Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 15 Dec 2009 10:10 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 15 Dec, 14:53, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>>>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>>>>>> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com>: >>>>>>>>> Even our work's HSE dept has admitted that relying solely on hi-vis is a >>>>>>>>> failure. >>>>>>>> "Relying solely on hi-vis" is not the same as "ignoring hi-vis >>>>>>>> completely", of course. >>>>>>>> Yes, of course a decent set of lights is vital. But - equally - hi-vis >>>>>>>> can help to identify "that little red light in the distance" as a cyclist >>>>>>>> as early as possible, which can only be of benefit. >>>>>>> I agree, but JNugent doesn't believe that reflective bits on specific >>>>>>> cycling clothing counts as hi-vis, it's a cheapo builder's vest or >>>>>>> nothing for him. >>>>>> ??? >>>>>> I don't remember anything at all about any such topic. >>>>>> Perhaps you could cite the post? >>>>>> Or perhaps it's your day off and you "can't be arsed", just like you "can't >>>>>> be arsed" to look up the figures that support your odd=view that the costs of >>>>>> "motoring" [TM] are five times the amount collected in motoring taxes? >>>>> I sent you a link to the Independent article that showed it was more >>>>> than double, with the CBI citing congestion costing the nation 20 >>>>> billion a year alone. >>>> You may *think* you've sent me something, but you haven't. >>>> Why not just post the URL here? >>>> And what about something in an attempt to shore up your *fabrication* (above) >>>> about the "builder's vest" (or whetever else you were going on about)? >>>> Don't forget to explain how congestion "costs" anyone except those caught in >>>> the congestion. The whole silly argument about the "costs" of congestion has >>>> to be predicated on the fact that "the nation" needs transport. If the >>>> country didn't need the products of transport, it couldn't be subject to >>>> "costs" of delays to that transport. Now... add in the benefits conferred by >>>> transport (if you can "be arsed", that is). >>>> I don't really expect an answer to this, bu the way. >>> Here is the link I posted for you two days ago. The CBI aren't silly >>> are they? >> No. Far from it. They're just biased in favour of commercial traffic as >> oppoosed to traffic in general. Always look out for motivation when assessing >> motive. >> >> And the organisation which did the "study" you cite is "Transport 2000" (more >> honestly described as Transport 1895, since that's the time they'd like us >> all to go back to in transport terms). >> >> Transport 1895 is a consortium of businesses (mainly bus operators) and >> loonies with axes to grind. It is not objective, fair or unbiased and the >> conclusions of its "studies" can quite reasonably be dismissed as polemic and >> special-interest pleading. >> >> And guess what? They think that it would be better if everyone rode on buses. >> >> Fancy that. >> >> They couldn't be biased, could they? > text - > > No point in me wasting time in getting out the 25% article then - no > doubt that would be equally "biased". :-) If it comes from Transport 1895 or a similarly biased organisation or individual, that's probably correct. Their "studies" simply cannot be relied upon. Their conclusions are arrived at first. It is impossible to imagine T1895 ever deciding that cars are better for journeys which could be done by buses; they might graciouslky accept that cars are good on (for instance) Christmas Day or at times of the night when their bus-operator members don't want to run services. Note that I do not criticise them for special-pleading for buses, which is the business of many of their members. My criticism is aimed at their dishonesty in trying to pretend to objectivity. Academic studies can be balanced and objective, but very frequently, they aren't. It's amazing how often a Marxist academic (and there are still plenty of them) will draw left-wing conclusions from data from which others might draw entirely different conclusions.
From: johnwright ""john" on 15 Dec 2009 10:30 ChelseaTractorMan wrote: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:11:20 +0000, johnwright <""john\"@no spam > here.com"> wrote: > >>> Taxes by definition are not hypothecated. > >> I suspect its not a matter of definition more one of policy. > > No, "taxes" are raised across the community, usually according to > ability to pay. > Services are provided from taxes, broadly according to need. (that's > where policy comes in) > > If a "tax" is used to offset the costs of providing a service to those > who pay the "tax" only, its not a "tax" its a "charge". > > Hypothecated tax is unusual here, National Insurance comes closest. I hear what you say but its not the way government ministers (of either labour or conservative persuasion (I'm not old enough to remember the last liberal government) attempt to express it. Hypothecated tax is very, very unusual but not totally out of the question, hence my comment. I don't think you think it is from your comment. Only if its totally impossible is it by definition. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: NM on 15 Dec 2009 12:26 On Dec 15, 11:27 am, Keitht <KeithT> wrote: > > BUT - as with bikes, there is a market for cheap and cheerful cars. > Possibly the same market. > Cars that are barely, if at all, mechanically sound on the roads are > also those that are not insured or taxed or have MOT's. > They may look O.K. but . . . > > -- > Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle Bit like most cycles then, no insurance, no tax, unsafe.
From: johnwright ""john" on 15 Dec 2009 12:57 Happi Monday wrote: > The Medway Handyman wrote: > >> We're doomed Captain Mainwaring. doomed. > > Capt. who? Is that your boss? Far too young to remember that. Perhaps. The actor who played him died in 1982. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: MasonS on 15 Dec 2009 13:10
On 15 Dec, 17:57, johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> wrote: > Happi Monday wrote: > > The Medway Handyman wrote: > > >> We're doomed Captain Mainwaring. doomed. > > > Capt. who? Is that your boss? > > Far too young to remember that. Perhaps. The actor who played him died > in 1982. You've heard of Julius Caesar though? He died over 2000 years ago. ;-) -- Simon Mason |