Nanny makes many promises on all manner of subjects to all and sundry, one of these promises was that she would cut the emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2010.As with most of the promises that Nanny makes, the reality is often very different from the wish.
As such, Nanny is looking for ways of trying to meet her target. Fortunately she knows of one way which will not only help her meet this target, but will also give her a nice little revenue boost as well.
She is planning to crack down on motorists who speed on motorways.
Nanny estimates that around 15 million motorists a year break the motorway speed limit; allegedly the faster a car travels over 70mph, the less efficient its engine.
It is reassuring to know that Nanny will be diverting scarce police resources from their unnecessary work on catching muggers, rapists and burglars to the more eco useful work of catching speeding motorists.
Nanny will of course profit rather handsomely from the increased revenue that the fines will bring in.
Whats the source for this story please Ken?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a prime example of Nanny not having a clue yet feeling more than ever that she has been given a mandate by the British people (whatever that means these days) to trash the economics of the country for a number of spurious 'official' reasons in order to cover up her own dramatic failures.
ReplyDeleteTHe EU budget negotiations seem to be another example of paying a lot for nothing in return.
The entire government should be impeached on the basis of complete incompetence and malfeasance in office.
And to think we may have to suffer several more years of this wrong headedness.
Worrying about what age people will have to work until come 2050 is an entirely pointless diversion in the current situation. Another few years with this lot and the concept of a pension, no matter how provided (other than crime perhaps) will be gone for ever. Lost in some dire economic strategies, though to call them strategies is much too grand for what is offered.
Speeding motorists also kill and maim innocent people, which is just as much a crime as murder, rape, mugging etc........! It's just that our car-junkie society regards killing and maiming with a car to be a trivial matter.
ReplyDeletePete
Pete
ReplyDeleteThe target are those who speed on motorways, not suburban roads.
If you keep your distance, and are driving in good open road conditions, the speed will unlikely pose a threat to others.
Anon: source Grauniad.
Paul;
ReplyDeleteOn the governement's own figures excess speed is the primary cause in 6% of road deaths, and a contributing cause in a further 7%. So why the emphasis on speed? Easy - you can automate the enforcement and generate lots of cash. Note that's "enforcement", not "education" - which might actually do something to reduce the numbers dying.
Meanwhile the number of traffic police has been slashed, so nobody is doing anything at all about the other 87% of road deaths.
Motorways are the safest class of roads in the country by any statistic you can measure; for this reason its been difficult to introduce speed cameras on them. It seems a new excuse has been found.....
Rising CO2 levels are an opportunity to blame all sorts of things on humankind with a view to controlling, or attempting to control, society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIt appeals to those who feel some sort of righteousness associated with the cause much as it did for the people of similar views who appeared in Germany during the depression after WW1. The ultimate groupings may be slightly different in peripheral outlook but the central beliefs seem to be pretty similar.
One problem here is that we have only bneen measuring CO2 levels for a short period of the planet's history though a few people are attempting to estimate what the measurements would have been over the past several hundred thousand years.
It seems CO2 levels have fluctuated greatly in that time and were almost certainly much higher a few hundred million years ago. I would imagine it would have needed to be at a very high level to support the plant growth that must have existed for the opportunity of the development of dinosaurs for example and then to support them for quite a while.
Why we should imagine that our nanosecond of existence, comparatively, should have any direct effect overall I can't really imagine.
But if it really does then the obvious reason for the increase, assuming it matters which I doubt, would be increasing population worldwide.
So, lets abandon all medicine and have a natural cull shall we? Or an unnatural one if you prefer.
Given that the growth of travel, and therefore the means of travel, seems to be the result of improved human circumstances it may well be reasonable to kick off the cull by making travel ever more difficult. Getting produce to eat would be a starting point. Those of us with gardens could consider some sort of good life option. Those without, and any who may soon be occupying Mr. Prescott's new communities, will be stuffed - no land and no water - so that sorts them out.
Indeed the increase in CO2 and the improved plant growth that brings along with the countering of ozone build up (wonder if that is another uncontrollable factor that we are being told only we create?), is bad news for those who would wish to reduce the population since it provides for sustainable increases in food production. More food obviously means more people. More peopel menas more CO2. Highly undesirable for the 'friends of the planet', though whether they have actually asked the planet I don't know. Presumably they have the means otherwise they could not possibly be so certain.
And Pete R - can you substantiate your 'speeding motorists' claim and explain what you mean by 'innocent people'. Especially in the context of, say, deaths in hospital care, accidents in the home, self inflicted or implicated actions such as drunkeness. And why people are allowed to undertake evident dangerous and damaging sports like mountain climbing. mountain biking, skate boarding, sea swimming (or any kind of swimming for that matter), running marathons and playing rugby.
Or perhaps any of the other activities which may put the lives on 'innocent' people such as the rescue services 'at risk' for purely selfish reasons on behalf of the potential accident or activity victim.
