Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come over
here for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would be
that department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it it
would reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be
inflated to well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would relieve
the NHS staff of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of difference if
OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill would stay
the same, or likely, go up.
This is because Government works like this: make Joe Public pay over and
above what we actually need, then we can spend the extra trillions on ****
no one hears about or understands, if they ask, we'll give em some easy
answers to keep the brain dead arguing amongst themselves, and by the time,
or if they ever realise, they'll be too old to be believed. Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which colour badge
they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots) there's only
one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every other **** who goes
out and gives it to them so they can continue ripping everyone off and
spending it on whatever they like.

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as it's
hardly ever full. £53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining about some
fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?

In article , Phil L
wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come over here
for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would be that
department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it it would
reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be inflated to
well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would relieve the NHS staff
of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of difference
if OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill would
stay the same, or likely, go up. This is because Government works like
this: make Joe Public pay over and above what we actually need, then we
can spend the extra trillions on **** no one hears about or understands,
if they ask, we'll give em some easy answers to keep the brain dead
arguing amongst themselves, and by the time, or if they ever realise,
they'll be too old to be believed. Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which colour
badge they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots)
there's only one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every
other **** who goes out and gives it to them so they can continue
ripping everyone off and spending it on whatever they like.

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as it's
hardly ever full. £53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining about
some fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?

your Council Tax pays for a lot more than waste collections. Look it up
sometime.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Phil L" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come over
here for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would be
that department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it it
would reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be
inflated to well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would relieve
the NHS staff of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of difference
if OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill would
stay the same, or likely, go up.
This is because Government works like this: make Joe Public pay over and
above what we actually need, then we can spend the extra trillions on ****
no one hears about or understands, if they ask, we'll give em some easy
answers to keep the brain dead arguing amongst themselves, and by the
time, or if they ever realise, they'll be too old to be believed.
Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which colour
badge they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots)
there's only one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every other
**** who goes out and gives it to them so they can continue ripping
everyone off and spending it on whatever they like.

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as it's
hardly ever full. £53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining about
some fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?

Your council tax pays for a lot more than just having your bin emptied.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Phil L
wrote:

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that ...

And local roads maintained

roads maintained.

Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the hundred and
one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads? - it's a complete
mystery where this slush fund goes then.

and schools and streetlights and a ****load
of other things I can't be arsed to list. So it's not actually £53
each time your bin is emptied. Is it.

No it's not £53, the streetlights do cost money, and the police, fire and
all the other things that our income tax is supposed to be paying for, so
where's this other massive slush fund going to?

They can and do introduce any kind of tax and can call it whatever they like
providing they say it's to pay for some **** or other that we've already
paid for ten times over, no one can say where that money is going, and no
one can say how much anything costs, otherwise we'd all know how much we had
to pay each year, EG

Policing the country and the judicial system will cost XYZ, which works out
at XX per adult

The NHS will cost us YY per adult

The infrastructure, roads etc will cost ZZ and will be paid for solely by
those who use them, motorists, via tax on fuel, this will equate to ZZ per
adult


If it appeared itemised like this, then we'd know how much our bins cost to
be emptied, but considering most people pay in a lot more than they get out,
it's safe to say that were getting ripped to **** just by working every day.

"Phil L" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Phil L
wrote:

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that ...

And local roads maintained

roads maintained.

Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the hundred and
one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads? - it's a complete
mystery where this slush fund goes then.

and schools and streetlights and a ****load
of other things I can't be arsed to list. So it's not actually £53
each time your bin is emptied. Is it.

No it's not £53, the streetlights do cost money, and the police, fire and
all the other things that our income tax is supposed to be paying for, so
where's this other massive slush fund going to?

They can and do introduce any kind of tax and can call it whatever they
like providing they say it's to pay for some **** or other that we've
already paid for ten times over, no one can say where that money is going,
and no one can say how much anything costs, otherwise we'd all know how
much we had to pay each year, EG

Policing the country and the judicial system will cost XYZ, which works
out at XX per adult

The NHS will cost us YY per adult

The infrastructure, roads etc will cost ZZ and will be paid for solely by
those who use them, motorists, via tax on fuel, this will equate to ZZ per
adult


If it appeared itemised like this, then we'd know how much our bins cost
to be emptied,

but considering most people pay in a lot more than they get out,

Unlikely

it's safe to say that were getting ripped to **** just by working every
day.

No, its not safe to say that.

On 09/02/2017 21:19, Phil L wrote:

Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the hundred and
one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads? - it's a complete
mystery where this slush fund goes then.
....
No it's not £53, the streetlights do cost money, and the police, fire and
all the other things that our income tax is supposed to be paying for, so
where's this other massive slush fund going to?
....
If it appeared itemised like this, then we'd know how much our bins cost to
be emptied, but considering most people pay in a lot more than they get out,
it's safe to say that were getting ripped to **** just by working every day.

I get the information you're after sent to me by the inland revenue and
my council.

Eg picking a council at random,

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/what-yo...l-tax-pays-for

and central government

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ur-tax-summary

There's loads of information like this out there, it's not a mystery at all.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 21:58:20 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Phil L
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Phil L
wrote:

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that ...

And local roads maintained

roads maintained.

Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the hundred and
one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads?

You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

and schools and streetlights and a ****load
of other things I can't be arsed to list. So it's not actually £53
each time your bin is emptied. Is it.

No it's not £53, the streetlights do cost money, and the police, fire and
all the other things that our income tax is supposed to be paying for

Er no, police and fire are paid for locally like it says on your
council tax bill. I take you it you can read?

It's not as simple as that. That is the amount from council tax that
goes to fund the police and fire services but is not the only source of
income for those services.

In the case of police forces:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...police-finance

Police forces in England and Wales are each given funding from 3
main sources:

Home Office
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or the
Welsh Assembly Government
police precept component of local council tax

For example Avon and Somerset Police income for 2016-2017:
https://www.bristol.gov.uk/documents...4-a98c99593cf2
or
http://tinyurl.com/hd4k3m8

Funding from central government £178m

Amount paid by council tax £98m

In the case of Avon Fire Authority the majority of the funding comes
from council tax and business rates but there is some from central
government.
Info from:
http://www.avonfire.gov.uk/documents...016-pdf-843-kb

Local councils receive sunstantial funding from central government.

Somerset County Council Statement of Account 2015 - 2016:
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/EasySiteW...px?alId=115209

It is important to note that the contribution from the local
community through the Council Tax represents just 24% of our
revenue funding needs.

(I chose Avon and Somerset Police because it was top of an alphabetical
list!)

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the hundred and
one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads?

You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

'Road tax'/fuel tax isn't ring fenced for roads - anymore than the tax on
fags is reserved to pay NHS bills arising from smoking. Or the things NI
was set up to pay for used exclusively for that.

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.

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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Phil L
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Phil L
wrote:

I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times
for that ...

And local roads maintained

roads maintained.

Road tax, tax on fuel, billions raised by cameras etc and the
hundred and one other taxes motorists pay doesn't go towards roads?

You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

and schools and streetlights and a ****load
of other things I can't be arsed to list. So it's not actually £53
each time your bin is emptied. Is it.

No it's not £53, the streetlights do cost money, and the police,
fire and all the other things that our income tax is supposed to be
paying for

Er no, police and fire are paid for locally like it says on your
council tax bill. I take you it you can read?

yes i can read but it seems you can't work out something simple, which is
just as well really as that's how govt wants you, thick as a ball of ****.
Like the other poster explains, fire/police/whatever isn't paid for by CT
alone, ooo no, that would be easy to work out, - part of it is paid from
here, part from there and part from somewhere else, likewise everything else
that govt has it's hand in, so you can't work it out.

If i got a quote for a painting job and it was 5000, i could work out that
materials, scaffold, insurance, labour costs, sundries and everything else
required to do the job would come to X, which would leave Y as a likely
profit, before tax.

If govt were pricing the job it would be 25,000, you see, part of the first
5000 would pay for materials and labour (but we don't know how much of
each), part of the second 5000 would pay for the remaining labour charges
and part of the scaffold costs, the third 5000 would pay for the remainder
of the materials and part of the remainder of the scaffold costs, the fourth
5000 would pay some towards the insurance and the remaining scaffold costs,
which leaves 5000, which pays for sundries, profit, and calculators and
slide rulers for the accountants to work out prices/profits/losses etc after
the people running the department have both paid for a holiday to Barbados
out of the original 25,000 price which has now ballooned to 400K due to
unforseen circumstances.

Don't expect you to read, comprehend or understand any of the above, but we
live in hope

On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover the
entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with change
to spare.

Andy

On 08/02/2017 21:27, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:20:11 -0000, "Phil L" wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come over
here for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would be
that department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it it
would reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be
inflated to well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would relieve
the NHS staff of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of difference if
OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill would stay
the same, or likely, go up.
This is because Government works like this: make Joe Public pay over and
above what we actually need, then we can spend the extra trillions on ****
no one hears about or understands, if they ask, we'll give em some easy
answers to keep the brain dead arguing amongst themselves, and by the time,
or if they ever realise, they'll be too old to be believed. Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which colour badge
they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots) there's only
one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every other **** who goes
out and gives it to them so they can continue ripping everyone off and
spending it on whatever they like.

So true.


I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as it's
hardly ever full. £53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining about some
fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?


Doesn't your council tax cover other things like sewage, pavements, roads, raid
furniture, street lights,






"the cost of cutting down trees",


So you have been to Sheffield then?


Brilliant place. Every road and pavement is going to be resurfaced and
any trees in the way will be chopped down and any protesters that object
to a tree being cut down will be arrested under the Trade Union Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-38892263

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241







--
Adam

On 10/02/2017 21:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover the
entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with change
to spare.

Andy

The only figure that you need to pay attention to is the amount of
money the government collects every year, from all sources.
How much it spends, and from those how much it needs to borrow
to add to the national debt.

We still borrow £70 billion every year to carry on deluding
ourselves that we are rich country.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 10/02/2017 21:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover the
entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with change
to spare.

Andy

The only figure that you need to pay attention to is the amount of
money the government collects every year, from all sources.
How much it spends, and from those how much it needs to borrow
to add to the national debt.

We still borrow £70 billion every year to carry on deluding
ourselves that we are rich country.

You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 08/02/2017 21:27, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 21:20:11 -0000, "Phil L"
wrote:

Bill Wright wrote:
Let the NHS send the invoices for all the foreigners who come
over
here for free treatment to the Overseas Aid Department. It would
be
that department's job to chase the payment. If they didn't get it
it
would reduce the money we shovel overseas. The invoice would be
inflated to well above the actual NHS cost. This idea would
relieve
the NHS staff of the job of debt collector.

Bill

I hate to break this to you, but it wouldn't make one iota of
difference if
OAd paid for every foreigner, or even those who had a foregn
sounding
surname for every bit of treatment they received, your tax bill
would stay
the same, or likely, go up.
This is because Government works like this: make Joe Public pay
over and
above what we actually need, then we can spend the extra trillions
on ****
no one hears about or understands, if they ask, we'll give em some
easy
answers to keep the brain dead arguing amongst themselves, and by
the time,
or if they ever realise, they'll be too old to be believed.
Ta-Dah!


This is true of every facet of Government, regardless of which
colour badge
they're wearing (another ploy to occupy the masses of idiots)
there's only
one thing counts and thats money, yours, mine and every other ****
who goes
out and gives it to them so they can continue ripping everyone off
and
spending it on whatever they like.

So true.


I pay £900 per year council tax and have my bin emptied 17 times
for
that...it comes fortnightly but I don't send it out every time as
it's
hardly ever full. £53 to empty a wheelie bin and you are whining
about some
fat **** coming over here to have a tooth out for free?


Doesn't your council tax cover other things like sewage, pavements,
roads, raid
furniture, street lights,






"the cost of cutting down trees",


So you have been to Sheffield then?


Brilliant place. Every road and pavement is going to be resurfaced
and any trees in the way will be chopped down and any protesters
that object to a tree being cut down will be arrested under the
Trade Union Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-38892263

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241






I am surprised Sheffield City Council has not been sued for damage to
vehicle suspension from those using Button Hill. I have to say it is
one of the worst road surfaces that I have ever seen.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

On 10/02/2017 22:20, ARW wrote:

Every road and pavement is going to be resurfaced and
any trees in the way will be chopped down and any protesters that object
to a tree being cut down will be arrested under the Trade Union Laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-38892263

Being arrested is rather different from being convicted. That section
of the Act is in the section on Trade Union led Industrial Disputes.
Individuals taking action are by definition not part of a Trade Union
led Industrial Dispute.

This action is a convenient way of removing people from a place where
they are causing a hindrance to work planned, but it leaves the council
and police exposed to civil damages for false imprisonment.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/241

You need to read the whole section, not just a single clause quoted out
of context.

Jim

In article ,
Phil L wrote:
If i got a quote for a painting job and it was 5000, i could work out
that materials, scaffold, insurance, labour costs, sundries and
everything else required to do the job would come to X, which would
leave Y as a likely profit, before tax.

Somehow, I doubt you could.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost? *

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 09/02/2017 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
You're an ignorant dip**** aren't you. Road tax/fuel tax etc pays for
major roads/motorways. Council tax pays for local roads.

Actually if you look it up you'll find that taxes on motorists cover
the entire transport budget - roads, rail, buses, the lot - and with
change to spare.

The County (or unitary authority) manages local roads repair and
certainly is responsible for fixing of potholes. Are you saying they
all get a grant from central govt for that purpose?

All councils get funding from central government.

If you want to find out what gets spent where, you'd need to see their
accounts.

Having a responsibility for something doesn't mean all the funding comes
from one source.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

On 10/02/2017 21:52, Tim Streater wrote:
The County (or unitary authority) manages local roads repair and
certainly is responsible for fixing of potholes. Are you saying they
all get a grant from central govt for that purpose?

No, I'm saying that the taxes on motorists are big enough to cover it.

LAs do get central grants, and do have other sources. It's not possible
to say which tax money went where. Except that the taxes on motorists
are enough to pay for the buses and railways too, which implies not all
of it ends up in the roads budget.

Andy

On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

An FWD car joining a main road accelerates as it turns,
so the driven wheels are exterting a tearing effect on
the road, whereas a RWD car has its driven wheels
kept parallel (assuming a live axle), and the front
wheels are just rolling along the road.

On 10/02/2017 23:21, wrote:


You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

If you had bothered to pay attention during the run up to the
2010 election, when Gordon Browns *deficit* had exceeded the
annual cost of the 'free' NHS, you might have heard reference
to the 'structural deficit'.

This is the amount of impossible growth that the economy
would need to achieve to remove that deficit. Hence the
the so-called 'cuts', which aren't cuts at all. Hardly
anything has been cut. You need to see what Healey was
forced to do in 1976 after the IMF bailed us out to
understand what 'cuts' means. That will happen again.

The basic rate of tax would have to be 40% to get rid
of that deficit. Try plugging that into the treasury
model to see the effect on the economy.

And of course such tax increases would not be paid by
the 20 Million people living off the Labour partys
gerrymandering handouts like Housing Benefit, 'free' NHS
'free' prescriptions; 'free' motability cars, 'free'
child benefit with no upper limit and of course pensions.

On a recent BBC R4 World at one someone from Ffylde was
being interviewed about the so-called NHS 'crisis'. He said
the just 3% of the local population are responsible for 50%
of their costs. many of them repeat 'offenders' with weight
problems, type2 diabetis and all the ensuing complications,
and of course substance abusers and LOL's blocking beds.

On 12/02/2017 11:45, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

My theory is slightly different. Before we joined the Common Market,
the legislated standard road weight limit was 24 tons [1] (apart from
overweight loads, which had to have a police escort) and the roads were
built with the expectation that the number of occasions where they had
to carry more than 24 tons were few and far between. Heavier loads were
routinely carried by rail. Those rail routes were decimated by
Beeching's axe because Beeching worked for a man who owned a road
building company and wanted to spend the money on motorways instead.

After we joined the Common Market, we were not allowed to impose our
standards on anyone else, but we had to adopt theirs. At that time the
default for most of the Common Market was 38 tons. Our weight limit was
revoked, but no special work was carried out on British roads to make
their foundations prepared for increased weight; that only happened
when new roads were built or existing roads were overhauled. Meanwhile
the transport industry stopped buying the home grown Bedford, Guy and
Commer lorries designed for 24 tons, and started buying Scania, Iveco,
Daf, Volvo etc which were bigger then, and got even bigger later, and
now we have lorries routinely weighing 48 tons on our roads some of
which are still designed for half that weight, along with bendy-buses
which break up the road surface at every bus stop they use.

Meanwhile, local authorities try to skimp on repairs by patching the top
surface when ideally it is the road foundations that need to be
strengthened.

No wonder our roads are falling to pieces.

[1] The road haulage lobby asked for this limit originally, to halt the
incursions into their business model of (eg Foden) steam lorries which
could haul huge loads at low speeds.

Jim

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

That is no way to refer to the recently departed Mr Cameron. Or even Ms
May.

As the national debt has risen sharply since both of those took power.

It is now at approximately three times the amount it was at before the
banking crash.

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

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

In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the inside
lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the inside
lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.

It is esxensively used by those car drivers who have taken a driving
test since 1960 and know how to drive competently and considerately on a
multi-lane road.

--

Roger Hayter

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

That is no way to refer to the recently departed Mr Cameron. Or even Ms
May.

As the national debt has risen sharply since both of those took power.

It is now at approximately three times the amount it was at before the
banking crash.

Quite so. You can blame New Labour for deficit spending in the first
ten years of their government *if* that was what they were doing, but
the general view is that it was the *right* thing to do after 2008.


--

Roger Hayter

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2017 11:45, Andrew wrote:
On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain
wear and tear away from corners and junctions.

My theory is slightly different. Before we joined the Common
Market, the legislated standard road weight limit was 24 tons [1]
(apart from overweight loads, which had to have a police escort) and
the roads were built with the expectation that the number of
occasions where they had to carry more than 24 tons were few and far
between. Heavier loads were routinely carried by rail. Those rail
routes were decimated by Beeching's axe because Beeching worked for
a man who owned a road building company and wanted to spend the
money on motorways instead.

After we joined the Common Market, we were not allowed to impose our
standards on anyone else, but we had to adopt theirs. At that time
the default for most of the Common Market was 38 tons. Our weight
limit was revoked, but no special work was carried out on British
roads to make their foundations prepared for increased weight; that
only happened when new roads were built or existing roads were
overhauled. Meanwhile the transport industry stopped buying the
home grown Bedford, Guy and Commer lorries designed for 24 tons, and
started buying Scania, Iveco, Daf, Volvo etc which were bigger then,
and got even bigger later, and now we have lorries routinely
weighing 48 tons on our roads some of which are still designed for
half that weight, along with bendy-buses which break up the road
surface at every bus stop they use.

Meanwhile, local authorities try to skimp on repairs by patching the
top surface when ideally it is the road foundations that need to be
strengthened.

No wonder our roads are falling to pieces.

[1] The road haulage lobby asked for this limit originally, to halt
the incursions into their business model of (eg Foden) steam lorries
which could haul huge loads at low speeds.


Beeching was a Physicist and worked from the early 50's for ICI. He
was never involved with road building.

Also ITYWF that the truck weight limit for UK roads is 44 tonnes
provided it has a minimum of six axles, and not 48.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the
inside lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.

It is esxensively used by those car drivers who have taken a driving
test since 1960 and know how to drive competently and considerately on a
multi-lane road.

As I said. Not much used by any cars.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

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

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

That is no way to refer to the recently departed Mr Cameron. Or even Ms
May.

As the national debt has risen sharply since both of those took power.

It is now at approximately three times the amount it was at before the
banking crash.

Quite so. You can blame New Labour for deficit spending in the first
ten years of their government *if* that was what they were doing, but
the general view is that it was the *right* thing to do after 2008.

Easy enough to find details of the national debt while the last labour
government was in office and up to current.

Makes very interesting reading.

--
*All men are idiots, and I married their King.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the
inside lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.

It is esxensively used by those car drivers who have taken a driving
test since 1960 and know how to drive competently and considerately on a
multi-lane road.

As I said. Not much used by any cars.

Depends how busy the motorway is. If there is plenty of space ahead in Lane
1 and you won't need to overtake anything in Lane 1 for some distance ahead
(to be defined) then you should be in Lane 1. You should only move into Lane
2 to overtake things in Lane 1, and after overtaking them, you should return
to Lane 1.

That's on a quiet motorway. If there are several cars already in Lane 1
ahead of you and they are all going slower than you, you should stay in Lane
2 until you have overtaken them, and then return to Lane 1.

The mistake people make is to stay in Lane 2 *permanently*, on the grounds
that there may be something in Lane 1, at some unspecified time in the
future, which will be going slower than they want to go.

In short, Lane 1 should be the default lane, with lanes 2 and 3 being for
progressively more unusual conditions when the lane you are currently in is
going slower than you and contains many vehicles that are all going at that
speed, closely spaced enough that it is not worth nipping back into Lane 1
between one slow vehicle and the next.

That's what the Highway Code says you *should* do. Whether it's what people
actually do is another matter :-)


If you abide by that way of working, Lane 1 should get most wear, Lane 2 a
bit less and Lane 3 less still. This will be skewed further in that same
direction by the fact that lorries cause more wear per vehicle because they
are heavier, and they are not allowed in Lane 3.

On 12/02/2017 15:31, NY wrote:

If you abide by that way of working, Lane 1 should get most wear, Lane 2
a bit less and Lane 3 less still. This will be skewed further in that
same direction by the fact that lorries cause more wear per vehicle
because they are heavier, and they are not allowed in Lane 3.

In practice the wear caused by lorries is enormously higher than that
caused by cars. One number I saw was 9600 times for a 5 axle 36 tonner
vs a 1800kg car (this was the US).

In message , NY
writes
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the
inside lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.

It is esxensively used by those car drivers who have taken a driving
test since 1960 and know how to drive competently and considerately on a
multi-lane road.

As I said. Not much used by any cars.

Depends how busy the motorway is. If there is plenty of space ahead in
Lane 1 and you won't need to overtake anything in Lane 1 for some
distance ahead (to be defined) then you should be in Lane 1. You should
only move into Lane 2 to overtake things in Lane 1, and after
overtaking them, you should return to Lane 1.

That's on a quiet motorway. If there are several cars already in Lane 1
ahead of you and they are all going slower than you, you should stay in
Lane 2 until you have overtaken them, and then return to Lane 1.

You know it makes sense. Unfortunately, sense is something a lot of
drivers (both young and old) seem to lack.

The mistake people make is to stay in Lane 2 *permanently*, on the
grounds that there may be something in Lane 1, at some unspecified time
in the future, which will be going slower than they want to go.

It's an art which, once acquired, is difficult to get out of the habit
of.

Those really proficient at it qualify for membership of the MLOC.
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=MLOC+middle

But apart from a few initial headline cases, how many drivers have
actually been done for it?

In short, Lane 1 should be the default lane, with lanes 2 and 3 being
for progressively more unusual conditions when the lane you are
currently in is going slower than you and contains many vehicles that
are all going at that speed, closely spaced enough that it is not worth
nipping back into Lane 1 between one slow vehicle and the next.

That's what the Highway Code says you *should* do. Whether it's what
people actually do is another matter :-)

I always thought that there was an official 'Rule Of The Road', which
said "Drive on the left - Overtake on the right". However, despite a bit
of Googling, I'm surprised to see that is doesn't seem to exist.

If you abide by that way of working, Lane 1 should get most wear, Lane
2 a bit less and Lane 3 less still. This will be skewed further in that
same direction by the fact that lorries cause more wear per vehicle
because they are heavier, and they are not allowed in Lane 3.

In my experience, it usually IS Lane 1 that shows most signs of wear. If
it doesn't, it's probably because it has been some fairly recent
resurfacing.
--
Ian

On 12/02/2017 14:18, Woody wrote:

Beeching was a Physicist and worked from the early 50's for ICI. He
was never involved with road building.

For his review of the railways he was employed by Ernest Marples (of
Marples Ridgeway) who was transport minister from 1959 to 1964.

You are right about the 44 ton limit though.

Jim

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
On 12/02/2017 15:31, NY wrote:

If you abide by that way of working, Lane 1 should get most wear, Lane 2
a bit less and Lane 3 less still. This will be skewed further in that
same direction by the fact that lorries cause more wear per vehicle
because they are heavier, and they are not allowed in Lane 3.

In practice the wear caused by lorries is enormously higher than that
caused by cars. One number I saw was 9600 times for a 5 axle 36 tonner
vs a 1800kg car (this was the US).

Exactly so. Which is why I said the lane most used by trucks on a motorway
will suffer the most wear.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

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

On 12/02/2017 13:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Indy Jess John wrote:
And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the inside
lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.


Odd, I spend well over 90% of my driving in the inside lane and very few
cars overtake as its generally at 70 mph (real not speedo).

The main times when I am in the middle is at junctions where people are
joining.

I expect there are others that also know how to drive since there are
usually a lot of other cars in the inside lane.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 11/02/2017 09:32, Martin wrote:


Roads were better in near third world urban Greece in the 1970s.


Fewer vehicles, and more critically fewer, or even no bad
winters, when roads are coated with salt, suffer frost
heave, followed by heavy rain, all while being pounded
by traffic.

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

An FWD car joining a main road accelerates as it turns,
so the driven wheels are exterting a tearing effect on
the road, whereas a RWD car has its driven wheels
kept parallel (assuming a live axle), and the front
wheels are just rolling along the road.

Trouble with that line is that we don’t in fact see the
intersection with the main road being worn out first.

"Andrew" wrote in message
news
On 10/02/2017 23:21, wrote:


You borrow £70 billion every year because the voters won't wear
the level of taxes that would avoid borrowing £70 billion every year
and won't accept the loss of what £70 billion every year pays for.

Your'e a typical head-in-the-sand socialist who only cares about
buying votes to get through the next election.

I didnt say I agreed with that approach, I JUST said that that
is why that happens.

If you had bothered to pay attention during the run up to the
2010 election, when Gordon Browns *deficit* had exceeded the
annual cost of the 'free' NHS, you might have heard reference
to the 'structural deficit'.

This is the amount of impossible growth that the economy
would need to achieve to remove that deficit. Hence the
the so-called 'cuts', which aren't cuts at all. Hardly
anything has been cut. You need to see what Healey was
forced to do in 1976 after the IMF bailed us out to
understand what 'cuts' means. That will happen again.

Bet it doesnt and the IMF wont be bailing the UK out either.

The basic rate of tax would have to be 40% to get rid
of that deficit. Try plugging that into the treasury
model to see the effect on the economy.

Which is another reason why £70 billion is borrowed
every year, particularly while it costs so little in interest.

And of course such tax increases would not be paid by
the 20 Million people living off the Labour partys
gerrymandering handouts like Housing Benefit, 'free' NHS
'free' prescriptions; 'free' motability cars, 'free'
child benefit with no upper limit and of course pensions.

On a recent BBC R4 World at one someone from Ffylde was
being interviewed about the so-called NHS 'crisis'. He said
the just 3% of the local population are responsible for 50%
of their costs. many of them repeat 'offenders' with weight
problems, type2 diabetis and all the ensuing complications,
and of course substance abusers and LOL's blocking beds.

Yes, its been well know for a long time that its the last year
or so of most people's lives where they incur most of the
costs to the NHS. But for some odd reason, it has never
been considered to be politically acceptable to just pull
the plug on those when their cost to the system is getting
too high. Or to just pull the plug on those born premature
who are about to cost the NHS a lot. Or even to just yawn
and let him die when Simon deliberately jumped in front
of a truck.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the inside
lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.


Odd, I spend well over 90% of my driving in the inside lane and very few
cars overtake as its generally at 70 mph (real not speedo).

You must have very quiet motorways, because if driving at a true 70 mph
you'll soon get stuck behind a truck running on its speed limiter. And on
motorways round here if travelling at 70 mph, you'd not be able to spend
anything like 90% of the time in the nearside lane. Which is generally
near nose to tail with HGVs.

The main times when I am in the middle is at junctions where people are
joining.

I expect there are others that also know how to drive since there are
usually a lot of other cars in the inside lane.

As they should be when it's reasonably clear.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
Look at any motorway. The majority of the wear takes place in the
inside lane of three. Not much used by cars of any configuration.


Odd, I spend well over 90% of my driving in the inside lane and very
few cars overtake as its generally at 70 mph (real not speedo).

You must have very quiet motorways, because if driving at a true 70 mph
you'll soon get stuck behind a truck running on its speed limiter. And on
motorways round here if travelling at 70 mph, you'd not be able to spend
anything like 90% of the time in the nearside lane. Which is generally
near nose to tail with HGVs.

The main times when I am in the middle is at junctions where people are
joining.

I expect there are others that also know how to drive since there are
usually a lot of other cars in the inside lane.

As they should be when it's reasonably clear.

Perhaps he drives on the M6 north of Lancaster, very few lorries there.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 12/02/2017 12:28, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/02/2017 11:45, Andrew wrote:

And I suspect that the shift to front wheel drive and
much more powerful and heavier cars is the real cause.

You might be right, but front wheel drive doesn't really explain wear
and tear away from corners and junctions.

My theory is slightly different. Before we joined the Common Market,
the legislated standard road weight limit was 24 tons [1] (apart from
snip
Jim


That doesn't explain a particularly badly potholed road in my village
which has become a rat run (bloody satnavs) to get from a north/south
A road to an east west A road without being held up by a pair of
mini roundabouts in the village centre.

It is also the access road to the local primary school.

HGV's not allowed. Only a lightweeight single decker bus
uses that route. Most of the traffic is cars and vans.

After the recent cold spell, then heavy rain, the road surface
just disintegrated. The worst section is a sweeping left hand
bend where the front nearside wheel will be exerting a tearing action
away from the kerb, right where all the water is pouring along
the slight slope.

Another bad section is outside the school where the silly
Limp dem traffic calming hump is coated with red non-skid
stuff which cracks, allows the water and salt to be trapped
and then the entire road structure below comes to pieces
as vehicles bump over it. Also on a bend in the road.

On 12/02/2017 13:15, Martin wrote:


but much more significant is Sheffield does very little road maintenance.


But they are cutting down loads of mature trees so they can resurface
the pavements. OBjectors are being threatened with some obscure law
intended for an entirely different problem.