Rooney wrote:
> So I shouldn't ridicule anyone who predicts the end of civilisation
> this century?
If you don't have a sound basis for the ridicule you only appear
ridiculous yourself. If your basis of ridicule is that the climate
isn't really changing then you're kidding yourself.
> I'd still like to hear how a CRV or a Freelander or a Rav4, to take
> the most popular examples, cause more congestion than an Astra or a
> Mondeo. By having 4 driven wheels? By being higher?
It doesn't cause more congestion, but it does cause more pollution. It
takes more raw material and energy to make, and it uses more energy to
achieve the same basic goals in use. Because it consumes more it costs
more. Paying more than necessary for a tool to do a simple job by
buying something bigger and more complex than required just isn't too
bright, as a bottom line. Or perhaps you like pouring money away?
> You appear to be someone who falls for propaganda very easily.
You appear not to think very much about what I actually say.
> Cars are *on balance* life-enhancing.
That'll be why I share a car with my gf, then. If I didn't think it
helped my life be better, I wouldn't be in the position of having and
driving one, would I? I am not anti car, I just realise that cars can
cause problems when used foolishly.
> Everyone should have one - and the
> more driven wheels the better. I see no reason why their journeys
> should fit your personal criteria for having an acceptable purpose.
Nothing to do with any of my personal criteria, simply use the car less
because it is in the /self interest/ of the user. My parents'
neighbours often drive the few hundred meters down to Bexley Village for
a newspaper. Do I think they have the right to do that? Certainly, as
does everyone else. But if *everyone* exercises that right at the same
time (and why shouldn't they?) then nobody gets a newspaper, because the
traffic won't move and there'll be nowhere to park. So with no action
on the part of anti-car activists nobody can exercise their right to
drive down for a newspaper, because of all the people trying to exercise
their right to drive down and buy a newspaper.
The point is that fewer vehicles on the road is most immediately a
benefit for everyone using the road. And it is also the case that a
proliferation of vehicles is primarily harmful to everyone using the
road because it creates congestion.
It's not about my personal criteria, it's about what is best for the
person concerned. My parents' neighbours spend more money than they
need to and don't really save any time by driving a few hundred meters.
Whatever their /rights/ they aren't doing themselves any practical
favours, and if everyone exercises that right it will be denied to
everyone by the very act of exercising it. My personal feelings are
completely external to this.
> Incidentally, if you are stuck in congested traffic, *you* are also
> causing the congestion - not just other people.
I'm quite well aware of that, which is one reason I often /don't/ take a
car. It's in *my* interest as a traveller, as well as everyone else's,
not to use the car on every conceivable journey that could be done by
car. If more people did the same there would be less congestion, and
people would not waste any more time and pay less for their transport.
You appear to think I'm trying to cramp people's style, while in fact
I'm trying to broaden their style to include other possibilities to
enhance, rather than diminish, their lives at no real cost to them.
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/
