|
A reply to
an earlier posting on speed cameras...
Now here's
where (you) differ: 1)(Excessive speed and dangerous driving) should
be deterred along the whole road, not just a few 50m sections. So
you have signs on the roads warning of speed cameras. Maybe a bright
orange speed camera near a school. 2)Near to schools we need further
enforcement measures. Sorry, but that's (not usually) going to include
physical measures like speed ramps/tables etc. They do(n't) work.
(Obviously the speed over the humps, or whatever, is slow, but what
is the speed in between. And you don't want to be providing any
extra distractions with kids around). 3)Catching loads of drivers
to pay back the cost of a speed camera system is, I agree, a pretty
scandalous aim. But the savings from savings to the NHS, society,
the economy, from people not getting injured or even dying can be
offset against the cost of speed cameras. What are you saying here,
that you are for artificially low speed limits with associated revenue
raising speed cameras. And where will the "genuine" speeders go.
And, if you weren't aware, the motor insurance industry pays for
the costs of accidents and injuries. 4)The reason you might see
lots of empty buses ((possibly) full buses are more env-friendly
than full cars) is they are run by unregulated private companies
who must engage in wasteful competition. Do you know why? Because
Mrs T dereg'd them in 1985. So the network is not planned to provide
the best service, it's to make the most money on particular routes.
And you can't blame the bus companies for that. Agreed, ban Mrs
T, or at least apply punitive taxes to her. 5)Heating etc probably
should be more expensive to try to encourage people to get more
insulation etc. You'd have to be very careful here though. Unlike
fuel taxation, which affects the poorest least as they don't have
cars, (But what about the poor who need cars, and have to make major
sacrifices to run them?! everyone needs heating. So there would
have to be some sort of subsidy on insulation and energy-saving
appliances (lights etc). Here is one case where the Tories' idea
might have been right, but for the wrong reasons. (And you don't
need a degree or a 7 year apprenticeship to fit insulation, its
not particularly heavy or dirty work, you can always find work locally,
what a wonderfull way to keep or get people into work when unemployment
is high, and start training people for a career in building/ construction
to dampen the impact of booms in the sector, and the economy by
reducing skills shortages, and their impact on wages and prices!
You deserve a Nobel prize in economics Stanley. Now why has no-one
else ever thought of that. AND we would't need so many coal. or
oil or nuclear power stations! Or use so much fuel! Or produce so
much pollution (1 power station for 1 week = all cars in UK for
a year!) Amazing! You've solved most of the world's crises at a
stroke!!) Now B, about what is it that you're "so far to the left"
than we'll ever be? Dunno Stanley
bogush
nottingam
previous
postings on speed cameras...
OK B, let's
start with what we agree on:
1)Deterrence is better than prosecution for speeding
2)Speeding by schools is worse than in other places
3)Trying to use fines in the place of taxation is scandalous
4)Running empty buses is a waste of road space and bad for the environment
5)Taxation on carbon-based energy should be more fairly applied
Now here's where I differ:
1)Speeding should be deterred along the whole road, not just a few
50m sections. So you have signs on the roads warning of speed cameras.
Maybe a bright orange speed camera near a school.
2)Near to schools we need further enforcement measures. Sorry, but
that's going to include physical measures like speed ramps/tables
etc. They do work.
3)Catching loads of drivers to pay back the cost of a speed camera
system is, I agree, a pretty scandalous aim. But the savings from
savings to the NHS, society, the economy, from people not getting
injured or even dying can be offset against the cost of speed cameras.
4)The reason you might see lots of empty buses (clearly full buses
are more env-friendly than full cars) is they are run by unregulated
private companies who must engage in wasteful competition. Do you
know why? Because Mrs T dereg'd them in 1985. So the network is
not planned to provide the best service, it's to make the most money
on particular routes. And you can't blame the bus companies for
that.
5)Heating etc probably should be more expensive to try to encourage
people to get more insulation etc. You'd have to be very careful
here though. Unlike fuel taxation, which affects the poorest least
as they don't have cars, everyone needs heating. So there would
have to be some sort of subsidy on insulation and energy-saving
appliances (lights etc). Here is one case where the Tories' idea
might have been right, but for the wrong reasons. Now B, about what
is it that you're "so far to the left" than we'll ever be?
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
Stanley, not
only are you a labour, plant, you are even worse, you are a senior
spin consultant.
