Alan Howarth

Mark Thompson said:

Jon Senior wrote:

[Loads of stuff]

You know, he's still going to write back with a load more idiot questions..

I know. But I was bored of learning verb conjugasions so it passed some
time. As it always does! ;-)

"TrollB; marginally more interesting that the subjunctive!"

Jon

Tony Raven twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Train: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0

Akshully 246 dead for 2003/4

Is that 246 people killed while using level crossings, or does it include
track workers[1], suicides and those engaged in criminal trespass? (I'm
assuming you'd not quote a figure that included passengers.)

[1] Are moterway maintenance casualties listed as peds?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Jon Senior wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:47:46 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>
>> You don't say. So, the only difference is scale [why cars need
>> plates and bikes don't].

Quoted message said:

To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it
worthwhile. The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with
the introduction of an annual registration fee.

Presumably set at the same, or a lower rate, than the lowest rate
for cars. As I cannot think of any reason why a cycle is more
dangerous than a Smart Diesel car, and the polution is lower.

No. Based on the cost of running the system divided by the number of
cycles.

That's not the way car registration works. Its based on the sum the
chancellor would like to raise in tax. Current one has approach of "tax
loosly proportional to environmental damage".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Adminstration of your scheme

I /don't/ want the scheme. I want /no/ registration for either bikes
or cars. *But* if road vehicles are deemed, by whoever, to require
registration, then we must suffer it.

All road vehicles do not require registration. Electric vehicles with a top
speed below 15mph do not need regulation. Human powered vehicles, vehicles
drawn by animals are similarly free from regulation. Seems very simple to
most people; vehicles with high propensity to cause death and injuries to
third parties are strictly regulated, those with much lower rates don't need
regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

going to cost, at a reasonable guess, £15-£20
per bicycle per year.

That's how much the fee should be then.

Quoted message said:

I think there are something like 30 million of them in
the UK. So that's going to be 0.5bn pounds on income tax for your
scheme

No, it should be self financing.

Quoted message said:

(having established that there isn't any reason to charge the
cyclist, as there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart
Diesel).

Who established that?

Please provide a good reason why your bicycle registration "plate" should
cost more than the costs of VED for a Smart Diesel car. I cannot think of
one. I can think of lots of reasons why the Smart should cost more to use
on the road than a cycle.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for
0.5Bn to prevent one hit and run accident,

Why should cycling registration be subsidised from tax???

Why should car drivers be subsidised from tax ????

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's one for you Jon: Aeroplanes /and/ trains are bigger and
faster than cars.

And are regulated by statutory safety bodies, requiring rigourous
inspection, documentation of all servicing, etc.. etc..

Yes, but heavier and faster than cars, so by Jon's logic for exempting
bikes because cars have more kinetic energy, then cars should be
exempted because those other transport modes trump them.

Err no.
Big things which are very dangerous = lots of regulations.
Medium things which are moderately dangerous = not much regulation.
Small things which pose little danger = no regulation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Those regulations
require the registration of trains and aircraft. All railway
vehicles are numbered (uniquely) and all planes carry registration
marks. A bit like cars really.

So?

Quoted message said:

And your point was ???

Already explained above :-)

Ah, so complete bollocks.

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

The number killed in household accidents? Although I suspect you were
suggesting that 3500 of the 3200, or so, killed on our roads were
victims of motorists. Let me remind you that many of those killed were
victims of their own actions, and that pedestrians and cyclists were
responsible for many of those casualties.

I chuckled hard at a story written by one of my eight year old pupils
the other day. It started, "Mary was just twelve years old when she
went to work as a scullery maid in the huge house in the country. She
was an orphan her parents had been killed in a cart crash when she was
just three years old..."

How many deaths do you think happened on our roads as a result of cart
crashes or similar before the invention of the internal combustion
engine?

I don't know where to start looking, but a quick Google revealed an 1840
London survey suggesting that there were about 1000 deaths involving
horses and carriages that year - but it doesn't clarify whether that was
London alone, or countrywide. Road accidents are definitely not a
consequence of motorised traffic.

--
Matt B

Alistair Gunn said:

Tony Raven twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Train: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0

Akshully 246 dead for 2003/4

Is that 246 people killed while using level crossings, or does it include
track workers[1], suicides and those engaged in criminal trespass? (I'm
assuming you'd not quote a figure that included passengers.)

[1] Are moterway maintenance casualties listed as peds?

195 were trespass or suicide of which 141 were confirmed or suspected
suicides. There were 3 rail workers, so a negligible correction if you
want to make one. Do road figures include suicides? Two of our elderly
neighbors died it what seemed to be an end of life suicide pact high
speed road crash. I suspect they were listed in the road death figures.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Jon Senior said:

Mark Thompson said:

Jon Senior wrote:

[Loads of stuff]

You know, he's still going to write back with a load more idiot
questions..

I know. But I was bored of learning verb conjugasions so it passed
some time. As it always does! ;-)

"TrollB; marginally more interesting that the subjunctive!"

Bien qu'il soit important d'apprendre des conjugaisons françaises, je trouve
plus interessant de discuter avec TrollB, en dépit du fait qu'il paraisse au
plupart des lecteurs u.r.c. qu je poste les articles en debat avec moi-même
parce-qu'ils l'ont deja kill-filé il y a plusiers mois.

Is that what you were saying?

Corrections welcome. Apologies for butchering your language, Francophones.

--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Bien qu'il soit important d'apprendre des conjugaisons françaises, je trouve
plus interessant de discuter avec TrollB, en dépit du fait qu'il paraisse au
plupart des lecteurs u.r.c. qu je poste les articles en debat avec moi-même
parce-qu'ils l'ont deja kill-filé il y a plusiers mois.

Belle efforte. Pourriez-vous dire ça sans une dictionnaire? Moi, je
trouve que je peut écrire un niveau plus que je parle. Il est vachement
difficile de me souvenir de la grammaire pendant parler. C'est pour ça
que je me suis inscrire d'un cours de français (Un peu tard peut-être!).

Quoted message said:

Is that what you were saying?

Très proche. J'ai l'impression que tout le monde parle plus fort
français que mois. Bof. C'est la vie!

Quoted message said:

Corrections welcome. Apologies for butchering your language,
Francophones.

Please add my apologies to the cacophony!

Jon

Tony Raven twisted the electrons to say:

Quoted message said:

Alistair Gunn said:

Is that 246 people killed while using level crossings, or does it include
track workers[1], suicides and those engaged in criminal trespass? (I'm
assuming you'd not quote a figure that included passengers.)

[1] Are moterway maintenance casualties listed as peds?

195 were trespass or suicide of which 141 were confirmed or suspected
suicides.

I seem to recall a big argument over on uk.railway a few years ago on
whether the figure for suicides should be included when working out how
safe (or otherwise) the railways where. Personally I wouldn't include
them, nor would I include trespass either - most of those who suicided
would probably (IMHO) have used some other method if the railways hadn't
been available, and trespass comes under "think of it as evolution in
action" IMHO ...

Quoted message said:

There were 3 rail workers, so a negligible correction if you want to
make one.

Was just curious, as you say it doesn't really affect the figures to any
real extent ...

Quoted message said:

Do road figures include suicides?

Dunno to be honest ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Matt B said:

I don't know where to start looking, but a quick Google revealed an 1840
London survey suggesting that there were about 1000 deaths involving
horses and carriages that year - but it doesn't clarify whether that was
London alone, or countrywide. Road accidents are definitely not a
consequence of motorised traffic.

Interesting statistic.

Your purpose as a contributor in this forum is certainly improving.

Jon Senior said:

Matt B said:

Not relevant. Or perhaps you are suggesting that only the
heaviest/fastest thing per 'manner' is eligible for this treatment.

Let's see: Plane: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0
Train: Interaction with pedestrians: ~0

Could this be in some way related to the fact that neither vehicle
operates on the public highway?

So like I said, "...you are suggesting that only the heaviest/fastest
thing per 'manner' is eligible for this treatment".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about 'regulate', but the requirement for the display of
a number plate.

Which is a part and parcel of the regulation.

No. You don't need the other regulation that motor vehicles are
subjected to, just a plate with a registered identification on it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We don't insist on huge external number plates on firearms.

And we don't allow just anyone to own a firearm.

We not not actually /allow/ them.

Quoted message said:

I will happily support
your idea of applying the same restrictions on firearm ownership to cars.

When did I suggest that? You're making it up again.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but again, only for the specific activity of driving a motor
vehicle.

Not solely, but ignoring that, yes... because they pose a disproportionate
danger.

That is the fallacy that all supporters of car number plates seem to
cling to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So now you think number plates are only required to catch speeders?

No. But it does provide a nice example doesn't it. After all, since a
majority of drivers admit to routinely breaking the law it seems sensible
to watch them more closely.

That's one approach. The majority of cyclists admit to breaking the law
(cycling on the pavement), so why do you not think they need watching
more closely?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bikes could have plates. People could have plates :-)

They could. They could also carry a large lead weight but this is not
relevant (Although plated-peds is an amusing idea). The problem still
remains in fitting plates in a safe manner to the range of bicycles that
are used in Britain. In order to be demonstrably safe, they would have to,
at a minimum protude no further than the existing structure of the bike.
If you can reconcile that with visibility at an appropriate distance and
from at least two angles, do feel free to explain how.

There are many possibilities. They could be worn by the rider, like
race numbers. They could be in/on the wheel spokes. The could be in
the frame, between the down and seat tubes, like the shop name on a
butcher's bike. They could be up and down the seat tube on a sticker,
or vertical plates. They could be rear facing clipped to the seat
pillar or the top of the seat stays. There are endless safe, yet
visible possibilities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Someone was moaning about a suggestion to require plates on bikes, the
reasons against were all equally valid for cars. When I posed the
question "cars are plated why not bikes?", the only answers offered
either supported the plating bikes or excused the plating of cars.

In your opinion. But since you are either not reading the explanations or
fail to understand them that opinion counts for not a lot.

The reasons are /all/ opinion. "More dangerous than" implies a
threshold. That is subjective. How come all cycles are one side and
all motor vehicles the other.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... I never said that. If the use of plates caught one more then it
would be valid.

Then by the same logic I propose the banning of all cars from the public
highway since this will save at least one life. Presumably you will
support this, after all, you suggested it!

Sorry? You're making it up again. When did I suggest banning all cars?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The number killed in household accidents? Although I suspect you were
suggesting that 3500 of the 3200, or so, killed on our roads were
victims of motorists. Let me remind you that many of those killed were
victims of their own actions, and that pedestrians and cyclists were
responsible for many of those casualties.

Ah, victim blaming.

No, a motorist victim of another careless or dangerous non-motorist road
user cannot be blamed.

Quoted message said:

You would have the stats to hand to support the image
of suicidal non-motorised road users throwing themselves at the cars?

Why are pedestrians suddenly the only casualties of road collisions?
More drivers are killed in single vehicle accidents than pedestrians.
How does a number plate help in that situation, the driver is hardly
going to drive off. Not all pedal cycle collisions with motor vehicles
are the fault of the motorist. Even in collisions where a motorist is
at fault and someone else is a casualty most motorists would stop,
number plated or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They already exist in other jurisdictions.

So you should have no trouble explaining the mechanisms for attachment and
the assurance of safety?

I don't have any trouble at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They already exist.

And yet I don't see the products in bike shops (Or anywhere for that
matter!).

They aren't required in the UK yet, that's why. For the US you can get
a small one for $6.95 at DakotaEngraving[1].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not my goal - as explained above. You've offered no sustainable
argument to require plates on cars but not bikes.

Except that I have. And others have. And we've all done it before.

In /your/ opinion maybe. Based on preconceptions and misconceptions
perhaps. Possibly based on prejudice. None founded on objective fact
though.

Quoted message said:

But
sadly no amount of explaining has made it past your "cars can do no wrong
- motorists are unfairly penalised" filters.

Eh? Are you serious? Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are /all/
made of the same stuff. An individual who would attempt to flee the
scene of an accident would be just as likely to do it whether in a car,
on a bike or on foot. The 'filter' is applied only by those who would
regulate one form of vehicular traffic, but not another, regardless of
rider/driver.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You defended the plating of cars and ridiculed the plating of bikes
because cars are heavier and faster than bikes. I'm illustrating just
how illogical that argument is.

By attacking a strawman? That illustrates nothing what-so-ever. I've
patiently explained why it is that we choose to licence cars and not
bikes.

No you've given an opinion of the reason, through /your/ filters. I
don't accept it as a reasonable reason.

Quoted message said:

I presume that you still don't see any difference between the two.

Logically, no.

Quoted message said:

This appears to say more about your pyschology than the subject in hand.

No, but it says plenty about your reasoning.

[1] http://www.dakotaengraving.com/index.html?catalog89_0.html

--
Matt B

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B wrote:
> Jon Senior wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:47:46 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> You don't say. So, the only difference is scale [why cars need
>>> plates and bikes don't].
> To catch even /one/ hit and run cyclist would surely make it
> worthwhile. The cost would, or course be borne by the cyclist, with
> the introduction of an annual registration fee.
Presumably set at the same, or a lower rate, than the lowest rate
for cars. As I cannot think of any reason why a cycle is more
dangerous than a Smart Diesel car, and the polution is lower.

No. Based on the cost of running the system divided by the number of
cycles.

That's not the way car registration works. Its based on the sum the
chancellor would like to raise in tax.

I know. If bikes need plates though then I think they should start a
more efficient scheme. Tax should be based on wealth, not transport
mode selection. If it was good we could then migrate cars to the same
cheaper, more efficient scheme. Something similar to one of the domain
name registration schemes I was thinking.

Quoted message said:

Current one has approach of "tax

Quoted message said:

loosly proportional to environmental damage".

No it doesn't. It is based on the potential rather than actual. a
small car doing 50,000 miles per year pays less than a big one doing 1.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Adminstration of your scheme

I /don't/ want the scheme. I want /no/ registration for either bikes
or cars. *But* if road vehicles are deemed, by whoever, to require
registration, then we must suffer it.

All road vehicles do not require registration.

I know. Bicycles being the most obvious exception, which I guess is
where this thread started, with the report of someone calling to bring
them into line.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(having established that there isn't any reason to charge the
cyclist, as there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart
Diesel).

Who established that?

Please provide a good reason why your bicycle registration "plate" should
cost more than the costs of VED for a Smart Diesel car. I cannot think of
one.

Do you know someone who'd maintain a register, and produce the plates
for free? Who do you think should pay for them?

Quoted message said:

I can think of lots of reasons why the Smart should cost more to use
on the road than a cycle.

If the plates become reality campaign to have Smart VED increased then.
That's a political issue.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for
0.5Bn to prevent one hit and run accident,

Why should cycling registration be subsidised from tax???

Why should car drivers be subsidised from tax ????

They aren't, or do you know otherwise?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Current one has approach of "tax

Quoted message said:

loosly proportional to environmental damage".

No it doesn't. It is based on the potential rather than actual. a
small car doing 50,000 miles per year pays less than a big one doing
1.

I think if you combine VED (static cost) with Fuel Duty (dynamic cost), it
comes out as "loosly proportional to environmental damage".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All road vehicles do not require registration.

I know. Bicycles being the most obvious exception, which I guess is
where this thread started, with the report of someone calling to bring
them into line.

Err, no you seem obsessed with introducing registration schemes for no
demonstrable benefit to society.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (having established that there isn't any reason to charge the
> cyclist, as there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart
> Diesel).
Who established that?

Please provide a good reason why your bicycle registration "plate"
should cost more than the costs of VED for a Smart Diesel car. I
cannot think of one.

Do you know someone who'd maintain a register, and produce the plates
for free? Who do you think should pay for them?

You're the one proposing the scheme. Please come up with a way of making
the costs to the cycle owner to be the same, or cheaper, than the lowest
price for VED on a car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can think of lots of reasons why the Smart should cost more to use
on the road than a cycle.

If the plates become reality campaign to have Smart VED increased
then. That's a political issue.

You're the one who wants a change to the status quo. I'm quite content with
it.

You need to start a campaign, and work out a few media details: I can see
the Sun headlines: Looney's Mad Tax on Children, though the Sun Sub-Editor
would make it a bit more snappy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for
> 0.5Bn to prevent one hit and run accident,
Why should cycling registration be subsidised from tax???

Why should car drivers be subsidised from tax ????

They aren't, or do you know otherwise?

Car users are subsidised to the tune of 11 to 17Bn per year. Based on impact
of road users on the country being 43-50Bn (depends how the damage is
calculated), and tax raised on all road transport being 32Bn (treasury
figures). Those figures are a few years old, but as the taxes on road users
haven't risen particularly quickly in recent years (Chancellor says that
fuel commodity rises are bad enough for motorist, so has chosen to defer
fuel duty rises), things are probably worse than that figure.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Current one has approach of "tax
> loosly proportional to environmental damage".

No it doesn't. It is based on the potential rather than actual. a
small car doing 50,000 miles per year pays less than a big one doing
1.

I think if you combine VED (static cost) with Fuel Duty (dynamic cost), it
comes out as "loosly proportional to environmental damage".

Well yes, if you now bring another unjust tax into the discussion. But
Smarts /do/ pay fuel duty, so bikes, which don't will, of course, pay less.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All road vehicles do not require registration.

I know. Bicycles being the most obvious exception, which I guess is
where this thread started, with the report of someone calling to bring
them into line.

Err, no you seem obsessed with introducing registration schemes for no
demonstrable benefit to society.

Not me. I was just replying to a post reporting a Labour peer's
suggestion. It may have escaped your notice but I have argued for many
years /against/ number plates.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> (having established that there isn't any reason to charge the
>> cyclist, as there is no reason to charge the owner of a Smart
>> Diesel).
> Who established that?
Please provide a good reason why your bicycle registration "plate"
should cost more than the costs of VED for a Smart Diesel car. I
cannot think of one.

Do you know someone who'd maintain a register, and produce the plates
for free? Who do you think should pay for them?

You're the one proposing the scheme.

As stated above I most certainly am NOT proposing the scheme. I have
pointed out some of the implications of plating all road vehicles.

Quoted message said:

Please come up with a way of making
the costs to the cycle owner to be the same, or cheaper, than the lowest
price for VED on a car.

Why? If plates are need they must be paid for. OTOH we could remove all
road use taxes and raise all government revenue through equitable taxes
based on ability to pay rather than transport mode.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can think of lots of reasons why the Smart should cost more to use
on the road than a cycle.

If the plates become reality campaign to have Smart VED increased
then. That's a political issue.

You're the one who wants a change to the status quo. I'm quite content with
it.

Why do you keep accusing me of that - haven't you been following the thread?

Quoted message said:

You need to start a campaign, and work out a few media details: I can see
the Sun headlines: Looney's Mad Tax on Children, though the Sun Sub-Editor
would make it a bit more snappy.

LOL.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I've got a feeling that most of us can think of a better use for
>> 0.5Bn to prevent one hit and run accident,
> Why should cycling registration be subsidised from tax???
Why should car drivers be subsidised from tax ????

They aren't, or do you know otherwise?

Car users are subsidised to the tune of 11 to 17Bn per year. Based on impact
of road users on the country being 43-50Bn (depends how the damage is
calculated),

What damage - can you provide, or refer us to a list? Is it being
repaired? Who pays the bills?

Quoted message said:

and tax raised on all road transport being 32Bn (treasury
figures). Those figures are a few years old, but as the taxes on road users
haven't risen particularly quickly in recent years (Chancellor says that
fuel commodity rises are bad enough for motorist, so has chosen to defer
fuel duty rises), things are probably worse than that figure.

Let's see the figures to judge for ourselves.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Err, no you seem obsessed with introducing registration schemes for
no demonstrable benefit to society.

Not me. I was just replying to a post reporting a Labour peer's
suggestion. It may have escaped your notice but I have argued for
many years /against/ number plates.

Ah, good. Matt B does not want to plate cycles. End of thread.

Take the stuff on motor vehicles to another newsgroup. This one is
uk.rec.cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Car users are subsidised to the tune of 11 to 17Bn per year. Based
on impact of road users on the country being 43-50Bn (depends how
the damage is calculated),

What damage - can you provide, or refer us to a list? Is it being
repaired? Who pays the bills?

Quoted message said:

and tax raised on all road transport being 32Bn (treasury
figures). Those figures are a few years old, but as the taxes on
road users haven't risen particularly quickly in recent years
(Chancellor says that fuel commodity rises are bad enough for
motorist, so has chosen to defer fuel duty rises), things are
probably worse than that figure.

Let's see the figures to judge for ourselves.

Long report by Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon, all the figures are referenced in it.
Well reported in various newspapers when published.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Matt B said:

Well yes, if you now bring another unjust tax into the discussion. But
Smarts /do/ pay fuel duty, so bikes, which don't will, of course, pay less.

A pedant might point out that the fuel duty is the same for all
vehicles. If you use more fuel, you pay more duty. The Smart uses less
fuel than joes big gas guzzler so pays less duty. The bicycle uses even
less fuel so pays even less duty. But the rate of duty is just the
same.

...d

Jon Senior said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Bien qu'il soit important d'apprendre des conjugaisons françaises,
je trouve plus interessant de discuter avec TrollB, en dépit du fait
qu'il paraisse au plupart des lecteurs u.r.c. qu je poste les
articles en debat avec moi-même parce-qu'ils l'ont deja kill-filé il
y a plusiers mois.

Belle efforte. Pourriez-vous dire ça sans une dictionnaire?

I looked up a few things. Obviously I was disappointed that post(er),
article and troll were the same in French, and I assumed kill-file was too.

Quoted message said:

Moi, je
trouve que je peut écrire un niveau plus que je parle. Il est
vachement difficile de me souvenir de la grammaire pendant parler.
C'est pour ça que je me suis inscrire d'un cours de français (Un peu
tard peut-être!).

Also, it's often easier to say it than to understand as well. For
anglophones, anyway. You know what the words are, but they're pretty near
impossible to recognise when they're actually said to you.

That said, it's not as if I've ever tried to actually go and live there, so
I'm not too experienced in this kind of thing.

Quoted message said:

Très proche. J'ai l'impression que tout le monde parle plus fort
français que mois. Bof. C'est la vie!

If I've got 20 minutes and no time pressure to think about it, yes.

I did do a fair bit at uni, though.
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

I looked up a few things. Obviously I was disappointed that post(er),
article and troll were the same in French, and I assumed kill-file was too.

Sometimes it's useful that modern French borrows a lot of English
terminology, but it can be disappointing when you want a new word rather
than an English one with a funny accent.

Quoted message said:

Also, it's often easier to say it than to understand as well. For
anglophones, anyway. You know what the words are, but they're pretty
near impossible to recognise when they're actually said to you.

Interesting. My comprehension level is now fairly good (I've been to see
a couple of films in French since I arrived (And have watched a fair bit
of TV). Cycle race commentary can be hard (Watched Paris-Roubaix live).
Any fans of French comedy would be advised to keep an eye open for La
Doublure (Don't know what the English title will be) when it appears in
Britain. My problem is just stringing sentences together. I'm working as a
tele-marketing researcher at the minute (In English - Apologies to anyone
who receives an attempt to sell them a laser cutting machine!), but the
company is French, as is the common language so I'm far more immersed than
I have been.

Quoted message said:

That said, it's not as if I've ever tried to actually go and live there,
so I'm not too experienced in this kind of thing.

Not necessarily the most sensible decision I've ever made, but still
reasonably good fun.

Quoted message said:

If I've got 20 minutes and no time pressure to think about it, yes.

I did do a fair bit at uni, though.

Ah... there you have an advantage over me. I waltzed over here with some
very rusty GCSE French. Unsurprisingly the learning curve has been steep!

Jon

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe said:

Matt B wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
Car users are subsidised to the tune of 11 to 17Bn per year. Based
on impact of road users on the country being 43-50Bn (depends how
the damage is calculated),

What damage - can you provide, or refer us to a list? Is it being
repaired? Who pays the bills?

Quoted message said:

and tax raised on all road transport being 32Bn (treasury
figures). Those figures are a few years old, but as the taxes on
road users haven't risen particularly quickly in recent years
(Chancellor says that fuel commodity rises are bad enough for
motorist, so has chosen to defer fuel duty rises), things are
probably worse than that figure.

Let's see the figures to judge for ourselves.

Long report by Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon, all the figures are referenced in it.
Well reported in various newspapers when published.

The one written for the Green Party, LOL, that'll give the true and
unbiased picture then.

It uses the familiar ploy of attributing the CBI congestion cost figure
of £19.1bn as being caused, rather than suffered, by motorists.

When I'm delayed by congestion, which is, after all, mainly the result
of decades of poor investment in our road infrastructure, it is _I_ who
suffers the cost, it is _I_ who should be compensated. Customers of
rail and air are compensated for delays, why should motorists /pay/ for
delays which are caused thriugh /no/ fault of their own?

Motorists cannot insist that a proportion of the money they pay through
the nose as fuel duty is diverted from the NHS and education and used to
provide the necessary infrastructure to eliminate congestion any more
than they can insist that the NHS should cover the cost of motor
accidents rather than recover it from motorists' insurance companies.
He knows and we know that fuel duty is one of the mainstays of this
countries budget.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

It uses the familiar ploy of attributing the CBI congestion cost figure
of £19.1bn as being caused, rather than suffered, by motorists.

Ah, so being reductionists, if we removed the motorists, there would
still be congestion, just the motorists no longer suffer it?

Quoted message said:

When I'm delayed by congestion, which is, after all, mainly the result
of decades of poor investment in our road infrastructure,

It is the cause of demand exceeding supply, and too many people taking
empty space around with them. If they had invested in more sensible
uses of the available space then they might not suffer so much.

Quoted message said:

it is _I_ who
suffers the cost, it is _I_ who should be compensated.

So how much did you pay for that journey that delayed you? not how much
it cost you, but how much you paid. Where is the ticket/proof of
purchase/contract that guarantees you a congestion-free journey?

Quoted message said:

Customers of
rail and air are compensated for delays, why should motorists /pay/ for
delays which are caused thriugh /no/ fault of their own?

They are the cuse of congestion. Of course it is their fault. If they
weren't there then there would be no congestion. Cause and effect.

...d

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

It uses the familiar ploy of attributing the CBI congestion cost figure
of £19.1bn as being caused, rather than suffered, by motorists.

Ah, so being reductionists, if we removed the motorists, there would
still be congestion, just the motorists no longer suffer it?

Like removing patients we would still have hospital waiting lists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When I'm delayed by congestion, which is, after all, mainly the result
of decades of poor investment in our road infrastructure,

It is the cause of demand exceeding supply,

Which is treated how in the case of other national strategic resources,
e.g. hospital waiting lists?

Quoted message said:

and too many people taking
empty space around with them. If they had invested in more sensible
uses of the available space then they might not suffer so much.

OK, let's solve it by rewinding time a century or so. Ah, we had
congestion even then. OK, lets rewind a bit further. But we don't want
to live in the dark ages any more (except in urc it would seem ;-) ), so
let's look at the /sensible/ alternative of providing a sustainable
/real/ road network.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is _I_ who
suffers the cost, it is _I_ who should be compensated.

So how much did you pay for that journey that delayed you? not how much
it cost you, but how much you paid. Where is the ticket/proof of
purchase/contract that guarantees you a congestion-free journey?

Quoted message said:

Customers of
rail and air are compensated for delays, why should motorists /pay/ for
delays which are caused thriugh /no/ fault of their own?

They are the cuse of congestion.

The rail and air passengers alike, and they are compensated for it.

Quoted message said:

Of course it is their fault.

Like the patients, yes.

Quoted message said:

If they weren't there then there would be no congestion. Cause and effect.

Exactly. But for most other important national infrastructures,
networks etc, the emphasis is on satisfying that demand.

--
Matt B