On Jul 4, 10:29 am, Adrian  wrote:
> Doug  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> >> How would you get around the Sahara Doug, on a two-stroke motorcycle
> >> perhaps?
> > It would be worth going on foot to get away from cars but you never know
> > when a car rally might come past do you? Perhaps Everest would be best.
>
> Yes, please. Go for it.


Why do you hate the Nepalese?

Francis

Doug wrote:
> On 8 July, 11:24, "Brimstone"  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 July, 09:01, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:ccd9289a-d588-4848-8d3d-83c103624e27@t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On 6 July, 18:21, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname here>.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> news:a82be89c-674a-43a2-ade0-2943504fd8d1@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>> On 6 July, 08:26, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
>>>>>>> here>.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>> news:ba49dc81-4856-4e04-a71d-7e7a5544caba@p29g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6 July, 00:43, "nightjar" <cpb@<insert my surname
>>>>>>>>> here>.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>>> news:c0ff88a8-62b9-4e7a-924e-764e43367757@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I reject modern society this does not mean I want a
>>>>>>>>>>> return to the
>>>>>>>>>>> past but instead that I want progress towards a better
>>>>>>>>>>> future....
>>
>>>>>>>>>> So do I. However, my better future includes the freedom to
>>>>>>>>>> live my life
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> way I choose, not as dictated by a bunch of self-satisfied
>>>>>>>>>> luddites who
>>>>>>>>>> think they have the only answers to the world's problems.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Live your life the way you choose regardless of its
>>>>>>>>> detrimental effect
>>>>>>>>> on other people?
>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't say that.
>>
>>>>>>> Its implied.
>>
>>>>>> No, it was inferred, incorrectly, by you. For example, we would
>>>>>> both wish to
>>>>>> see a reduction in road traffic accidents. Your answer is to get
>>>>>> rid of cars.
>>
>>>>> Wrong, to deter excessive car use. Merely halving car journeys
>>>>> would make a dramatic difference to crash numbers, pollution and
>>>>> congestion, as well as the nuisance to others.
>>
>>>> It would also be totally impractical without a significant change
>>>> to the transport infrastructure.
>>
>>> Not if non-essential journeys were eliminated.
>>
>> What journeys are essential and what are non-essential Doug?

No answer Doug?

>>
>>>>>> The one I would like to see implimented is to improve the general
>>>>>> standards of driving.
>>
>>>>> An improvement would not be enough.
>>
>>>> That rather depends upon the level of improvement. I would like to
>>>> see all drivers brought up to Police driving standards. Their
>>>> accident level is incredibly low in normal driving conditions.
>>
>>> I agree and it follows that the driving test would have to be much
>>> stiffer, thus causing a long term decline in new drivers and thus
>>> cars on the road.
>>
>> Why would raising the standard for passing the driving test result
>> in fewer drivers Doug?
>>
> Oh dear, more trivial questions. Duh! By increasing the failure rate.

But if the standard is raised wouldn't instructors raise the standard of 
training and so improve the quality of the candidate?

>>>>>> We would both like to see a reduction in pollution
>>>>>> levels. Your answer is to get rid of cars.
>>
>>>>> See above.
>>
>>>>>> Mine, which has the potential for
>>>>>> much greater improvements, would be to fund bringing third world
>>>>>> countries
>>>>>> up to existing European standards of pollution control.
>>
>>>>> No good if car use continues to expand.
>>
>>>> Cars in the EU are a trivial contributor to global pollution
>>>> levels, when compared to industrial pollution in third world
>>>> countries. As I have mentioned before, underground coal fires in
>>>> China produce more CO2 every year than all the motor vehicles in
>>>> Britain. China does not have the technology to extinguish them, we
>>>> do.
>>
>>> China has a large and growing number of cars. At the moment we set
>>> them a bad example by also encouraging car use proliferation. Are
>>> you suggesting we should model ourselves on the worst in the world?
>>
>> In what way are "we" encouraging any other country to use more cars?
>> What makes you think tey need any encouragement?
>>
> Duh! By a more extravagants stadard of living.

What is extravagent about having running water and electricity readily 
available and being ale to travel to where the work is rather than live in 
some remote village where every morsel one consumes is dragged from the 
ground by hard unremiting physical toil Doug? Come to think of it, isn't 
that why you moved to London?

>>>>>> You suggest luddite
>>>>>> answers, while I want to see progressive solutions that benefit
>>>>>> everybody.
>>
>>>>> Fine words with no solutions.
>>
>>>> None you would like anyway. However, I live in the real world and
>>>> look for solutions that would be acceptable to the majority.
>>
>>> I see, you subscribe to mob rule then, rather than the best
>>> solution.
>>
>> Who makes the decision about what is "best" Doug?
>>
> Duh! Independent researchers.

Who would they be and would you always accept their decision?

>>>>>>>> However, as you are one of those who seem to think they
>>>>>>>> have the only answers to the world's problems, you would assume
>>>>>>>> than any
>>>>>>>> alternative views are bad.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong. Its complacence and acceptance of status quo that I
>>>>>>> deplore.
>>
>>>>>> Believing that the status quo is best *is* an alternative view to
>>>>>> yours.
>>
>>>>> Which conveniently requires no action despite action obviously
>>>>> being needed.
>>
>>>> Which comes back to you believing that you have the only answers to
>>>> the world's problems.
>>
>>> Wrong. I don't have answers merely suggestions but I am opposed to
>>> those who deliberately cause harm.
>>
>> Then when are you going to stop?
>>
> Duh! Not yet.

I'm pleased to see that you accept that you are causing harm but 
disappointed that you don't intend to stop.

>>>>>>>>> I still maintain that drivers should not be allowed to kill
>>>>>>>>> people and
>>>>>>>>> get away with it.
>>
>>>>>>>> I totally agree. Where we probably disagree is in what
>>>>>>>> constitutes 'getting
>>>>>>>> away with it'. I think that, provided they are dealt with in
>>>>>>>> accordance
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> the law, which includes taking no action if they are found to
>>>>>>>> be free of
>>>>>>>> fault, they don't. You seem to think that nobody except a
>>>>>>>> motorist can be
>>>>>>>> held responsible for their actions.
>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately the law is open to interpretation which often
>>>>>>> means that killer drivers are treated very lightly.
>>
>>>>>> That is exactly the sort of attitude that I mean. Unless you are
>>>>>> present in
>>>>>> Court and hear all the evidence presented to the Court, you are
>>>>>> in no position to assess whether the judgement given in any
>>>>>> particular case is a
>>>>>> good or a bad one.
>>
>>>>> There is a wealth of published information on such proceedings and
>>>>> eyewitness accounts from those in court.
>>>>> Seehttp://www.roadpeace.org/as just one source. Frequent media
>>>>> reports are another. I suppose you say they are all lying?
>>
>>>> That is not the same as listening to and considering all the
>>>> evidence presented in Court. When eye witnesses are quoted they
>>>> are usually people with a close personal connection to a case and
>>>> in many cases do not even fully understand the legal situation. A
>>>> pressure group is unlikely to report in an unbiased manner and the
>>>> media are definitely not going to go into the full details of any
>>>> case, even if the reporter understands it.
>>
>>> So what are you trying to say, that courts are always right in
>>> everything and there are never wrong verdicts or bias? You must
>>> have a very rosy view of our justice system.
>>
>> It was good enough for you when it suited your purpose.
>>
> Duh! What is it about the words 'always', everything' sand 'never' you
> do not understand?

It's not my lack of understanding that's the problem Doug. Yours however is.

>>>>>>>>> Which would seem to be fairly fundamental in any
>>>>>>>>> civilised society but obviously not in this and other
>>>>>>>>> newsgroups, revealing as they do the true mentality of the
>>>>>>>>> average driver today.
>>
>>>>>>>> I don't recall anyone on uk.transport doing anything other than
>>>>>>>> condemning
>>>>>>>> all examples of bad driving you have ever cut and pasted into
>>>>>>>> the group.
>>
>>>>>>> Its not just UKT, its any NG dominated by drivers, who are
>>>>>>> unfortunately a majority of the population. When they are not
>>>>>>> victim blaming they usually try to reinterpret bad driving as
>>>>>>> something else.
>>
>>>>>> IME it is more usually that they are pointing out to you that
>>>>>> someone other
>>>>>> than the motorist might be to blame, which you always assume
>>>>>> cannot be.
>>
>>>>> As has been suggested in the EU, the vulnerable road victim should
>>>>> not be blamed.
>>
>>>> Even when they actually caused the accident?
>>
>>> Don't you mean 'crash'? Why should those be blamed who suffer death
>>> or injury from those who have lost control of a dangerous motor
>>> vehicle?
>>
>> Perhaps because they were responsible for causing the collisions,
>> Doug?
>>
> Duh! Obviously the person loosing control is responsible.

I'm glad that we can agree that the idiot who dashes into the road without 
looking and gets hit by a vehicle is not in control.

>>>>>>> It seems to be allowing one's vehicle to impact with anything,
>>>>>>> especially a vulnerable road user, is clearly an example of bad
>>>>>>> driving.
>>
>>>>>> I would tend to agree with you, hence my view that we need to
>>>>>> improve driving standards.
>>
>>>>> What do you mean 'tend'? It follows that if the vehicle impacts
>>>>> with the body of a person it MUST be bad driving.
>>
>>>> Unlike you, I recognise that there are situations that arise where
>>>> even a fully alert driver with perfect reactions cannot take action
>>>> in time to avoid a situation created by the stupidity of others.
>>
>>> That is just an excuse. If they cannot stop in time to avoid killing
>>> someone in all situations they shouldn't be allowed to drive. In
>>> effect you are saying that in certain situations they have a licence
>>> to kill, or the stupid deserve to die on our roads.
>>
>> Then why don't you work to the same standard, Doug?
>>
> Duh! I don't drive nor have I ever impacted with anyone while
> cycling.

But you have twice been involved in collisions which you could have avoided. 
One of them you admitted causing.

>>
>>
>>>>>> In several decades of driving I have never been involved
>>>>>> in an accident that resulted in personal injury. I was involved
>>>>>> in one RTA
>>>>>> about 15 years ago, which resulted in the other driver being
>>>>>> reported by the
>>>>>> Police for driving without due care and attention, so I feel
>>>>>> justified in saying that was not one I could avoid.
>>
>>>>> Your anecdotals are irrelevant in this context. What is being
>>>>> discussed is not drivers impacting with each other, which to my
>>>>> mind is rough justice as long as child passengers are not
>>>>> involved, but drivers impacting with vulnerable road users.
>>
>>>> I would have thought the fact that I have managed to drive hundreds
>>>> of thousands of miles over many decades without hitting any
>>>> 'vulnerable road users' very relevant.
>>
>>> What is relevant are the statistics not your anecdotals. About one
>>> in every thousand drivers are likely to cause a road death or
>>> serious injury in their lifetime.
>>
>> And what about pedestrians and cyclists Doug, do they not cause
>> collisions resulting in death or injury?
>>
> Duh! Cyclists very rarely kill pedestrians by impacting with them and
> the numbers are vanishingly small. I know of no example of a ped or
> cyclist impacting with a car and thereby killing the driver. There are
> many examples of cars impacting with peds and cyclists and thereby
> killing them.

As always you fail to read what is written. I said nothing about the 
innocent victim being the one who is killed or injured.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:8a3cf1bd-2d0b-4eb2-8f1e-1f47e8d623b1@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 July, 18:47, John Wright  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>> > On 7 July, 10:48, GOM  wrote:
>> >> In article <ccd9289a-d588-4848-8d3d-83c103624e27
>> >> @t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>> >>> Wrong, to deter excessive car use. Merely halving car journeys would
>> >>> make a dramatic difference to crash numbers, pollution and 
>> >>> congestion,
>> >>> as well as the nuisance to others.
>> >> 43 years of continual accident reduction in the face of mounting 
>> >> annual
>> >> mileage proves you wrong.
>>
>> > Don't you mean 'crash' reduction? Do you dispute that halving car
>> > journeys would reduce crashes? If so on what basis? I suppose it could
>> > be argued that a reduction in congestion might increase speeds and
>> > therefore crashes.
>>
>> I presume nightjar chooses his words more carefully than you. Some
>> accidents involving cars don't actually involve crashes. A crash is a
>> particular form of accident, not a political word the way you attempt to
>> use it.
>>
>> The words crash and accident have two totally different purposes. But
>> then you've been told that before. Go buy a dictionary.
>>
> How about Wikipedia?

Not exactly the most reliable source in the world....

> ... Although
> auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the
> road and the distance they travel, ....

... although not always wrong

> That is why these organizations prefer the term "collision" rather
> than "accident"."

That is still not the word 'crash'. Crash is, in fact, a particular type of 
sound, such as you would get by dropping a tray of crockery. An accident, or 
collision, that produces that sort of sound is a crash. Others are not.

Colin Bignell

Doug wrote:
> On 8 July, 18:47, John Wright  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 July, 10:48, GOM  wrote:
>>>> In article <ccd9289a-d588-4848-8d3d-83c103624e27
>>>> @t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>>>> Wrong, to deter excessive car use. Merely halving car journeys would
>>>>> make a dramatic difference to crash numbers, pollution and congestion,
>>>>> as well as the nuisance to others.
>>>> 43 years of continual accident reduction in the face of mounting annual
>>>> mileage proves you wrong.
>>> Don't you mean 'crash' reduction? Do you dispute that halving car
>>> journeys would reduce crashes? If so on what basis? I suppose it could
>>> be argued that a reduction in congestion might increase speeds and
>>> therefore crashes.
>> I presume nightjar chooses his words more carefully than you. Some
>> accidents involving cars don't actually involve crashes. A crash is a
>> particular form of accident, not a political word the way you attempt to
>> use it.
>>
>> The words crash and accident have two totally different purposes. But
>> then you've been told that before. Go buy a dictionary.
>>
> How about Wikipedia?
> 
> "Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident,
> car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident
> (MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC),
> road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision
> (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.
> 
> As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood,
> some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident," as the
> word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the
> opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although
> auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the
> road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors
> can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease
> driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.[1]
> That is why these organizations prefer the term "collision" rather
> than "accident"."
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Ahh, Wikipedia, if it's in there it must be true.

-- 

Tony Dragon

In article <8a3cf1bd-2d0b-4eb2-8f1e-1f47e8d623b1@
18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> 
> On 8 July, 18:47, John Wright  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 7 July, 10:48, GOM  wrote:
> > >> In article <ccd9289a-d588-4848-8d3d-83c103624e27
> > >> @t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> >
> > >>> Wrong, to deter excessive car use. Merely halving car journeys would
> > >>> make a dramatic difference to crash numbers, pollution and congestion,
> > >>> as well as the nuisance to others.
> > >> 43 years of continual accident reduction in the face of mounting annual
> > >> mileage proves you wrong.
> >
> > > Don't you mean 'crash' reduction? Do you dispute that halving car
> > > journeys would reduce crashes? If so on what basis? I suppose it could
> > > be argued that a reduction in congestion might increase speeds and
> > > therefore crashes.
> >
> > I presume nightjar chooses his words more carefully than you. Some
> > accidents involving cars don't actually involve crashes. A crash is a
> > particular form of accident, not a political word the way you attempt to
> > use it.
> >
> > The words crash and accident have two totally different purposes. But
> > then you've been told that before. Go buy a dictionary.
> >
> How about Wikipedia?
> 
Ah Wikipedia...a reliable fountain of knowledge. Not.



-- 
GOM

I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Doug wrote:
> On 8 July, 18:47, John Wright  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 July, 10:48, GOM  wrote:
>>>> In article <ccd9289a-d588-4848-8d3d-83c103624e27
>>>> @t33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>>>> Wrong, to deter excessive car use. Merely halving car journeys would
>>>>> make a dramatic difference to crash numbers, pollution and congestion,
>>>>> as well as the nuisance to others.
>>>> 43 years of continual accident reduction in the face of mounting annual
>>>> mileage proves you wrong.
>>> Don't you mean 'crash' reduction? Do you dispute that halving car
>>> journeys would reduce crashes? If so on what basis? I suppose it could
>>> be argued that a reduction in congestion might increase speeds and
>>> therefore crashes.
>> I presume nightjar chooses his words more carefully than you. Some
>> accidents involving cars don't actually involve crashes. A crash is a
>> particular form of accident, not a political word the way you attempt to
>> use it.
>>
>> The words crash and accident have two totally different purposes. But
>> then you've been told that before. Go buy a dictionary.
>>
> How about Wikipedia?
> 

A real one idiot

-- 
John Wright