Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

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

Hair splitting? It's a pretty bloody major caveat... It only means about,
ooooh, wild guess, 80-90% of "emergency service" use has to be within the
speed limit.

 

I really don't care what you think. Speed limits do not apply to
vehicles being used on Police business. End of debate. If you want to
continue the childish hairsplitting, you'll have to do it with someone
else.

 

The general admin, proof, photos, finger prints, and so on required to
"register" your ID card, number plate, V5, VED, insurance... Then the
barrage of false accusations due to admin errors, system errors, cloning,
incompetence and so forth.

Isn't education the answer, rather than retribution?

But you _can_ tolerate the "speeding kills" misinformation?

Back to education.

Would you point a CCTV camera at every office stationary cupboard? You'd
get a very disgruntled/unproductive workforce as a result, I'm sure.

We could all drive safely without _any_ traffic laws. It's down, again, to
education. Why aren't kids taught to drive at school?

Oh dear

Matt
--

 

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

"I know I'm wrong, but I'm not going to admit it, and I'm going to take my
toys elsewhere..."

You're funny.

 

Huge opined the following...

And you don't remember your own posts? OK. Here we go:

You said:
"...how come building more hospitals is a good thing and building more
roads is a bad thing?"

To which I replied:
"Because building more hospitals does not encourage more people to
injure themselves, while building more roads does encourage more people
to drive."

You:

"Incorrect. The demand for medical care is essentially infinite."

Me:

"You're saying that if I build another hospital, people will actively
injure themselves in order to make use of it?"

At which point you accused me of constructing a straw man. Hope that
makes it all a bit clearer for you. How about answering the question
now; If I build another hospital, will people actively injure themselves
in order to make use of it?

And non-motorists also pay for the roads. In fact everyone who doesn't
dodge tax, pays for it all. This is not linguistic hairsplitting
(Believe me, I'm _very_ good at that!), this is economics in all its
ugliness. So it's still not a logical fallacy, or indeed, fallacious.

Then you did miss the point. When you make bigger roads, you do not
reduce congestion. While this may not immediately make sense, it is
borne out by real life.

You sidestepped it. If you look back over this post, you'll notice that
I've re-iterated for you. Please feel free to get in touch if you're
still having problems. ;-)

Jon

 

Paul Weaver opined the following...

Nice. Presupposing no junctions, and no desire for any driver to ever
stop driving. Or indeed, to stop and refuel!

Hilarious. Your solution to overcrowding on trains is to build bigger
roads? Why not just use bigger trains or can you not see past the end of
your bonnet? Or how about encouraging people to live near their place of
work, thus reducing the number of lengthy commutes that have to be made?
Are these just too obvious?

In a world in which cars did not kill people and did not pollute the
above would be true. Sadly reality is slightly different.

Jon

 

Tony Raven opined the following...

Thanks Tony, I was hoping someone might pop up with a timely reference.

Jon

 

Paul Weaver opined the following...

Excellent. Then build more rail. It is generally more efficient. Freight
cannot be solely delivered by rail, but if lorries could be reduced to
the first and last steps in the delivery chain, as apposed to the entire
of it a significant number of vehicles could be removed from the main
trunk roads, thus increasing capacity without increasing size.

No. But in this country I suspect that the ratio would be somewhere near
0:infinity!

Jon

 

Need a lot of rail to replace trucks. Easily affordable though, if money
from fuel tax and VED was soley earmarked for transport infrastructure.

Ironically, one of the largest proponents I've seen of new Rail lines is the ABD,
with their POLO proposal.

We need more rail lines, but we need them intergrated with the road
system.

 

So you agree bypasses followed by town-center pedestrianisation are good.
Shame that London doesn't seem to, but many towns and cities are much
nicer since the bypasses. Wadebrige in cornwall, for example, had a new
bridge opened out of the town center. This reduced traffic in the town
center, saving lives and improving the environment.

1) I dont have a bonnet (well, only the hat version) 2) Bigger trains are
great, so why dont the TOCs (or even the government) provide them? 3) We
already encourage people to live near their work by providing an
inadequate transport system, but the still choose to live away despite the
cost and stress. Maybe there's some other reasons?

So you are saying we should reduce our planet to an agrarian economy,
which would not be able to support the current population, and would lead
to a civil war? Because ultimatly without journeys by modes that kill and
pollute (Busses, Trains, Cars) that's all we're left with.

Why will you not agree that all money raised through current taxation of
cars (including fuel tax), should be spent soley on transport. Hell, even
if no extra was put into the roads then we'd be much better off. Think
Crossrail at £1bn a year for the next 10 years is expansive? We could
build 20 of them at any one time!

Of course it would help if construction projects were managed decently,
the CTRL was £5bn, about £46m per km (Thats £15k a foot).

By copmarison a 40km maglev train for munich airport would cost £27m per
km.

Trouble is, successive governments use motoring to subsidise the rest of
their expenses. If everybody stopped driving tomorrow, the entire public
sector would collapse.

Hypothecated tax is the way things should go.

(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,578180,00.html)

 

And dramatically extending its lifespan. You'd cure potholes as well
as congestion - there is no downside!

Guy

 

"Wouldn't it be nice if all cities were like Milton Keynes"

Guy

 

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

Shoot me now.

 

And it contradicts your blanket statement. "Some" police business,
apparently.

Guy

 

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

No point, Guy, he's gone off to sulk at our "hair-splitting".

 

http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,7890,966072,00.html

 

My registration mark is already registered. That's why it's called a
registration mark. It's what those nice people in Swansea do.

Retribution is a form of education. You need stick as well as carrot,
especially when the bad habits are so deeply ingrained.

Never seen anything which says speeding in and of itself kills, but
all other things being equal a car obeying the speed limit is less
likely to crash and less likely to cause fatality if it should crash,
than the same car exceeding the speed limit. People are absolutely
fixated on speed. I try to restrict that fixation to the Internet,
and lose the speed imperitive when driving.

And enforcement. Carrot and stick.

I think most people would just shrug their shoulders and not care.
Most people, in my experience, recognise that what they are doing is
wrong - their reactions may be defensive, shooting the messenger, or
they may be embarrassed about it.

We are all taught to drive safely before being entrusted with a
licence. Most of us then apparently go on to try to prove how big our
willy is by tearing up the Highway Code and overtaking everything in
sight. You need sticks as well as carrots. And I'm glad kids aren't
taught to drive at school. It's bad enough their being taught
deference to the Almighty Car at every turn, without being put into
lethal machines before they've learned road sense and what it's like
to be on the outside.

Not at all. I get to work fitter, happier and less stressed as a
result.

Guy

 

Well quite. I grew up in St Albans. Much more picturesque. Crap
traffic, of course.

Guy

 

So they do apply when the observation of the provision would not hinder the
use for the vehicle for the purpose to which it is being put at the time.

So Huge is actually wrong for once. Speed limits do apply to vehicles on
police business *except in certain circumstances*.

That is different from saying that they never apply.

...d

 

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:24:49 +0100, "AndrewR"

It's not that it's expensive to make every driver so much better that
they become perfectly attentive, adequately skillful and sufficiently
unaggressive.

It's that many, if not most, drivers are incapable of becoming
adequately good.

It would be cheap and easy to stop the sub-adequate drivers from
driving mind you - harder driving tests, so fewer folk manage to get
licences in the first place. Plus heavy policing of traffic, and long
bans for anyone who gets caught offending.

Mind you, you're complaining because there's very mild policing, and
sometimes very short bans for persistent trepeat offenders, or those
convicted of very serious traffic crimes, so I doubt you really have
the courage of your conviction.


--
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