Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Restaurant damaged by car.
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Brimstone on 22 May 2010 11:36 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:F6KdnYkwYsJyamrWnZ2dnUVZ8rEAAAAA(a)pipex.net... > Brimstone wrote: > >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> Who says it passes the test? > >> Sorry, that should of course have been "Who says it fails the test?" > > [That's alright. I understood your meaning'] > > Of course it does (fail the test). In whose opinion, apart from yours? You've given no indication that you are a High Court or Appeal Court judge. > It seems that IKEA decided not to bother with Sheffield (perhaps on the > basis that a population which could elect such a loony council probably > aren't worth bothering with), but they could have won at an inspector's > appeal. It would have cost money to lodge the appeal. Going elsewhere was the cheaper option and shows that they weren't bothered about being in Sheffield.
From: mileburner on 22 May 2010 11:47 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:g8gfv5lghvuurbreu0bjv9fepj294e433i(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 22 May 2010 12:24:38 +0100, "mileburner" > <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>> many do not and those that do do not regard not driving as important >>> in that choice. >> >>My point being there *is* always a choice, (even for those who seriously >>think that they have no choice). How they make their choice is up to them. >>Whether to drive or not may not be an important factor and some people >>enjoy >>driving anyway. But there is always a choice. I choose not to depend on >>driving because it bores me witless, > > Yes, I had a long running argument with someone else who disliked > driving and built it into a religion, if you don't like driving don't > do it and leave it at that? Indeed, and on the contrary, if you *do* like driving, then do just it and leave it at that. There is no need to turn it into some kind of religion or human right and at the same time delude yourself in thinking that it *has* to be done. >>but even when I do choose to drive >>(even though I don't actually want to) I don't delude myself in thinking >>that I had no choice. There is always a choice. > > but as has been said, when people say "I have to drive" they almost > never mean what you say above. It is shorthand for "to live this > lifestyle I need to drive", almost everybody understands this. There was me thinking that when people say "I have to drive" they actually meant it. Silly me. Perhaps people should be a bit more honest with themselves. > Very few people consider not driving as a priority in choosing home > and job and would not give up free choice of either in order not to > drive. They are well aware they could switch to a totally different > lifestyle but that is outside of the unspoken parameters of the > statement "I need to drive". Having to drive may considerably increase cost, stress, and the time dedicated to work etc. I would have thought that anyone with a bit of savvy would build those factors into any decision they make about jobs and career decisions. SWMBO has turned down plenty of temp work where she would "have" to drive, simply because of the time which would need to be allowed, and the cost of using the car. She does not "have" to drive. Neither does she "have" to work.
From: Dave Plowman on 22 May 2010 13:37 In article <ggdfv5pm69nsrljgthnrajtocvn6jvcvhv(a)4ax.com>, ChelseaTractorMan <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 15:52:09 +0100, Dave Plowman > <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: > >Plenty who have access to good PT still drive everywhere. Even although > >it takes longer and is less convenient. > I live in London where the PT is probably the best and the congestion > the worst. If going into the centre I take the train, all other > journeys are quicker by car by at least 50%. That would depend entirely on how close you are to a station etc and how easy parking is at the other end. Of course it would be easy to find an example of a cross town route where a car might be quicker - but equally easy to find plenty where it's not. -- *TEAMWORK...means never having to take all the blame yourself * Dave Plowman dave(a)davesound.co.uk London SW 12
From: Adrian on 22 May 2010 14:03 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Not fond of democracy, then? > Certainly not fond of what pretends to be democracy.. I do believe we're still waiting for a detail description of the methods of selection and working for your proposed alternative.
From: The Medway Handyman on 22 May 2010 14:58
Doug wrote: >> > Historically our infrastructures were not designed for a mass car > addictive society. Hence corner shops used to be used by people mainly > on foot who were not as lazy as motorists. Idiot. Corner shops were used because of the pattern of society. They changed - for the better - with the advent of the car. It gave us lower prices, fresher food, greater choice & longer opening hours - all benefits of the car. >The very idea of expecting > somewhere provided to leave your car lying around awkwardly in public > places is an anathema and a general nuisance to all and sundry. Its not a nuisance to motorists who pay for the roads. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |