Our local rag manages, most weeks, to print a couple of anti-motoring letters.
This week's offering includes one from a sub-committee chairman of the local branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
Its main thrust strays outside the CPRE principle aims of countryside preservation into the realms of road safety and speeding, but the author rather shoots himself in the foot by stating that motorways are ten times safer than ordinary roads.
Excuse me, but I thought that the CPRE has spent millions of pounds in bringing motorway building to a halt so, by inference, they have condemned thousands of people to death or injury by forcing them to use less safe roads.
I doubt that the author will make the connection, though.
|
Brian. Whenever I see an anti-car letter (usually penned by some lentil-headed malcontent) in our local rag, I make a point of writing one of my own which shoots him down.
If you can get together with a few like-minded friends and share the letter-writing duty, it has an even better effect.
Arm yourself with the facts (ABD site is good for this) and let the bu&&ers have it!
|
|
The Green party in Germany have recently had a conference in Berlin was the confrence centre carpark full off bicycles? I think not MBs and Bmws without end
|
But then none of the mainstream environent groups want to ban cars outright; that would be madness. They just think it's a good plan to use them less. I agree with them on that. I wonder how many of those MBs and BMWs had folding bikes in the boot? That would be more telling, I think.
Chris
|
Chris,
Why use them less. No enviromental gains and if the bikes are in the boot they ain't using them, are they?
I read recently that the enviroment is in better shape now than it was in the middle 16th century. This was based on the amount of coal burning that went on.
I remember being in London in the Sixties and after an hour, I could hardly breath, had a sore throat and and a black face with all the soot. Not there now.
The Transport Research Lab has said "There is no justification in banning cars from city centres on air quality gorunds!"
Indoor air is 10 times more polluted than outside, according to the Buildings Research Establishment. They say they want to reduce "pollution" from cars and yet don't reduce pollution from domestic heating? The same gases are emitted from flues and gas cookers. Carbon monxide, methane etc.
These idiots, (you know who "they" are) are worshippers at the altar of the new religion, Gaia. Even Michael Meacher is a convert.
Funny old world, is it not?
|
|
|
I've never heard a convincing reason as to why I should use my car less. I can quote many reasons as to why the road network ought to be improved, rather than wasting money on "improving" public transport.
On the subject of pressure groups, the Cyclists Touring Club wants speed limits on single carriageway A roads cut to 40mph.
|
|
|
|
|
The key to cutting pollution from traffic is to keep it moving. Vehicles sitting in a jam with cats below operating temperature are producing bad exhaust emissions for no reason.
Separation of through traffic and local traffic gives great advantages. Forcing traffic to crawl along every high street to get from A to B via C, D and E is madness. (see 2. below)
If Ken Livingstone really wants to do something for London he could start by
1. Redesigning junctions to get rid of traffic lights
2. Making the South Circular Road into a proper through route similar to the North Circular.
3. Making the Inner Ring Road traffic-light free.
The M25 is another case in point where there are too many access points so it attracts local traffic. Almost half of the junctions need the axe taking to them.
|
|
|
|
How many cyclists do you see on single carriage A roads outside towns?
|
|
|
There are thousands of new roads in this country which avoid pedestrianised areas and city centres. They have been in existance for over a centuary and are not useable because they have never been tarmaced in order that vehicles can use them. They are called "Railways". You know which ones I mean, all those routes which run two trains a day at enormous expense and are completely useless because unless you want to travel at the inconvenient time the operator chooses to run them, otherwise tough luck.
And who was ever forced to take the day off work because of industrial action by car drivers?
|
Brian,
What was the relevance of stating that MW were 10 times safer than other roads in a CPRE document.... (IOW What was the gist of the article - just curious)?
Me, l like cars and can't see how they'll ever be controlled fully (use/speed/number etc...). They provide a currently irreplaceable aspect of our lives. I'm sure l've said it before, but if cars could run on clean fuels with the same level of convenience and price, 90% of antagonism between car and anti-car 'lentil-heads' would evaporate instantly. (and if they could fly it would be even better, although l don't relish the idea of aerial joyriders!)
dan
|
|
Share Dan's curiosity, do you have a link to the paper?.
|
|
|
|
The paper was the Essex Chronicle.
Website (which I haven't looked at) www.thisisessex.co.uk
Editorial editorial@essexchronicle.co.uk
If I get time later I'll see if I can post extracts fro the letter. I don't think it will scan easily.
|
|
|
<<<< .... although l don't relish the idea of aerial joyriders! >>>>
Certainly not after September 11th.
Those 19 must be pretty warmed up in hell by now.
|
|
|
Update
In this week's edition they have printed FOUR letters, including mine, pointing out the stupidity of the arguments which the CPRE guy used.
Must be a record for that paper!
|
|
|
