On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:56:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:



All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They
are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full cost of
any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:29:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Maybe public transport should be done properly and where appropriate
and not forced onto people by artificial bending such as congestion
tax.

The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.

The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so. Non-polluting taxis would be a better
solution than to force people to cram into metal cans which are
vulnerable to the situation that we have seen this past week.

There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.

What do you mean by ' make public transport attractive to use'?
Likely the best way and perhaps the only way is to ban private
transport completely within city centres then public transport, buses
at least, can operate with maximum efficiency. Another possibility in
a new or modern city is to create dedicated bus routes or lanes
throughout. Unfortunately in old cities this is likely impossible
without significant redevelopment.

With respect to your point of customers wanting to go from C to D,
they can't do that with private transport as they cannot park at point
D. What is the difference between walking from a parking spot to your
point D and walking likely a lesser distance from a bus stop.

With respect to your 'better solution' for every bus load you are
proposing 40 plus taxis non-polluting taxis would be better?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:55:40 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:56:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:



All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They
are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full cost of
any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.


Do you have a better solution? Do we turn the clock back a 100 years
or more to letting the 'have nots' fend for themselves?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:29:56 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:33:04 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:29:23 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Maybe public transport should be done properly and where appropriate
and not forced onto people by artificial bending such as congestion
tax.

The congestion tax is only 5 quid. Try finding anywhere to park for that
all day within the zone.

It does what it says. It's also reduced congestion in surrounding boroughs
as well by reducing commuting.

I'm surprised you're so selfish you want unrestricted access by road
traffic where that traffic causes so much misery to the residents.

I didn't say that I wanted unrestricted road access, only that this is
a poor way to achieve it and to fix the transport issue in general.
It is a negative approach, not a positive one.

The correct way would be to make public transport attractive to use,
not to make private transport less attractive. Even with that,
public transport still has the limitation that it goes from point A to
point B at time T. The customer wants to go from point C to point D
and when they want to do so. Non-polluting taxis would be a better
solution than to force people to cram into metal cans which are
vulnerable to the situation that we have seen this past week.

There are two sides to commuting. One is that it is unpleasant and a
waste of time for people who do it, especially when they can work at
home. On the other hand, there are businesses and businesses that
support those businesses who rely on people being in face to face
contact. If they are no longer able to do that, then the supporting
businesses disappear. There is an economic effect.

What do you mean by ' make public transport attractive to use'?

One could start with making it run predictably, reliably and
frequently, providing adequate personal space for its customers and
adequate storage space for items they may wish to carry.


Likely the best way and perhaps the only way is to ban private
transport completely within city centres then public transport, buses
at least, can operate with maximum efficiency.

This is not the answer.

Another possibility in
a new or modern city is to create dedicated bus routes or lanes
throughout. Unfortunately in old cities this is likely impossible
without significant redevelopment.

Neither is this.


With respect to your point of customers wanting to go from C to D,
they can't do that with private transport as they cannot park at point
D.

They may or may not be able to park at point D.

What is the difference between walking from a parking spot to your
point D and walking likely a lesser distance from a bus stop.

If this were the case, then it would be less of an issue. However,
this still doesn't address all of the other unattractive aspects of
public transport.



With respect to your 'better solution' for every bus load you are
proposing 40 plus taxis non-polluting taxis would be better?

Those that wish to use the bus can use the bus. Those who wish to use
a taxi should be able to do so for a reasonable price. It is
perfectly possible for taxis to be more organised and less polluting
than today. Banning and restricting things is not the correct way to
solve the problems of transport.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.

Ah, So you're like the average driver who parks within the pedestrian
crossing zig-zags at a local takeaway?

Nope.

The important thing is to have to
walk the minimum distance?

If you're carrying a lot of things it helps.

And you do this on every journey? I'm not talking about doing the weekly
shop or collecting DIY goods, etc. Just the normal daily journeys.


Like the mums who double park on the school run
with a space a few yards away?

Nope.

But it's the logical extension of desiring door to door transport at all
times and practised by many motorists. Surely you've noticed this?

[snip]

First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.

Pollution in my context doesn't just refer to the output of the exhaust.
It includes noise and congestion. Those are both pollution to the
residents.

OK, so fundamentally this means that places of business should be
separated from places of residence.

Err, you've not been following my argument. It's the fact that many choose
to live a long way from their work that causes the commuting misery for
those who live in the areas commuted through. And like I said, many who do
this would be most upset if their quiet village or dormitory town was
subject to the same levels of through traffic throughout the day and
night.

Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.

You'll still need to stand around waiting for one at peak times - unless
there is an vast excess.

Doesn't seem to happen in cities that have implemented optimising
technology.

And those are comparable to London? It tends to be unique in that vast
chunks were built before the motor car - or before it became common. And
even the modern parts don't make provision for it in the same way as other
countries where land is less expensive.

So them driving around looking for fares at other
times.

This is the whole point. They shouldn't be driving around looking for
fares. There should be no need. If there are no fares in the
computer controlled zone where they are and they want to work, they go
to one where there are.

So drive there empty? 'Cause they'll be just like buses - full in the rush
hour, empty outside it.

So why not just spend that time walking to the station, etc.
They're rarely far away in most parts of London. Or take a bus to the
station.

This may be true if you want to start and end a journey within the
coverage of the bus or tube network

You're never far away from any of those - and you'd be surprised at how
many alternative routes that may exist if you do some research. Same as
travelling by car. I prefer to use the overground where possible and
minimise tube journeys, since I like to look about when travelling.
Something you can't do when driving. And I have both overground and tube
stations within easy reach. And a good bus service to the tube if I were
too lazy to walk.

and as long as you are not
carrying things or mind standing squashed next to pushy, smelly
people.

I'm afraid your last sentence says it all. Everyone smells to some extent.
Same as dogs. You just don't notice your own one.

But then the answer is not to travel in the rush hour. Why would you want
to if you're only going shopping?

--
*Did you ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.

This was mooted a long time ago in London. Inner and outer rings and all
the motorways going to both. The M25 got built, but soon reached its
capacity. The inner one didn't because of the blight on the city. But if
it had, it would be jammed too. The easier you make travelling by car, the
more people who do totally unnecessary journeys. Their freedom possibly,
but how about the freedom of those areas where people live that they're
passing through?

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full
cost of any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

Third rate? Would this be the same as in the US where 1/3rd of the
population is without *any* medical cover? And there are plenty of moves
afoot to remove medical insurance as part of a salary package there as
it's simply becoming too expensive. Bit the same as final salary pensions
here.

It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.

And private insurance is always better? Some figures, please.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
With respect to your point of customers wanting to go from C to D,
they can't do that with private transport as they cannot park at point
D. What is the difference between walking from a parking spot to your
point D and walking likely a lesser distance from a bus stop.

And in plenty of older cities you'll not be able to park outside your
front door. Even in modern posh apartment developments it can be a fair
hike from the carpark to your own front door.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
What do you mean by ' make public transport attractive to use'?

One could start with making it run predictably, reliably and
frequently,

It does, in general, in London. And certainly more consistently than
commuting by car. Which is what most conveniently ignore. A train being
five minutes late is a disgrace. Being stuck in a jam after an accident is
just one of those things.

One place I work at has the employees arriving probably 50/50 by tube and
car. And you're far more likely to get excuses for being late by the car
drivers. Quite a few arrive up to 2 hours early by car to just avoid the
traffic and find somewhere close to park. When they could near guarantee
that same journey in a fraction of the time by PT.

providing adequate personal space for its customers and
adequate storage space for items they may wish to carry.

The problem with that is the terrorist aspect. Hence the lack of litter
bins, etc, on stations.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:45:33 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Not at all, but it isn't always short, people may be carrying things
that make walking for any distance impractical, and there shouldn't be
compulsion.

Ah, So you're like the average driver who parks within the pedestrian
crossing zig-zags at a local takeaway?

Nope.

The important thing is to have to
walk the minimum distance?

If you're carrying a lot of things it helps.

And you do this on every journey?

Quite frequently, yes.

I'm not talking about doing the weekly
shop or collecting DIY goods, etc. Just the normal daily journeys.


But what's a normal daily journey? I certainly don't shop weekly,
but several times a week.

In general, I see a lot of people struggling with carrying things on
public transport, even for daily journies.



Like the mums who double park on the school run
with a space a few yards away?

Nope.

But it's the logical extension of desiring door to door transport at all
times and practised by many motorists. Surely you've noticed this?

There is nothing wrong with desiring door to door transport. I was
also not restricting my thoughts to the inner city.



[snip]

First of all, emissions could be addressed substantially by switching
to alternative types of fuel than diesel.

Pollution in my context doesn't just refer to the output of the exhaust.
It includes noise and congestion. Those are both pollution to the
residents.

OK, so fundamentally this means that places of business should be
separated from places of residence.

Err, you've not been following my argument. It's the fact that many choose
to live a long way from their work that causes the commuting misery for
those who live in the areas commuted through. And like I said, many who do
this would be most upset if their quiet village or dormitory town was
subject to the same levels of through traffic throughout the day and
night.

I would turn this one around the other way and look at it with a big
picture view. The present ideas of limiting access by using a crude
taxation or restricting availability of parking are negative,
restricting of choice and can be nothing more than a short term
band-aid.

The better approaches would be

- to reduce the need for travel by incenting businesses and
individuals to increase home and local working. It is no longer
necessary in many businesses for people to physically move to a place
of work. There are some large companies like BT who have already
started down this path, and it is possible for many others.

- provide a better taxi system in major cities. This can be done by
providing a lower rate for journies requested by making a request by
phone or automated booking system with optimised positioning of cars.
A large proportion of the population has mobile phones, so this is
entirely possible. Businesses and other regular users at fixed
locations can have a code that they key into the phone, making human
involvement in booking unnecessary. I already mentioned
introduction of lower polluting vehicles.

- additional tiers of transport sizing. For example, Holland has a
system of "train taxis". You pay an additional amount to use one of
these when you buy a train ticket or pay separately. Up to 3 people
(or more in an MPV) plus what they are carrying are taken from a train
station or other pickup point to their individual destinations. It
takes longer than an individual taxi and less than a bus and is priced
accordingly.

These are all positive approaches that have been done and can be
extended. It isn't necessary to apply the negative taxation approach
that is being done today.



Secondly, cities in many other countries, and a few in the UK, have a
GPS and computer integrated booking system so that virtually all trips
are through a control centre and vehicle movements are optimised.
There is no need for taxis to be driving around empty for any length
of time looking for business.

You'll still need to stand around waiting for one at peak times - unless
there is an vast excess.

Doesn't seem to happen in cities that have implemented optimising
technology.

And those are comparable to London? It tends to be unique in that vast
chunks were built before the motor car - or before it became common. And
even the modern parts don't make provision for it in the same way as other
countries where land is less expensive.

It doesn't matter. Almost all of the Nordic cities have it, and
most have old areas with narrow streets. Closer to home, Sheffield
has it, although the system is not as sophisticated.



So them driving around looking for fares at other
times.

This is the whole point. They shouldn't be driving around looking for
fares. There should be no need. If there are no fares in the
computer controlled zone where they are and they want to work, they go
to one where there are.

So drive there empty? 'Cause they'll be just like buses - full in the rush
hour, empty outside it.

No. The whole point is that the driver chooses his next job when he
is close to dropping the current one. This means that the waiting
time for the new person is generally shorter and more consistent. If
there are no jobs where he ends up then he picks one from the next
nearest zone. That way, the empty time and distance is minimised and
most of the inefficiency of driving around looking for business is
eliminated.




So why not just spend that time walking to the station, etc.
They're rarely far away in most parts of London. Or take a bus to the
station.

This may be true if you want to start and end a journey within the
coverage of the bus or tube network

You're never far away from any of those - and you'd be surprised at how
many alternative routes that may exist if you do some research. Same as
travelling by car. I prefer to use the overground where possible and
minimise tube journeys, since I like to look about when travelling.
Something you can't do when driving. And I have both overground and tube
stations within easy reach. And a good bus service to the tube if I were
too lazy to walk.

Of course. If both of your points are within the area, then it may
work fine if you don't mind being crammed into the metal can of
whatever type.

It fails miserably if you are outside London and need to go to it, or
because of the arrangement of the national train network, transition
through it. Then it's a nightmare.



and as long as you are not
carrying things or mind standing squashed next to pushy, smelly
people.

I'm afraid your last sentence says it all. Everyone smells to some extent.
Same as dogs. You just don't notice your own one.

Of course. Which is why cramming lots of people into a small space is
so unpleasant.



But then the answer is not to travel in the rush hour. Why would you want
to if you're only going shopping?

This is an extension to my earlier point. Why do people need to
travel and why do they need to do so at specific times? This could
certainly be positvely influenced by incenting businesses to adopt
more flexible working practices.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:07:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
What do you mean by ' make public transport attractive to use'?

One could start with making it run predictably, reliably and
frequently,

It does, in general, in London. And certainly more consistently than
commuting by car. Which is what most conveniently ignore. A train being
five minutes late is a disgrace. Being stuck in a jam after an accident is
just one of those things.

One place I work at has the employees arriving probably 50/50 by tube and
car. And you're far more likely to get excuses for being late by the car
drivers. Quite a few arrive up to 2 hours early by car to just avoid the
traffic and find somewhere close to park. When they could near guarantee
that same journey in a fraction of the time by PT.

providing adequate personal space for its customers and
adequate storage space for items they may wish to carry.

The problem with that is the terrorist aspect. Hence the lack of litter
bins, etc, on stations.


Which is even more of a reason to downscale the number of people in
each vehicle or train.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:50:38 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.

This was mooted a long time ago in London. Inner and outer rings and all
the motorways going to both. The M25 got built, but soon reached its
capacity. The inner one didn't because of the blight on the city. But if
it had, it would be jammed too. The easier you make travelling by car, the
more people who do totally unnecessary journeys. Their freedom possibly,
but how about the freedom of those areas where people live that they're
passing through?

Again it's negativity.

The unfortunate thing is that much of the transport system radiates
from London and it's necessary to go close to it or to it to use much
of the train service and the motorways.

Additional privately funded cross country routes like the M6 toll,
which seems to be pretty effective, would also be a good answer.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:39:19 +0000 (UTC), Edward W. Thompson
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:55:40 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:56:18 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:



All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They
are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full cost of
any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.


Do you have a better solution? Do we turn the clock back a 100 years
or more to letting the 'have nots' fend for themselves?

The better solution is for the state not to be involved in the
*delivery* of services, but only to provide funding for services for
those unable to pay for themselves. Individuals should be free to
select services from different providers without being financially
penalised for doing so as they are today.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

The better solution is for the state not to be involved in the
*delivery* of services, but only to provide funding for services for
those unable to pay for themselves.

The problem is that this would be extremely expensive. The NHS, for all its
faults, is exceptionally efficient in terms of care provided for the cost to
the taxpayer.

Countries with private provision end up paying many times the amount in
total and still only cover a much smaller proportion of the population.

OK, you don't get a private room, but who cares? Isn't it more important
that the bypass operation is free?

Christian.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:55:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full
cost of any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

Third rate?

The current NHS is nothing short of appalling in terms of the quality
of service delivered. It's a national disgrace from a bygone era.

Would this be the same as in the US where 1/3rd of the
population is without *any* medical cover? And there are plenty of moves
afoot to remove medical insurance as part of a salary package there as
it's simply becoming too expensive. Bit the same as final salary pensions
here.

Taxation in the U.S. is also much lower at around 25% vs. 35% in the
UK and even more elsewhere in Europe.



It's the same thing, whether public or private, a
form of insurance that levels out the costs to the individual.

The "levelling out" is taking from the haves to subsidise the have
nots in an extremely inefficient way.

And private insurance is always better? Some figures, please.


I didn't say that. I do think that it makes sense for the state to
run a financing system paid for out of taxation (general, NI or
whatever) to provide vouchers for people to spend on healthcare
regardless of their income. However, I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business. Moreover, while I am perfectly
happy to contribute to the general fund to support those who need it,
I do object to being penalised by taxation four times over for making
my own healthcare arrangements and unburdening the state from having
to do so to a large extent.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

I do object to being penalised by taxation four times over for making
my own healthcare arrangements and unburdening the state from having
to do so to a large extent.

Actually, medical insurance here is a fraction of its true cost, because the
insurance companies know that much required treatment will be done on the
NHS, even if you're insured. Many people only invoke their insurance if they
come against a waiting list, or have difficulty getting a consultant
referral.

Christian.

Andy Hall wrote:

I'm afraid your last sentence says it all. Everyone smells to some extent.
Same as dogs. You just don't notice your own one.


Of course. Which is why cramming lots of people into a small space is
so unpleasant.

And the shorter you are the worse it gets ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:55:01 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
All urban public transport systems in every country are subsidised.

Out of taxation in one form or another.

They are after all a public service. Or do you expect to pay the full
cost of any medical treatment?

It would be far more cost effective than letting the government
collect tax, add bureaucracy and deliver a third rate service.

Third rate?

The current NHS is nothing short
of appalling in terms of the quality
of service delivered. It's a national
disgrace from a bygone era.

Total and utter tripe!

snip the rest as it must as equally stupid

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


... I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business.

I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

... I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business.

I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.

Maybe you are right as you can't spell "education". Private education is to
make money for the owners - nothing else. Anyone you thinks otherwise is
naive.

Doctor Evil wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..

... I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business.

I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.


Maybe you are right as you can't spell "education".

Ah, now that is entertaining! Drivel attempting to correct Mary on
spelling.

(BTW, both "eduction" and "education" would fit the context).

Private education is to
make money for the owners - nothing else. Anyone you thinks otherwise is
naive.

As drivel lowers himself to even previously un-reached depths of
enlightenment...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.

Maybe you are right as you can't spell "education".

Pot, kettle. HTH.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Evil wrote:

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message

... I don't think that the state
should be in the delivery business.

I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.


Maybe you are right as you can't spell "education".

Ah, now that is entertaining! Drivel attempting to correct Mary on
spelling.

(BTW, both "eduction" and "education" would fit the context).

Quite.

Mary

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:04:13 GMT, T i m wrote:

I'm not quite sure where you are going here Pete .. if I found out
that eating bananas made me run twice as fast or long twice as long in
bed (but 2 hours should be enough anyway right? g) it still wouldnt
influence that fact that they tase 3/10 to me?

Do they taste 3/10 regardless of where they are grown? Do they taste
3/10 whether they are barely ripe, ripe or mushy?

Today I had my fried breakfast at 11 ish (I think I enjoy the texture
as much as the taste .. 7/10), can't remember if I had any lunch as
such but dinner (6 ish) was a small basted (pork I think) chop, 2
yorkshire puds, 3 half roast spuds, and a small helping of carrots,
curly cabbage (it could of been a pot scourer) and some runners. The
veg was all steamed and the other stuff cooked in oil / it's own fat.
All nicely cooked etc ..4/10.?

I could easily have had beans on toast and enjoyed it just as much ..
;-(

Why settle for 4/10? And did you make the roast yourself BTW

cheers,
Pete.

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:52:16 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:08:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Because Chicago is built on a grid system, not a medieval street pattern.
The business section in the morning is light in traffic, as only traffic
going there is actually there. None running straight through as happens in
the west end of London. Before the congestion charge, surveys found that
the majority of vehicles in the west end were just passing through. It is
those that need to be discouraged.


Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.

Building a road system that allows anybody to travel anywhere at
anytime with no congestion requires a lot of land space which we don't
have in the UK. Also there are hidden environmental and quality of
life costs.

If people have a resource they pay a fixed charge for, like water,
waste disposal or road space, then they tend not to use it as
efficiently as they might.

If road space is finite then an automotive 'eat as much as you like
buffet' won't work in the long run...

cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:52:16 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:08:55 +0100, "Doctor Evil"
wrote:


Because Chicago is built on a grid system, not a medieval street
pattern.
The business section in the morning is light in traffic, as only traffic
going there is actually there. None running straight through as happens
in
the west end of London. Before the congestion charge, surveys found
that
the majority of vehicles in the west end were just passing through. It
is
those that need to be discouraged.


