Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph

Terry Duckmanton

On 10 May, 11:10, Terry Duckmanton wrote:

> > http://tinyurl.com/4l9zb9
> >
> > The second paragraph reads...
> >
> > "As we proved a few days ago, drivers have the clout to remove
arrogant,
> > viciously anti-car councillors, mayors and other political activists
> > from office. All we now ask of their replacements is that we should no
> > longer be deemed public enemy number one. What's more, a better, safer,
> > fairer deal for drivers and their passenger is long overdue and must be
> > delivered. Or else… The frequently overlooked fact is that the vast
> > majority of people in Britain - more than 30million of us - hold
driving
> > licences in one hand and voting cards in the other. Add to that
colossal
> > group of a further 10million or so adults who can't, don't or are too
> > unfit/skint/old to drive but keenly occupy a passenger seat in a family
> > or volunteer vehicle, and it becomes apparent that the UK has more than
> > 40million car users of voting age."


I agree with every word and salute the author


> > OK, so this was published in the 'Motoring' supplement, so one would
> > expect a pro motoring bias. I just can't believe that motoring
> > journalists are unaware that we cannot go on the way we are. Surely
they
> > should be looking for ways to change the way we the public regard
> > private transport.
> >
> > Terry.

In reply Sir Jeremy said:


Are you some sort of communist? Of course we can go on the way we are,
any problems will be fixed by advances in technology.
No one is stopping you riding your bike and no one is going to force
me to give up my cars or my bike or force me onto a bus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
_must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
_right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
private transport must change. The idea that every member of the working
population has the right to use a ton and a half of fossil fuelled steel
to transport just one person to and from their workplace is
unsustainable. The fact that many authorities are trying to dissuade
people from doing so shows that I am not alone in thinking this way.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the most popular method of dissuading
people is to use a hefty financial stick (e.g. congestion charge) which
is then perceived as an unfair tax burden.

Being a cyclist himself it is just possible that Boris might be able to
lead by example and perhaps start a natural trend.

Terry

Ben C

On 2008-05-10, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <XRgVj.2094$KQ4.1978@newsfe10.ams2>, Terry Duckmanton
> terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu says...
>
>> As a regular commuting cyclist I tend to regard motorists as "The
>> Opposition". I realise that "The Majority" is a much more accurate
>> description, but I feel that many who choose to use motor vehicles for
>> their daily commute do so without considering that life changing
>> alternatives may exist. For many motorists the problem of
>> ".....being hammered by ever-rising fuel taxes, car taxes, congestion
>> taxes, taxes to use bridges and tunnels that are already paid for,
>> parking taxes, insurance taxes and so-called green taxes."
>> is relatively easily avoided by either walking or cycling to work. In
>> spite of this they continue to use their car and complain about the fact
>> that the roads are congested and they are being charged a fortune to use
>> them.
>>
>> Until someone can explain to this unthinking majority that the
>> congestion problem is one of their own making, motorists will continue
>> to regard cyclists as a nuisance and vice versa.
>>
> Given the apparent lack of impact of 'green' propaganda, the current
> approach of financial penalties and useage restrictions seems to be the
> only way that the message is going to get across - strident whinging
> from the 'victims' suggests that it's starting to work.

People whinge but there's no real reduction in the amount of traffic
(and it's still usually cheaper to drive than take the train, even on
the rare occasions that there actually is a train).

For fuel taxes to have any impact on traffic levels they'd have to go up
by at least 10 times, and then you'd just be pricing poorer people off
the road, and how is that fair?

It's just tax. People have always whinged about tax, and quite rightly
so.

You get away with taxing things more if you can somehow tar them as
morally wrong, viz cigarettes. Environmentalism is just being used as a
excuse to try to put motoring into that category.

Terry Duckmanton

Geoff Pearson wrote:
> "Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote in message
> news:wweVj.32094$yq6.10083@newsfe14.ams2...

>> http://tinyurl.com/4l9zb9
>>
<<Some stuff snipped here>>
>> Terry.
>
> What page is it on - it doesn't seem to be in my Scottish edition?
>
>

It appeared in the 'Motoring' supplement. Down here we get a whole pile
of separate bits and pieces, one of which is called 'Motoring'.

If you don't get this bit in your edition, the link above should take
you to the online version which contains all of the original article.

Terry

Geoff Pearson

"Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote in message
news:98kVj.3245$JK4.2960@newsfe30.ams2...
> Geoff Pearson wrote:
>> "Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote in message
>> news:wweVj.32094$yq6.10083@newsfe14.ams2...
>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4l9zb9
>>>
> <<Some stuff snipped here>>
>>> Terry.
>>
>> What page is it on - it doesn't seem to be in my Scottish edition?
>
> It appeared in the 'Motoring' supplement. Down here we get a whole pile of
> separate bits and pieces, one of which is called 'Motoring'.
>
> If you don't get this bit in your edition, the link above should take you
> to the online version which contains all of the original article.
>
> Terry

Thanks - we get bits too - including one called Motoring. Not found the
article yet though. To be fair, the Telegraph is not widely read in this
country.

Terry Duckmanton

Geoff Pearson wrote:
> "Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote in message
> news:98kVj.3245$JK4.2960@newsfe30.ams2...
>> Geoff Pearson wrote:
>>> "Terry Duckmanton" <terry@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu> wrote in message
>>> news:wweVj.32094$yq6.10083@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/4l9zb9
>>>>
>> <<Some stuff snipped here>>
>>>> Terry.
>>> What page is it on - it doesn't seem to be in my Scottish edition?
>> It appeared in the 'Motoring' supplement. Down here we get a whole pile of
>> separate bits and pieces, one of which is called 'Motoring'.
>>
>> If you don't get this bit in your edition, the link above should take you
>> to the online version which contains all of the original article.
>>
>> Terry
>
> Thanks - we get bits too - including one called Motoring. Not found the
> article yet though. To be fair, the Telegraph is not widely read in this
> country.
>
>

"MR MONEY" on page M2.

Rob Morley

In article <slrng2bit8.aa8.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, Ben C
spamspam@spam.eggs says...
> On 2008-05-10, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> > Given the apparent lack of impact of 'green' propaganda, the current
> > approach of financial penalties and useage restrictions seems to be the
> > only way that the message is going to get across - strident whinging
> > from the 'victims' suggests that it's starting to work.
>
> People whinge but there's no real reduction in the amount of traffic
> (and it's still usually cheaper to drive than take the train, even on
> the rare occasions that there actually is a train).

Many car journeys could be made by other means with a lower carbon
footprint.
>
> For fuel taxes to have any impact on traffic levels they'd have to go up
> by at least 10 times, and then you'd just be pricing poorer people off
> the road, and how is that fair?

So bring on the higher taxes. Who said anything about fair? Wealth
will always bring privilege.
>
> It's just tax. People have always whinged about tax, and quite rightly
> so.

Why rightly so? Taxes fund services provided by the government - would
you rather not have services like law enforcement, education, health,
transport?
>
> You get away with taxing things more if you can somehow tar them as
> morally wrong, viz cigarettes. Environmentalism is just being used as a
> excuse to try to put motoring into that category.
>
No excuse needed - resources are being squandered at an alarming rate
and quality of life heavily impacted, and if it takes punitive taxes to
control that then so be it.

Sir Jeremy

On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu>
wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
> in the *media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
> private transport must change.

That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
so wish.

The idea that every member of the working
> population has the right to use a ton and a half of fossil fuelled steel
> to transport just one person to and from their workplace is
> unsustainable. The fact that many authorities are trying to dissuade
> people from doing so shows that I am not alone in thinking this way.
>
> It is perhaps unfortunate that the most popular method of dissuading
> people is to use a hefty financial stick (e.g. congestion charge) which
> is then perceived as an unfair tax burden.
>
> Being a cyclist himself it is just possible that Boris might be able to
> lead by example and perhaps start a natural trend.
>
> Terry

I'll agree with you there- too much stick and not enough carrot, but
not everyone lives or works in London.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<6ecae2c4-fc30-489a-92aa-70af2c10d657@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:

>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
>> in the *media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
>> private transport must change.

>That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
>vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
>so wish.

No, you drive on the roads under license. The only people who use
the roads as of right are pedestrians. Your use of a motor vehicle
on a public road is strictly curtailed; not only must it be
registered, it must also have current VED and MOT, and you may be
stopped at any time and prosecuted and your driving privilege
rescinded if your driving does not remain within the codified bounds
of the Road Traffic Acts and sundry other acts of Parliament. Under
some circumstances your vehicle may be seized, immobilised or
forcibly removed.

I don't see how driving can be seen as anything other than a
privilege subject to withdrawal, describing it as a right is both
technically and pragmatically wrong, as far as I can see.

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

Ben C

On 2008-05-10, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <slrng2bit8.aa8.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>, Ben C
> spamspam@spam.eggs says...
[...]
>> It's just tax. People have always whinged about tax, and quite rightly
>> so.
>
> Why rightly so? Taxes fund services provided by the government - would
> you rather not have services like law enforcement, education, health,
> transport?

I certainly think those services should be paid out of tax, but that's
no reason not to whinge if you think you aren't getting value for money.

The democratic system relies on maintaining pressure on the government
and trying to make it accountable wherever possible.

I'm not proposing zero tax, but it's no good just forking out and
trusting that Brown will put your money to a good cause.

Marc

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu>
> wrote:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
>> in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
>> private transport must change.
>
> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
> so wish.
>

If you are a licensed driver then you are licensed to use the road. The
clue is in the title. This was explained to me at the age of 18(30 years
ago, outside the IR offices in Cardiff) by a police office leaning in
through my car window

"Pedestrian, cyclists and horses ( sic) have a right to be on the road,
you are licensed to be there, now be a good boy or that license will
dissapear"

Daniel Barlow

Marc <initial.surname@btintenret.com> writes:

> Sir Jeremy wrote:
>> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
>> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
>> so wish.
>
> If you are a licensed driver then you are licensed to use the
> road. The clue is in the title.

To summarise, it ends up being an entirely pointless discussion of
terminology. Sir Jeremy (is that what your parents called you? how
much fun did the other kids at school make of *you* then?) is
perfectly at liberty to claim that his driving licence gives him a
right to use the roads, but is using the word in a way which strips it
of many of its usual connotations: the "right" to use the road in a
motor vehicle is not fundamental, universal, irrevocable or
inalienable. It's contingent on compliance with a large body of
legislation.


-dan

Sir Jeremy

On 10 May, 20:29, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:13:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
> <6ecae2c4-fc30-489a-92aa-70af2c10d...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
> >> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
> >> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
> >> in the *media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
> >> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
> >> private transport must change.
> >That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
> >vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
> >so wish.
>
> No, you drive on the roads under license. *The only people who use
> the roads as of right are pedestrians. *Your use of a motor vehicle
> on a public road is strictly curtailed; *not only must it be
> registered, it must also have current VED and MOT, and you may be
> stopped at any time and prosecuted and your driving privilege
> rescinded if your driving does not remain within the codified bounds
> of the Road Traffic Acts and sundry other acts of Parliament. *Under
> some circumstances your vehicle may be seized, immobilised or
> forcibly removed.
>
> I don't see how driving can be seen as anything other than a
> privilege subject to withdrawal, describing it as a right is both
> technically and pragmatically wrong, as far as I can see.
>
> 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


Semantics.
As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
ignoring the law.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.aron@virgin.net> said in
<b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

>Semantics.
>As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
>only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
>used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
>ignoring the law.

No, it's not a right, it's a privilege. See if you can enforce the
"right" if, for example, it conflicts with a planned closed-roads
parade, or your doctor tells you that you're medically unfit. It's
really hard to use the word "right" to describe something which is
so heavily controlled and restricted.

Of course it's semantics, but that was precisely the point: you
disputed a semantic point, and I am saying that your semantic
interpretation appears to have less weight than the alternatives.

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

Terry Duckmanton

Sir Jeremy wrote:
> On 10 May, 17:20, Terry Duckmanton <te...@duckmanton.notthisbit.eu>
> wrote:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Communist? Not me. I am not trying to force anyone out of their cars or
>> on to buses and trains and I wouldn't dream of telling people they
>> _must_ ride bicycles. What I would like to see, particularly from people
>> in the media, is an acceptance of the fact that none of us have a
>> _right_ to drive a motor car and that the shape and technology of
>> private transport must change.
>
> That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and my
> vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
> so wish.
>


Perhaps I didn't make myself clear when I used the word 'right'. What I
was trying to get across was the idea of a fundamental right, rather
than a right which is earned by taking tests and paying a fee for a
licence. Too many people believe that on reaching the magic age a
licence to drive a motor vehicle should be issued automatically
regardless of the mayhem that may be caused by such actions.

Of course, you may have been referring to the bit about changing the
shape and technology of private transport in which case you are right,
this is indeed just my opinion.

Terry