Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

If one could be certain that all "restrictions of road traffic law" were in
place to aid or improve safety, the answer to your question would, of
course, be an unequivocal "no".

But therein lies the problem.

There are most assuredly some "restrictions of road traffic law" which are
in place without even a pretence of them aiding or improving safety, as you
well know. I throw out as an example the recent-years restriction of what
were formerly NSL dual-carriageways (and a couple of single-carriageway
roads) in south Essex to 50mph. The county council are at least honest
enough to admit that it has been done (whether justifiably or not) on
"environmental" and "noise" grounds. Not safety (except in the sense that as
speeds tend to zero, the potential for injury and damage can be assumed to
decrease - which could, for instance, be used to "justify" a 20mph limit on
the motorways).

 

That AND deciding if a journey is really necessary and really needs to
be made by car.

The kids next door go to a school less than a mile away. The school is
served by a bus which passes our front door. They always go by car; they
could walk, cycle or take the bus.

At least their parents have not exercised their 'choice' of sending them
to school several miles away.

I do not have a car, do not wish a car and am a _long_ way from starving
to death.

Doing without a car imposes some othe green decisions; I could not
possibly bring all the bottled water that some people get home so my
money is safe. I drink tap water.

 

Oh dear...

Are we under WW2 restrictions still?

You know what the technical term for that is, don't you?

"None of your business".

Perhaps they regard the nearer one as the better of the two?

They would arguably actually have a responsibility to send them to the one
further away if it were a better school for those children.

Again, though: "none of your business".

??

Have you ever thought of nominating yourself for a medal?

 

Why? Is it somehow morally more acceptable that 250 people die rather than
300?

If I murder 5 people am I morally superior to somebody who murders 10?

It doesn't matter how or why these people die, does it? I don't suppose the
relative of a road traffic victim feels better for knowing the driver of the
car which caused the accident was doing 28mph rather than 32mph.

The truth is that everybody who cries on about road safety is simply in
denial about the horrific nature of the transportation we require. We know,
beyond all shadow of a doubt, that people will die on our roads every year.

We like to tell ourselves that they are killed by the reckless, or the
drunk, or those going too fast, but the truth is that they were killed by
people who were unlucky enough not to get away with something that thousands
of others have ... probably including ourselves at some time or another.

When it comes to deaths on the road there is blood on all of our hands,
because we'll never say "stop!" and give up on transport. We won't do it
when 300 people are killed every year, we wouldn't do it if it was 3,000, we
wouldn't even do it if it was 3,000,000.

Any safety scheme is just a placebo to ease our guilt a little, but
ultimately none of us care that people are dying because if we did we'd stop
driving, stop demanding goods that have to be brought in by lorry, plane or
train, stop flying, just stop, basically.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

It seems that the "Twat of the Year" medal is already spoken for...

 

Okay, I'll refine my statement; obviously anything can be made of very
expensive nearlyunobtainium if you so desire. I still have difficulty
understanding why a mere push bike needs to be as you describe.

<examines catch>
<throws it back>

 

It's a piece of sporting equipment rather than a leisure toy. As such
it needs to be made out of the best materials in order to perform the
best. It's the same reasons why a Ferrari or my GSXR is made out of
the things it's made out of, when they could be built much more simply
and cheaper.

I knew you were fishing but I felt it warranted a semi-serious answer.

 

Quite. many people just drive too much - including those who also
proclaim themselves to be cyclists.

What is wrong with exercising that choice epecially if the parent
believes it will result in a better education for their children?
Three of ours go to a school 8 miles away purely for that reason.

It certainly results in a much higher quality of life.

John B

 

I was just interesting how far you wanted to go. I assume that a CCTV
pointed at your house would be fine then.

Perhaps. Paperwork is a core duty. When a fight errupted on the top of a bus
I was on, it took over half an hour for a replacement bus to arrive. Even
though the driver called several times where was still no police

Actually I'm a big fan of 20mph residential streets, and "access only"
areas. I've never seen a speed camera on a 20mph street though.

We should ask why traffic is on 20mph streets. Either they live there (and
therefore are likely to be travelling slowly), or they are using it as a rat
run. The reason they use it as a rat run is the normal streets have been
reduced from 40 to 30, speedcameraified, traffic lights have been
de-optimised, etc. etc.