Negative control again. The correct way os to encourage people to
use alternative routes by building appropriate capacity through ways
and bypasses.

Total tripe. The place is on a grod system. No one goes into the financial
section unmels they have to . They square around it. In factr a fast grid
roads are around it.for that reason.

Building a road system that allows
anybody to travel anywhere at
anytime with no congestion requires
a lot of land space which we don't
have in the UK.

The UK has a land surplus. Only 7.5% of the land is built on, rural and
urban and inc gardens. Milton Keynes has the best road system in the
country. On a grid system, with no houses on the grid, only bushes and
trees, so the population are away from the high speed grid, and you can do
60-70 mph on the grid. A great place to drive around in.

The basic national road system was there pre-war. Only the motorways have
been added, and the odd by-pass here and there. Pre-war, if we had 1
million cars I would be surprise. Now we have 30 million that do about
twice the mileage as pre-war. People use cars to go and buy some bread.

Also there are hidden environmental
and quality of life costs.

The quality of life comes down to this:

1. Reducing dependence on cars - better town planning, eliminating large
supermarkets, etc.

2. Expanding the car - making more roads and allowing people to build on
open subsidised land and keep the love affair with teh car. If we are going
down the car, car, car route then allow people to spread and give them more
and better roads

If people have a resource they
pay a fixed charge for, like water,
waste disposal or road space,
then they tend not to use it as
efficiently as they might.

That is why road tax should be on petrol at the pump. They more you travel
the more you pay.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Evil wrote:
I don't think it should be in the business of eduction.

Maybe you are right as you can't spell "education".

Pot, kettle.

No "education" Sirry Irriot.

Doctor Evil wrote:

No "education" Sirry Irriot.

Ah, a product of the comprehensive system no doubt...

Go get a dictionary, look up "eduction", and stop being such a plonker.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Doctor Evil wrote:

Because Chicago is built on a grid system, not a medieval street pattern.
The business section in the morning is light in traffic, as only traffic
going there is actually there. None running straight through as happens in
the west end of London. Before the congestion charge, surveys found that
the majority of vehicles in the west end were just passing through. It is
those that need to be discouraged.

The grid system has little to do with the ability to park your car in
downtown Chicago to take the family to the museums. What Chicago has is
planning for the use of cars by the population and willingness to change
the road layouts on a grand scale where necessary. As the morning rush
hour lasts about 4 hours, your comments on light traffic are a joke!
London has failed miserably on new routes, because of the obsession with
the existing public service Underground. The Chicago through traffic is
predominantly N/S and is on both the toll roads, which are cheap enough
for the customers to be prepared to use them and the central zone.
London doesn't even have one decent through route!!

Regards
Capitol

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:


Talking to yourself again, please do what you preach, we all have

to

pay for things that we either don't use or don't approve off,

it's

one of the fact of life !

Why should people without kids pay taxes to fund the education

system

for example?



So there will be educated people around to keep the country going

when

they are too old to do it themselves. That's also why they pay more
taxes than those who provide and bring up the relevant warm bodies.



So, if the tax wasn't been spent on keeping other people kids in
various ways the money could be put aside by either HMG or the tax
payer to fund their retirement.


What do you mean by 'fund'? Money doesn't push wheelchairs or cook
food. Money is a medium of exchange. Only human beings actually do
things.

The point you make is about paying for something that only other
people use. In this case, that isn't relevant, as there is no possible
doubt that you will make use of other peoples' children. And while
politicians prefer other peoples' children to receive a minimal
education, that really isn't a good idea.

T i m wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:11:58 +0000, Joe wrote:


John Rumm wrote:

T i m wrote:



p.s. Proud to say has never been to Lakeside, Bluewater, Wood Green SC
etc etc .. ;-)


You have not missed much ;-) Been to lakeside about three times... that
was about two too many!


There's a Borders there, the only proper bookshop for many miles,


If I ever need a book (not happened yet g) I think Amazon would be
easier (I don't have any cords or sandals so would stand out in a book
shop) ;-) ( joke)
also

Indeed, but even W H Smith will get you any book you name. A proper
bookshop is where you go to find out which book that is.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You'll still need to stand around waiting for one at peak times - unless
there is an vast excess. So them driving around looking for fares at other
times. So why not just spend that time walking to the station, etc.
They're rarely far away in most parts of London. Or take a bus to the
station.


Taxis cruising for fares when not busy, is too expensive in fuel costs.
Taxi's normally like to park near to where their customers want them.
Many parts of London are at least 1/2+ a mile to the nearest bus stop,
in winter in the drizzling rain, for old people or women with young
children, on buses with no conductor or room for pushchairs etc? I hoped
we had achieved improvements in the peoples living standards in the last
50 years, it's beginning to appear that I am wrong. I'm not prepared to
travel by public transport under those conditions. If I lived in London,
I'd call a cab, which is probably much more polluting than any car. I
did too much communal traveling as a child to be prepared to suffer that
much today. If you wish to travel on the multiply infectious bus/train
system, where one person sneezing in a carriage can infect 50 others--well!

You have still to my mind been unable to justify travel on London
public transport systems paid for by other people.

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

Taxation in the U.S. is also much lower at around 25% vs. 35% in the
UK and even more elsewhere in Europe.


Are you sure about these figures? The Adam Smith institute quotes 38.5%
for the UK for 2005/5. I agree that the EU is higher. The US is more
difficult, as some states have state and federal income tax and various
rates of sales and property taxes, so it can depend very much on where
you live.

Regards
Capitol

Christian McArdle wrote:

Actually, medical insurance here is a fraction of its true cost, because the
insurance companies know that much required treatment will be done on the
NHS, even if you're insured. Many people only invoke their insurance if they
come against a waiting list, or have difficulty getting a consultant
referral.

In that case, the premiums still reflect the true cost to the recipient.

Regards
Capitol

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:00:31 +0000, Joe wrote:


If I ever need a book (not happened yet g) I think Amazon would be
easier (I don't have any cords or sandals so would stand out in a book
shop) ;-) ( joke)
also

Indeed, but even W H Smith will get you any book you name.

Hmm, we have one of them at top of 't' road .. they do books do they!
What have I bought in there .. stationary, labels for my Dymo
electronic label maker, Kerang for my daughter .. ;-)

A proper
bookshop is where you go to find out which book that is.

Ohhhh ... and what are books again please .. ;-)

Joking aside, I understand folk read 'books' for various reasons ...

1) Learning (forced or otherwise). I have 'used' technical books to
get answers to questions but the internet (Google / Usenet) seems to
have taken over that role now for me?

2) Interest .. (as opposed to learning as such) .. you are into Roman
history etc ..

3) Entertainment .. novels ... Mills and Boon, thrillers and the
like. Never appealed to me ..;-(

4) Time consumption. Many folk read to relieve the boredom, like
commuting or when in a waiting room. The only books I have read
recently (4 off) were hand selected from my mates 1000 book science
fiction collection and they went some way to relieving the boredom of
the 30 min train commute. I would (did) still rather chat than read.

My missus is an avid reader, as is my daughter .. just never appealed
to me .. I wonder if it's part of this dyslexia thing again, or my
tinitus not letting me concentrate, or maybe I'm just a heathen?

All the best ..

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...


My missus is an avid reader, as is my daughter .. just never appealed
to me .. I wonder if it's part of this dyslexia thing again, or my
tinitus not letting me concentrate, or maybe I'm just a heathen?

You don't ejoy reading.

You don't enjoy eating.

Do you arrange flowers?

Mary

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:38:14 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:04:13 GMT, T i m wrote:

I'm not quite sure where you are going here Pete .. if I found out
that eating bananas made me run twice as fast or long twice as long in
bed (but 2 hours should be enough anyway right? g) it still wouldnt
influence that fact that they tase 3/10 to me?

Do they taste 3/10 regardless of where they are grown? Do they taste
3/10 whether they are barely ripe, ripe or mushy?

Pete, I really don't know that I can tell or 'notice'? I peel it, eat
it .. job done? I mean, when I eat something it's usually to service a
need .. potential or actual hunger or to 'placate' my (minor) acid
reflux problem, not because I enjoy the particular taste of something?
This morning for example I had my bowl of Alpen ('pigeon loft
sweepings' as my daughter calls it) with sliced banana on top. I eat
it whilst watching the TV news and checking my emails and can't really
remember it?

Today I had my fried breakfast at 11 ish (I think I enjoy the texture
as much as the taste .. 7/10), can't remember if I had any lunch as
such but dinner (6 ish) was a small basted (pork I think) chop, 2
yorkshire puds, 3 half roast spuds, and a small helping of carrots,
curly cabbage (it could of been a pot scourer) and some runners. The
veg was all steamed and the other stuff cooked in oil / it's own fat.
All nicely cooked etc ..4/10.?

I could easily have had beans on toast and enjoyed it just as much ..
;-(

Why settle for 4/10?

Because I can't have curries all the time and the roast was what was
on offer at the time? Also I couldn't answer the question re what food
would be 10/10 because I'm not sure any food would make that score (I
tried to rate it equally with other 'experiences').

And did you make the roast yourself BTW

Nope, as mentioned elsewhere 'she' currently does most of the cooking
(to sute her current diet / fitness plan) for us and for our daughter.
I did 'catering' at college so can cook (and will at any time if
required / asked). But because I get (expect?) little enjoyment from
food probably wouldn't bother cooking if it was just for myself?

All the best ..

T i m

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:43:30 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
.. .


My missus is an avid reader, as is my daughter .. just never appealed
to me .. I wonder if it's part of this dyslexia thing again, or my
tinitus not letting me concentrate, or maybe I'm just a heathen?

You don't ejoy reading.

So it seems ..

You don't enjoy eating.

I don't think so .. not like many other folk anyway?

Do you arrange flowers?

I did last Monday on my Uncles grave. I am 'reasonably' artistic but
not an 'artist' and as a personal choice will choose function over
form most times.

It would appear from peoples reactions I (we) actually do (and enjoy)
*many* things to different levels depending on money, oppertunity,
interest, weather etc.

It's just possible that 1) I'm willing to admit what I do / don't do
and 2) don't 'conform' to the more common stereotypical pub going
football / rugby / cricket / golf / fishing / cinema / theater
restaurant / book reading fan?

I have 'reasons' why I specifically dislike many of the above and for
the rest, they just don't float my boat. Is that wrong?

All the best ..

T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:43:30 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"T i m" wrote in message
. ..


My missus is an avid reader, as is my daughter .. just never appealed
to me .. I wonder if it's part of this dyslexia thing again, or my
tinitus not letting me concentrate, or maybe I'm just a heathen?

You don't ejoy reading.

So it seems ..

You don't enjoy eating.

I don't think so .. not like many other folk anyway?

Do you arrange flowers?

I did last Monday on my Uncles grave. I am 'reasonably' artistic but
not an 'artist' and as a personal choice will choose function over
form most times.

It would appear from peoples reactions I (we) actually do (and enjoy)
*many* things to different levels depending on money, oppertunity,
interest, weather etc.

Indeed.

It's just possible that 1) I'm willing to admit what I do / don't do
and 2) don't 'conform' to the more common stereotypical pub going
football / rugby / cricket / golf / fishing / cinema / theater
restaurant / book reading fan?

I have 'reasons' why I specifically dislike many of the above and for
the rest, they just don't float my boat. Is that wrong?

Not at all.I don't do any of the things in your list either - well,
occasionally we go to the theatre when we have comps.

I was joking about the flower arranging. I don't do that either.

Mary

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
London doesn't even have one decent through route!!

Unless it were built underground, it simply wouldn't be tolerated as it
would involve vast demolishing of buildings. And would pollute the
surrounding areas too. There are two circular routes if you wish to
'cross' London. The M25. Overloaded near since opening. As is virtually
every other motorway at peak time. And if you doubled its capacity it
would soon be overloaded again.

--
*42.7% of statistics are made up. Sorry, that should read 47.2% *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.