Conservative Way Forward

JNugent said:

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).

To assert that the car was counter to this, you'd have to claim that the
road network is not controlled by the state. I'm not old enough to
remember those times, but that seems a bit of a stretch then and even
more of one now.

The car may have been *marketed* as an icon of personal freedom, but
you'd have to be the kind of fool that believes an Englishman's home is
his castle to fall for that line.

-dan

Daniel Barlow said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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).

Quoted message said:

To assert that the car was counter to this, you'd have to claim that the
road network is not controlled by the state. I'm not old enough to
remember those times, but that seems a bit of a stretch then and even
more of one now.

Quoted message said:

The car may have been *marketed* as an icon of personal freedom, but
you'd have to be the kind of fool that believes an Englishman's home is
his castle to fall for that line.

<sigh>

Another strawman.

I am not saying that the car was a counter to C20 increases in personal
mobility - indeed, it was the logical extension of them.

Whatever the state or development of the road network at any particular
time (which can be the only "point" implicit within what you write), it
can be used to the full, 24/7/365 with a car (or, indeed, with a bike),
whereas any form of public transport (including road-going public
transport other than taxis) are inherently limited as to access and as
to time of the day, day of the week, etc.

But these are old arguments which have been rehearsed many times; it is
possible to pick semantic holes in almost anything written in a forum
like Usenet, but despite the state's ultimate control of the roads it
would be very perverse to hold that public transport users who have no
access to a car or bike are more free than those with access to their
own self-directed transport (of whatever compliment of wheels).

There was a time within easy living memory when the state was concerned
with providing a better road network. It is only more recently that the
state (which, as you point out, can control what happens on the network)
has decided to just take [more of] the money and give almost nothing
back in the way of network improvements, bypasses, etc.

JNugent said:

I am not saying that the car was a counter to C20 increases in personal
mobility - indeed, it was the logical extension of them.

No, nor did I say you were. Along with not seeing things that have been
posted, you now seem to be seeing things that have not been posted. I
said you were saying that the car was a counter to state control of
personal mobility.

Quoted message said:

But these are old arguments which have been rehearsed many times; it is
possible to pick semantic holes in almost anything written in a forum
like Usenet

The text that started this discussion was "the loss of state control
over individual choice that the car represents" and this remains
laughable when the car can only run on facilities which are provided and
planned by the state, have only really been in existence on a large
scale since the late 1940s (to use your date) and are no longer (you
assert) a priority for them. If calling this hyperbole is picking
semantic holes then I suppose I must be picking semantic holes, but I
prefer to think of it as pointing out already-existing gaping semantic
galaxy-sized voids.

, but despite the state's ultimate control of the roads it

Quoted message said:

would be very perverse to hold that public transport users who have no
access to a car or bike are more free than those with access to their
own self-directed transport (of whatever compliment of wheels).

Did I assert that? No, I don't believe I did. But in whatever order
you arrange "car" "bike" and "pogo stick" on the personal freedoms list,
the appeal in the original text that the motorist is unjustly oppressed
and has had his natural birthright removed is really just so much
bollocks. For a brief period between the late 1940s and whenever they
stopped doing it, the state funded a road network that encouraged the
unrestricted use of motor vehicles, and now they're not doing it any
more it's an offence against the Rights of Man?

The freedom to drive where one wishes does not extend to a right to
demand that someone else provide the road capacity to get one there, any
more than the freedom to live where one wishes places the onus on the
state to give one a house there. The right to sleep with whom one
wishes does not imply that free sex should be provided on the NHS.
There are plenty of other and better reasons to get cut up about the
erosion of civil liberties in this country without making up
"entitlement" rubbish like this.

-dan

Daniel Barlow said:

JNugent wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not saying that the car was a counter to C20 increases in
personal mobility - indeed, it was the logical extension of them.

Quoted message said:

No, nor did I say you were. Along with not seeing things that have been
posted, you now seem to be seeing things that have not been posted. I
said you were saying that the car was a counter to state control of
personal mobility.

Perhaps, in order to avoid endless pointless nitpicking of a point the
truth of which is fairly obvious, phrasing that as "a counter to the
restrictions inherent within state-controlled public transport" would be
better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But these are old arguments which have been rehearsed many times; it
is possible to pick semantic holes in almost anything written in a
forum like Usenet

Quoted message said:

The text that started this discussion was "the loss of state control
over individual choice that the car represents" and this remains
laughable when the car can only run on facilities which are provided and
planned by the state, have only really been in existence on a large
scale since the late 1940s (to use your date) and are no longer (you
assert) a priority for them. If calling this hyperbole is picking
semantic holes then I suppose I must be picking semantic holes, but I
prefer to think of it as pointing out already-existing gaping semantic
galaxy-sized voids.

That is semantic nitpicking of the first order. The PP used that
particular terminology and we are therefore discussing things in that
context. That it isn't exactly how you would have put it or how I would
choose to put it is irrelevant. It might not have been the most elegant
(or even the most accurate) way of putting it, but we all know what was
meant.

Quoted message said:

, but despite the state's ultimate control of the roads it

Quoted message said:

would be very perverse to hold that public transport users who have no
access to a car or bike are more free than those with access to their
own self-directed transport (of whatever compliment of wheels).

Quoted message said:

Did I assert that? No, I don't believe I did.

Good. So you accept (as indeed, everyone would have to) that the car (or
the bike) makes you freer than public transport ever could.

Quoted message said:

But in whatever order
you arrange "car" "bike" and "pogo stick" on the personal freedoms list,
the appeal in the original text that the motorist is unjustly oppressed
and has had his natural birthright removed is really just so much
bollocks.

Take that bit up with him; I have mentioned nothing about it. But if he
feels tht way, you know that he is not the only one to do so. Millions
of people are unlikely to be as wrong as you'd perhaps like to paint them.

Quoted message said:

For a brief period between the late 1940s and whenever they
stopped doing it, the state funded a road network that encouraged the
unrestricted use of motor vehicles, and now they're not doing it any
more it's an offence against the Rights of Man?

Quoted message said:

The freedom to drive where one wishes does not extend to a right to
demand that someone else provide the road capacity to get one there,

That is incorrecxt.

The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users. I am not
going to be dragged down to the archetypal "motorists don't pay for the
roads; it's all paid for by cyclists and bus-users" level of nonsense.

As the Road Haulage Association used to say (to its members) in the
1950s: "You pay for good roads whether you get them or not; but you pay
more if you don't get them".

Quoted message said:

any
more than the freedom to live where one wishes places the onus on the
state to give one a house there. The right to sleep with whom one
wishes does not imply that free sex should be provided on the NHS. There
are plenty of other and better reasons to get cut up about the erosion
of civil liberties in this country without making up "entitlement"
rubbish like this.

Have you finished the rant?

Although I reject the hypothesis set out in the Conservative paper,
and although it goes against my nature to agree with anything posted
on here by petrolhead trolls, they do have a point.

A motor car and a bicycle both confer a higher degree of individual
freedom, that is less amenable to state control, than the use of
public transport. As evidence I refer to the manner in which women's
freedom of movement is restricted by the state under extreme forms of
Sharia law. In Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive cars OR ride
bicycles. The former restriction gets a lot of press, there's even
talk of it being lifted, but we hear nothing about the bicycling ban.

The mobility conferred by a bicycle is indeed more difficult for the
state to control than the movement of motor cars. It's cheap hence
available, unmarked hence untraceable, easily hidden and able to take
to the fields and woods as necessary. No surprise then, that one of
the restrictions imposed upon the Irish population during the final
years of British rule concerned the keeping of bicycles.

Bicycles are in fact, an even greater threat to the efficiency of
public transport than cars. Where the masses use bicycles, when it
rains they are inclined to revert to public transport rather than
cars. It may seem that good public transport goes hand in hand with
high levels of cycling, and so it does. But consider this: Helsinki
has a lot of cycling in summer and a lot of public transport use in
winter. The poor return on capital and labour costs associated with
all this half-time idle equipment causes some of Helsinki's city
fathers to doubt the wisdom of encouraging all that cycling! But it
keeps the Finns a bit more healthy so perhaps they save on the
hospital budget.

Having visited Poland whilst it was still communist, I noted how the
pattern of bicycle use was the reverse of countries like Germany:
hardly a bike to be seen in towns, but plenty in the countryside. It
seems the communist authorities were not anti-cycling (they allowed
the international cycling rally we attended after all), but
discouraged bikes where they would compete with public transport. I
don't know how they did it - except with obviously lethal tramlines
(Peoples Republic of South Yorkshire likewise!) - but maybe the fares
were so cheap it wasn't worth keeping a bike anywhere near a bus route
etc.

JNugent writtificated

Quoted message said:

The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.

Is the wrong answer.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:10:34 -0700 (PDT), CJ
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

A motor car and a bicycle both confer a higher degree of individual
freedom, that is less amenable to state control, than the use of
public transport.

Which rather fails to explain the enthusiasm for both which is
evident in the People's Republic of China, a place where the state
seems determined to be the living embodiment of the term "control
freak".

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

JNugent said:

Perhaps, in order to avoid endless pointless nitpicking of a point the
truth of which is fairly obvious, phrasing that as "a counter to the
restrictions inherent within state-controlled public transport" would be
better.

Sounds reasonable. Certainly better than "help! help! I'm being
oppressed!"

Quoted message said:

That is semantic nitpicking of the first order. The PP used that
particular terminology and we are therefore discussing things in that
context. That it isn't exactly how you would have put it or how I would
choose to put it is irrelevant. It might not have been the most elegant
(or even the most accurate) way of putting it, but we all know what was
meant.

No, it is not true that "we all know what he meant". Because -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But in whatever order you arrange "car" "bike" and "pogo stick" on the
personal freedoms list, the appeal in the original text that the
motorist is unjustly oppressed and has had his natural birthright
removed is really just so much bollocks.

Take that bit up with him; I have mentioned nothing about it. But if he
feels tht way, you know that he is not the only one to do so. Millions
of people are unlikely to be as wrong as you'd perhaps like to paint them.

if millions of people feel their right to drive where they wish is
unjustly curtailed by the state, when they read "the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents" they are not
thinking "oh, that's just a less elegant way of saying 'the car is a
counter to the restrictions inherent within state-controlled public
transport'". They're taking the statement at face value as a rallying
call and letting it reinforce their opinions of entitlement.

If indeeed, there are millions of people gullible enough to believe this
"keeping the working class downtrodden" conspiracy theory.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The freedom to drive where one wishes does not extend to a right to
demand that someone else provide the road capacity to get one there,

That is incorrecxt.

The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.

Are its users holding a contract that says "in return for your taxes we
guarantee to build you a road network"? Nothing like that came with my
NI card, my electoral registration papers or with my driving licence.
Or with my cycling proficiency certificate, now I think about it. Mind
you, I wasn't paying much in tax when I was 9 anyway.

There is a social contract, if you like, but that governs many many
other things than the road network, some of which (like the need to
reduce pollution, or the apparent need to get more and more people into
Central London every morning without knocking down any of the buildings
they need to get to) are in conflict with it, and others are simply in
competition with it for the same money. We as the electorate and as
politically interested people set the parameters of how much taxation we
pay and what it is spent on by voting and lobbying, not by some bogus
appeal to fairness or natural rights that don't exist.

Quoted message said:

the Road Haulage Association used to say (to its members) in the 1950s
"You pay for good roads whether you get them or not; but you pay more
if you don't get them".

Were they suggesting that their members should engage their elected
representatives to express their interests, or that they should lie on
the floor screaming and drumming their heels because it's not fair that
Daddy won't buy them a pony?

P.S. if you are at any point thinking of pointing out that the rhetoric
used in this post is OTT, I shall consider that "semantic nitpicking".
Sauce for the goose, and all that.

-dan

Mark T said:

JNugent writtificated

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer.

It seems that there is no point in reminding you of the fact that the
specific road-use taxes collected from the drivers and owners of motor
vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads. You seem determined to ignore that fact.

Just zis Guy said:

<[email hidden]> said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A motor car and a bicycle both confer a higher degree of individual
freedom, that is less amenable to state control, than the use of
public transport.

Quoted message said:

Which rather fails to explain the enthusiasm for both which is
evident in the People's Republic of China, a place where the state
seems determined to be the living embodiment of the term "control
freak".

In their more rational moments, friends of mine who happen to have
supported the Soviet Union and the PRC have long accepted that there
was/is less freedom (of various sorts) in those countries (they could
hardly deny it). But they explained that culturally, those populations
were more amenable to the different level of freedoms they had, and that
western "freedoms" were the opposite of real freedom.

JNugent said:

Mark T said:

JNugent writtificated

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer.

It seems that there is no point in reminding you of the fact that the
specific road-use taxes collected from the drivers and owners of motor
vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads. You seem determined to ignore that fact.

It's worth reminding you that, apart from bridge tolls and the toll on the
M6 bypass, there are no specific road use taxes in the United Kingdom.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

Simon Brooke said:

JNugent said:

Mark T said:

JNugent writtificated
> The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.
Is the wrong answer.

It seems that there is no point in reminding you of the fact that the
specific road-use taxes collected from the drivers and owners of motor
vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads. You seem determined to ignore that fact.

It's worth reminding you that, apart from bridge tolls and the toll on the
M6 bypass, there are no specific road use taxes in the United Kingdom.

The old ones are always the best, eh?

It doesn't alter the fact that specific road-use taxes (road tax, duty
and VAT on fuel - let's not even bother with insurance tax, and VAT on
purchase, spairs and repair) collected from the drivers and owners of
motor vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads.

The fact that some don't like admitting that (and wish to trivialise it)
is neither her nor there. Those taxes are paid.

Simon Brooke said:

JNugent said:

Mark T said:

JNugent writtificated
> The road network is more than handsomely funded by its users.
Is the wrong answer.

It seems that there is no point in reminding you of the fact that the
specific road-use taxes collected from the drivers and owners of motor
vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads. You seem determined to ignore that fact.

It's worth reminding you that, apart from bridge tolls and the toll on the
M6 bypass, there are no specific road use taxes in the United Kingdom.

It's probably not worth reminding him, as he'll just ignore it like the
last 200+ times it's been pointed out to him and his pals...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

JNugent said:

The old ones are always the best, eh?

It doesn't alter the fact that specific road-use taxes (road tax, duty
and VAT on fuel - let's not even bother with insurance tax, and VAT on
purchase, spairs and repair) collected from the drivers and owners of
motor vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads.

The fact that some don't like admitting that (and wish to trivialise it)
is neither her nor there. Those taxes are paid.

Yes, this certainly is an old one, but if you insist on bringing it up
again...

Admitting it? It is hardly a secret that there are taxes on using
motor vehicles on roads (not on "road-use" as such).

There are also taxes on drinking alcohol in pubs. The sums collected
are very much more than four times the amount the state spends on
facilities for pub customers. Why? Because the taxes on alcohol,
exactly like the specific taxes paid by motorists, are not intended to
provide any special benefit for those paying them. They are both
general-purpose revenue-raisers whose products go towards the state's
general expenditure.

Jon said:

JNugent said:

The old ones are always the best, eh?

It doesn't alter the fact that specific road-use taxes (road tax, duty
and VAT on fuel - let's not even bother with insurance tax, and VAT on
purchase, spairs and repair) collected from the drivers and owners of
motor vehicles are approximately four times (it does vary) all public
expenditure on roads.

The fact that some don't like admitting that (and wish to trivialise it)
is neither her nor there. Those taxes are paid.

Yes, this certainly is an old one, but if you insist on bringing it up
again...

Admitting it? It is hardly a secret that there are taxes on using
motor vehicles on roads (not on "road-use" as such).

There are also taxes on drinking alcohol in pubs. The sums collected
are very much more than four times the amount the state spends on
facilities for pub customers. Why? Because the taxes on alcohol,
exactly like the specific taxes paid by motorists, are not intended to
provide any special benefit for those paying them. They are both
general-purpose revenue-raisers whose products go towards the state's
general expenditure.

Where's David Hansen?

You're stealing his "best" lines...

Nah, you're probably right, the billions of pounds in road-use taxes
paid annually by motor-vehicle users is just insignificant, isn't it?

JNugent said:

Whatever the state or development of the road network at any particular
time (which can be the only "point" implicit within what you write), it
can be used to the full, 24/7/365 with a car (or, indeed, with a bike),

Quoted message said:

it would be very perverse to hold that public transport users who have no
access to a car or bike are more free than those with access to their
own self-directed transport (of whatever compliment of wheels).

Of course it would. Obviously someone with their own vehicle is less
dependent upon timetables, etc. It still seems to me that this remains
the case whether the train, bus, aircraft, etc is run by a state or
municipal body or by a commercial one. You seemed at first to be
supporting this Conservative group's claim that the car created
freedom from 'state control', which is not the same thing as freedom
from relying upon timetables.

That claim - that the car created freedom from 'state control' -
presumably means that the state (the state specifically, rather than
those natural consequences of transport economics & technology -
timetables - which would apply in just the same way with a non-state
operator) is less able to impose unwelcome restriction upon car users
that upon others. Quite which tyranies is the state able to impose
upon non-motorists which it cannot impose upon others?

Jon said:

On 19 Mar, 23:02, JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever the state or development of the road network at any particular
time (which can be the only "point" implicit within what you write), it
can be used to the full, 24/7/365 with a car (or, indeed, with a bike),

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it would be very perverse to hold that public transport users who have no
access to a car or bike are more free than those with access to their
own self-directed transport (of whatever compliment of wheels).

Quoted message said:

Of course it would. Obviously someone with their own vehicle is less
dependent upon timetables, etc. It still seems to me that this remains
the case whether the train, bus, aircraft, etc is run by a state or
municipal body or by a commercial one.

Agreed. To me, the OP's point appeared to be not only that there are
some who not only want more people to be more reliant on PT in general
(and in particular, not to have the use of cars), but also that there
are some (maybe the same people) who resent the fact that so much PT is
now "owned" and run privately.

TBH though, claiming that the state has nothing to do with even the
current way that PT is owned and run isn't convincing. Local councils
still have a lot to say about buses (and money to hand to their
operators) and the government (even Major's lot) has never been slow to
try to control the railways.

Quoted message said:

You seemed at first to be
supporting this Conservative group's claim that the car created
freedom from 'state control', which is not the same thing as freedom
from relying upon timetables.

The fact that the OP put some of his massage clumsily doesn't mean he
didn't have a point. If every poster was routinely challenged on every
last "taken as a given" aspect of a post that some didn't agree with,
therte would never be time to read a thread, let along contribute to
one. You have to let some things go.

Quoted message said:

That claim - that the car created freedom from 'state control' -
presumably means that the state (the state specifically, rather than
those natural consequences of transport economics & technology -
timetables - which would apply in just the same way with a non-state
operator) is less able to impose unwelcome restriction upon car users
that upon others. Quite which tyranies is the state able to impose
upon non-motorists which it cannot impose upon others?

Well... you mention timetabling as though it is a minor technicality,
but it is far from that! Not being able to travel after midnight (except
for certain journeys in London) is a big disadvantage.

But on the other point, I agree, there isn't sufficient difference - if
any - between the experience on the passenger on nationalised PT and
privatised PT. Compared to being able to go where you want when you want
and take the family with you for no extra, PT comes nowhere near having
use of a car (except for obvious journeys of several hundreds of miles,
where the train or plane can sometimes - but certainly not always- be a
better proposition.