[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:01:39 +0100, "theo" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Rooney" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Be realistic - who, outside of ecofanatic circles, would prefer having
>> a cycle to having a car?
>
>A lot of Dutch people. Holland *is* a small country :)
>And maybe because we've paid our cars for a second time after 5 years of
>taxes, VAT, etc.
>Highway robbery :-(

You're all too stoned to drive!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> It does if the reason is that they just don't want to cycle and just
> do want to drive

Oh FFS, I specifically wrote that down as a fair reason and then you
bring it up again as if to refute me. It just demonstrates you can't be
arsed to read what I've written.

> which is probably what most of us are like. Your
> criteria for what's optimum will be different from mine.

Oh FFS, I specifically wrote down that my reasoning is completely
external to anyone else's and you try and imply I'm imposing my criteria
on others. It just demonstrates you can't be arsed to read what I've
written.

> because I like it better than any other form of transport. It's always
> the optimum. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, but lots to do
> with doing what I like doing. I suspect if you asked people why they
> aren't optimising their choice of transport you'd get a similar
> response.

Actually, I have, and in many cases they just haven't considered the
alternatives. They use the car because it's a hardwired habit.

> Or because it's warmer, drier, more comfortable, has better music,
> doesn't require getting dressed in outdoor gear, and is infinitely
> more reliable than the alternatives

Such are the common misconceptions, indeed.

> Be realistic - who, outside of ecofanatic circles, would prefer having
> a cycle to having a car?

It's not an exclusive choice, I have both. And actually, despite not
being an ecofanatic (after all, I have a car) I much prefer to cycle.

You like to walk in the countryside? Why? Your living room is drier,
more comfortable, has better music, doesn't require getting dressed in
outdoor gear, is more reliably predictable for what you'll get /and/ it
doesn't involve any travel. Why on earth would you possibly want to go
walking?
As a walker too, I have a good idea, and it's probably not too far off
why I prefer to get about by cycle when it's a realistic option.

Earlier in the thread I brought up a conversation I had in Amsterdam,
where a local said something like "you /could/ drive through Amsterdam,
but it would be your fault!". The locals use bikes, despite many having
quite serviceable cars, for many trips because they think it's the best
tool for the job. The difference isn't that they're ecofanatics, they
just realise that bikes exist, can be easy and practical, and are used
to using them. Awareness, in other words.

You've said you are "pro car and anti green". In a newsgroup that is
frequented by people that love to experience as natural an environment
as they can access, saying you have no great regards about the long term
preservation of that, and want more and more examples of a device that
will help destroy it if its use is unchecked in any way, just marks you
down as selfish.

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 Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:06:25 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You've said you are "pro car and anti green". In a newsgroup that is
>frequented by people that love to experience as natural an environment
>as they can access, saying you have no great regards about the long term
>preservation of that, and want more and more examples of a device that
>will help destroy it if its use is unchecked in any way, just marks you
>down as selfish.


Not at all - I just happen to think the greens are deluded
panicmongers whose doomsday fantasies have no more credibility than
those of the Jehovah's Witnesses (ie, nil).


--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney <[email protected]> writes:

>Be realistic - who, outside of ecofanatic circles, would prefer having
>a cycle to having a car?

Some things are too tempting, and have to be avoided. For some folk
that category includes alcohol. For some it includes credit cards. For
some it includes motor cars -- the risk being losing one's health and
fitness through succumbing to the temptation of doing all your
travelling in a sitting position.

Then there are those who prefer a bicycle because a car is too
expensive. I know some students and pensioners in that category.

Then there are those who live in a sufficiently congested city that
car travel and its parking problems is simply far too slow and
inconvenient a way of getting around.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
I suspect that I'll regret getting involved in this battle, but I'll
give it a go!

I live in a village 7 miles from Cambridge, where I work. I have a
car which covers about 14,000 miles a year (nearly all of it going to the
mountains in the Lakes or Scotland), so I'm hardly particularly green.
I really enjoy driving, and not having a car would seriously reduce my
hill time (I currently drive to the Lakes for a wild-camping weekend about
one weekend in three).

But I also enjoy cycling, and it's a very practical means of getting
around here. It takes me 30 to 35 minutes to cycle into work, regardless
of the traffic. It would take me 20 minutes to drive in on an empty road,
and getting on for an hour to drive in at peak times. So, given that I have
to travel at peak times, the bike actually wins. I myself cycle in all
weathers, and there are only a few days a year where I *really* wish I were
in the car.

And, for me, 70 miles a week by bike has the advantages of getting me
out in the fresh air for an hour a day; keeping me fit for the hills; and
being a very good way of working out the day's stresses on the journey home.
Yes, I'm lucky because Cambridge is a city of cyclists, most drivers are
surprisingly considerate (nearly all of them are cyclists themselves),
and the climate is reasonably dry. But using *both* a car and a bike
(whichever is better for what I want) works well for me.

Mark
--
Mark Manning [email protected]
 
Rooney wrote:

> Not at all - I just happen to think the greens are deluded
> panicmongers whose doomsday fantasies have no more credibility than
> those of the Jehovah's Witnesses (ie, nil).

And since the more extreme possibilities are unlikely, you then go on to
dismiss /everything/ that doesn't allow you to sail on with no concern.

You seem to be blind, though whether that's genuine myopia or just a
refusal to look at simple facts I don't know.

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'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?

the objections to 4x4s are around pointless fuel consumption and
pedestrian safety which is poorer than a car. I don't remember
the numbers but its something like twice as likely to kill a
pedestrian. I heard a little survey on the radio, peoples reasons
for 4x4s included:-
1) I feel safer (but you are not without crumple zones)
2) Better view (why not a MPV)
3) My route has a lot of bends (clueless!)

They also tend to under perform in braking and swerving.
--
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

>I buy what is appropriate for the job in hand. If I have a job of
>picking up heavy shopping once a week then a Lotus Elise is a bad
>choice. If I have a job of driving round leafy lanes for fun then a
>diesel Transit is a bad choice. If I want something that parks easily
>in town a Range Rover is a bad choice. If I want to get 200 miles this
>evening with a sea kayak then my folding bicycle is a bad choice. All
>are competent and capable vehicles in their specialist areas, but not
>necessarily the best thing for any job.
>What many people don't realise is that their car is not the optimum
>vehicle for many of the jobs they put it to. In many cases not even the
>optimum transport for which they have immediate access.

I don't think this argument defeats the choice of a 4x4 if you
intended it to. My requirements are for a boot, 4 seats, good
performance and handling and a bit of style so I look dead cool.
If, like many, I wasn't worried about the "performance", the
logical choice to handle all jobs that might come along is an
SUV. I would like to be able to handle snow better and the odd
time I need to cross a field or drive through floods. However I
wouldn't get one because the worst thing that can happen driving
is to kill someone and I don't want a vehicle that, should I or
someone else screw up, makes it twice as likely. This isn't
altruism, I don't want to end up charged with manslaughter.
--
Mike Reid
BMW driver
"Everybody hates us and we don't care"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
 
Following up to Peter Clinch

> People who drive to
>experience the thrill of the open road and end up stuck in a jam are not
>optimising their transport for *their* job.

they will tell you they put up with the jams for the times they
can go up to, say, 50mph on some quiet road.
--
Mike Reid
BMW driver
"Everybody hates us and we don't care"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
 
Following up to Rooney

>Not everyone wants to bike to
>work.

not everyone can.
--
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 Rooney

>It does if the reason is that they just don't want to cycle and just
>do want to drive - which is probably what most of us are like. Your
>criteria for what's optimum will be different from mine. I use the car
>because I like it better than any other form of transport. It's always
>the optimum. It's got nothing to do with efficiency, but lots to do
>with doing what I like doing. I suspect if you asked people why they
>aren't optimising their choice of transport you'd get a similar
>response.

There are plenty of people who drive or take a bus/tube when it
would be better to walk. But generally I think most people value
the privacy of a car over public transport. I use a train into
Central London but for almost every other journey car is quicker,
even when stuck in the odd jam, even when its a bit slower, its
still better.
--
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 RJ Webb

>OK what hill do you want to lose to the quarries to build all the
>roads for your pets?

Has anyone ever said that about the other things rock is used
for? Always just cars. I wonder how much less stone we would need
if all transport was public transport? Would it be that much
different?
--
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

>> No. The majority of the people in the UK are ignorant of anything that
>> either does not directly affect them or is not said to directly affect
>> them. Sad but true.
>
>Indeed. Do you think the Beeb mention them as "ETA, the Basque
>Separatist group" because that's their formal name, or they like the
>sounds of the words or something?

I have no way of testing it right now but I don't think anybody I
konw would not know what ETA was and if seeing it on a van,
wouldn't think, "why on earth did they chose that stupid name?"
Perhaps i'm part of some intellectual well travelled elite or
something?
--
Mike Reid
BMW driver
"Everybody hates us and we don't care"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
 
The Reids wrote:

> Has anyone ever said that about the other things rock is used
> for? Always just cars. I wonder how much less stone we would need
> if all transport was public transport? Would it be that much
> different?

Considerably: there would be far less need for dual carriageway with
multiple lanes, for example. If the M25 was 4 lanes rather than at
least 6 that would represent at least a third less tarmac. And that's
before you need to park anything.

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:
>
> I have no way of testing it right now but I don't think anybody I
> konw would not know what ETA was and if seeing it on a van,
> wouldn't think, "why on earth did they chose that stupid name?"
> Perhaps i'm part of some intellectual well travelled elite or
> something?

When I hear the initials ETA I generally think of "Estimated Time of
Arrival" (I'll reasonably often ask what the ETA of something is, in
fact) rather than either the Basque loons or the Environmental Transport
Agency. However, ETA in the most common context strikes me as a pretty
good and obvious name for a breakdown recovery service...

Perhaps you're clutching at straws looking for negatives or something?

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/
 

>So I shouldn't ridicule anyone who predicts the end of civilisation
>this century?

No you should not....

Going by how close things went in the last century... Civilization is
incredibly delicate.

I would disagree with them, but never ridicule them....

There are shades of grey BTW



Richard Webb
 

>You can quarry in flat country - anywhere in the south east would do.

LOL

>But anyway - we don't need masses of new roads. Most of them are empty
>much of the time. If half these frustrated congestees got out of bed a
>bit earlier they wouldn't face so many problems.
>Drive uo to the Lakes on a fine bank holiday afternoon and you deserve
>to be caught up in congestion, as you are the one doing the
>congesting. People seem to forget that is they themselves who are
>causing it.

Thats when your bike comes in..

Hang about.. I think he is getting it.....

Richard Webb
 

>You're all too stoned to drive!
>

Its not just your signiture that is irritating. This is such a
friendly newsgroup. Can we keep it that way?

Richard Webb
 
The Reids wrote:

> I don't think this argument defeats the choice of a 4x4 if you
> intended it to.

Not really. I can think of plenty of cases where a 4x4 is a good choice
of vehicle, so I'm certainly not saying nobody should drive one. They
exist because they were a good choice of vehicle for some folk decades
before they became fashion accessories.

> My requirements are for a boot, 4 seats, good
> performance and handling and a bit of style so I look dead cool.
> If, like many, I wasn't worried about the "performance", the
> logical choice to handle all jobs that might come along is an
> SUV.

Or you could get yourself a Sube which would fulfil the criteria just as
well and not run into the other reasons you gave for not wanting one
yourself, plus you'd get extra performance too.
The other side of my folks from the ones who go down to the village 500m
for a newspaper by car are a couple for whom safety is their stated #1
vehicle priority, and they have a 4x4 having read various reports about
crashing them. It simply hasn't occurred to them that the best way of
avoiding injury is not to crash in the first place, in which case better
handling, more responsive braking and less tendency to roll all have a
very useful place, but the thinking tends to be one dimensional. They'd
probably take the 4x4 rather than a train in the name of safety too,
having heard about the odd train crash in the news...

> I would like to be able to handle snow better and the odd
> time I need to cross a field or drive through floods.

Well, yes, but the downsides you put up with tend to overcome these
events over the service life of the vehicle because the downsides are
with you on every trip and you're driving snow once in every blue moon,
and the fact is you'll probably be okay with 2WD in any case or nobody
would use 2WD cars in Norway or Sweden. It's like the folks who think
they need a mountain bike to go anywhere by bike without tarmac, despite
having ridden round the local woods on a singularly inappropriate
Raleigh "racer" when they were kids with no trouble at all, or folk who
dress in £500 of Goretex for a stroll round a country park on a
reasonably nice day. Perceptions of what is good are very badly skewed,
and what I'm arguing for is a better awareness of the real issues. Your
comments on the problems of 4x4s /should/ be common knowledge (they're
not exactly secrets, are they?), yet how many 4x4 owners do you think
are genuinely aware of them? I'd guess a minority.

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/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back