OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/02/18 18:36, charles wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 21/02/18 14:31, whisky-dave wrote:
So who do you think should be teaching at universities ?

No one should be teaching at universities.

If there are teachers, its a technical college at best.

There were no teachers at Canmbridge. Just lecturers. And books, and
if you bothered to attend, tutors.

and - Directors of Studies. tutors were only looking after your
behaviour, not your academic progress.

Not in my day they weren't.

when was your day? mine was around 1960.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
Ever been to London? I go infrequently on business, but when I do,
travelling on the tube at end-of-rush-hour, having got an early train,
it's rammed. As are the buses and the roads. There isn't much spare
capacity.

Quite. But then those who don't know London PT in the rush hour still feel
they are experts on it.

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes should
subsidise the less profitable ones.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 14:00:48 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes should
subsidise the less profitable ones.

The problem then becomes just how much you subsidise the less profitable ones or you work out why they are not making a profit.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 01:05, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 13:15:30 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 20/02/2018 22:42, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:37:29 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

Yes there are a lot more buses.

With a lower number of passengers per bus than a tube train.

More passengers use buses in london than use the tube and that doesn't
include coaches and buses elsewhere.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to my statement? If a mate asks you
to carry a box of eggs or a tray of eggs, which requires the most
responsibility (irrespective of how many there are of each)?

Which one has the biggest chance of an accident/egg step?
How well are the eggs protected?
Its not a case of which one carries the most eggs.

Answer this one..
who has the most responsibility;
A woman pushing two kids in a twin buggy or
a women riding a bike down a mountain path with one baby?




They also have far more unpredictable events to deal with.

At much lower speeds (average 11 mpg in the City or summat) and with
much easier access to the emergency services than when in an
underground tunnel.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.

They are all generally faster than 13mph and the risk of injury goes
up with speed.

The risk goes up but does the chance go up?


The old ones aren't very strong though and would probably crumple rather
too much if driven into the end stop at speed.

Not nice irrespective, especially in the dark and a some meters
underground.

That wouldn't be an
accident though as it would have to be deliberate by the driver.

Or a fault somewhere?

Very rare and that doesn't increase the drivers responsibility.




Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Does it compare with 10000+ at a match?

But it's all down to the 'typical risk', not some worse case
situation.

Well the typical risk on a tube is zero as can be seen by the lack of
accidents.

That's only anecdotal then isn't it. It has no bearing on the
potential of risk to either set of passengers in the event of an
accident.

Of course it has a bearing, if there is no chance of an accident there
is no responsibility for the driver.


The same can't be said for buses and coaches.

Quite.


Any 'accident' in a tube train is likely (not 'unlikely') to injure
more people than the same in any single bus, simply because of the
typical speeds and number of passengers.

But they don't happen.

Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

See bike/buggy example.


It's a similar thing with air travel. Stastically flying is safer than
most other forms of mass transport just when it goes wrong, it
generally does so in a big way. That I'm guessing it's more difficult
to get a pilots licence than a bus drivers licence? ;-)

Generally either something catastrophic goes wrong and they crash or the
computer handles it or the pilot overrides the computer and it crashes.
The later is far too common and there have been quite a few crashes
where the computer could fly and land the plane if the pilot wasn't
taking responsibility and turning it off.




Cheers, T i m


Cheers, mine a pepsi max.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 10:30, whisky-dave wrote:



Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and
very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.



Tubes are light rail that happen to spend time in long tunnels.
Tubes are significantly faster than dockland either.


From the web somewhere..

"In central London, trains cannot drive faster than 30-40mph because of
the short distances between stations. The Victoria line can reach speeds
of up to 50mph because the stations are further apart. The Metropolitan
line has the fastest train speeds, sometimes reaching over 60mph."


and

"The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the
fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River
Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station."

So docklands is typically faster than a tube.

Having been on both quite a lot I know tubes are not as fast as people
think they are. They seem fast because of the stuff flying past the
windows a few inches away.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 16:47:11 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 10:30, whisky-dave wrote:



Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and
very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.



Tubes are light rail that happen to spend time in long tunnels.
Tubes are significantly faster than dockland either.


From the web somewhere..

"In central London, trains cannot drive faster than 30-40mph because of
the short distances between stations. The Victoria line can reach speeds
of up to 50mph because the stations are further apart. The Metropolitan
line has the fastest train speeds, sometimes reaching over 60mph."


and

"The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the
fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River
Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station."

