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 20 May 2010 13:17 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:lsmav5lnkuu45v6dm7qjn9kossf46cuu0g(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 20 May 2010 16:50:03 +0100, "mileburner" > <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>But it does seem to be the thickos who insist on driving everywhere. One >>of >>them said to me a while ago, "I drive everywhere otherwise people will >>think >>I am poor". Yet she often does not have the money for fuel. I hope this >>illustrates the type of person I mean. > > which probably represents a small % of people, most drive because its > convenient, quicker, private, easy to carry loads, gets to places with > no PT etc etc. For people travelling some distance I agree. However, how do we account for those who spend time installing children into their special seats, driving a few hundred yards to school, spend more time removing said children from the car and driving home again when it would be quicker and less effort to walk. > Somebody I argued with about airtravel told me the carbon cost was > zero for him because he is travelling in the 20% of seats otherwise > empty and "the plane was going anyway". This is of course (rather > pathetic) self deception, you can get it from car haters, car lovers > and all other points of view. > -- There was some research done not so long ago which showed that those who claim to live a "green lifestyle" break other rules because they feel it's some sort of payback for being "eco-friendly".
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 May 2010 13:30 JNugent wrote: > Dave Plowman wrote: >> In article <TcmdnTLc2MubYmnWnZ2dnUVZ8sGdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>> Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion >>>> accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now >>>> drive around in cars, because this is the most practical way of >>>> getting around and doing your shopping, now little local corner >>>> shops have mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town >>>> supermarkets... >> >>> ...though only because they are an improvement on the corner shop >>> (something a true believer absolutely *will not* hear). >> >> I have a decent size Waitrose and Sainsbury within walking distance >> - both on the high street. There's no real reason they have to be >> 'out of town'. > > Yes, there is. > > They are more convenient, in more ways, to more people, on the edge > of town than they are in the centre or in the inner suburbs. > > That's why they do it. And more cost effective. Town centre property prices & business rates are horrendous. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Squashme on 20 May 2010 13:41 On 20 May, 18:28, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam- blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > JNugent wrote: > > Derek C wrote: > > > [snip] > > >> The answer to Labour's hatred of motorists is quite simple. Railways, > >> buses and other form of public transport are highly unionised and the > >> trade unions are their major source of income. Also they still live > >> in a time warp dating back to the early part of the twentieth > >> century, when only rich toffs drove cars. The proleteriat rode > >> bikes, used buses or travelled 3rd class on railways. > > > It's part of the answer, but not all of it. > > > The further answer is that Labour has always been wedded to > > quasi-religious views of the world, with pat faux-rationalisations > > and prescriptions for every social phenomenon. > > > You can see the advantage. Once formulated, the "catechism" can > > easily be imparted to the ultra-faithful (councillors, senior officer > > of councils, etc) and disseminated to the more docile sections of the > > population who prefer to let Labour do their thinking for them. The > > 'Boxer' effect... > >> Many bicycles these days are actually very expensive fashion > >> accessories for rich yuppies. The middle and lower classes now drive > >> around in cars, because this is the most practical way of getting > >> around and doing your shopping, now little local corner shops have > >> mostly been closed down in favour of our-of-town supermarkets... > > > ...though only because they are an improvement on the corner shop > > (something a true believer absolutely *will not* hear). > > Stores like Tesco Express wil be the final nail in the coffin for the corner > shop - and quite right too. > Aren't you a "corner shop"?
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 May 2010 13:51 mileburner wrote: > "Nkosi (ama-ecosse)" <minankosi(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:b2532fa4-a1a9-4244-9337-3d91c87dfee4(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> On 20 May, 13:02, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> Derek C wrote: >>>> On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: >>> >> >> snip not pertinent to the reply >> >>> >>> Those educated will often look at their travel choices and make to >>> most sensible option. Those who think that their only option is to >>> drive are often from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. >> >> That is an answer from a real fuckwit since the majority of the cars >> I see on the road seem to cost in excess of 20 000 to buy never mind >> run. > > I think you might find that those at the lower end of the scale see > the car as a status symbol and one worth paying for. I think you might find that most sensible people regard a car as an ideal mode of transport. Oh and Nkosi is right - you are a fuckwit. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 May 2010 13:55
mileburner wrote: > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:FIidndvKiqce1WjWnZ2dnUVZ7q-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "Nkosi (ama-ecosse)" <minankosi(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message >> news:b2532fa4-a1a9-4244-9337-3d91c87dfee4(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >>> On 20 May, 13:02, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> Derek C wrote: >>>>> On 20 May, 07:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...(a)nothing.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> >>> snip not pertinent to the reply >>> >>>> >>>> Those educated will often look at their travel choices and make to >>>> most sensible option. Those who think that their only option is to >>>> drive are often from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. >>> >>> That is an answer from a real fuckwit since the majority of the >>> cars I see on the road seem to cost in excess of 20 000 to buy >>> never mind run. >>> >> I think by using "lower end of the socio-economic scale", >> "mileburner" was trying to be kind. I suspect he really meant >> "unthinking" which is another way of saying "thick". > > You often see lots of expensive cars on council estates... Daily Mail overdose obviously. > But it does seem to be the thickos who insist on driving everywhere. Hmm. Lets see. Car; warm, dry, comfortable, safe, convenient. Push bike; cold, wet, uncomfortable, dangerous, inconvenient. > One of them said to me a while ago, "I drive everywhere otherwise > people will think I am poor". Yet she often does not have the money > for fuel. I hope this illustrates the type of person I mean. It wonderfully illustrates the type of person you are. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |