Robin May wrote:

It's completely obvious that's not what he means. It's true that
people use their cars too much. It's ridiculous that people think
it's ok to commute 50 or 100 or whatever miles to work each day in a
car with only one person in it. Obviously people have to get to
places some distance away from their home but there's no need for
them to be so ridiculously far away just so some rich **** can live
in a quiet little village.


Most really long-distance commuting is done by train, not car. How many
season tickets do GNER issue from Grantham and Newark to London? Is that
somehow better?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

PeterE wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
DavidR wrote:

Ever been to Basingstoke?

Yes, only a ****wit would claim it was designed around the car.

In fact many New Towns were designed around the bus. Probably explains what
unpleasant places to live they are.

And in Basingstoke it could be said that the bus facilities were designed
around the canal as the bus station was built on the old canal basin (useless
fact 783).

However the new development of Basingstoke *was* designed around the car.

With some embarrassment I now have to hold my hands up and say I was working
for the Development Group and on the planning and design of the main housing
estates :-((

I still cycled to work though.

John B

In article ,
says...
The pits were shut because the coal they produced was too expensive and
recoverable reserves were only 0.2% of world totals.
When North sea gas runs out, what are we going to do then to replace it,
the best source of heat for the community.

I presume we'll buy it cheap from those places that have the other 99.8%
of world coal.

rgds

David

JohnB wrote:
PeterE wrote:

In fact many New Towns were designed around the bus. Probably
explains what unpleasant places to live they are.

And in Basingstoke it could be said that the bus facilities were
designed around the canal as the bus station was built on the old
canal basin (useless fact 783).

However the new development of Basingstoke *was* designed around the
car.

I was thinking particularly of Runcorn - where the New Town was grouped
around a network of busways where 10-minute frequencies were promised but
they quickly dwindled to 30 minutes or an hour.

It does have some really good roads, though, as well :-)

With some embarrassment I now have to hold my hands up and say I was
working for the Development Group and on the planning and design of
the main housing estates :-((

I still cycled to work though.

Good to see the old hair-shirt mentality.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

PeterE wrote:

JohnB wrote:

With some embarrassment I now have to hold my hands up and say I was
working for the Development Group and on the planning and design of
the main housing estates :-((

I still cycled to work though.

Good to see the old hair-shirt mentality.

More that the 'ring roads' sliced across the old access routes into the town
and cycling became the most pleasurable and easiest way to reach the centre.

And when using parts of the ring roads it was quite satisfying to ride past
the queues that, even then, built up at the many roundabouts.

Basingstoke is a clear example of a town planned almost solely for the car
that shows the folly of such a narrow minded policy.

John B

"Huge" wrote
"DavidR" writes:

Ever been to Basingstoke?

Why on Earth would I want to do that?

No doubt many people using its (excellent) ring road wonder about that too.

"Clive" wrote in message
...

Don't agree. As has already been pointed out here before, France
doesn't have such a problem even with higher car ownership, because they
have a better road infrastructure.

Only one of the possible reasons.

Different population density patterns, "jobs for life" (not quite, but not
like the uk) etc. make a big difference too.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
iantheengineer wrote:

Not everything works on the same principles are you so stupid??? Water
flows
under gravity does that mean rock will too???

Well yes it does actually.

Avalanche.

Thats not rock.

Continental drift

That is not caused (directly) by gravity.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
W K

That is not caused (directly) by gravity.

The rock in the convection cell would not move without gravity. It is a
direct result of gravity.

That isn't water flowing.

Its not analogous with any flow effect I can think of in water.
Closest I can think of is the scum/foam that you get when boiling
vegetables.

The reason why I put the (directly) in there is its CAUSED by convection,
which although it needs gravity, would not immediately be called "flowing
under gravity", esp as the rock is not moving in the direction of the
gravity field.

How did this start?

W K wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
iantheengineer wrote:

Not everything works on the same principles are you so stupid???
Water flows under gravity does that mean rock will too???

Well yes it does actually.

Avalanche.

Thats not rock.


pedant mode on

Rocks can avalanche!

pedant mode off

--
cupra (remove nospam please to mail)