"Call to tackle pollution 'role in 50,000 early deaths' "
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
Next: Classic car for sale on eBay
From: Doug on 24 Mar 2010 03:02 On 24 Mar, 06:52, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > > > What you are forgetting is that your lifestyle has been shaped by total > > car dependency > > ITYM "easy transport". > > After all, few people ever travelled further than a small number of > surrounding villages until the bicycle became ubiquitous. > > So - yes - technologies do have a habit of breaking down restrictions on > behaviour. This is a good thing. > You are ignoring the restrictions on behaviour they cause, like sitting in traffic jams or breaking down somewhere remote or being subjected to an investigation following a collision or being in dispute about a fine or having it stolen The list is endless. One of the benefits of pubic transport, compared to car ownership, is you don't have the irksome responsibility for it. What amuses me is when motorists bang on about the freedom the car gives them, which of course is a myth. They are forever troubled by somewhere handy to put it when it is not in use and especially following a journey. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
From: Adrian on 24 Mar 2010 03:14 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > What you are forgetting is that your lifestyle has been shaped by >> > total car dependency >> ITYM "easy transport". >> >> After all, few people ever travelled further than a small number of >> surrounding villages until the bicycle became ubiquitous. >> >> So - yes - technologies do have a habit of breaking down restrictions >> on behaviour. This is a good thing. > You are ignoring the restrictions on behaviour they cause, like sitting > in traffic jams or breaking down somewhere remote or being subjected to > an investigation following a collision or being in dispute about a fine > or having it stolen Four items. Three of which are easy to avoid, and one of which is a minor irritant - and congestion is, of course, shared with public transport. Anyway, you think that's a big problem, compared to the next town being a day's travel away? A journey which is physically impossible if you're elderly/disabled/ill? You really are pathetic, Duhg. > The list is endless. Of ways in which you're pathetic? Indeed. And you keep proving it. > One of the benefits of pubic transport A delightful typo. Congratulations. > compared to car ownership, is you don't have the irksome responsibility > for it. You may find it "irksome" - but, then, you always have done all you can to avoid the slightest trace of responsibility vesting upon you. > What amuses me is when motorists bang on about the freedom the car > gives them, which of course is a myth. Strange how those of us who actually use cars don't find it such. Only you, who refuses to use one to try to prove some point, find it particularly onerous. > They are forever troubled by somewhere handy to put it when it is not > in use and especially following a journey. Nope. Not a problem at all, ime. But what do I know? I'm only about to leave home in the Chilterns and head towards Richmond- upon-Thames. I'll be comfortably seated, with my choice in temperature and entertainment, park in a nice handy car park, have a short walk to my destination, and be able to easily carry some equipment which can't get wet and is heavy/awkward to manually carry far. It'll take me about an hour to get there. Or I could walk to the end of my road and get on a train to London, change to a train across London, then a train out of London. I'll have a further walk at the other end. I'll probably have to stand all the way, jostled and pushed. It'll take me maybe two and a half hours - so a total of four hours more out of my day, just in travelling - and with a far less pleasant experience. Explain to me again how unpleasant using a car is, compared to PT? Anybody who isn't a complete and utter monomaniac recognises that different modes of transport are appropriate for different scenarios. In urban environments, of course the bicycle or buses or trains make far more sense than the car - providing you're travelling light. Mind you, I'd love to know how you think economically viable bus transport would have developed without the car. Please - enlighten us.
