Safe Speed Forums

Would that be sufficient to deliver your food and other household necessities?

_________________
"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

Pete. What exactly do you want. You are speaking as if "the motorist" was some kind of rare creature who has to bear more than his fair share of taxation to support the majority of the population. In fact the vast majority of the population are motorists or, if not motorists, they pay fuel duty as part of the cost of commodities which are almost invariably delivered by road.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The silence to the linked thread says it all. But there is more: 1, 2, 3

The basic anti-motorist person can't handle the fact that motorists generally actually don't believe they own the roads; indeed these people believe motorists should be removed from the roads (1, 2).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

This comment "Roads are built to take vehicles who have paid to use them, so why should they not be used?" suggests that at least one contributor feels that his car, if not its driver, owns the road.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It's lovely of you to remember these posts, really it is, but I'm not a "basic anti-motorist person" as you put it.

Despite Safespeed now being a site on which the spam is outnumbering the real posts, I'm afraid I just couldn't help myself responding to the sort of Mr Toad nonsense so idiotically espoused by certain contributors.

I drive a car, in fact more miles than I do on my bike, but I drive with great consideration for people around me, and feel that I am not entitled to blast through residential areas at speed just because I pay "road tax". I wish that more drivers would show similar courtesy.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is most likely that the problem highlighted here is not speed but volume of traffic. If the number of cars using a legitimate cut through is large then this will inevitably lead to slow speeds. "Rat runs" tend to be narrower roads with higher hazard density and thus the vast majority will be going at a safe speed for these conditions and blocking the irresponsible few.

As this type of road is perfectly legal for drivers to use, local residents will have a lot of trouble banning traffic and blocking off one end will cause difficulty to themselves. Their easy option is to cry "speeding" to comfort themselves that "something is being done".

On the thread diversion into "I own the road" territory, I am amazed that the anti-car brigade expose their prejudices so easily. Just look at JBr's comment about "blasting" through residential areas. An unbiased commentator would not use this type of emotionally charged phrase. I can't imagine that weepej or JBr really believe that most of the posters on here are really speed-crazed loonies and, in fact, we are just responsible people whose views differ from theirs.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

That strawman supports the sentiments expressed in Malcolm's post perfectly.
Yours is another post believing a prejudice has been highlighted, when in reality the prejudice was all your own.

DCB: do you understand the difference between "owns" and "is entitled to use" ?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If folks that live in this place actually really thought it is dangerous to drive along the roads that they live on, you would expect them to park their cars elsewhere and walk/cycle home, I bet not one driver that lives there does that. They only object when other folks drive along these roads ... need I say more?

People who drive recklessly on any roads need to be caught and dealt with. If people really are using this road as a race track, sure they need catching, but I'd bet the proposed measures will catch few if any of the racers.



Brilliant, yup, just carry on and encourage drivers to think that so long as they drive to the speed limits nothing can possibly go wrong!! Sure it doesn't actually say that, but IMO it is implied in this kind of statement, that if you are not breaking the speed limit you will be safe!

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

No. What I do object to is the attitude that I'm somehow subsidised by others, when I'm forced to pay money I can ill-afford just for the privilege of commuting to work.



It suggests to me that people are fed up with being stopped from using roads which they contribute towards.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

As a very slight "aside" our local paper interviewed a couple of very elderly sisters - both 100 or so, I think. They were asked about all the changes they'd seen in their lifetimes and in particular were asked about the single greatest improvement they had seen in that century. Their answer surprised me a little, they both agreed it was "tarmac roads"! All the more interesting when you consider that neither had ever driven a car. I think we need to lay aside this notion that it's only "the motorist" (boo, hiss!) that benefits from the roads.

Some time ago I posted a link to some research showing that non-drivers typically do more journeys as car passengers than by any other mode of transport.

_________________
"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

What notion? It's clear we all benefit from roads, I just get iffy when it's asserted that only motorists pay for them and then implied that therefore they should have exclusive say on how they are used, or indeed who uses them.

I get "iffy" when people imply that just because motoring taxes are not hypothecated, all tax payers somehow make an equal contribution to the cost of the road network and thus clearly fail to acknowledge the very substantial additional tax paid by anybody who runs a car as compared to a person of similar income who does not.

Actually, while I'm sure this may well be the case, the reason cited (I think) was that they didn't get the hems of their dresses all muddy when they walked round town!

If you don't run a car you incur an equally substantial bill for the VAT on train and taxi fares. Last fiscal I paid about £15000 tax, less than £1000 of which was motoring related. That is significant but not substantial. I paid rather more tax on alcoholic beverages, non of which was spent on improving the canal network.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I'm not sure that's necessarily true is it? You're certainly not "obliged" to use taxis if you don't use a car - it's just more convenient. Perhaps it's more analogous to the situation where you have (say) someone who drives the smallest and most economical car that will meet their needs might pay more in tax than someone who uses bus / bike/ Shanks' pony, just as someone who drives a more expensive and thirsty car than is strictly necessary might pay more in tax than someone who uses trains & taxis. Speaking as an "enforced!" company car driver who lives in a rural area and does a substantial private mileage, I know I get absolutely raped by the tax man!

I heard on the radio yesterday that train journeys were now at their highest peacetime level since the 1920s because so many more people were using them to save money compared to motoring. Presumably these are people who at least BELIEVE that it is costing them less? And I guess most of them will still be people who are paying VED, insurance tax premium and the tax element of the depreciation on their cars even if they're not using them? At least if you're not using a train / bus / taxi you're not paying for it.

VED - £95. ITP - £50. VAT on service - £40. Depreciation is a loss so it isn't taxed. Adds up to less than £200, not a great deal in the overall scheme of things.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

That £95 assumes a pretty modest vehicle with a CO2 figure available. What the government wants is more people like me with a 20 year old shed with a big engine who doesn't use it very much but still pays £200+ a year in VED. I also don't think it's fair to say that depreciation isn't "taxed" When you buy a new car, you pay a shed-load of tax, and when you sell it again, it's worth whatever it's worth to the next purchaser. You will loose £x over the time you have the car - some of which will be tax. It's not like the government will refund you the tax element of the purchase price when you pass the car on! on top of that, the car owner is still going to have to get the car serviced (even though he hasn't used it quite as much) and he's still going to pay VAT on the parts & labour for that.

I'm happy to accept that it's not a vast sum of money in the great scheme of things, but I think the point remains - it's tax that a non-car owner would not be paying.

Is that why they instituted a scheme to encourage people to scrap cars over ten years old? b

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No, I think that was in response to the bleatings of the car manufacturers, who weren't selling any cars at the time! Of course, if I had traded traded my old nail in for a nice new car of similar performance, there would probably have been a miniscule redution in carbon emissions but I'm sure they'd have preferred to keep their £1k subsidy and have me continue taxing, but not really using, my old one forever!