Prev: it seemed like a good idea at the time
Next: Why are there so many haters here?
From: JNugent on 22 May 2010 10:28
ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:15:51 +0100, JNugent
> <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> depends where to, but the further out you are the earlier you must
>>>>> leave. If you are 40 miles out is it reasonable to expect all night
>>>>> services?
>>>> No. Not when you can use your car.
>>> but that defeats the object if 11.30 represents leaving a pub.
>> Does it?
>
> yes.

I don't understand. I often leave pubs and drive home at that time or later.

What am I doing wrong?
From: JNugent on 22 May 2010 10:29
ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:38:47 +0100, ChelseaTractorMan
> <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Ikea said "Oh. Well, in that case..." and abandoned plans to build a
>>> store in Sheffield at all. So people from Sheffield have to go to
>>> Nottingham or Leeds if they want to visit Ikea.
>> so should we let business build wherever they like?
>
> (i think in the case of Ikea, or a DIY shed or similar, city centre is
> not good as you cannot carry bulky stuff home on a pushbike or bus.
> Sheffield got that one wrong, but the guiding principal was not "mad",
> they were thinking that if the shops are in the centre, people can go
> there by PT, as PT only works as a set of radial arms from a hub, the
> minute you need to travel from one radial to another, car is quicker,
> even in London).

That's right: mad.

They were taking account of irrelevant factors and failing to take account of
relevant factors.
From: JNugent on 22 May 2010 11:25
Brimstone wrote:
>
>
> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
> news:humdnevDNNB0dGrWnZ2dnUVZ7v2dnZ2d(a)pipex.net...
>> ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2010 16:08:00 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sheffield council refused them planning permission, insisting the
>>>> store was in the city centre.
>>>>
>>>> Ikea said "Oh. Well, in that case..." and abandoned plans to build a
>>>> store in Sheffield at all. So people from Sheffield have to go to
>>>> Nottingham or Leeds if they want to visit Ikea.
>>>
>>> so should we let business build wherever they like?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> But having a flat-ffoted policy of insisting that all retail
>> development takes place in a city-centre fails to pass the test of -
>> and I use this phrase very deliberately - *Wednesbury reasonableness*.
>
> Who says it passes the test?
>
> For those not familiar:-
>
> "A reasoning or decision is Wednesbury unreasonable (or irrational) if
> it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could
> have made it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury
> Corporation (1947) 2 All ER 680). The test is a different (and stricter)
> test than merely showing that the decision was unreasonable."

The decision was more than unreasonable.

IKEA just cannot do business in a city centre and it would be ridiculous to
suggest (as Sheffield CC were doing) that they could. They depend on a
car-borne clientele, most of whom cannot carry their purchases home by hand
or a combination of by hand and public transport. IKEA do indeed sell a range
of smaller and lighter goods which could be taken home on a bike, on foot or
on a bus, but these are just the optional extras offered as an adjunct to
their core goods, which consist of (often very bulky) furniture, etc.

To be limited to selling only those marginal goods which *can* be carried
manually or to selling heavier and bulkier goods only to those prepared to
pay extra (and to wait) for delivery is well outside their business model.
Such a store would lose money, guaranteed.
From: JNugent on 22 May 2010 11:27
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).

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.
From: JNugent on 22 May 2010 16:52
mileburner wrote:

> "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> "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.

Talking of being honest...

You *knew* that "I have to drive" means "To live this lifestyle, I need to
drive" and that such statements are made against a background of various a
priori assumptions, one of which is that people will prefer a pleasant
lifestyle in a pleasant place to an unpleasant life in an unpleasant place.

If you hadn't known that, you'd be the only one. Everyone else knew it.

So why skirt around every house in the district on a contrivance?

>> 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.

That is not a luxury enjoyed by everyone.

Again, you know that. Your anecdotes do not militate against it.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: it seemed like a good idea at the time
Next: Why are there so many haters here?