Conservative Way Forward

Nuxx Bar said:

Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

Either admit that you beat your wife, or
stop beating her. It's time for some honesty please.

Nuxx Bar said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."

This is a political bit of electioneering, just to get votes from people
like yourself, who fell persecuted.

Quoted message said:

One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

I don't hate cars, and have never hatted cars. If read through this
group instead of posting poor trolling posts you would realise that.
There are currently two threads specifically about buying cars, and most
posters own cars.

Quoted message said:

(Cue lots of [censored] about how Conservative Way Forward must be
lying. Yawn.)

Bring this subject back on topic for the group, if you scroll down to
pages 9 and 10 you will find what many cyclist have been saying for many
years (apart from the last paragraph):

Quoted message said:

Cycle lanes and facilities
There is no doubt that cycling is a valuable mode of transport, especially in urban areas where
it can help reduce congestion. Unfortunately, many schemes introduced by local authorities, in
response to pressure to ‘assist’ cyclists, are so badly conceived and implemented that they
create danger, delay traffic, and cause animosity between cyclists and other road users.

Quoted message said:

Cycle lanes marked on the road are supposed to give cyclists a feeling of safety but often have
the opposite effect. By segregating cyclists from motor vehicles in this way, cyclists feel
pressured into riding within the cycle lanes and drivers do not always give them enough room
when overtaking. Thus cyclists tend to be ‘squeezed’ more by passing vehicles than if they were
riding as part of the general traffic, but drivers may resent a cyclist riding in a more assertive,
prominent and safer position on the road if a cycle lane exists.

Quoted message said:

Cycleways marked on footways alongside urban roads are often interrupted at frequent
intervals by crossings of side roads and entrances, where cyclists need to give way.
Consequently, cyclists may make less progress than if they cycled on the road, but may again
be resented by other road users if they do so. Shared footways may be helpful to younger or
less confident riders, but for experienced cyclists are worse than no facility at all.

Quoted message said:

In urban areas, where speed differentials between cyclists and motor vehicles are relatively low,
little in the way of physical infrastructure is needed to help cyclists use the roads safely. Most
on-road cycle lanes should be removed and attention given instead to encouraging cyclists to
take training, such as that provided by the Cyclists Touring Club29, on how to use the roads
confidently as part of general traffic. Cycling can be encouraged more by secure cycle parking
facilities at locations such as shopping centres and public transport interchanges than by white
paint and coloured road surfaces.

Quoted message said:

Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.

Response to Martin Dann

Quoted message said:

Bring this subject back on topic for the group, if you scroll down to
pages 9 and 10 you will find what many cyclist have been saying for many
years (apart from the last paragraph):

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.

<Nuxx Spart> But that only PROVES what all the Fascist ANTI-CYCLING
TROLLS which infest this newsgroup just won't admit, that they hate
bikes and will stop at nothing until bikes are totally, erm, ERADICATED
from the roads by measures which the Fascist bike-haters hypocritically
TOTALLY DENY are in any way aimed at bikes, although it's obvious to any
sane and objective extremist that [continues for 94 pages]

--
Mark, UK
"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step
and quickly taken."

Nuxx Bar said:

One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

I hate cars for lots of reasons, although I have two of them myself;
motorists are mostly [censored] but then that's people for you.

I like bikes though, and motorcycles :-)

Still, it doesn't really matter because before too long there will be no
fuel to put in our precious tin boxes.

hth,

T

Mark McNeill said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.

But in my experience there are more problems with dangerous overtaking
in urban areas than on country lanes. Especially in urban areas where
there are cycle lanes, even those with occasional physical barriers
between the cycle lane and the rest of the carriageway (e.g. traffic
calming narrowings).

peter

"TonyB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Still, it doesn't really matter because before too long there will be no
fuel to put in our precious tin boxes.

hth,

T

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."

Ah, the right wing columnist effect

Find a group you disagree with (people who see a downside to the
unrestricted growth in road traffic).
Invent an fallacious reason for their argument ("they resent the loss of
state control over individual choice"😉
As nobody actually makes the fallacious argument, it's necessary to claim
that the arguments they 'do' make are false or exaggerated, as 'clearly'
these people have a hidden agenda.

Classic stuff. I'm just surprised that they've not got something about
cyclists hating the family too!

Simon Mason said:

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.

