Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

'more and shorter journeys'

i.e. more and more short journeys, (where 'short' is a relative term
that shrinks down as the years pass) are undetrtaken by car rather
than on foot, by bike, or by bus.

--
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

 

's been on and off serious discussion for the last 8 or 10 years now.
That's not what I would describe as "meanwhile"...

****-ups with the oil exporting countries can do something like that,
yes. The major point within the Green party was reducing the emissions.

and produced as many statistics that show there is no safety advantage
in a speed limit like that as it has produced opposite "proof".

Matter of fact, there *is* a - through the backdoor - speed limit of
130kph on German Autobahnen (at least on these few stretches which are
not under local speed limits). If a crash happens and there is proof
(quite easy to do that) that one of the involved vehicles was doing
more than 130kph at that time the driver automatically holds a partial
responsibility for the crash.
Which has not been introduced by reason of 130kph being irresponsibly
fast in itself but because of the speed difference between people
making progress and numpties (or HGVs and coaches).

btw figures show that high-speed accidents on German Autobahns count
only for 5-6% of the overall accident volume while accidents in urban
areas account for roughly 57%. And that is for accidents with
injuries... in other words, you are about 10 times more likely to be
injured in an accident HAPPENING WITHIN A SPEED LIMIT ZONE OF 30MPH in
Germany than in one happening on an Autobahn.

So "Just zis Guy", wrap up your argumentation with yer fake Goiman
accent and shove it...

--
Tom :{)
BOTAFOT#105 COFF#02/ OSOS#15 KwaSoH#2
SR500(.de), SRX-4(.jp)
Make it idiot-proof and someone invents a better idiot...

Hiroshima pics: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C12E12B97

 

<Big snip>

You've missed my point throughout your reply.

I'm not arguing what the actually numbers are, but the underlying morality
of accepting that some people have to die.


--
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.

 

I was always taught you should never use "surely" in a debate, because it
means "Don't you understand, you idiot?"

Anyway, you've missed my point; I'm not arguing that we shouldn't try to
save lives, just that we can never reach a state of zero fatalities and then
any number above zero is always going to be too high.

So, I made the point that we do accept that people will die in train
crashes, you mailed back to tell me how much was spent preventing them and I
pointed out that people will still die in train crashes. If fewer people
die then that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't alter the morality of our
dependence on a form of transport that we know for certain will kill people.


--
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.

 

This is my point, which you keep missing despite reading my posts ...

It is horrific that we use a system that kills people, more so because we
know that it is going to kill people but we can not stop using it. Beyond
that the number of people killed it almost irrelevant.

Let's take a wild analogy; say a new drug is invented that is very good, but
very addictive. This drug is made by crushing the brains of living
children, killing them. If you're addicted to this drug and know where it
comes from are you a better person if you try to take the drug only when
you're really, really craving it, rather than just taking it whenever you
feel like it? Could you argue that it's terrible that the kids have to die,
but you're doing your bit to keep the numbers as low as possible?


--
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.

 

Abso () gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying
:

And thus, after a week's use, the combination of rider and bicycle will be
lower over all than if starting with a lighter bike...

 

Gawnsoft () gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Probably more than compensated by the weight that the car had shed.

 

I think you missed the point too. When £2m is spent per death prevented on
the railways, that is considered good value. With road schemes you'll be
lucky to get 1% of that. A double standard is at work. If we changed our
level of acceptance of road death to that we aply to rail and air passenger
deaths, we would have far less with which to reproach ourselves, because we
genuinely would be doing close to all we could to prvenet them. As it is
there is a substantial body of people who resent any attempt to control the
level fo fatalities on the roads, and do their level best to undermine such
efforts - largely because they conflict with their immediate personal
convenience.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

taywood () gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Not very long at all

but I think you might be a little out on the final outcome.

Do you like being a laughing stock? At best, there'll be an email sent
round beginning "The loony's been pestering us again."

 

I'm assuming you mean the Joksch rule of thumb, with probability of fatality
being proportional to the fourth power of speed. I don't think that
strictly applies to low-speed urban roads, though. However, there is no
room for doubt that speed is the major determinant of severity of outcome of
a crash, especially where pedestrians are involved.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

FWIW, ANPR cameras actually record and process the registrations of every
vehicle passing, searching for untaxed/registered/insured vehicles and
vehicles known to be associated with people wanted for other offences.

While the aim is laudable - and should be extended - it doesn't take much
of a stretch of the imagination to see those registrations being recorded
somewhere and possibly used for evidence.

"So, Mr Smith, you say you were at the office at 9.45am - yet your car was
recorded by an ANPR van 35 miles away at 10am. How is this possible?"

 

Good idea. We should have laws against assault, rape, negligence leading to
injury, we should control the levels of risk to which factory owners are
allowed to subject their workforce, and above all we should make it illegal
to kill children and bury their bodies in shallow graves in woodland.
Especially if they are popular and good at sport.

When you have set up the campaign I will be among the first to pledge my
support.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Gawnsoft () gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I'm sure the number of deaths and injuries has come down. However the
straight figures are not directly comparable.

The percentage of cars including active supplementary safety aids such as
windbags and seatbelt pretensioners, as well as passive construction
improvements such as side impact bars has rocketed, as has the number of
collision avoidance aids such as ABS, traction control, EBA, ESP.

If we could produce some kind of fiddle factor to remove the effect of
those changes in car technology we might get somewhere, but producing a
figure that could be agreed on by all sides of the debate would be
impossible.

 

Just zis Guy, you know? () gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

There's a massive difference between the legislation in place and the
legislation that's enforced. It's the shift in enforcement that I'm
referring to.

Yes, motorists just can't be trusted to keep to 4mph without having a bloke
with a red flag in front of them.

It'd bring the unemployment figures down, for sure. Still, the Daily Mail
will never buy it, as we'd just end up importing millions of illegal
immigrants to carry flags for a cut price.

 

Here:

http://www.thinkofthechildren.co.uk/

 

Because you split "more-and-shorter".

Which town is that in? The bustling metropolis of Swinford? Or the giant
urban sprawl that is Catthorpe?

No, becuase I honestly don't think it's significant. Reading has numerous
such schemes; they don't make a lot of difference. For the most part they
just move the congestion around. The only thing is, after the schemes, the
buses can generally move.

Seems it to me. Oh, the traffic jams are shorter than the ones in Reading,
but they are still there.

You have my sympathy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University

 

Tony Raven () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

No, I'm not. In part because I feel that I don't want to dedicate such a
huge percentage of my life to supervising somebody else.

Not knowing where your small kid is, when they're wandering around roads is
a bit of a major "mistake", don't you feel?

 

AndrewR () gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

We seem to be working on that.

 

I'm not arguing what the actually numbers are, but the underlying

Yebbut we already know we're all immoral!

 

but it doesn't alter the

Yebbut people die through cycling as well - even dopey pedestrians are
killed by cyclists. People also die walking as well - trips & falls can be
dangerous.