The less positive sides effects of the ability to travel and transport things are certainly unfortunate but the vast majority journeys are totally incident free, so a huge positive on balance.
I can see no positive aspects for the justification of any of the the crimes you listed so there is no balance possible to argue in their favour. The comparison is completely invalid.
Nanny should live in Canada:
ReplyDeleteDevice stops speeders from inside car.
Grant says: "And Pete R - can you substantiate your 'speeding motorists' claim and explain what you mean by 'innocent people'. Especially in the context of, say, deaths in hospital care, accidents in the home, self inflicted or implicated actions such as drunkeness."
ReplyDeleteA typical example of very faulty thinking. Grant appears unable to differentiate between exposing oneself voluntarily to risk, which is everyone's right, or being put to involuntary risk by others (ie car drivers) which breaches the most basic of human rights: the right to life itself. Indded the danger and pollution from cars serves now to severely curtail the freedom of those who cannot or do not want to drive. Remember one definition of a free society is one where anyone can do what they wish AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT PUT OTHERS TO INVOLUNTARY RISK.
I won't even begin to contradict his argument regarding CO2 and climate change. Many brighter people than either he or myself agree that climate change is taking place, and while I don't know what Grant does for a living, I'm at least qualified in industrial chemistry (including combustion control) so at least have some scientific basis for my arguments - and I know how catalytic converters work, or rather, don't work.
Likewise his comparison of car emissions with human respiration. A human being even after reasonably vigourous exertion produces around 5 to 10 litres of expired air every minute - air that is not toxic for others to rebreathe. On the other hand the average car travelling at 60mph generates TEN THOUSAND litres per minute of pure poison. And Nanny has the brass neck to persecute smokers!!
Car fumes kill as well: over 22,000 people die annually from respiratory and heart disease caused directly by being forced to inhale the stinking sewage from cars. It nearly killed me four years ago - I suffered congestive heart failure, caused by deep-breathing car fumes whilst cycling in heavy traffic. That diagnosis was made by a consultant cardiologist who I think even Grant will have to (no doubt very grudgingly) admit knows what he is talking about. What about MY right to breathe clean, fresh air? To go about my business without someone poisoning me?
Funny how he lists swimming amongst risky activities. As a keen long-distance swimmer and member of an organisation that promotes open water swimming, I have some facts you all may find interesting. The car kills around 3,500 people annually. In the last full year for which drowning figures are available (2002), 33 people died whilst swimming (17 in supervised pools). No-one makes me or anyone else enter the water, but every time I step out of my front door I am put at extreme involuntary risk of being physically injured or poisoned (again) by other peoples' dirty, dangerous cars. As far as the other sports he mentions are concerned, I don't take part in them and as such am not in a position to comment.
Oh, and by the way Grant, it's the "dangerous" swimming I "irresponsibly" indulge in that has repaired the damage done to my heart and restored me to almost perfect health. Just think, I'm not a drain on the NHS (meaning YOUR taxes) because of my indulging in this dreadfully dangerous sport. By the way, expert opinion has swimming to be the best all-round exercise. Funny that, if it is as you claim, so "dangerous".
I reiterate, you can't compare the voluntary risk of indulging in potentially dangerous sports with the involuntary risk imposed on everone just to satisfy some spurious need for mobility of a minority.
As far as movement of food and goods was concerned, we used to use the railways for that. An efficient form of mass transport that served us well during the darkest period in our history: WW2. An efficient form of transport that was vandalised by Beeching in the 1960s (at the behest of the motoring lobby) and again by that arch car-lover Thatcher.
Pete
Not sure the "voluntary" argument stacks up; of the 3500 annual total killed on the roads in the UK, about two thirds are in vehicles at the time. I doubt they were forcably placed there.
ReplyDeleteOf the remaining third, the vast majority are on the roadway at the time of death. Again, nobody forced them to be there. It is their choice to take on a ton of moving metal on its home turf.
Pete says "every time I step out of my front door I am put at extreme involuntary risk of being physically injured". Nope. You voluntarily stepped out of the door. Of course, according to the statistics, staying in is even more dangerous. But that's another story.... see other nanny items for how this is being managed ;)
I have this theory that everyone, no matter how smart they may be on most subjects, has one particular topic on which they are incredibly blinkered. I probably have several such blinkered views. But then I am not particulary a specialist in anything - so I don't have a view based on personal research that requires constant support for reinforcement.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that Pete Roberts is entirely genuine in his beliefs and will defend them to the bitter end as a good believer should. But I do find it ironic that he uses the same arguments to support his views that I would use to support mine.
As Anonymous 4:15pm pointed out, picking up an underlying point in my previous post, if we take any actions, or indeed if we choose not to take any actions, they are voluntary to some degree - though death and taxes possible fall outside that label. One might even choose to avoid taxes I suppose.
There are so many points to make it is difficult to begin and quite probably pointless since I doubt I could sway PR's opinion and I fully accept that many scientists agree with PR's view of the way things are in any of the subjects he lists. But not all of them do so by any means though the numbers disagreeing with a prevailing view may be small for some specific topics.
Of course that is not an entirely new situation throughout the known history of science, which is one of the things that makes me very wary of people who claim absolute and irrefutable proof based on, say, computer programs and long term predictions. The Greeks and the Romans used to use humans directly for the same information feeds, bypassing the computers. Probably got similar answers though.
But the ability to travel has been very liberating, though not without its problems of course. Nanny sort of admits to this by referring to people without there own personal transport as being 'excluded'. (Well, not quite because they always want a positive spin on their actions so they talk about helping people to be 'included'.)
PR's heart problems were more than likely related to his voluntary choice to cycle in heavy traffic. I presume from the heavy traffic comment that he lives in a city or large town. IN whch case it was probably the output from the diesel engines of buses (very badly maintained usually due to the need for profit and apparent pack of revenue from passengers or adequate revenue from subsidies) which caused his problems.
Ironic then that groups like Transport 2000 appear to be mainly funded by bus operators. One can only assume that when Beeching shut the branch lines which were, apparently, uneconomic at the time the supporting pressure more than likely came from the bus companies since car ownership was still a fairly rare thing at that time and continued to be so for a good few years.
The problem with trains, and to a large extent buses, is that can rarely take people where they want to go in one stage. And they get very inefficient for transporting families. And carrying 9 shopping bags back from the supermarket, espewcially if any of the food is chilled or frozen, can't be much fun.
Personally I don't much like standing (or even sitting if I can find a seat with enough knee room - and I am not especially tall) next to some stranger who may for all I know have TB ar be developing some new and virulent form of humano-avian flu. (And yes, I do recognise that the potential is small, but it is even smaller if I don't sit next to them.)
PR started out by quoting my request for substantiation thus ..
Quote PR:
Grant says: "And Pete R - can you substantiate your 'speeding motorists' claim and explain what you mean by 'innocent people'. Especially in the context of, say, deaths in hospital care, accidents in the home, self inflicted or implicated actions such as drunkeness." "
And then fails to answer it with the following:
"A typical example of very faulty thinking. Grant appears unable to differentiate between exposing oneself voluntarily to risk, which is everyone's right, or being put to involuntary risk by others (ie car drivers) which breaches the most basic of human rights:"
OK, so lets skip the figures, whether they exist or not.
The issue about 'voluntary exposure' has, I think, been covered by anonymous. From my perspective I can see how the same arguement could be used successfully from opposing points of view. Which makes it a bit pointless really since we could go circular with it into eternity.
That said when I am travelling somewhere I recognise that it is reasonable within society for me to share the roads with other roads users, most of whom have some sort of need to make the journey. However, I do not wish to volunteer myself to sit in traffic jams, engineered by governments national and local, breathing noxious exhasut output from some truck but mainly buses when free moving traffic would help me avoid that risk to my health - much the same as PR found - and be much more efficient for all concerned. (Except Nanny of course who would probably anticipate a fall in tax take from fuel sales.)
I could also observe that there are no such things as 'human rights'. They are a construct of human intellect usually spouted by those, like Nanny, who wish to use the concept for conditioning and control.
Of course that does not mean to say that there are no social rules we might observe. But to globalise tribal or group rules by calling such concepts 'human rights', perhaps in the concept of having been granted to humans by soneone or something, goes against the evidence that no such common understanding exists globally.
As for CO2, somehow PR seemed to go off on a tangent about pollutants when starting make a point about climate change rlated to CO2.
I agree that most people agree the climate change is happening. It would be quite worrying if it wasn't. A few years ago I was a full believer (but knew little) in the Global Warming church. But then I started to question the human arrogance of many of the assumptions. Suddenly, it seemed, the GW believers started refering to climate change, presumably becasue the claim that everyone agreed with it was largely truthful, though not for the insinuated reasons, than claiming that everyone agreed with anthropogenic induced global warming.
Nanny wouold like that. She is good and adopting other people's ideas.
I cannot possibly confirm agreement or otherwise about your consultant cardiologist - I have no idea who he or she was and even if I did would have no knowledge of the individual's particular skills, knowledge or his veracity for telling people the truth or something that is good enough to convince them and re-inforce their beliefs. Does he really care what caused your problem? It's your problem not his. He has patched you up and can feel good about it. He is a specialist in fixing hearts not prevention of the damage in the first place or an intimate knowledge of the causes.
Medical specialist can be truly wonderful people in many ways but are by no means perfect, often because their specialism limits their ability to see a broader picture. Now is not the time nor is Ken's bog the place, but I could recount true events in the recent past for members of my family which would prove how wonderful the medical specialist can be or how dangerous the concept of specialisms can become.
Now medicine is something that humans have been develoopibng for years and the results, good and bad, can be seen.
Climate science on the other hand ...
In the context of which, given that 'scientists' are concerned about the methane output from animals (Sheep, cows etc, population growing as the human food chain needs increase with population.) in the context of greenhouse gasses, how is the CO2 output from humans and the rapid expansion of the world population in recent times, not an issue?
PR dismises my point by moving on to another attack on cars. I'm not at all sure where his average output figures come from but I suspect the source is dodgy if only because it seems to disagree with any other measure I have ever seen reported. But then I am not a combustion specialist.
That said the combsution process I beleive produces quite a lot of CO2 - not much point making a big fuss about reducing speeds to reduce CO2 if it doesn't - and as far as I am aware CO2 is rather more a plant fertiliser than a poison so I am not entirely sure where the 'pure poison' comment comes from.
There are no doubt many other points I could respond to but it is rather late so perhaps now is not a good time.
However a couple of things did strike me.
Re mentioning swimming - intentional, I knew you would have some figures, or at least an opinion, based on some of your previous posts on here.
Sad that Nanny seems to take so long to compile what must be a relatively straightforward collation of numbers. Despite that when you consider the number of people who travel every day (especially if distance is cnsidered rather than just journeys) and compare that to the number of people who swim every day I think the swimming death numbers look horrific. But that is just my opinion.
And the dig at Thatcher seems out of context. Even Nanny now has a very expensive fossil fuel consuming (well, what other purpose does fossil fuel have if not used for fuel and related applications?) uber-limo (for free of course) because she must think she has made so many enemies.
I would be much happier if she voluntarily stayed at home where she could be kept safe at lower cost and the money for her limo and the convoy that will accompany it could be saved to build more, er, safe places and things for people to use.
Or maybe she could be persuaded to give up and go into hiding along with all her cronies.
Very finally - PR, I am pleased that you have found health through swimming. I have no problem with the concept of people wanting to swim (it tends not to be something I am suited to for some reason so I don't do it.) and they are quite at liberty to voluntarily put themselves at risk if they wish to do so (but not drown other users of the pool !)
If someone decides to take part in an activity of some sort - including driving, swimming or free climbing for that matter, they presumably do so because, in their conscious or subconscious assessment, they see little risk or indeed no risk that is unacceptable to them.
Sometimes some people will be wrong in that assessment. But about 20 million people every day choose to drive seeing it as the low risk high benefit activity it is. To them. And 60 million people in this country benefit from the use of the roads. Rather that than have a train running through your front garden I think.
One could argue that those 20 million people are actively freeing trapped carbon and refilling the atmosphere with the CO2 it lacks to help 'mother earth' protect us from the next ice age.
Or at least one could say that if one was a serious believer in the CO2 level increase causing climate change AND that the only important reason is the activity of humanity.
I would still love to know the source of your figures. Serious interest here, I'm not just trying to score points.
Grant
Grant says:"That said the combsution process I beleive produces quite a lot of CO2 - not much point making a big fuss about reducing speeds to reduce CO2 if it doesn't - and as far as I am aware CO2 is rather more a plant fertiliser than a poison so I am not entirely sure where the 'pure poison' comment comes from."
ReplyDeleteSimple, Grant. Because in addition to CO2 which of course is not a poison (merely an asphyxiant if there's enough to exclude oxygen), car gas contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, benzene (the most dangerous human carcinogen known)........etc.etc. Even when new, catalytic converters only remove around 90% of pollutants and their efficiency falls steadily with use. Here's an experiment for you to try Grant. Take a length of hose, connect one end to your exhaust pipe, place the open end in your car's passenger compartment, then get inside and start the engine. See how long you last.
And I would argue that most people do not wish to drive - they have just been left with no option. As far as cycling is concerned, where is my freedom to choose a mode of transport that I prefer, without risk of being run down or gassed? It strikes me that Grant's idea of freedom is exclusively a freedom to drive. And no, Grant, my exposure was to predominantly CAR fumes, not those from buses. I live in a semi-rural location blighted with busy trunk roads where even walking poses a severe risk to one's health.
As far as my figures are concerned Grant, I'm a scientist - it's my job to know these things. It's not my fault you are attempting to argue from a position of ignorance.
Finally, you indirectly accuse me of arrogance, then go on to express doubts over the opinions expressed by the highly qualified people who treated me. The words "Pot", "Kettle" and "Black" spring to mind.
Grant, you strike me as being a right-wing libertarian. I am a deep-green eco-warrior and proud of it. I'm afraid I suspect you of belonging to the Jeremy Clarkson school of thought (you know, the guy who publicly incites motorists to run down cyclists and shoot motorcyclists in the face). There is no way we are going to agree.
Touche?
Uh, the assumption that cars get less efficient as their speed increases in excess of 70 MPH is just false. I had a car that got its optimum mileage of 31 at 87 MPH, confirmed in the vast wasteland that is Nebraska in the US. At 70 MPH, it got around 28. Figures in miles per gallon.
ReplyDeleteAround here, in Ft. Worth, we used to have 'smog reduction' legislation where the speed limit on a particular stretch of highway was dropped to 45 MPH because that was determined to be the most optimal speed for fuel mileage for all vehicles by averaging out the optimal speeds. Such ideas are just nuts, and, until the law was repealed, that section alternated between complete scofflaw speeds, normally around 80-90, and a traffic jam that extended for miles in both directions during rush hour. Once the speed limit was raised to a more acceptable 60 MPH, the average speed through there went down and the traffic jams lessened.
Here we've got a Federal mandate to restrict speeding. Since speeding is contributory in maybe 5% of all traffic fatalities and causal in practically none, it seems to me to be a waste of police time, what with murder and rape and all.
In the US, we have some 36,000 murders on average and 50,000 traffic deaths on average. 5% of 50,000 is 1,000. Even were speed limits and stricter enforcement likely to make a difference in the number of accidents where speed is contributory, it is still a very small number. I would be willing to wager there are more police looking for speeders than there are people who are going to die due to excessive speed this year.
But, never you mind; the safety nazis as epitomized by a post above will insist it is their right to poke along as slow as they see fit and that everyone else must poke as slowly as they.
Er, make that 5% of 50,000 is 2500...
ReplyDeletePete; your original comment was that a car produces "TEN THOUSAND litres per minute of pure poison" in normal use.
ReplyDeleteA little maths (1.6 litres x 3000 rpm x an allowance for heat expansion on leaving the exhaust) would seem to make 10000 litres the total gas volume expelled by the vehicle. The majority of this is nitrogen, and most of the rest is C02. As you have noted, C02 is an asphyiant - as is nitrogen. Other gasses are around 1% ot the total. Hardly "pure poison".
In fact of the exhaust products you list, only CO could be classified as a poison (and that's using a fairly loose definition of poison as it acts as a biological asphyxiant rather than directly attacking the body) Particulates and benzene are carcinogens, not poisons. Nitrogen and sulphur oxides are not poisons, although they can have some nasty physical effects.
You're not the only scientist on here, so if you're going to claim a scientific basis for your argument, at least get your terms right.
"Pete; your original comment was that a car produces "TEN THOUSAND litres per minute of pure poison" in normal use."
ReplyDeleteI really must answer this persone despite him/her hiding behind anonymity. An advertising campaign by a British carmaker boasted about how their vehicles used 10,000 litres of air every minute at 60mph. Now as a scientist you are no doubt aware that under normal everyday circumstances matter cannot be created or destroyed so for 10,000 litres in, 10,000 litres must come out. Remember,I'm quoting a car manufacturer's own claims, but not in the context they'd wish for.
Your arguments regarding the definition of poison are fatuous. I'm using the term as defined in the Oxford Concise English Dictionary: "poison: a substance that causes death or harm when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism". No further comment needed.
If you don't think that NOx, SOx or volatile organic hydrocarbons are harmful, then go read any Hazchem book. And I don't want to be made to breathe them. If you want to continue this discussion, let's know who you are.
Pete
Firstly I feel I should make clear that when I previously wrote:
ReplyDelete"A few years ago I was a full believer (but knew little) in the Global Warming church. But then I started to question the human arrogance of many of the
assumptions. Suddenly, it seemed, the GW believers started referring to climate change, presumably because the claim that everyone agreed with it was
largely truthful, though not for the insinuated reasons, than claiming that everyone agreed with anthropogenic induced global warming."
my use of the phrase "human arrogance" was intended to describe an attitude that can often be prevalent around the world and which we are all prone
to in our own ways. The instigators of Climate Change alarmism, and a few other scares, seems to have taken the degree of human arrogance about
control of the biosphere to new levels recently, but none the less I suspect this attitude has been around since shortly after our forefathers learned to
express themselves in detail to other member of their colonies.
I felt the paragraph set this out reasonably clearly. Quite how and why Pete Roberts assumed it was to be interpreted as a personal slur I cannot imagine.
If my phrasing was inappropriate, then I apologise. I dislike doing my own proof reading and would be more than happy for someone else to act as proof
reader and editor if they felt it necessary.
(I also notice that I referred to Ken's 'bog' instead of 'blog' at one point. Again no offence intended and I will add that I have never met Ken or visited his bog,
so far as I am aware! ;-) I blame my poor typing skills and the time of day I was typing. )
PR's reaction and response sort of illustrates my original point about specific subjects being viewed in a particular way with a closed mind. We all suffer
from it, if that is the right phrase. Suffice it to say that I agree with almost all of PR's posts on here. 100%. We share the same opinion of Nanny. But clearly
we don’t, for whatever reason, share the same opinions about transport. So be it.