So docklands is typically faster than a tube.

No it isn't except at particualr points on the line in general the tube is much fasterc I know because I use both.



Having been on both quite a lot I know tubes are not as fast as people
think they are. They seem fast because of the stuff flying past the
windows a few inches away.

Depending on where you are of course, generally speaking the tube is faster.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 12:44, Chris Bartram wrote:


Even if we accept that other cars may pollute less than a VAG vehicle,
they still pollute more, per person, than mass transit.

That is only true during rush hour as large buses/trains with a few
passengers on pollute more/passenger mile than cars do.


Why should the people living near the power stations put up with the
**** chucked out to run the tube? Its probably more than cars to move
the same number of people.
Pollution is easier to deal with at a single point (like a power
station) than thousands of mobile points (like car exhausts).

So why don't they then?
Most modern cars emit so little pollution that you can breath it in all
day. However some older cars emit so much you can't see. I have just had
my car MOT and it emits virtually zero pollution, its less than 1% of
the legal limits on all the tests. Some VWs emit hundreds of times the
legal limits.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 16:47:11 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 10:30, whisky-dave wrote:



Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and
very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.



Tubes are light rail that happen to spend time in long tunnels.
Tubes are significantly faster than dockland either.


From the web somewhere..

"In central London, trains cannot drive faster than 30-40mph because of
the short distances between stations. The Victoria line can reach speeds
of up to 50mph because the stations are further apart. The Metropolitan
line has the fastest train speeds, sometimes reaching over 60mph."


and

"The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the
fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River
Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station."

So docklands is typically faster than a tube.

https://www.citymetric.com/transport...e-fastest-3322



Having been on both quite a lot I know tubes are not as fast as people
think they are. They seem fast because of the stuff flying past the
windows a few inches away.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:38:46 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I'm not sure how that is relevant to my statement? If a mate asks you
to carry a box of eggs or a tray of eggs, which requires the most
responsibility (irrespective of how many there are of each)?

Which one has the biggest chance of an accident/egg step?

Irrelevant for these purposes.

How well are the eggs protected?

Irrelevant for these purposes.

Its not a case of which one carries the most eggs.

Of course it is 'with all other things being equal'. We aren't looking
at the risk of injury of each type of transport, or the RW likelihood
of it happening but the responsibility on anyone controlling each
different type and the *potential* of incident.

Answer this one..
who has the most responsibility;
A woman pushing two kids in a twin buggy or
a women riding a bike down a mountain path with one baby?

Given the 'all things being equal' prerequisite, the person
responsible for the most lives.

They also have far more unpredictable events to deal with.

At much lower speeds (average 11 mpg in the City or summat) and with
much easier access to the emergency services than when in an
underground tunnel.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.

They are all generally faster than 13mph and the risk of injury goes
up with speed.

The risk goes up but does the chance go up?

Irrelevant. You can't factor the actual risk over the fact that there
is risk. The mere fact that there is risk is all it needs to allow any
driver to feel the extra burden.



The old ones aren't very strong though and would probably crumple rather
too much if driven into the end stop at speed.

Not nice irrespective, especially in the dark and a some meters
underground.

That wouldn't be an
accident though as it would have to be deliberate by the driver.

Or a fault somewhere?

Very rare and that doesn't increase the drivers responsibility.

Of course it does as he / she may be expected (even if only self
inflicted) to deal with the fault. Ever heard of PTSD affecting people
who weren't actually impacted by an incident directly?




Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Does it compare with 10000+ at a match?

But it's all down to the 'typical risk', not some worse case
situation.

Well the typical risk on a tube is zero as can be seen by the lack of
accidents.

That's only anecdotal then isn't it. It has no bearing on the
potential of risk to either set of passengers in the event of an
accident.

Of course it has a bearing, if there is no chance of an accident there
is no responsibility for the driver.

But there is never *no chance*.


The same can't be said for buses and coaches.

Quite.


Any 'accident' in a tube train is likely (not 'unlikely') to injure
more people than the same in any single bus, simply because of the
typical speeds and number of passengers.

But they don't happen.

Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

See bike/buggy example.

That is irrelevant to my / the point.


It's a similar thing with air travel. Stastically flying is safer than
most other forms of mass transport just when it goes wrong, it
generally does so in a big way. That I'm guessing it's more difficult
to get a pilots licence than a bus drivers licence? ;-)

Generally either something catastrophic goes wrong and they crash or the
computer handles it or the pilot overrides the computer and it crashes.

Yes, I know how it works. ;-)

The later is far too common and there have been quite a few crashes
where the computer could fly and land the plane if the pilot wasn't
taking responsibility and turning it off.

Quite ... and another form of responsibility ... the responsibility
(even if only self inflicted) of making calls as to 'interfere' or
not.

Again, this could well be an EQ thing ... the ability to put yourself
in the position of someone else and consider how *they* might feel,
not just what you personally might feel or what the stats might
suggest you should feel?

When I drove home from the hospital with our first child, a journey I
had done many many times previously for all sorts of reasons, I drove
as if I was carrying a nuke on a mercury switch and expected everyone
else to do the same. There was no practical or logical reason for me
acting that way, it didn't stop me doing so though.

Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 18:00, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 16:38:46 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

I'm not sure how that is relevant to my statement? If a mate asks you
to carry a box of eggs or a tray of eggs, which requires the most
responsibility (irrespective of how many there are of each)?

Which one has the biggest chance of an accident/egg step?

Irrelevant for these purposes.

How well are the eggs protected?

Irrelevant for these purposes.

No it isn't.


Its not a case of which one carries the most eggs.

Of course it is 'with all other things being equal'. We aren't looking
at the risk of injury of each type of transport, or the RW likelihood
of it happening but the responsibility on anyone controlling each
different type and the *potential* of incident.

Answer this one..
who has the most responsibility;
A woman pushing two kids in a twin buggy or
a women riding a bike down a mountain path with one baby?

Given the 'all things being equal' prerequisite, the person
responsible for the most lives.

How about in the real world?
I designed systems that about 52 million people use in the event of
accidents and other emergencies do you feel that I should have been paid
billions for the responsibility?


They also have far more unpredictable events to deal with.

At much lower speeds (average 11 mpg in the City or summat) and with
much easier access to the emergency services than when in an
underground tunnel.

Tubes aren't particularly fast.

They are all generally faster than 13mph and the risk of injury goes
up with speed.

The risk goes up but does the chance go up?

Irrelevant. You can't factor the actual risk over the fact that there
is risk. The mere fact that there is risk is all it needs to allow any
driver to feel the extra burden.

so all drivers feel the extra burden but bus drivers are more likely to
actually have an accident so have more responsibility than tube drivers
who will never have an accident in their lives.




The old ones aren't very strong though and would probably crumple rather
too much if driven into the end stop at speed.

Not nice irrespective, especially in the dark and a some meters
underground.

That wouldn't be an
accident though as it would have to be deliberate by the driver.

Or a fault somewhere?

Very rare and that doesn't increase the drivers responsibility.

Of course it does as he / she may be expected (even if only self
inflicted) to deal with the fault. Ever heard of PTSD affecting people
who weren't actually impacted by an incident directly?

Yes as it happens.
I know some personally.

Any idea how may PAX a tube train carries at all?..

Does it compare with 10000+ at a match?

But it's all down to the 'typical risk', not some worse case
situation.

Well the typical risk on a tube is zero as can be seen by the lack of
accidents.

That's only anecdotal then isn't it. It has no bearing on the
potential of risk to either set of passengers in the event of an
accident.

Of course it has a bearing, if there is no chance of an accident there
is no responsibility for the driver.

But there is never *no chance*.

There is so little chance that virtually all tube drivers will never
have an accident in their lives.

The same can't be said for buses and coaches.

Quite.


Any 'accident' in a tube train is likely (not 'unlikely') to injure
more people than the same in any single bus, simply because of the
typical speeds and number of passengers.

But they don't happen.

Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

See bike/buggy example.

That is irrelevant to my / the point.

To your point but how about a real point?

It's a similar thing with air travel. Stastically flying is safer than
most other forms of mass transport just when it goes wrong, it
generally does so in a big way. That I'm guessing it's more difficult
to get a pilots licence than a bus drivers licence? ;-)

Generally either something catastrophic goes wrong and they crash or the
computer handles it or the pilot overrides the computer and it crashes.

Yes, I know how it works. ;-)

The later is far too common and there have been quite a few crashes
where the computer could fly and land the plane if the pilot wasn't
taking responsibility and turning it off.

Quite ... and another form of responsibility ... the responsibility
(even if only self inflicted) of making calls as to 'interfere' or
not.

Again, this could well be an EQ thing ... the ability to put yourself
in the position of someone else and consider how *they* might feel,
not just what you personally might feel or what the stats might
suggest you should feel?

Don't start that cr@p with me, I know more about it than you.


When I drove home from the hospital with our first child, a journey I
had done many many times previously for all sorts of reasons, I drove
as if I was carrying a nuke on a mercury switch and expected everyone
else to do the same. There was no practical or logical reason for me
acting that way, it didn't stop me doing so though.

When I drove away the nurse would let me put the baby in the strapped
down carry cot, so I drove around the corner and put her in. That was
logic at work no emotions involved.


Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 16:58, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 16:47:11 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 10:30, whisky-dave wrote:



Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and
very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.



Tubes are light rail that happen to spend time in long tunnels.
Tubes are significantly faster than dockland either.


From the web somewhere..

"In central London, trains cannot drive faster than 30-40mph because of
the short distances between stations. The Victoria line can reach speeds
of up to 50mph because the stations are further apart. The Metropolitan
line has the fastest train speeds, sometimes reaching over 60mph."


and

"The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the
fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River
Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station."

So docklands is typically faster than a tube.

No it isn't rexcept at particualr points on the line in general the tube is much fasterc I know because I use both.

Don't argue with me argue with the tube operators and the dockland
operators if you feel what they say is wrong.




Having been on both quite a lot I know tubes are not as fast as people
think they are. They seem fast because of the stuff flying past the
windows a few inches away.

Depending on where you are of course, generally speaking the tube is faster.

How did you measure the speed?

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes
should subsidise the less profitable ones.

The problem then becomes just how much you subsidise the less profitable
ones or you work out why they are not making a profit.

Does your university make a profit?

Some things are needed as a service to the public. Not everything is about
making a fast buck.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes
should subsidise the less profitable ones.

The problem then becomes just how much you subsidise the less profitable
ones or you work out why they are not making a profit.

Does your university make a profit?

Some things are needed as a service to the public. Not everything is about
making a fast buck.

what a revolutionary statement ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 17:02:36 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 12:44, Chris Bartram wrote:


Even if we accept that other cars may pollute less than a VAG vehicle,
they still pollute more, per person, than mass transit.

That is only true during rush hour as large buses/trains with a few
passengers on pollute more/passenger mile than cars do.

How long do you think rush hour lasts ?
I've been on tube trains at 9-11pm and still can;t get a seat.
Rush hour DOES NOT last an hour.

Rush Hour Times
According to eosl.co.uk, morning rush hour starts from 6 am and generally extends until 10 am whilst in the evening, commuters can expect to be caught in the 4.00-6.30pm traffic jams.



Why should the people living near the power stations put up with the
**** chucked out to run the tube? Its probably more than cars to move
the same number of people.
Pollution is easier to deal with at a single point (like a power
station) than thousands of mobile points (like car exhausts).

So why don't they then?

They do to some extent, but yuo can;t get rid of all polution.

Most modern cars emit so little pollution that you can breath it in all
day.

Not true unless you want to prove it.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicle...h#.Wo_y4YJpzJw

Try driving in countreis where they have large cities and little public transport.



However some older cars emit so much you can't see.

Both can even emoit pollution you can see.

I have just had
my car MOT and it emits virtually zero pollution,

Zero recordable pollution, theres a differnce.
What car do you have ?


its less than 1% of
the legal limits on all the tests. Some VWs emit hundreds of times the
legal limits.

and they were the newer cars weren't they ?

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 21:24:44 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 16:58, whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 16:47:11 UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 22/02/2018 10:30, whisky-dave wrote:



Docklands is a light railway that carries far fewer passengers and
very slowy in comparision to the tube or trains.



Tubes are light rail that happen to spend time in long tunnels.
Tubes are significantly faster than dockland either.


From the web somewhere..

"In central London, trains cannot drive faster than 30-40mph because of
the short distances between stations. The Victoria line can reach speeds
of up to 50mph because the stations are further apart. The Metropolitan
line has the fastest train speeds, sometimes reaching over 60mph."


and

"The DLR stock units have a maximum speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), but the
fastest speed reached is 80 km/h (50 mph) in the tunnel under the River
Thames to Woolwich Arsenal station."

So docklands is typically faster than a tube.

No it isn't rexcept at particualr points on the line in general the tube is much fasterc I know because I use both.

Don't argue with me argue with the tube operators and the dockland
operators if you feel what they say is wrong.

They aren;t wrong you are in your assessment. You compared the slowest tube section to the fastest DLR section.


Having been on both quite a lot I know tubes are not as fast as people
think they are. They seem fast because of the stuff flying past the
windows a few inches away.

Depending on where you are of course, generally speaking the tube is faster.

How did you measure the speed?

I didn't measure the speed. I used the fact that it takes me longer to get from Bow DLR to stratford station usinmg the DLR than it takes me to get from Mile End to stratford buy Central line tube. Bow to strafford is a shorter distance too but takes longer.
While buses take about 3-4 times as long.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,



I didn't measure the speed. I used the fact that it takes me longer to
get from Bow DLR to stratford station usinmg the DLR than it takes me to
get from Mile End to stratford buy Central line tube. Bow to strafford is
a shorter distance too but takes longer.

had you noticed that thereis a stop on the DLR, but the Central Line is
non-stop?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Friday, 23 February 2018 00:12:51 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes
should subsidise the less profitable ones.

The problem then becomes just how much you subsidise the less profitable
ones or you work out why they are not making a profit.

Does your university make a profit?

I've no idea.
In the basement here they used to test concorde for effects of lightning as we had one of the highest voltage generators in the country at 6.6MV IIRC.
Our depeartment along with another univ has been given $5m for reasearch into an invisability cloak.

I've no idea whether the 420 1st year students paying £350 (home students( per week each (interesting number) buying food and paying taxes and being kept of the streets is profitable, maybe we;'d be better off making them pick fruit.

So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.


Some things are needed as a service to the public. Not everything is about
making a fast buck.

I know.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Friday, 23 February 2018 11:21:05 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,



I didn't measure the speed. I used the fact that it takes me longer to
get from Bow DLR to stratford station usinmg the DLR than it takes me to
get from Mile End to stratford buy Central line tube. Bow to strafford is
a shorter distance too but takes longer.

had you noticed that thereis a stop on the DLR, but the Central Line is
non-stop?

Yes a stop does slow things down yes I had noticed, this is also why cars and buses might be slower than trains due to having to stop for other vehcals as well as pedestrains and traffic lights etc..
I include these variables when talking about speed.


--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 23/02/2018 10:56, whisky-dave wrote:


its less than 1% of
the legal limits on all the tests. Some VWs emit hundreds of times the
legal limits.

and they were the newer cars weren't they ?



Mine is seven years old so not in my case but yes for VW.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 22/02/2018 13:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes should
subsidise the less profitable ones.

Quite. And indeed, that's how it was, before deregulation.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
That is only true during rush hour as large buses/trains with a few
passengers on pollute more/passenger mile than cars do.

How long do you think rush hour lasts ?
I've been on tube trains at 9-11pm and still can;t get a seat.
Rush hour DOES NOT last an hour.

Can you be sure of that absolutely everywhere? Might there be a rush hour
somewhere that only last 59 minutes?

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
Some things are needed as a service to the public. Not everything is about
making a fast buck.

what a revolutionary statement ;-)

Certainly is for this group. ;-)

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Friday, 23 February 2018 15:15:47 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
That is only true during rush hour as large buses/trains with a few
passengers on pollute more/passenger mile than cars do.

How long do you think rush hour lasts ?
I've been on tube trains at 9-11pm and still can;t get a seat.
Rush hour DOES NOT last an hour.

Can you be sure of that absolutely everywhere? Might there be a rush hour
somewhere that only last 59 minutes?

I very much doubt it.
Of course if there;'s a rush hour at the north and south poles that may only last a miniute or so, and of course the rush to climb mount everest.

But the rush hour is meant to mean a particular thing and it doesnlt just refer to the UK, maybe on sunday the rush hour doesntl; even exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_hour

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 21:22:35 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

Given the 'all things being equal' prerequisite, the person
responsible for the most lives.

How about in the real world?

That's where I live mate. ;-)

I designed systems that about 52 million people use in the event of
accidents and other emergencies do you feel that I should have been paid
billions for the responsibility?

If you designed it, no. ;-)

So, you designed some sort of mass transit system where something you
could influence could impact them all directly on a daily basis? I
wonder why I've never heard about it?

snip

The risk goes up but does the chance go up?

Irrelevant. You can't factor the actual risk over the fact that there
is risk. The mere fact that there is risk is all it needs to allow any
driver to feel the extra burden.

so all drivers feel the extra burden

All drivers should (and most do) feel a 'burden of responsibility' to
both their passengers and those around them yes. The greater the
impact of them making a mistake the bigger the burden.

but bus drivers are more likely to
actually have an accident

Quite possibly ... at 13 mph ... and on the surface of this planet ...

so have more responsibility than tube drivers
who will never have an accident in their lives.

We / they hope ... but *IF* they did (and there is NO WAY you could
ever guarantee they didn't), the potential loss of life would be
greater than that for a bus (or mini bus, or people carrier or car or
motorbike) would.

snip

Very rare and that doesn't increase the drivers responsibility.

Of course it does as he / she may be expected (even if only self
inflicted) to deal with the fault. Ever heard of PTSD affecting people
who weren't actually impacted by an incident directly?

Yes as it happens.

Thank goodness .. that's something!

I know some personally.

That couldn't of happened after meet your by any chance ... no ..
couldn't be. ;-)

snip

Of course it has a bearing, if there is no chance of an accident there
is no responsibility for the driver.

But there is never *no chance*.

There is so little chance that virtually all tube drivers will never
have an accident in their lives.

This is the EQ thing again ... those of us with higher EQ's don't have
to experienced something ourselves to understand how it might impact
us or others. Everone traveling in a train and especially driving a
train would be aware of what might happen should something go wrong.
That's why some people sit at a particular part of the train or only
in a particular place in the carriage. It only takes one person to be
involved in a crash (and survive) for the experience to be relayed to
their family / others and the awareness of the risk to be reinforced.

It doesn't matter how likely there may be an issue (on say an
aeroplane) for some people not to ever get on one (and without having
lost anyone they knew personally in one).

The same can't be said for buses and coaches.

Quite.


Any 'accident' in a tube train is likely (not 'unlikely') to injure
more people than the same in any single bus, simply because of the
typical speeds and number of passengers.

But they don't happen.

Irrelevant to the potential risk / responsibility (see egg tray
example).

See bike/buggy example.

That is irrelevant to my / the point.

To your point but how about a real point?

The same. You aren't comparing like with like. I am (only) saying the
burden of responsibility goes up with the number of people you are
directly / indirectly (and you will find out which after you have
killed some at the inquest / tribunal) responsible for. 'Of course' it
also goes up with the environment which is why it makes it even worse
that most tube crashes AND INCIDENTS, LIKE BOMBS are far more
difficult to respond to when in the dark and 10's of meters
underground.

snip

Again, this could well be an EQ thing ... the ability to put yourself
in the position of someone else and consider how *they* might feel,
not just what you personally might feel or what the stats might
suggest you should feel?

Don't start that cr@p with me, I know more about it than you.

Well, you might think you do but it doesn't seem to be the case so
far. You are arguing with stats that may not have any bearing on how
the *people* doing these jobs *feel*.

Ever heard the phrase 'I'd not do that for all the tea in China' ...?
This thing may be something you would do without batting an eye and
someone else wouldn't for anything. In your world there would not be
such differences, why wouldn't *everyone* be willing to do it (or do
it for the same money as someone else)?


When I drove home from the hospital with our first child, a journey I
had done many many times previously for all sorts of reasons, I drove
as if I was carrying a nuke on a mercury switch and expected everyone
else to do the same. There was no practical or logical reason for me
acting that way, it didn't stop me doing so though.

When I drove away the nurse would let me put the baby in the strapped
down carry cot, so I drove around the corner and put her in. That was
logic at work no emotions involved.

(Assuming that meant to read 'wouldn't') ... I think you may have just
proved my point very well ... you evaluation of the risk seems to be
at odds with some of the core science / research and so your opinions
on such things could well be skewed)?

What guarantees could you give the nurse that your baby wouldn't come
out of the cot when your vehicle was up side down?

What research did you do to determine that the side inertia of your
baby's neck when in the cot was no worse than when strapped into a
proper baby seat and facing backwards (with the other precautions like
put in the back if the passenger airbag couldn't be turned off)?

Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 23/02/2018 15:52, T i m wrote:



Again, this could well be an EQ thing ... the ability to put yourself
in the position of someone else and consider how *they* might feel,
not just what you personally might feel or what the stats might
suggest you should feel?

Don't start that cr@p with me, I know more about it than you.

Well, you might think you do but it doesn't seem to be the case so
far. You are arguing with stats that may not have any bearing on how
the *people* doing these jobs *feel*.

I know I do, in fact I know nothing and its still more than you. 8-)

Ever heard the phrase 'I'd not do that for all the tea in China' ...?
This thing may be something you would do without batting an eye and
someone else wouldn't for anything. In your world there would not be
such differences, why wouldn't *everyone* be willing to do it (or do
it for the same money as someone else)?


When I drove home from the hospital with our first child, a journey I
had done many many times previously for all sorts of reasons, I drove
as if I was carrying a nuke on a mercury switch and expected everyone
else to do the same. There was no practical or logical reason for me
acting that way, it didn't stop me doing so though.

When I drove away the nurse would let me put the baby in the strapped
down carry cot, so I drove around the corner and put her in. That was
logic at work no emotions involved.

(Assuming that meant to read 'wouldn't') ... I think you may have just
proved my point very well ... you evaluation of the risk seems to be
at odds with some of the core science / research and so your opinions
on such things could well be skewed)?

What guarantees could you give the nurse that your baby wouldn't come
out of the cot when your vehicle was up side down?

A lot more than being held in the wife's arms which was the alternative.
A baby seat would have been best but they didn't make them then.



What research did you do to determine that the side inertia of your
baby's neck when in the cot was no worse than when strapped into a
proper baby seat and facing backwards (with the other precautions like
put in the back if the passenger airbag couldn't be turned off)?

They didn't do baby seats then AFAICR.

I can assure you my risk assessment was far better than the nurses.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 17:48:53 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

snip

What guarantees could you give the nurse that your baby wouldn't come
out of the cot when your vehicle was up side down?

A lot more than being held in the wife's arms which was the alternative.

Fairynuff.

A baby seat would have been best but they didn't make them then.

I thought you designed things that saved lives and you had 9 months to
do it! ;-)



What research did you do to determine that the side inertia of your
baby's neck when in the cot was no worse than when strapped into a
proper baby seat and facing backwards (with the other precautions like
put in the back if the passenger airbag couldn't be turned off)?

They didn't do baby seats then AFAICR.

I can assure you my risk assessment was far better than the nurses.

In that instance I believe you were right ... but if it was that long
ago, couldn't the guy walking in front have caught the baby as it flew
by? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 23/02/18 13:16, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 22/02/2018 13:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Chris Bartram wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes should
subsidise the less profitable ones.

Quite. And indeed, that's how it was, before deregulation.


(a) thats how it is now too. Effectively.

(b) I would disagree totally that profitable routes should subsidise the
less profitable ones. Why? Should Glaxo Smith Cline subsidise Betty's
Chip shop?

The is socialist gobblespik at its most inane.

If the nation needs a coherent subsidised transport policy, that is a
public debate worth having.

But private and profitable links are simply not relevant to it.

The trouble with socialism, is that private enterprise and paying
respect to the laws of nature and economics put towns, people and work
where they are on the map. Socialism seekss to keep them there long past
their sell by date, and subsidised transport is just an aspect if that.



--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 23/02/18 11:13, whisky-dave wrote:
So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.

Then you should apply to be shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

You have a huge career ahead of you as a political economist.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
(b) I would disagree totally that profitable routes should subsidise the
less profitable ones. Why? Should Glaxo Smith Cline subsidise Betty's
Chip shop?

Perhaps you would be willing to pay the full costs of the fire service if
you should ever need it?

But surely with your medical history you have some notion of a public
service?

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.

Then you should apply to be shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

But then Broon made quite a good job of balancing the books. Rather better
than those afterwards.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.

Then you should apply to be shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

But then Broon made quite a good job of balancing the books. Rather better
than those afterwards.

No, he really didn't

he committed us to long term spending on the assumption that receipts would
go up year on year to cover it (remember he had abolished boom and bust!)

and when the bust happened and receipts went down, but we were still
committed to making the increased spending Brown had decided upon, we were
****ed

tim

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 24/02/2018 16:51, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.

Then you should apply to be shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

But then Broon made quite a good job of balancing the books. Rather
better
than those afterwards.

No, he really didn't

he committed us to long term spending on the assumption that receipts
would go up year on year to cover it (remember he had abolished boom and
bust!)

and when the bust happened and receipts went down, but we were still
committed to making the increased spending Brown had decided upon, we
were ****ed

tim

The economic planning of fools, like those who run the EU.


--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 20/02/2018 23:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I doubt the likes of dennis much cares if he doesn't live in London. But
doesn't stop him having an opinion on how much a tube driver should be
paid.

Would you care to post a link to where I said what they should be paid?
All I have said is that the jobs should be open to all applicants so you
can get the best person for the job and that they should be replaced by
automation because its safer.

Ah - right. The only reason to go to automation is safety.




Well yes, that is why millions are spent on safety systems because the
drivers aren't responsible enough to not do so.


God you do spout some bollix sometimes!

Isn't safety enough of a reason for a union man?

I suppose member numbers are more important than safety.

--
Tony Sayer

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 24/02/2018 13:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But then Broon made quite a good job of balancing the books. Rather better
than those afterwards.

This is the same Broon who looked at the pension system, and decided
that as it was creaking a little he'd make a minor adjustment that would
increase tax by 5 billion a year?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/apr/02/politics.money

Since when the Final Salary pension has become pretty much extinct
outside taxpayer funded schemes.

Andy

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On Saturday, 24 February 2018 13:08:30 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/18 11:13, whisky-dave wrote:
So I really don't have any idea or how to calculate profit.

Then you should apply to be shadow chancellor of the exchequer.

What ! how dare you, shadow chancellor !, I expect nothing less than to be a real chancellor.


You have a huge career ahead of you as a political economist.


I know and I'll give 125% and not a fraction less.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/02/2018 13:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But then Broon made quite a good job of balancing the books. Rather better
than those afterwards.

This is the same Broon who looked at the pension system, and decided
that as it was creaking a little he'd make a minor adjustment that would
increase tax by 5 billion a year?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2007/apr/02/politics.money

Since when the Final Salary pension has become pretty much extinct
outside taxpayer funded schemes.

Thought the point was balancing the books of the country? Not how any
taxation affect some?

After all, the Tory way seems to be reduce taxation (for some) and ignore
balancing the books.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

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

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

On 24/02/2018 12:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/18 13:16, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 22/02/2018 13:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Chris Bartram wrote:
On 20/02/2018 16:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Isn't all PT anywhere in the UK subsidised?


No. Some routes make profit. You can tell that by which ones get cut
when the subsidies are removed (which Staffordshire has just done, with
the result that where I live, near to the Staffs border, some services
are about to be reduced (either in distance- into Staffs) or in
off-peak
journeys). The busy commuter bus routes get bus companies fighting to
run them, the off-peak quieter ones get nothing unless subsidised.

Which shows the nonsense of so much of it. The profitable routes should
subsidise the less profitable ones.

Quite. And indeed, that's how it was, before deregulation.


(a) thats how it is now too. Effectively.

Really? It's a half-hearted attempt at a private, free-enterprise thing,
relying on hefty public-money subsidies. It's neither one thing or the
other.


(b) I would disagree totally that profitable routes should subsidise the
less profitable ones. Why? Should Glaxo Smith Cline subsidise Betty's
Chip shop?


Of course not, but then a public transport system should be an
integrated system that subsidises itself, not a loose, uncoordinated
collection of companies heavily reliant on public subsidy.

The is socialist gobblespik at its most inane.


Whatever.

If the nation needs a coherent subsidised transport policy, that is a
public debate worth having.


Indeed.

But private and profitable links are simply not relevant to it.

The trouble with socialism, is that private enterprise and paying
respect to the laws of nature and economics put towns, peopleÂ* and work
where they are on the map. Socialism seekss to keep them there long past
their sell by date, and subsidised transport is just an aspect if that.

...and the trouble with unregulated capitalism is that it serves the
needs of the few. We cannot realistically house everyone right next to
their workplace, and keep workplaces, affordable shops, hospitals etc
reachable, and keep housing affordable. It worked on a small scale, in
the past (eg: Port Sunlight, Saltaire, Bournville), but it's just not
scalable.

OT Cloud cuckoo land.
 

In article ,
Chris Bartram wrote:
(b) I would disagree totally that profitable routes should subsidise the
less profitable ones. Why? Should Glaxo Smith Cline subsidise Betty's
Chip shop?


Of course not, but then a public transport system should be an
integrated system that subsidises itself, not a loose, uncoordinated
collection of companies heavily reliant on public subsidy.

And no private company would take on a franchise unless it thought it
could make a profit from it.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

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