What would you do with £17m

Nick Kew said:

If I heard right, that's what is going to competitive cycling
for the 2012 olympics.

How about seeding it amongst our young people:

* Basic training to cycling-proficiency level to be available
at *all* primary schools - and time scheduled for it.

That should come out of the education budget, along with motor vehicle
driving training to full driving licence level. What could be a more
essential life skill.

Quoted message said:

* Secure parking to be provided at *all* schools.

No, that would only benefit those privileged enough to be able to cycle
to school.

Quoted message said:

* No rules that could limit cycling to school.

"No rules" is free, it's the current fashion for excessive rules and
prohibitions that costs money.

Quoted message said:

If someone
thinks it too dangerous, then address the danger as an
absolute priority

Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

- even if it means an outright ban on
motor vehicles on critical stretches at school-run times.

No, that would send the wrong message. It isn't the motorists' fault if
the road has been practically dedicated to their exclusive use by virtue
of its design and layout. By all means establish equal priority for all
users, but don't continue with the ill conceived policies of reserving
communal road space for specific user types.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:33:52 +0100,

Matt B said:

Nick Kew said:

If I heard right, that's what is going to competitive cycling
for the 2012 olympics.

How about seeding it amongst our young people:

* Basic training to cycling-proficiency level to be available
at *all* primary schools - and time scheduled for it.

That should come out of the education budget, along with motor vehicle
driving training to full driving licence level. What could be a more
essential life skill.

So essential that I have managed to do without it (and a driving licence)
for the whole of my life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Secure parking to be provided at *all* schools.

No, that would only benefit those privileged enough to be able to cycle
to school.

Should we also not have school-trips because the take-up wouldn't be 100%?
What about after-school clubs?

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton said:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:33:52 +0100,

Matt B said:

Nick Kew said:

If I heard right, that's what is going to competitive cycling
for the 2012 olympics.

How about seeding it amongst our young people:

* Basic training to cycling-proficiency level to be available
at *all* primary schools - and time scheduled for it.

That should come out of the education budget, along with motor vehicle
driving training to full driving licence level. What could be a more
essential life skill.

So essential that I have managed to do without it (and a driving licence)
for the whole of my life.

I should have perhaps said 'usefull' rather than 'essential', however,
given that 30 odd million have found the need to obtain a driving
licence I think most people probably find one more essential than, say,
history, or music, which /are/ on the national curriculum.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Secure parking to be provided at *all* schools.

No, that would only benefit those privileged enough to be able to cycle
to school.

Should we also not have school-trips because the take-up wouldn't be 100%?
What about after-school clubs?

No. School trips, or after school clubs are available to those of all
lifestyles. Those who choose to cycle can pay for the dedicated
facilities required to support that choice. Would you recommend the
school pays for the petrol of those who drive?

--
Matt B

The schools already pay for the parents who drive to school.

The cost is polluted air, congested streets, more dangerous junctions
and a generation of car-reliant wobble-bottom slugs.

And, of course, the more cyclists there are the safer the roads
become...

in message <[email hidden]>, Andy Leighton

(') said:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:33:52 +0100,
Matt B <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Don't feed the troll!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

in message <[email hidden]>,

Pyromancer (') said:

Matt B wrote:

Don't feed the troll.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

spindrift said:

The schools already pay for the parents who drive to school.

Where do you live? They don't out here.

Quoted message said:

The cost is polluted air,

How much do the schools pay for that?

Quoted message said:

congested streets,

They are caused by poor infrastructure.

Quoted message said:

more dangerous junctions

They are caused by poor traffic management.

Quoted message said:

and a generation of car-reliant wobble-bottom slugs.

Cars are with us, we need to start thinking about accommodating them.
Would you have us go back to pre-industrial times - with the associated
poverty, squalor and disease? Would you get rid of computers?

Quoted message said:

And, of course, the more cyclists there are the safer the roads
become.

The roads can be made safer anyway. Only the will is lacking.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

The greater the number of cyclists, the safer the roads:

That assumes that the road infrastructure is left in the current
appalling state. There is compelling evidence that if priorities are
equalised roads become practically risk free.

--
Matt B

So the schools are penalised financially for allowing parents to drive
their charges to school since the environmental and societal impact of
private motoring is massive- far out-weighing the total fiscal return
from motorists.

Those notorious tree-hugging hippies, errr, the CBI estimate congestion
costs the economy £20 billion a year and rising- car ownership is
making the problem much worse:

Car use up 52% in the 80s and 90s - more than other European countries
except the developing economies like Portugal, Greece and Italy.

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/factsheets/04/index.htm

Then there's noise pollution:

Average noise levels outside primary schools in all boroughs exceeded
the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline value for school
playgrounds of 55 dB(A) LAeq

http://tinyurl.com/gvr4k

And, of course, accidents:

Motor accidents during the school run cause almost 7,000 deaths and
injuries a year, according to the MORE TH>N report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4572715.stm

Children who cycle to school:

Are fitter

More alert

Safer

and are less of a net drain on the economy.

It's a win/win/win situation!

spindrift said:

So the schools are penalised financially for allowing parents to drive
their charges to school since the environmental and societal impact of
private motoring is massive- far out-weighing the total fiscal return
from motorists.

Who produces the bill?

Who pays the bill?

Who receives the payment?

What is it spent on?

How much is spent?

Where are the accounts?

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Those notorious tree-hugging hippies, errr, the CBI estimate congestion
costs the economy £20 billion a year
making the problem much worse:

Car use up 52% in the 80s and 90s - more than other European countries
except the developing economies like Portugal, Greece and Italy.

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/factsheets/04/index.htm

Then there's noise pollution:

Average noise levels outside primary schools in all boroughs exceeded
the World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline value for school
playgrounds of 55 dB(A) LAeq

http://tinyurl.com/gvr4k

And, of course, accidents:

Motor accidents during the school run cause almost 7,000 deaths and
injuries a year, according to the MORE TH>N report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4572715.stm

Children who cycle to school:

Are fitter

More alert

Safer

and are less of a net drain on the economy.

It's a win/win/win situation!

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Those notorious tree-hugging hippies, errr, the CBI estimate congestion
costs the economy £20 billion a year

Yes, a cost borne, not caused, by motorists. The cause is poor
infrastructure, mainly the lack of a motorway network.

Quoted message said:

and rising- car ownership is
making the problem much worse:

So let's provide the necessary infrastructure then, stop blaming the
victims.

Would you expect to be told to use your toilet less if a new housing
development was built near your house?

Would you tolerate electricity rationing if a new factory was built?

How are motorways any different?

If there is not enoughroad capacity then let's provide it.

Quoted message said:

Car use up 52% in the 80s and 90s - more than other European countries
except the developing economies like Portugal, Greece and Italy.

Has road capacity kept pace?

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

except the developing economies like Portugal, Greece and Italy.

You presume a little too much... or is that a different Italy to the one
in the G8? ;-)

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/

spindrift said:

And, of course, accidents:

Motor accidents during the school run cause almost 7,000 deaths and
injuries a year, according to the MORE TH>N report.

Let's address /that/ problem then. The assumptions we need to make,
though, are that we preserve, at all costs, freedom of choice.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Children who cycle to school:

Are fitter

More alert

Safer

and are less of a net drain on the economy.

It's a win/win/win situation!

There is, though, a slight problem. That situation relies on the UK
becoming even more of a socialist dictatorship. How, apart from
removing choice, can you ensure that the school of your choice is close
enough to cycle to, especially if you cannot afford the houses near
enough to it?

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

The assumptions we need to make, though, are that we preserve, at all
costs, freedom of choice.

At all costs? My freedom of choice or yours? Cost to whom?

POHB said:

Quoted message said:

The assumptions we need to make, though, are that we preserve, at all
costs, freedom of choice.

At all costs?

Yes, people have died for the freedoms we enjoy.

Quoted message said:

My freedom of choice or yours?

.... what do you think?

Quoted message said:

Cost to whom?

Society.

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

Would you expect to be told to use your toilet less if a new housing
development was built near your house?

Would you tolerate electricity rationing if a new factory was built?

How are motorways any different?

If there is not enoughroad capacity then let's provide it.

The alternative in all these cases is to make more efficient use of the
resources.
Rather than building ever more electricity generation capacity consuming
more and more natural resources, use more efficient appliances, low-energy
bulbs, turn stuff off when idle.
Rather than trying to provide ever more road capacity, make better use of
what's there by more walking and cycling for short journeys, rail for longer
ones.

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick Kew

() said:

If I heard right, that's what is going to competitive cycling
for the 2012 olympics.

<Sir_Henry>
What would I do with £17m?

I'd spend it on DRINK!

</Sir_Henry>

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
You can't have ham!