Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 09:03 On 20 Dec, 13:52, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > > What does [ie, what the Daily Express says] say about the Transport Select > Committee, then? I don't care what it says, to be honest. Just like you don't care about what "Transport 1895" (sic) says. -- Simon Mason
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 09:11 On 20 Dec, 00:13, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 19 Dec, 20:07, "The Medway Handyman" Cyclists riding at high speeds are a > danger to pedestrians. I though they were toys ridden by kids? Make your mind up. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 09:20 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> What does [ie, what the Daily Express says] say about the Transport Select >> Committee, then? > I don't care what it says, to be honest. Just like you don't care > about what "Transport 1895" (sic) says. So why did you quote it in the first place? It was something about a poll on immigration IIRC, which you said "says it all". If it "says it all", it seems reasonable to ask what it says about the Select Committee's report.
From: Simon Mason on 20 Dec 2009 09:51 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:_aOdnWmf6ZUxr7PWnZ2dnUVZ8m9i4p2d(a)pipex.net... > MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > >> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >>> What does [ie, what the Daily Express says] say about the Transport >>> Select >>> Committee, then? > >> I don't care what it says, to be honest. Just like you don't care >> about what "Transport 1895" (sic) says. > > So why did you quote it in the first place? > > It was something about a poll on immigration IIRC, which you said "says it > all". > > If it "says it all", it seems reasonable to ask what it says about the > Select Committee's report. Jeez, I'll spell it out for you. The Daily Express, in common with the Daily Mail, appeals to a very select audience of "Middle England" and plays up on their insecurites every day in order to sell newspapers. Common themes include being invaded by immigrants, influx of Eastern Europeans, squatters occupying detached houses while getting benefits, councils banning Xmas, "PC gone mad" and so on. Anything to get their backs up. A report that states that their motoring taxes only gets spent on the roads to the tune of less than 100% of what they pay, is right up their street. Any other report that might reasonably subtract the cost of scraping dead people off the roads (plus the billions in other costs) is not published (but published elsewhere) as it does not fit in with their demographic. Anyone with half a brain though can understand that the money spent on road building is only scratching the surface of what the real cost to society is. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 10:11
Simon Mason wrote: > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:... >> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> What does [ie, what the Daily Express says] say about the Transport >>>> Select Committee, then? >>> I don't care what it says, to be honest. Just like you don't care >>> about what "Transport 1895" (sic) says. >> So why did you quote it in the first place? >> It was something about a poll on immigration IIRC, which you said >> "says it all". >> If it "says it all", it seems reasonable to ask what it says about the >> Select Committee's report. > Jeez, I'll spell it out for you. > The Daily Express, in common with the Daily Mail, appeals to a very > select audience of "Middle England" and plays up on their insecurites > every day in order to sell newspapers. Common themes include being > invaded by immigrants, influx of Eastern Europeans, squatters occupying > detached houses while getting benefits, councils banning Xmas, "PC gone > mad" and so on. Anything to get their backs up. > A report that states that their motoring taxes only gets spent on the > roads to the tune of less than 100% of what they pay, is right up their > street... [How about less than 20% (let alone 100%)? - or are drivers just fated to provide financial benefits for others and to see their own families and households relatively disadvantaged financially?] > ..Any other report that might reasonably subtract the cost of > scraping dead people off the roads (plus the billions in other costs) is > not published (but published elsewhere) as it does not fit in with their > demographic. Anyone with half a brain though can understand that the > money spent on road building is only scratching the surface of what the > real cost to society is. Right... so when you said "it [a report in the Daily Express] says it all", what you actually meant was that *you* were going to say it all, making it up wherever you deem it necessary. There *are* some external costs for transport systems (especially to the blood pressure of those who are enraged by the very thought of mobility for the car-driving middle classes). But just guessing at them (and deliberate massive over-estimating) *isn't* an argument. And leaving out either: (a) the fact that drivers already pay something like five or six times the value of road-building in travel-related taxes and/or (b) the (very large) value of the external *benefits* of the road transport system ....is even less of an argument. There... I've spelled it out for you. |