Quite how PR came to interpret what I wrote in a way that necessitated this response ...
"Finally, you indirectly accuse me of arrogance, then go on to express doubts over the opinions expressed by the highly qualified people who treated me.
The words "Pot", "Kettle" and "Black" spring to mind."
... I really don't know. Perhaps it was speed reading? Here is what I wrote:
"I cannot possibly confirm agreement or otherwise about your consultant cardiologist - I have no idea who he or she was and even if I did would have no
knowledge of the individual's particular skills, knowledge or his veracity for telling people the truth or something that is good enough to convince them and
reinforce their beliefs. Does he really care what caused your problem? It's your problem not his. He has patched you up and can feel good about it. He is a
specialist in fixing hearts not prevention of the damage in the first place or an intimate knowledge of the causes.
Medical specialist can be truly wonderful people in many ways but are by no means perfect, often because their specialism limits their ability to see a
broader picture. Now is not the time nor is Ken's bog the place, but I could recount true events in the recent past for members of my family that would
prove how wonderful the medical specialist can be or how dangerous the concept of specialisms can become."
Note the first part of the first sentence in each paragraph. Paragraph one indicates that I cannot possibly comment about your personal specialist but observes, based on MY observations, that there are different view points and positions that could be discerned in some situations for some people if one is prepared to be of an open mind. I know that is difficult when you are the patient but that's part of the challenge for the individual taking responsibility for their own decisions about who to trust and what to do.
Paragraph 2 seeks to put the paragraph one statement into context without making any personal accusations (as indeed did paragraph one.) I still believe they are reasonable observations. Quite why they elicited such a personal response is unclear to me.
Yes I drive and have done for many years and many miles. It is self evident that many pedestrians do not drive, based on the erratic way they approach the
task of walking from A to B or manage their shopping trolleys in a supermarket. As an occasional cyclist I share the avid cyclists (and I suspect PR's )
opinion that the so-called cycle tracks in this country are mostly a total waste of white paint. Typical of Nanny doing wanting to be seen to be doing things
but doing it on the cheap and ineffectively. Still, at least as a cyclist I don't have to pay anything directly linked to cycling to have the use of the roads.
Whereas as a car owner and driver I, and my family, do. And still we get next to nothing back for it except constraints and abuse. 20 to 30 million
masochists out there.
I think PR's apparent irony with regard to car exhaust fumes and breathing them in a confined space was so successful. Slightly disappointing in fact.
Whether or not most people wish to drive is of course a matter for debate. Presumably if the masses had not wanted to do so public transport, in all current
and possibly a few newly developed forms, would have flourished. But it hasn't. For around 40 years the masses have, it seems, mainly aspired to
personal transportation wherever it is feasible. I find it difficult to come up with credible arguments to counter that.
To be quite frank, though cars, and most things mechanical I suppose, have been an interest for me since before I can remember, I would be very pleased
to be in a position to have private transport available (in the sense of privacy and ready convenience) and not have to drive on the shocking surfaces and in
the terrible conditions that prevail today. There is no fun and mostly aggravation in modern travel. And if I am sitting in a pointless, Nanny induced traffic jam
my noxious substance intake levels are probably every bit as high as PR's on his bicycle. With little hope of respite.
In an interesting parallel I too live in a semi-rural location and have done, at several locations around the UK and a few abroad, for most of my life. Our local
coal fired power station was demolished a few years ago but we are surrounded here by roads and have a Airport about a mile away, maybe less, as the
crow flies. I don't feel bothered by these things, but I respect PR's right to be bothered. I would still suggest that the sort of health problems which PR refers
to are more likely to be the effects of diesel output then petrol engine output and would observe that most small internal combustion engines have become
evidently cleaner, it correctly maintained, in recent years. And despite PR's assurances about catalytic converters not working, which in some common
circumstances and certainly in the early days of the technology was very true, the modern vehicle performs quite well and continues to do so for many years
as can be seen from MOT tests. Of course if anyone wants to debate whether the tests set the right levels or measure appropriate things we could
continue without end for several years. But the point is, as for everything, within the rules things have improved. The real effects of the changes may be
harder to discern.
In terms of safety I have a slightly different view perhaps. I have never suffered an injury in a car accident. Indeed I have been in hardly any and only one
serious accident as a passenger in a car being driven by my father. I have been wary of badly lit articulated lorries at night ever since.
On the other hand, whilst combining some open air activity and getting some exercise on my bicycle earlier this year I was unlucky enough to have an
incident on some mud covered concrete that left me with a dislocated shoulder and a broken bone in the shoulder socket. I still have problems with the
injury but hope it will mostly be recovered before 12 months has elapsed. I doubt I would have suffered the injury had I been walking. I certainly would not
have suffered the injury had I been in a car. All in all a rather expensive experience in terms of lost work time and the like. It may help to explain why I don’t
necessarily fully embrace PR's views about the efficacy of bicycles and the problems with cars. But he is certainly entitled to those views in the same way I
hope I am entitled to mine.
PR said:
"As far as my figures are concerned Grant, I'm a scientist - it's my job to know these things. It's not my fault you are attempting to argue from a position of
ignorance."
I did indicate that we might let the figures from the original post slip away. However, since the subject has been reopened and PR indicates that as a
scientist it is part of his job to know these things, I am quite ready to look into them to see if they make any sense to a layman whose education was
science rather than 'arts' but who claims no special training or expertise, other than the ability to read and attempt to interpret the summaries and the
'science speak' that often features in information released to the ever eager press these days.
I will ignore the second sentence above other than to observe that it may just be possible that by being 'outside' the apparently shrinking confines of
modern science (according to some friends in scientific academia) I may read, as opposed to see, more varied input to the debate than those on the
inside. Or if not that, then perhaps approach the information with a very open mind. I can do this because I have no vested interest in the research and its
funding, other than the effect it might ultimately have in my life and the lives of my family should a policy maker use the information to inform their decisions.
If they do that they had better be right and the information had better be correct. Civilisations have failed for the want of suitable decisions at critical points in
their development. Bear in mind that many people whom the press labels as scientists might not match up to the expectations of the label, in your terms,
any more than I do.
PR's last paragraph is, to my mind, only accurate in so far as his observation (on this subject at least) "There is no way we
are going to agree."
Actually there is because I agree with you on that. You are off the mark with your guess at my politics (In fact I deny having any Nanny supporting tendencies at all these days - any flavour of Nanny.) And I am really not sure what the term 'libertarian' means. In current usage it seems to be no more than a way of appearing to be worldly savvy whilst attempting personal abuse. If you are indeed the deep green eco-warrior you seem to like to promote as your image then I am not surprised that you misunderstand anything that Clarkson might say or write. I am sure that your controllers will form your ideas for you about such matters. Clarkson, in his own way, love it or loath it, suggests looking at things from a different angle. Those who, throughout recorded history, have supported the conventional wisdom of the day, right or wrong, have always found that sort of thing irritating - perhaps worrying.
The odd thing is that, a few years ago, I was a reasonably green shade myself if many ways. But a few things were bugging me, especially about the outpourings of the self appointed eco-nannies and some of the more extreme hanger-on groups and the way the entire focus of the movement seemed to be moving to a dangerously unstable and unsustainable position. Prime motivations seemed to be, when digging just a little beneath the surface, personal standing and power bases just like any other politicians but without any need to consider any form of responsibility. Such movements require the obedience of closed minds. I seemed to come across a lot of closed minds, though often only closed on green related subjects. (Perhaps that is my personal blinkered view - I am bound to have one as I wrote earlier.)
All very much faith and politics and little apparent science (in terms that I understand). It didn't inspire me with confidence at all. Still doesn't.
Touche? As I said before, I don't seek to score points. Make points and stir thoughts perhaps. Explain a little if I have appeared obscure. But scoring points is a side issue, in my view, compared to the potential dangers of encouraging Nannies around the world to make decisions about the future direction of the human population based on information that cannot be shown to be better that that offered by the soothsayers and oracles of the ancient civilisations.
Perhaps it is ironic that the Romans left us with roads as one of their more obvious legacies. Back then the benefits of efficient and safe direct travel were clearly recognised. These days we stand to be ambushed frequently by marauding gangs of roadside bandits. So much for civilisation as we knew it.
Grant
Pete Roberts, quite reasonably, offered;
ReplyDelete"I'm using the term as defined in the Oxford Concise English Dictionary: "poison: a substance that causes death or harm when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism".
Not the most precise definition one might come up with, though appropriate for a general description
Interpreted literally it would of course include everything known on earth - possibly the universe - if introduced or absorbed in large enough quantities.
I suppose it can mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
I
A simple way to reduce car emissions would be to lighten the vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThis could be easily accomplished by removing airbags, side impact bars, and the other sundry nonsense that has been tacked on to cars in recent years.
The current Golf GTi is twice the weight of the original and as such requires twice the engine capacity to get the same performance. And just look at the modern so called Mini in comparison to it's ancestor.
Also I believe removing airbags and replacing them with a simple spike protruding from the steering wheel would greatly improve driver concentration.
Simple measures such as a spiked steering wheel would also provide a Darwinian cull of poor drivers, cleaning the gene pool and reducing the number of motorists and hence emissions.
Chris wrote:
ReplyDeleteSimple measures such as a spiked steering wheel would also provide a Darwinian cull of poor drivers
Much as I love this idea it would also affect those poor unfortunates that are on the receiving end of moronic drivers if it causes their car to crash. (or decelerate rapidly enough to throw them into the steering column.)