From: ashley filmer on 24 Mar 2010 04:59 On 24 Mar, 06:34, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 23 Mar, 08:41, ashley filmer <ash.fil...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Mar, 07:00, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > On 22 Mar, 19:36, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > > > > saying: > > > > > > I might have known that motorists on these NGs would try to divert blame > > > > > away from themselves onto HGVs and buses. It is time they realised that > > > > > cars are 80% of all road traffic and therefore responsible for a > > > > > considerable amount of pollution. > > > > > <sigh> > > > > The concepts of relative mileages and relative fuel consumptions don't > > > > really impinge on your braincell, do they? > > > > Certainly not on yours it seems. > > > > In 2005 in billion vehicle kilometres: > > > > Cars 397 > > > Light vans 62 > > > Goods vehicles 29 > > > Buses and coaches 5.2 > > > Pedal cycles 4.4 > > > > Says it all really and cars do 80% of the mileage. As for fuel > > > consumption this should be in terms of passenger kilometres and of > > > course goods vehicles provide a much more essential service for all > > > than your particular choice of personal transport. > > > > -- > > > Car Free Living Projecthttp://www.carfreelivingproject.org.uk/ > > > For people wishing to live without a car > > > You obviously live in a city with the most comprehensive public > > transport network in the UK Doug, but outside the M25, public > > transport becomes much more 'pot luck' > > What do you do when the journey you want to undertake is actually > > further than you are physically capable of cycling, or even that there > > is not enough hours in the day to travel the distance in the time you > > can cycle it ?. > > What you are forgetting is that your lifestyle has been shaped by > total car dependency, which has grown widely and massively within just > a lifetime. Prior to that people either lived near their work and > services or use public transport, which have since been ousted by > competition from the car. It is highly doubtful that you would be > living where you are and doing what you do were it not for the car. > My commute is entirely doable on a cycle Doug. I rode it every day for a summer, but I don't like starting work all sweaty. I prefer to keep the cycle for leisure. The motorcycle is my vehicle of choice and I will ride that every day until November unless it is hammering down (no need to be a masochist when I also run a car). A cycle is a poor substitute for a motorcycle unless you live right in a city centre and ride on the pavement and through red lights. > Anyway, that which has changed can continue changing in another and > better direction so let's live in hope! For one thing, we are living > at a time when someone can now exist and connect without even leaving > their home and this is bound to have some influence. > This only works if you have skills you can sell on the web. If being housebound is the best we have got to look forward to as prisoners of technology, I fear for future generations! > I may be living in a city with a comprehensive PT network but you > wouldn't think so if you viewed the main roads on a Saturday morning, > chock-a-block with cars being used for shopping. When I come up to London in the car, I always park up and tube it. If the tube is down, I then jump into a taxi and get around that way. If I come up to London on the motorcycle, then I am always quicker than a cycle. That said, I don't jump red lights, and I don't ride on the pavement like the very vast majority of cyclists I see in the capital so perhaps my margin isn't as great over a shorter journey. Either way, with the millions of cycles stolen each year in the UK and especially London, I would never feel that comfortable chaining a nice one up to a set of railings there. > > -- > World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/ > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: boltar2003 on 24 Mar 2010 05:35 On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT) ashley filmer <ash.filmer(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> Quite. So perhaps they should get their damn horse transporters out of the >> way occaionally if they're going to go slow. If tractor drivers can manage it >> so can Felicity Smyth-Higgins. >> >> B2003 > >I would say that they are actually just trying to 'make progress' to >the best of their abilities. I had to drive a 4.5 tonne Dodge van over So is a tractor driver. They still tend to move over. >Your derisory use of the double barrel name indicates that the slow >moving lorry is not the root cause of your disdain Oh rubbish. B2003
From: ashley filmer on 24 Mar 2010 05:49
On 24 Mar, 09:35, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 06:14:23 -0700 (PDT) > > ashley filmer <ash.fil...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Quite. So perhaps they should get their damn horse transporters out of the > >> way occaionally if they're going to go slow. If tractor drivers can manage it > >> so can Felicity Smyth-Higgins. > > >> B2003 > > >I would say that they are actually just trying to 'make progress' to > >the best of their abilities. I had to drive a 4.5 tonne Dodge van over > > So is a tractor driver. They still tend to move over. Tractor drivers are generally limited to about 15 or 20mph on the flat by their gearing. A horse box lorry is limited by the law governing commercial vehicles on NSL's . Transit vans and similar commercials are also limited by this law which limits them to 50mph, and HGV's are limited to 40mph by law. Instead of demanding that all of these vehicles to just 'get out of your way' why don't you go and buy a vehicle which is agile and quick enough that you won't be held up by them ? > > >Your derisory use of the double barrel name indicates that the slow > >moving lorry is not the root cause of your disdain > > Oh rubbish. > > B2003 I was not the only one to pick up on this class prejudice, so I it is not a figment of my imagination.. |