Hope it's a very big plant... we need lots and lots of the stuff. we
also need to use land for growing food the teemining billions can eat
rather than growing petrol. Finally, is this stuff actually worth doing
from an efficiency point of view? How much do we need to put in to get
useful work out???

The days of petrol are clearly numbered and there really doesn't seem to
be a viable, cheap and plentiful technological cavalry riding over the hill.

Everyone seems to be under the impression somebody will find a cure but
I'm not so sure about that. I can see only trouble and strife and big
changes for all as we freewheel down the dead side of Hubble's peak.

The only question is when, not if...

T

"TonyB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.

Hope it's a very big plant... we need lots and lots of the stuff.

420 million litres of fuel per annum. *If* it gets the go ahead on 1 April.

Quoted message said:

The days of petrol are clearly numbered and there really doesn't seem to
be a viable, cheap and plentiful technological cavalry riding over the
hill.

I bike to work, so the more it costs the more I save :-)

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason said:

420 million litres of fuel per annum. *If* it gets the go ahead on 1 April.

which is 0.3% of UK consumption of 37.8 billion litres pa according to
http://www.energy-business-review.com/article_feature.asp?guid=9CA44278-BA7E-4F05-9F92-024E112D94B0

Quoted message said:

I bike to work, so the more it costs the more I save :-)

hmm.. maybe we should look at developing bicycle powered farming and
distribution infrastructure, together with sailing ships to bring tyre
rubber from the colonies, er sorry I mean "overseas suppliers" whoops ;-)

Still, 0.3% is a start I suppose. But will biofuels ever be as plentiful
and CHEAP as petrol? I doubt it, so then the plebs will have to abandon
cars (and cheap food, and plastic, etc.) and go back to walking/cycling etc.

Of course, some of us plebs are already there...

T

In article <4e2d0d56-21d5-40d5-a610-3016c048a5e7
@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Nuxx Bar
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."

Well I never. So the war on drivers and those sad little motorist-
haters really do exist, and they're not just a figment of my
imagination.

They are, but the Tories are counting on idiots like you voting for them
so they pander to your delusions.

Nuxx Bar said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

" those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents."

Quite how does the car represent, or create, the loss of state control
over individual choice ?

This seems to amount to saying that before the car (say, 1900) the
state exercised a lot more control over individuals transport options.
Did the state do this in, say, 1890 ? It seems to me that the main
transport providers then were the commercial railway and steamship
operators.

Surely the forms of transport (other than walking) least regulated by
the state are the same now as in 1890 - cycling and horse-riding.

Jon

Nuxx Bar said:

One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

For you, time for some honesty was now several weeks ago. You still
appear incapable of fulfilling your promises.

You are, purely and simply, a liar.

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:59:11 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

(Cue lots of [censored] about how Conservative Way Forward must be
lying. Yawn.)

[censored] begets [censored], I guess, but "Conservative way forward"
does sound like an oxymoron. Judging by the contents of their site,
what they mean is "Conservative way back to the Thatcher era as a
marginally acceptable staging post for the return of feudalism".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Quoting TonyB <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

hmm.. maybe we should look at developing bicycle powered farming and
distribution infrastructure,

If I was El Presidente Dictator For Life, my minions would be breeding
heavy horses.

Biofuels are going to be a good way to bring First World motorists into
competition with Third World stomachs. Depressingly, the former bunch will
probably win.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Oil is for sissies
Today is Gorgonzoladay, March - a weekend.

Jon said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

" those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents."

Quoted message said:

Quite how does the car represent, or create, the loss of state control
over individual choice ?

I'd have thought that the reasoning which led to that thought was
obvious enough. Whether you agree with it is another matter.

Quoted message said:

This seems to amount to saying that before the car (say, 1900) the
state exercised a lot more control over individuals transport options.
Did the state do this in, say, 1890 ? It seems to me that the main
transport providers then were the commercial railway and steamship
operators.

There's a bit of a strawman in there.

In 1900, there were hardly any cars (or, indeed, motor-vehicles in
general) and almost no infrastructure for them. A car-owner would have
found it difficult to find petrol once outside the confines of a large
city (and that probably only really means London). At that time, most
people* probably simply didn't regularly travel anywhere they couldn't
walk to; even bikes were an aspirational luxury.

But over the next several decades, with the growth of the suburbs and
the introduction of motor bus services (as well as more use of the
suburban railway services), people* did start to travel more - but
mostly on modes which were controlled by the state (broadly defined).
That can be argued to have lasted until the 1950s, when cars became
available to more ordinary people*.

By the mid-1960s, and well before any of the current faddy concerns
about t'environment or global warming, there was the rumbling of
discontent from groups suspected of resenting working-class mobility and
wanting to do soemthing to push moptoring out of their reach and get
them back on the buses where they were thought to belong, Professor
Colin Buchanan being one of the earliest (even if not stark raving mad
like David Beggs).

Using 1900 as a base point doesn't work, whereas using, say, 1945, works
beautifully.

Quoted message said:

Surely the forms of transport (other than walking) least regulated by
the state are the same now as in 1890 - cycling and horse-riding.

In 1945 (as for several decades before that), the predominant modes were
bus and trian for local journeys (mainly the bus) and train for longer
journeys.

JNugent said:

Jon said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers"
(http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

" those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents."

Quoted message said:

Quite how does the car represent, or create, the loss of state control
over individual choice ?

I'd have thought that the reasoning which led to that thought was
obvious enough. Whether you agree with it is another matter.

Quoted message said:

This seems to amount to saying that before the car (say, 1900) the
state exercised a lot more control over individuals transport options.
Did the state do this in, say, 1890 ? It seems to me that the main
transport providers then were the commercial railway and steamship
operators.

There's a bit of a strawman in there.

In 1900, there were hardly any cars (or, indeed, motor-vehicles in
general) and almost no infrastructure for them. A car-owner would have
found it difficult to find petrol once outside the confines of a large
city (and that probably only really means London). At that time, most
people* probably simply didn't regularly travel anywhere they couldn't
walk to; even bikes were an aspirational luxury.

But over the next several decades, with the growth of the suburbs and
the introduction of motor bus services (as well as more use of the
suburban railway services), people* did start to travel more - but
mostly on modes which were controlled by the state (broadly defined).
That can be argued to have lasted until the 1950s, when cars became
available to more ordinary people*.

By the mid-1960s, and well before any of the current faddy concerns
about t'environment or global warming, there was the rumbling of
discontent from groups suspected of resenting working-class mobility and
wanting to do soemthing to push moptoring out of their reach and get
them back on the buses where they were thought to belong, Professor
Colin Buchanan being one of the earliest (even if not stark raving mad
like David Beggs).

Using 1900 as a base point doesn't work, whereas using, say, 1945, works
beautifully.

Quoted message said:

Surely the forms of transport (other than walking) least regulated by
the state are the same now as in 1890 - cycling and horse-riding.

In 1945 (as for several decades before that), the predominant modes were
bus and trian for local journeys (mainly the bus) and train for longer
journeys.

Sorry, I meant to add a footnote (hence the asterisks):

* By "people", I mean of course the majority of the people, ie, the
British working class, whose lives were invariably lived day to day
within the reltively tight radius from home that they could cover on
foot, perforce FOC. It was still thus for many decades, although that
situation was altered by the advent of the mot-or bus and by the
incremental improvements in living standrds that allowed a small surplus
to pay for what were hitherto luxuries, like riding to work on a bus. I
am not referring to the middle classes and certainly not to the upper
classes.

JNugent said:

Jon said:

Nuxx Bar said:

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):
" those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents."

Quite how does the car represent, or create, the loss of state control
over individual choice ?

I'd have thought that the reasoning which led to that thought was
obvious enough.

Not to me it isn't, and your posting hasn't clarified anything.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the forms of transport (other than walking) least regulated by
the state are the same now as in 1890 - cycling and horse-riding.

In 1945 (as for several decades before that), the predominant modes were
bus and trian for local journeys (mainly the bus) and train for longer
journeys.

Your failure to mention the tram suggests that you haven't researched
the topic very well. They were an important part of mass
transportation in urban areas, and cheap as well. No doubt used by the
middle classes, but also by the workers.

Perhaps you could clarify how pre 1945 transport was state controlled.
Parliament had to approve construction of railways, but had little to
do with their operation beyond taking an interest in safety. Operation
was (pre 1923) in the hands of numerous private companies.

AIUI, your thesis seems to be that the state wished to restrict the
mobility of the working class. Perhaps you could reconcile this with
the 1844 Railway Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

"...the term stems from the Railway Regulation Act 1844. Working
people were increasingly travelling long distances to find employment
in the growing industrial centres. Such third class facilities as
there were consisted usually of open wagons, often without seats,
nicknamed "stanhopes". The Act was an attempt to make train travel
available - and safe - for those who could ill afford it."

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/legistl.html

"...railway companies had to provide a minimum service of one train
each day each way, travelling at not less than 12 miles per hour and
stopping at every passenger station, charging no more than 1d.[0.4p]
per mile for third class passengers."

While it's arguable how well this worked, the intent seems to have
been to give the working classes access to train travel and increase
their mobility. An example of state control, but working in the
opposite direction to that which you/the original paper seem to be
suggesting.

Rob

Quoted message said:

JNugent said:

Jon said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://www.conwayfor.org/policypapers/transport_policy_paper.pdf):
> " those who resent the loss of state
> control over individual choice that the car represents."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quite how does the car represent, or create, the loss of state control
over individual choice ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd have thought that the reasoning which led to that thought was
obvious enough.

Quoted message said:

Not to me it isn't, and your posting hasn't clarified anything.

You didn't know that public transport was almost entirely state-run
until only a coule of decades ago?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Surely the forms of transport (other than walking) least regulated by
the state are the same now as in 1890 - cycling and horse-riding.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In 1945 (as for several decades before that), the predominant modes were
bus and trian for local journeys (mainly the bus) and train for longer
journeys.

Quoted message said:

Your failure to mention the tram suggests that you haven't researched
the topic very well.

Or, alternatively and more accurately, that it wasn't one of the two
predominant modes which could be found in every part of the country.
Only some could have daily experience of the tram (which, incidentally,
I can just remember).

Quoted message said:

They were an important part of mass
transportation in urban areas, and cheap as well. No doubt used by the
middle classes, but also by the workers.

Indeed. Where they existed (which wasn't everywhere, or even in every
part of the places which had them).

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you could clarify how pre 1945 transport was state controlled.
Parliament had to approve construction of railways, but had little to
do with their operation beyond taking an interest in safety. Operation
was (pre 1923) in the hands of numerous private companies.

You are right to point out that 1945 was a little early (by two or three
years) as an ideal base-line. The railways were not yet fully
state-controlled at that time (though it would not be true to say that
the doomed owners of the railways had ever been able to do just as they
liked - anything they ever did had to have Parliament's permission).

Quoted message said:

AIUI, your thesis seems to be that the state wished to restrict the
mobility of the working class. Perhaps you could reconcile this with
the 1844 Railway Act.

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_train

That is not my thesis at all (and as far as I can see, was not the
previous poster's thesis either).

"The state" was not arguing against working class motoring until quite a
bit later. The first on that bandwagon were paid-up members of the upper
middle class bon-pensant brigade.

Quoted message said:

"...the term stems from the Railway Regulation Act 1844. Working
people were increasingly travelling long distances to find employment
in the growing industrial centres. Such third class facilities as
there were consisted usually of open wagons, often without seats,
nicknamed "stanhopes". The Act was an attempt to make train travel
available - and safe - for those who could ill afford it."

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/legistl.html

That bit is irrelevant because you mistook the argument being advanced.
I don't think it has been said that anyone has argued against the
"right" of the working classes to travel by public transport (limiting
as that is). The reaction has been against working class (and latterly,
lower middle class) *motoring*. Motoring, of course, is the mode which
imparts the maximum mobility (or at least, it did until quite recently).

Quoted message said:

"...railway companies had to provide a minimum service of one train
each day each way, travelling at not less than 12 miles per hour and
stopping at every passenger station, charging no more than 1d.[0.4p]
per mile for third class passengers."

Yes, all familiar stuff. And all irrelevant because ranged agaisnt an
argument which wasn't put.

Quoted message said:

While it's arguable how well this worked, the intent seems to have
been to give the working classes access to train travel and increase
their mobility. An example of state control, but working in the
opposite direction to that which you/the original paper seem to be
suggesting.

Almost all organised PT was state-controlled after the railways were
nationalised (and the railways weren't exactly free before that).

It seems to me that there are many who hanker after that age still, for
reasons they don't always explain honestly.