Given that almost everyone has a spot of bad luck, I'd rather not cull based on it. :)
Chris made a valid observation about vehicle weight, although there are certain aspects of physics to do with maintaining grip on road surfaces, especially in adverse conditions, that mean that less weight is not always a good thing. Likewise a heavier vehicle can be set up for more consistent control of the way it responds when full of passengers or goods. But I digress ...
ReplyDeleteThere was a time, around the release of the the original Golf for example, when the vehicle design movement was all for making lighter but stronger vehicles in the interests of efficiency aand cost reduction among other reasons. (Of course this means thay comparative weight assessments of then to now are are somewhat skewed since vehicle design, by design, was at a relatively low weight at the time.)
Subsequently the requirements of the consumer, in part, and the mandated need for additional strength and size to satisfy the requirements of safety legislation, have forced the designers to move in the other direction, at least in Europe. (That the efficiency of modern engine design is such that engines are pretty much the same capacity and economy now as they were then but are producing so much more power so reliably is a testament to the ability of engineers to address identifiable problems.)
The results of this and a number of other measures, taken up to the point where speed reduction became the only mantra, saw a noteworthy and steadily reducing rate of deaths and injuries related to road traffic accidents despite a large increase in both population and distances travelled.
All in all very positive, though it is a shame that the need to build in ever more safety in ever shorter time target to satisfy legislation and marketing requirements (safety having been put on the agenda by claims of improvement, etc.) has meant that the only acceptable and cost effective solutions tend to be those that add weight.
A side effect of this has been the use of better materials meaning improved life expectancy from the vehicles. Good in terms of manufacturing resource usage compared to useful life but not so good for the rapid transfer of newer technologies throughout the vehicle fleet.
Chris, along with others having directly opposed opinions about the use of motor vehicles, labels these mandated safety features as "other sundry nonsense that has been tacked on to cars in recent years."
Blame the legislators I would imagine, but take that 'safety equipment' away and announce it and the public will not be impressed, though the bottom line is that the majority of prospective purchasers would probably buy any old motorised rubbish if it was the right price and the right colour.
Having made a reasonable observation about weight (though it might be a bit of a disadvantage to be a light vehicle if in collision with Nanny's armour plated limo), Chris then gives us the rather tired old cliche about the spike instead of the airbag. Disappointing.
In reality, until about the middle of the 1960's, all cars were created with something very akin to the spike suggested and this basic safety reduction design was still evident in many, perhaps most, vehicles though until the 1980's
Looking at the government's own figures for road casualties since recording was first attempted back in the 1920's it seems fairly evident that things have improved, especially since the early 1950's and very notably since the mid 1970's.
So is this another benefit that representatives of humanity have succeeded with that is an attractive target for the anti-humans?
Given that humans are tending to live longer and longer, are the emissions from any source really a bad thing? In the wider picture one could point out that as emissions (having been measured in recent times) have increased, so has life expectancy. Strange?
Alternatively, if a cull is required it might be more opportune to adopt the Chinese approach and restict people to having only one offspring. Not much good for the pension crisis but, hey, if old people can't afford to eat and heat their homes the overpopulation problem will be addressed that little bit sooner.
But then should we reduce emissions on the basis that if increased emissions lead to longevity, reduced emissions will also reduce life span?
Or should it be the other way? Increased emissions will kill more people, therefore probably deliver the same result but biased towards older age groups? (Less helpful really because if you get the younger ones with the spikes in the steering wheel you also reduce procreation potential.)
Dear oh dear, the challenges of running the world are just so complex.
I have yet to hear of anyone planning to make use of the real power of nature - tsunami wave power generation for example, or geothermal from volcano activity. And surely earthquake energy could be captured and saved couldn't it? Free energy and, by inference, reduced destruction. A Win/Win situation for all.
A spiked steering column may be a cliche but it has one vital improvemnet over a simple birth rate reduction, it's selective to an extent.
ReplyDeletePersonally I'm a fan of a lighter vehicle that can be manoervered, and if you require more grip simply harness down force.
The only downside I can see is that the above options emphasis skill, and that goes against the grain in a quick fix society.
Chris said:
ReplyDelete"Personally I'm a fan of a lighter vehicle that can be manoervered, and if you require more grip simply harness down force."
I empathise with that, but how do you generate downforce at 30 or 40 mph?
Sorry Pete - I thought I saw you claiming to be a scientist. Using your definition of poison the output of a car is indeed pure poison. But under that definition so are all the components of the atmosphere before it enters the car. And so is a vacuum. Can't win on that - everything and nothing are poisonous ;)
ReplyDeleteBTW I didn't dispute your figure of 10k litres, just your claim that 100% of this was poisonous