Clearly you
hope that no one will read the post from which you selectively snipped
just part of one sentence, totally out of context.
Just in case
I'm wrong, and you simply can't read, I'll re post it, and one from
near the bottom to put your post into context:
If there's an
accident there, it's not because someone was doing 41mph, rather
than 39.99mph. "..... If anyone can suggest a better way to
reduce the casualty rate then lets hear of it ....." YES! As
I've mentioned before, if they really wanted to slow people down
to the speed limit, they would paint the cameras day-glo orange.
But then people wouldn't speed, no one would be fined, and they'd
lose all that extra revenue which they don't need to add to the
official tax burden figures! Or they could put speed traps outside
schools, instead of on steep, fast roads somewhere near them. Or
they could pull up motorists for doing 25mph instead of 10mph near
kids playing on a residential road with a MAXIMUM IF SAFE TO DO
SO 30mph limit, or they could pull up people for ACTUALLY DRIVING
DANGEROUSLY and get them locked up. But then that would cost money,
instead of raising it!
And:
The few in the
centre daren't put their heads above the parapet for fear of being
lumped in with the far right. (Just look at the reaction to some
of my posts on transport and fuel taxes by "the Left".
On some things I'm further to the left than they'll ever be, but
just because I disagree with some idealogical claptrap for commonsense
reasons I must be wrong, and "Right"!?!)
I'll leave the
public to look through the rest of my posts to see where I stand
on taxes, speed limits, public transport, concern about the environment,
concern about society, a society to which we all (should) contribute
(according to our means), mean(ing) we have to have some controls
on our behaviour either through taxation or laws (which should also
apply to the government).
PS just in case
you try, and struggle, some of the posts are meant to be ironic.
PPS or are you
a bbc plant to get the debate going. Don't worry, I've been on holiday.
Bogush
Nottingham
I've just been caught up in a traffic jam alongside one of those
new 24 hour bus lanes, in the rush hour. Mind you, I was going into
town, while the rush hour traffic was going out. Strange that. I
wonder if the jam I was in was having a knock on effect on any buses
anywhere?!? When I got home I saw that a local bus company is cutting
services because the cost of fuel is too high and their buses are
being delayed by congestion (so they want more bus lanes). Meanwhile
the local passengers aren't happy walking for ten minutes to get
to an alternative route (they would prefer to be picked up on their
doorstep)! Obviously Tony's idea of sky high fuel taxes is proving
the right one!? Also more bus lanes. However, as car usage has actually
gone down in recent years, I wonder exactly where the "increased
traffic" complained of has come from. Meanwhile someone should tell
the passengers (or maybe Tony) that those door to door buses are
called cars!!
Bogush
Nottingham
and in reply...
"moan moan moan moan moan moan" Say something nice...please (if
you are capable).
Anti-car, Greenpeace activist, dosser, student, bus user, pleasant
person
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
and Bogush replies...
Moan, moan, moan! Or not, as the case may be. Maybe just a string
of factual observations and statements, which, for some strange
reason, you (rightly or wrongly) feel could justifiably cause a
reasonable person to complain! PS, and I even complimented that
lovely Mr Blair. PPS, does activist mean that you send those lovely
letters filled with inflammable (but non-polluting, ecologically
sound) substances, designed to light up the lives of all those nasty,
placid, middle of the road types who you expect to pay excessive
taxes to support your lifestyle. Or are you just rebelling against
Mummy and Daddy for embarassing you by setting up a trust fund.
Bogush
Nottingham
and another reply to Bogush...
Bogush, where is your contribution to this debate? There seem to
be rather a lot of lefty/green/environmentalist views on this page.
Just think of all that taxpayers' money that's being wasted when
it could be spent on tax cuts, subsidizing hauliers and farmers,
halting immigration, building gallows...
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
a reply to Stanley...
Where is my contribution? It is scattered over a dozen or so locations
on this forum and comprises a number of observations which you may,
or may not, wish to mull over whilst trying to decide on the appropriateness
of certain aspects of local and national government policy. They
all relate to the position of the motorist, and the use of the car,
in today's society, except where additional comments might be deemed
appropriate in the circumstances. Yes there do seem to be rather
a lot of left/green/environmentalist views in this forum. We both
can only wonder at how they can find the time to spend on their
"social" activities in between lectures. Obviously inicative of
their superior intellects. I suppose we should consider ourselves
lucky, in a way, to work unsocial hours "at the coalface" as it
where, and be at a loose end when most producers are at work, so
that we can "join" the "debate". However, I don't feel that I can
contribute to the debate at the same intellectual and academic level
as the socialist/ environmentalist intelligentsia. But as someone
who has had to spend many an hour on the "road", using both public
and private transport, and having witnessed at first hand the results
of early experiments, both the succesful and the unsuccesful, in
"environmentally friendly" "traffic engineering", I feel that my
observations might be useful for analysis by greater minds than
mine. Don't know if I can agree with some of your other comments
though. Farmers - let the supermarkets squeeze them even further
- the more that go bankrupt and/or commit suicide, the more big
agribusiness we'll have, and the cheaper and better food will be.
Plus we'll be able to roam a countryside unencumbered with uneconomic
trees and hedgerows and meadows. And to think that farmers have
had the cheek to complain that, as their tractor fuel costs are
not masked by 340% fuel duties, they've had to suffer a doubling
of their on farm diesel costs over the past year or so!! And as
for hauliers, they should think themselves lucky to be in the fortunate
position of contributing tens of thousands of pounds, per annum,
per truck to help pay for the poor, amoral inhabitants of Islington
to be able to commute to court on the tube, instead of joyriding
in stolen limos. Why, some weeks, there's even enough money left
over to spend on new forms of rehabilitation. We can give some of
the more deserving cases joy rides in a helicopter (what fun they
must have pedalling those rotors round!). And how my heart sings
when I've heard that one of them has been sent on a seaside holiday
at last, or has had the opportunity to go on an educational trip
to a conference overseas. Of course, kids will be kids, and put
them together on a long flight, or just together, and you just know
they will soon fall out over something silly. So I'm afraid it'll
have to be seperate helicopters and jets. You have of course forgotten
the pensioners - most of them don't pay any tax. And I don't want
to hear any whining about paying NI for 45 years, or losing a leg
or a husband in the war, or a lung down those nasty, polluting mines.
Pay your fair share! I'm sure our beloved leader Tony must pay 40%
tax, and our first lady certainly does. That's 80% between them.
And, back in the sixties, millionaires used to pay 85% tax on investment
income. So, ok, you "could" argue that when you put petrol in your
moped, or smelly old banger, so you can go to the supermarket to
buy food, because there are no buses where you live, "technically"
you are paying 340% tax. But if you think of it as 75% tax: it's
a lot less than those millionaires, and less even than our beloved
leaders. So, pay up, and shut up, I say. But as for immigration,
as you can guess, with a name like mine, I'm all for it. Yup, the
more the merrier. And, with all those farmers committing suicide,
there's sure to be plenty of work for them to pay their way down
on the farm. And with all those soldiers overseas, plenty of barracks
to house them in until they've repaid their debt to society for
killing all those lovely nazis during the war. Oh dear, getting
confused now. It's not that war that's driven them all the way to
these shores. The battle they've had is with all those nasty left/green
governments in Europe that refuse to believe that they are refugees.
But as for hanging, sorry old boy, totally anti capital punishment.
Ok life should mean life for some crimes. But not institutionalised
murder. But then again some institutions have been getting away
with murder for far too long. Maybe there is a case for bringing
back the gallows! And maybe I'm flogging a dead horse here, so draw
things to a close.
Bogush
Nottingham
another reply to Stanley...
Talking of immigrants to islands, that reminds me of my cunning
plan to understand even the most complicated political or social
problem. I reduce it to the desert island scenario. So if you just
want the "5 minute argument" here it is: You are shipwrecked on
a desert island. OK, so how much do you expect the healthy, strapping,
Eton, Oxford and Guards stockbroker, with the bonuses, the trust
fund, and the body honed by sailing and skiing, to contribute? And
the sickly, injured, malnourished, uneducated child? Alternatively,
for those who worry about the day of the year on which they stop
working for the taxman, and start working for themselves - for how
many days would you work for your fellow survivors, before saying
right, I'm looking after myself for the rest of the year". And if
you said that on day one, then found that you couldn't build a shelter,
or grow food, or distill water, or you fell ill? So ok, where does
340% tax on pensioners fit into this scenario?!?
Bogush
Nottingham
and in reply to Bogush...
I was being sarcastic. My "contribution to the debate" comment
was referring to the "the tram is a waste of money" section which
is about the only one you haven't appeared on (maybe in another
guise?). I was inferring your opinions, but I'm glad to see I'm
wrong about your thoughts on immigration and capital punishment.
Just need to encourage you to come around to us lefties' opinions
on the environment.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
in reply
to Stanley's Reply to Bogush's Reply to .....
Sorry Stanley,
went right over my head that. Haven't got to the chapter on sarcasm.
Still working my way through the satire and irony section of the
Handbook for Immigrant Relations - How To Patronise Them by Insisting
They Maintain Their Own "Language and Culture" in Their Own Little
Ghettos. Published by the Labour Party, in conjunction with the
Guardian. Greenpeace Edition -printed on unbleached, recycled paper.
Sorry also for missing the Tram forum. So here goes. Once upon a
time they had steam traction engines and electric trams. Because
at the time they were the most efficient and cost effective options,
in fact, nearly too good for the great unwashed. Now people want
to bring them back for "environmental" reasons. Ever so logical.
Like most green/environmentalist ideas (to get rid of their class
enemy - those rich, car driving, oppressors of the trolley bus riding
masses). Yes, very environmentally sound. After all steam is just
very pure, very hot ! ! water (but not so hot it increases global
warming presumably). And who ever saw exhaust fumes coming out of
an electric motor?! So where do they think the electricity comes
from - some filthy, fume belching oil or coal fueled power station.
Or if we're really lucky, some nuclear plant - still at the full
scale experimental stage, no idea how to decommission them, working
on how to mothball them for a century till they're relatively safe
to work on - hopfully someone will have worked it out by then! And
how does the electricity get to the tram - down those nasty power
lines that disfigure the countryside and give the locals brain tumours,
or whatever. Only now they will be running down city streets, just
above head height! Oh, yes, scrub the traction engine idea, not
going to help the cause of destroying the motorist. Then again,
put that idea on the back burner, might come in handy against those
farmers now that they are siding with the toffs against the workers.
Bu! ! t I AM for the environment. That's why I'm afraid I can't
come round to the left's ideas on it. Flitting around in helicopters
(have you ANY idea how much fuel they burn?!) and jets to exotic
locations on the pretext of discussing the environment. Cruising
around in big limos (if they're as small as 3.0 litres I'll be amazed).
Zooming up bus lanes with outriders and the works, as though they're
some tin pot dictator - then again. Screwing the poor at a rate
of 340% tax on the pretext it's for environmental reasons. Bull.
The motor car produces a tiny proportion of the pollution caused
by the public, which is nothing compared to industrial pollution,
which is insignificant compared to "natural" sources. The "left"
attack the motorist for the same ideological reasons that they attack
foxhunting - they see motoring as a pastime of the rich oppressors.
Just as animal activists don't care about the fox (if they really
cared about animals they would become vets, instead of ! ! scaring
horses and dogs, and releasing animals from fur farms to die in
the wild, or massacre the indigenous wildlife) the left don't care
about the environment, otherwise they would be working on truly
clean power for "private" cars, rather than playing at appearing
to provide apparently clean "public" transport, which is the proper
place for the workers. Those nasty oil companies and arab oil sheiks
(and car manufacturers) are probably putting more money into clean
power research than supposedly green governments. So where do all
these environmental taxes go - into anti motorist "traffic calming"
and camouflaged revenue raising speed cameras (and 拢100k jobs on
quangos for Guardian readers). The former increase congestion and
so increase pollution. The latter do nothing to stop speeding. And
anyway, talking of bull, do you have any idea how much (polluting)
energy goes into constructing a modern semi, replacing heat loss
through three walls, plumbing them into the mains, ! ! and processing
fresh water and sewage. Now if you really want to be green - tax
semis at 340% and insist everybody goes back to two up two down
back to backs. And if you really believe in ecologically sound "public"
facilities, insist that they're shared, one set per block. That
would cut waste of scarce resources and pollution far more than
getting rid of all cars. But then you would have to attack all of
the workers (of course the rich and the politicians would escape)
instead of a demonised section of society (which the left have not
realised is now a majority of the population, the majority of whom
are poor downtrodden workers, who, in modern society could not survive
with public transport, unless you gave them a bus each).
bogush
nottingham
|