Removing the danger is better then reducing the danager. Remove it by
undoing the recent changes to main streets and getting cars back onto
thoroughfares.

Of course "community life" where I live is drug dealers, gangs of yoofs, and
pavements full of chewingum and litter. I'd rather the cars.

 

It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the

Bollocks. Every day we play the game; "Are you going to die today?" And,
do you know what - most of us win out until tommorow and all bets are
made afresh.

Life - don't talk to me about life...it's a deadly game and no one's
survived it yet.

--

Dave

GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10

 

You do not need most drivers to be scum for you to meet scum drivers
in most situations.

For example, I'm just back from a walk to the shops with my toddler.
Of the 6 sets of traffic lights I used, 2 of them had drivers zoom
through while me and my toddler were part-way across on the green man.

One of these drivers was turning right through a 'no right turn' sign,
too.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

Why? Is it somehow morally more acceptable that 250 people die rather

I think I'm seeing your problem...

<etc etc, snippity>

Yebbut if we drove a bit more carefully less people would die. For some
reason you don't seem to give a shit but in my over-simplified and ill-
thought out way of thinking 250 deaths is preferable to 300.

We can quite easily lower the death toll on the roads by policing them more
effectively. Getting people to stick to the speed limit would prevent some
crashes, and would reduce the seriousness of injuries & the death toll in
many others. The problem is it's a lazy way of achieving a reduction - it
is self funding, and the investment in enforcement is quickly recouped.

Of course the main argument against attempts to increase safety on the road
is that it won't prevent all deaths, so is a complete and utter waste of
time, if I understand you right?

 

Look at the amount of money spent after Hatfield. Remember that more
people die on the roads in an average day than on the railways in an
average year.

Guy

 

Oh dear...

Oooooh, touchy.

You know Nugent, I always thought you were a bloke. Wander if I can get my
killfile to work on a monthly cycle?

 

I was just interesting how far you wanted to go. I assume that a CCTV

Still a straw man. What about the street outside his house?

 

It's not that I don't give a shit, I'm simply pointing out that it's
accepting that people are going to die that morally taints us. Once we have
that taint there are no further degrees of morality.

The truth is that we all want fewer death on the road - providing that it
doesn't inconvenience us too much or cost us too much.

No, that's not quite my point ... somewhere up there somebody was comparing
road-deaths to child-killings and I was just picking up on that and pointing
out that if you want to be sure that no children are killed on the roads you
have to ensure that nobody is killed on the roads which means getting rid of
road-based travel.

So I'm not against decreasing road deaths, but I do think that we should
have the courage to recognise that they are, ultimately, a cynical attempt
to placate any guilt we feel about being so heavily reliant on our cars,
motorbikes and lorries. If we _really_ care about other peoples lives we'd
be willing to make the enormous sacrifice required to keep them safe.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Would you not agree that it is better for someone to do 60mph down a 60
limit dual carriageway with decent traffic light arrangements, then to do
15mph in a 30 past a school? The dual carriageway is faster, albeit longer.

Trouble is, reduce that 60 to a 40 and change the lights to increase
congestion, and that 30mph limit past the school is now faster. Even with
noone speeding, you've just increased casualty rates.

Keep cars out of residential zones. If you have to enforce limits in the
zones you've already lost.

 

Um, I'm not quite sure what your point is.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

It's not that I don't give a shit, I'm simply pointing out that it's

Y-e-e-s-s, but having a choice between Lots of people dying and Lots
More, but going for the Lots More can surely be considered to compound
the immorality? Even better, let's throw out this whole morality thing
and go with Better and Worse, seeing as we are all essentially immoral

Yebbut we've already compromised our morality by letting the things live
with their parents... <smiley snipped - I refuse to end every blasted
paragraph with one of the things>

Good point. Glad I asked for clarification. Still, nothing wrong with
going for Better. It's not necessarily enough but it might be a good
compromise between the heady ideals of being Moral and the grim reality
of Don't Care.

 

By dint of having highly segregated urban road networks.

Often by giving pedestrians substantial detours, or getting them to
climb up to a pedestrian bridge.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk