[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



Following up to Peter Clinch

>> So they are named after a terrorist group and campaign against
>> cars, I wonder why I'm not a member?
>
>The first point is irrelevant coincidence

obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.

>and the second is a
>misrepresentation. If they were anti-car then they wouldn't come out to
>fix cars, but if there are /fewer/ cars on the road due to fewer
>pointless journeys being made then that will /actively benefit/ those
>still on the roads. Or do you *like* sitting in traffic jams?

depends if its my car that cures the congestion or yours?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Chris Townsend

>Better to at least know what the group stands for and what they will say
>in your name. I joined the ETA knowing what it stood for and that I
>agreed with its aims.
>
>Are there any rescue organisations that won't comment on speeding or any
>other motoring issue if asked?

The two big ones both do, I would rather they stuck to fixing
cars.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:32:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't blame anyone for using the car in preference to public
>> transport, which is dire. I don't buy the 'green' thing - to hear some
>> people talk you'd think the countryside was dying from pollution.
>
>I don't see why you're focusing purely on the countryside.

I wasn't really - that's just what came to mind.

> Most
>pointless car use, and most car derived pollution, affects the urban
>areas the majority of the population live in. And urban areas are also
>the places where public transport and cycle use is most relevant, and
>often simpler, cheaper, easier and quicker than using a car.

But is it safer?
>
>Again, it is clearly the case that ETA are not simply "anti car", or
>they wouldn't have a service targeted directly at cars and their
>drivers, would they?
>

Missionaries target atheists, don't they?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:32:11 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Again, it is clearly the case that ETA are not simply "anti car", or
>they wouldn't have a service targeted directly at cars and their
>drivers, would they?

I dunno, have you called them out ? Perhaps they leave you stranded for a
day or two to teach you a lesson for being a baby-eating spawn of Satan...

--
I may not be perfect, but I am all I got!

Mail john rather than nospam...
 
Rooney wrote:

> But is it safer?

Yes. Public transport demonstrably through just about any measure you
want to use. Cycling you tend to run into comparing apples and oranges,
but regular cycling is widely recognised to add years to a typical life
and improve health and fitness throughout those extra years (and this
statistic includes your chances of being run over), while driving does
nothing for your health at all.

> Missionaries target atheists, don't they?

Any pragmatic person is going to realise that cars can be incredibly
useful and a boon to most people /if/ used sensibly. Used stupidly they
cause congestion, pollution and kill thousands of people a year in the
UK alone. So rather than campaign not to have them at all it's rather
smarter to campaign too use them sensibly by raising awareness and
effectiveness of alternatives.
ETA use local agents, in the auto trade. These people aren't going to
be in on something that aims to render them non-existent, are they?
Perhaps more pragmatism and less ideological paranoia on your part may
be handy here?

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The Reids wrote:

> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.

Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
them? Is the Automobile Association regularly confused with Alcoholics
Anonymous in such a way that both organisations may feel they're better
off with a different name? Doubt it...

> depends if its my car that cures the congestion or yours?

A traffic jam is a traffic jam, whoever's causing it. I don't like
sitting in them, I doubt if you do either. The fewer cars on the roads,
the fewer congestion problems there are. I don't see that joining the
ETA /requires/ *you* to undertake a reduction in your driving, so I
don't really see the problem.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Following up to Rooney

>I wouldn't blame anyone for using the car in preference to public
>transport, which is dire. I don't buy the 'green' thing - to hear some
>people talk you'd think the countryside was dying from pollution. Last
>century there was a problem, mostly caused by industry and
>agriculture, with car pollution somewhere behind, but that's mostly
>long gone. Most cars are fairly clean, the air is reasonable, the
>wayside plants flourish, the roadside hedges teem with birds, the
>acid-rain menace turned out to be a minor thing. And as for using up
>the earth's resources - there's no point in *not* using them!

I think there *are* problems with pollution, Co2 emissions,
global warming and all that, but we have never solved things by
going backwards, I don't see why emission free cars are not just
as possible as emission free public transport.

Resources like oil are finite and we have to switch to renewable,
although ruining the landscape with windfarms, or "bird blenders"
as I like to call them, isn't a brilliant solution.

Congestion is also a big problem, the answer may lie partly in
sensible planning, why are we all living one place and working in
another? Why did TB, who tells us to drive less, authorise the
Bluewater out of town shopping centre, did he think people would
go by bus? Wouldn't abandon the local shops?

I don't support anti car pressure groups because I know how car
use will get rationed, (if it is) by price, and when Carol
retires we might be the ones priced off the road next!

It seems to me all the emphasis is put on cars, you don't hear
half as much about air traffic, about aircon or about all the
other consumption that produces pollution and depletion of
resources. Why do people think of people with big cars as selfish
but have no criticism of other conspicuous consumption, like
large houses?

and another thing, I get fed up with people telling me you can
get about just as well without a car, you cant.
This is getting ranty, i'll stop!
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:18:11 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think there *are* problems with pollution, Co2 emissions,
>global warming and all that

Extremist! Fanatic!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
The Reids wrote:

> I don't support anti car pressure groups

ETA isn't an "anti car pressure group", though. For the severalth time,
if they were anti-car, they wouldn't run services specifically *for*
cars and motorists.

> It seems to me all the emphasis is put on cars, you don't hear
> half as much about air traffic, about aircon or about all the
> other consumption that produces pollution and depletion of
> resources.

Because I don't regularly get held up by queues of aircraft as I go
about my day to day business, and I doubt many other people do, and
though I do make unnecessary trips by plane I don't do it on a daily
basis. There is simply far more scope for reducing car use /without
actually making anyone worse off as a result/ than just about any other
common travel habit.

> and another thing, I get fed up with people telling me you can
> get about just as well without a car, you cant.

When has anyone in this thread said that? If I thought there was no use
for a car I wouldn't have one, would I? I couldn't have got to the
Braemar Telemark Festival easily (if at all) when I wanted to at the
weekend without that car, but OTOH, I can get down to the town centre
/better/ by bike than by that car, so I choose to take one of the bikes
for that job. Lots of people don't, and they pay more to get down there
and don't save any time in the process. That's the sort of use that
people like ETA are against and they're trying to do something about it
by raising awareness and effectiveness of alternatives, not by simply
banning cars.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:17:54 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The Reids wrote:
>
>> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.
>
>Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
>them? Is the Automobile Association regularly confused with Alcoholics
>Anonymous in such a way that both organisations may feel they're better
>off with a different name? Doubt it...
>
>> depends if its my car that cures the congestion or yours?
>
>A traffic jam is a traffic jam, whoever's causing it. I don't like
>sitting in them, I doubt if you do either. The fewer cars on the roads,
>the fewer congestion problems there are. I don't see that joining the
>ETA /requires/ *you* to undertake a reduction in your driving, so I
>don't really see the problem.
>
>Pete.

But they come across to me at any rate as being crackpots:

"There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
change is probably the most serious."
"the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
our present civilisation would end. "

Rofl!

'Green tips'
"Buy nearly new. Try not to buy a new car unless you absolutely have
to. Be aware however, that newer vehicles pollute less and tend to be
more environmentally efficient."

Baffled!

"Buy infrequently as the second-hand car market is very imperfect. It
is best to choose a car where you know its history. It is even
economic to spend more repairing a vehicle than its market value.
Reliability is the key. Once a vehicle becomes unreliable sell it."

Sell it? Who to?



Nuff said.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> There some routes I do in the car that are deadly to cyclists, and
> others where pedestrians risk losing their belongings!

And there are many routes I do on a bike or on foot which are impassable
to cars, yet that is no reason to abandon cars. To try and rule
something out on a single anecdote like that is just a case of not
really thinking it through. Especially as cars are known to be far more
dangerous than trains, buses and planes so if you're really citing
safety as a reason to go by car then time to turn on the duty neuron, I
think! ;-)

> Paranoia? I'm merely anti-green and pro-car, which seems to me to be a
> fairly sensible position. The paranoia is entirely on the part of
> those who think that cars are causing the planet to overheat.

Never mind the overheating planet, just sit in a traffic jam for any
length of time and think about how much you're enjoying it, and if you
have anything better to do. The primary problems of cars are congestion
and expense, neither of which go away by increasing their use, and both
of which actively and directly harm many of their users.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:41:32 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> There some routes I do in the car that are deadly to cyclists, and
>> others where pedestrians risk losing their belongings!
>
>And there are many routes I do on a bike or on foot which are impassable
>to cars, yet that is no reason to abandon cars. To try and rule
>something out on a single anecdote like that is just a case of not
>really thinking it through. Especially as cars are known to be far more
>dangerous than trains, buses and planes so if you're really citing
>safety as a reason to go by car then time to turn on the duty neuron, I
>think! ;-)

I most definitely think safety is a reason to go by car for certain
journeys, as opposed to walking or cycling. Trains, buses and planes
don't come into it - they aren't options.
>
>> Paranoia? I'm merely anti-green and pro-car, which seems to me to be a
>> fairly sensible position. The paranoia is entirely on the part of
>> those who think that cars are causing the planet to overheat.
>
>Never mind the overheating planet, just sit in a traffic jam for any
>length of time and think about how much you're enjoying it, and if you
>have anything better to do. The primary problems of cars are congestion
>and expense, neither of which go away by increasing their use, and both
>of which actively and directly harm many of their users.
>
>Pete.

Congestion isn't any sort of problem for me. Expense - well, is ETA
campaining for a reduction in fuel tax? I don't think so somehow.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to Rooney

>>I think there *are* problems with pollution, Co2 emissions,
>>global warming and all that
>
>Extremist! Fanatic!

LOL, surely you don't side with Bush Jr?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

>> obviously, not a brilliant choice, though.
>
>Irrelevant, really. Is anyone with a working brain going to confuse
>them?

Why did anyone with a working brian choose it? Would you start a
business called Inland Road Assistance and call it IRA? But, yes,
irrelevant except in assessing their competence.

>Is the Automobile Association regularly confused with Alcoholics
>Anonymous in such a way that both organisations may feel they're better
>off with a different name? Doubt it...

I doubt they are greatly pleased to share it even though neither
are illegal terrorist organisations.

>> depends if its my car that cures the congestion or yours?
>
>A traffic jam is a traffic jam, whoever's causing it. I don't like
>sitting in them, I doubt if you do either.

I honestly prefer it to waiting for a bus. That goes for most
people, hence empty buses and traffic jams.

>The fewer cars on the roads,
>the fewer congestion problems there are.

but if the car not on the road is mine, i'm stuffed.

>I don't see that joining the
>ETA /requires/ *you* to undertake a reduction in your driving, so I
>don't really see the problem.

So I could join and there is no chance they would be supporting
rationing by price? If that's so, I might join and see if they
can get all those Nissan Micras out of the middle lane and onto
the bus. *Other* people not using cars is an excellent idea,
unless I want a lift to the pub.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:58:58 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>>I think there *are* problems with pollution, Co2 emissions,
>>>global warming and all that
>>
>>Extremist! Fanatic!
>
>LOL, surely you don't side with Bush Jr?

At least he refused to contribute to all the gas produced at Kyoto!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:00:05 +0000, Richard G. wrote in
<[email protected]>, seen in uk.rec.walking:
> In Article <[email protected]>,Rooney
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I change insurers every year or two, because I've found there's always
> >a much better deal to be had elsewhere when the renewal notice comes -
> >sometimes hundreds of £££ savings. Sounds like Tesco were pulling a
> >fast one.
>
> Where's the best place to go and check prices then?

I tend to use moneysupermarket.com for my insurance stuff, although
admittedly I don't do car insurance as I haven't got one.

Make sure you look beyond the headline price to what's actually
covered, though, as IMX none of the comparison sites give much
information unless you actually dig for it.

--
Ross, in Lincoln
Reply-to address will bounce; replace "junk-trap" with "me" for e-mail
 
"John Laird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:35:07 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Mar 2005 04:21:14 -0800, "Chris Gilbert"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Richard G. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Where's the best place to go and check prices then?
> >>
> >>I've used these people for a few years now. Even after I've got a
> >>price from them I find it hard to better it anywhere else...
> >>
> >>http://www.its4me.co.uk/
> >>
> >>Chris
> >
> >They are £200 higher than my best quote!!!
>
> They didn't get very near mine. I'm with Tesco now, having used Direct
Line
> for many years.

I spent a morning calling around (2 years ago) when I decided that Tesco
were significantly cheaper, the breakdown deal clinched it then. I've had
good quotes from www.screentrade.co.uk but as I might be getting a new car
soon I'll look at new insurers again then.
BTW, I let BBC Watchdog know of the ripoff Tesco tried to pull and am just
waiting for their reply...

Nick
 
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:33:18 -0000, "Nick Pedley"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"John Laird" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:35:07 +0000, Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 16 Mar 2005 04:21:14 -0800, "Chris Gilbert"
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Richard G. wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Where's the best place to go and check prices then?
>> >>
>> >>I've used these people for a few years now. Even after I've got a
>> >>price from them I find it hard to better it anywhere else...
>> >>
>> >>http://www.its4me.co.uk/
>> >>
>> >>Chris
>> >
>> >They are £200 higher than my best quote!!!
>>
>> They didn't get very near mine. I'm with Tesco now, having used Direct
>Line
>> for many years.
>
>I spent a morning calling around (2 years ago) when I decided that Tesco
>were significantly cheaper, the breakdown deal clinched it then. I've had
>good quotes from www.screentrade.co.uk but as I might be getting a new car
>soon I'll look at new insurers again then.
>BTW, I let BBC Watchdog know of the ripoff Tesco tried to pull and am just
>waiting for their reply...
>
>Nick
>

You might like to try What Car?'s insurance (with Liverpool Victoria).
They gave me the best deal last time around. This time - I'll wait for
the renewal and see what it's like. They automatically include
European cover.
Egg used to be good too - work use automatically covered at no extra
cost.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Following up to Rooney

>"There are a number of possible threats to humanity's future: climate
>change is probably the most serious."
>"the general consensus is that within this century, if we do nothing,
>our present civilisation would end. "
>
>Rofl!

I'm not laughing.

>'Green tips'
>"Buy nearly new. Try not to buy a new car unless you absolutely have
>to. Be aware however, that newer vehicles pollute less and tend to be
>more environmentally efficient."
>
>Baffled!

>"Buy infrequently as the second-hand car market is very imperfect. It
>is best to choose a car where you know its history. It is even
>economic to spend more repairing a vehicle than its market value.
>Reliability is the key. Once a vehicle becomes unreliable sell it."
>
>Sell it? Who to?
>
Where to place yourself in the life cycle of cars seems an
irrelevance to congestion and pollution, but presumably that's
not their only angle? Are not the latter points just general
common sense advice on car buying?
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back