much of the Great Central but the road lobby seem to have effectivel crushed this to spend many more millions on an unsustainable mode - today's politicians simply haven't got the foresight of great men like Sir Edward Watkins.

Click the quote button in the top corner of each post. You'll be taken to the message screen where the post you want to quote will be there and formatted. You can cut out bits you don't want, or add bits further down, just start and end with..

[squote="Name of person you're quoting"] Yadda, yadda. [/quote]

Just miss out the bold 's' in front of the first quote, I put it in there to prevent the thing appearing as a quote and not as an example (if you get my drift)

There.

Where do you get your information from.....the dead sea scrolls..

Norway is looking to be a major supplier by using hydroelectric power in the manufacturing process. There are many other ways to generate hydrogen chemicaly without using fossil fuels.

Methanol is also being developed by fermentation..also a net generator of energy.

Come on George..get up to date and stop using T2000 rubbish in you arguments.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I boil things down to bullet points.

Listed for ease of scanning.

How much closer to actual soundbites would you like me to get?

Or do you prefer "dialogue" consisting of empty spin?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

2002
80.9 Car
5.9 Bus/Coach
5.1 Railway
1.1 Tram/Metro
7.1 Air

Assuming nothing else increased and all of rail plus tram and metro went up by 7.8% in both of 2003 and 2004 that brings it up from 6.2% of passenger miles to a whopping 7.2%.

Assuming.

It just beats air!

As everything else has probably grown too rail could actually have gone backwards.

You'll notice that nowhere in the mass of "statistics" do they mention a growth in market share, which would have been the first thing they would have trumpeted if there was one.

Mind you, I'm impressed with the railways' efficiency:

The year had hardly ended and they had the statistics out.

It'll take the government months to get the road statistics out.

Especially the fatality figures!

----------------------------

Anyway, the point here is that there is a lot of promotion of the growth/benefits of rail. A lot of knocking of the concept and political viability of rail - road conversion.

Strange that no one is telling us what the politically acceptable alternatives for road growth are.

And why has no one knocked the concept of road - rail (tram) conversion?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Source for the above?

According to the official transport statistics air only accounts for 1.2% of all passenger/km:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 031610.pdf

_________________
"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

Er, rather like the bullets from a machine gun.

_________________
"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

My "fevered" imagination?

Where did I mention anyone proposing, never mind planning, destroying any part of the current road network?

I was merely inviting a comparison of comparable legacies.

You must have assumed that someone was proposing destroying parts of the current road network from my post above:




What I could have gone on to mention was that they have also restricted several turn options onto and off this main radial route, including left turns off it, and left turns onto it!

That they have closed off large chunks of the city centre at the end of it to motorists.

And they are about to close off the last mile or two of the road to non disabled drivers!


I could have also mentioned what is effectively the inner ring road being "improved" from a dual carriageway with pedestrian subways to a single carriageway with pelican crossings, what is effectively the intermediate ring road being "improved" from mainly four lane to two lane, and the actual (outer) ring road being "improved" from an in practice 45mph dual carriageway to a 35mph one by SPECS.


I could have given several more examples of similar "improvements".


I could even have gone further afield and mentioned for example Bristol trying to "improve" a motorway to a pedestrian priority access road.


Given the above, I find it disturbing that you will defend and even promote railways, oppose any rail to road conversion despite there having already been some successfull conversions, and yet you can make statements such as:



I hope it doesn't reflect your general viewpoint and is merely a personal dig along the lines of:







And even:


When, if you'd bothered to follow the link I'd provide for the purpose of "concision", you'd have known there was no mistake.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oh, and the source you requested is on this forum.

Hope that's concise enough for you.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

"suck-my-exhaust" has made similar claims.

And I've now asked both of you for clarification.

Feel free not to provide it.

By the way: do you still have a thing about car exhausts?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

As this exchange is obviously generating far more heat than light, I don't propose to continue it any further.

_________________
"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

Is that "£12"? George?!

"£12" return, superb service, both ways, and "free" tea & coffee, presumably both ways.

Sound more like £12 for tea & coffee, and a free return.

And you say that road transport is heavily subsidised!


By the way, George, what is it that you do now?

I know you've been a tram driver, and an ambulance driver, and even managed a "life" model. But what have you been doing since she went off to live in a computer free commune?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

You mean like:

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

(Breaking my vow of silence) - that was only intended to mean that there were an awful lot of them

_________________
"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

George, I've told you a million times not to exagerate!


How is, for example, the fact that a house with a drive costs more an example of a "social cost" of roads?

What's residents and speed bumps got to do with the price of fish?

If councils (and residents) don't want to employ traffic police to catch joy riders, and the courts to keep them off the roads, and so criminals off the streets, and choose to inconvenience safe drivers with speed bumps, how is that a "social cost" (except one paid by the safe drivers)?


And I've told you a million times George:

The health problems reported as being caused by "traffic" pollution were reported as being caused by the kind of engines that power buses and trains and trams, not cars.

And the NHS has reported that there are no environmental or health reasons for restricting car use in cities.

And I've provided the links to those reports for you often enough.

Are you saying that you have never bothered to follow them?

Or that you are aware of the truth.

But still insist on spinning the stuff above?

For reasons best known to yourself.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Didn't realise you were a b'Liar Babe George!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk