seeing the other's view

"NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
news:oCfgi.4606$RD3.3894@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:Gvfgi.4604$RD3.1381@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>> allan tracy wrote:
>>>>>> ... maybe a complete highway network provided at a cost way beyond
>>>>>> anything HGV taxes run to has something to do with it.
>>>>> Utter bollox. I await the day all the road generated taxes are
>>>>> actually
>>>>> spent on the road network, if this ever occured we would have a system
>>>>> second to none, instead the surplus is frittered away on bottomless
>>>>> pits
>>>>> like the national trainset.
>>>>>
>>>> Ahh... naughty naughty do I detect a little sleight of hand here like
>>>> including all road generated taxes when we're only discussing HGV
>>>> generated taxes.
>>>>
>>>> I own a car and nowhere does it explain that my petrol duty or road
>>>> fund licence is to be set at a level that can then provide spending on
>>>> accommodating HGVs.
>>>>
>>> at 8 mpg and heavy ved there is no subsidy, if anything it's the other
>>> way around.
>>
>> Evidence?
>>
>> Please don't simply state the anount of VED a lorry pays, it was reduced
>> a few years ago you may recall.
> Back of a packet calculations show annual tax take from HGV's about 10
> billion pounds (VED + Fuel tax) expenditure on UK road system is ???

When your working it out (not forgetting the cash spent by local authorities
on loal roads some of which comes from Counil Tax), don't forget all the
associated costs will you?

Brimstone wrote:
> "NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
> news:oCfgi.4606$RD3.3894@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> "NM" <never.opened@all.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Gvfgi.4604$RD3.1381@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>>>> allan tracy wrote:
>>>>>>> ... maybe a complete highway network provided at a cost way beyond
>>>>>>> anything HGV taxes run to has something to do with it.
>>>>>> Utter bollox. I await the day all the road generated taxes are
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> spent on the road network, if this ever occured we would have a system
>>>>>> second to none, instead the surplus is frittered away on bottomless
>>>>>> pits
>>>>>> like the national trainset.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ahh... naughty naughty do I detect a little sleight of hand here like
>>>>> including all road generated taxes when we're only discussing HGV
>>>>> generated taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I own a car and nowhere does it explain that my petrol duty or road
>>>>> fund licence is to be set at a level that can then provide spending on
>>>>> accommodating HGVs.
>>>>>
>>>> at 8 mpg and heavy ved there is no subsidy, if anything it's the other
>>>> way around.
>>> Evidence?
>>>
>>> Please don't simply state the anount of VED a lorry pays, it was reduced
>>> a few years ago you may recall.
>> Back of a packet calculations show annual tax take from HGV's about 10
>> billion pounds (VED + Fuel tax) expenditure on UK road system is ???
>
> When your working it out (not forgetting the cash spent by local authorities
> on loal roads some of which comes from Counil Tax), don't forget all the
> associated costs will you?
>
>
What makes you think I'm going to work it out.

"Neil Williams" <wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:46818949.198115265@news....
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:44:00 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone@m> wrote:
>
>>Why?
>
> Because it would cost a lot more than using road vehicles.

Evidence?

"Conor" <conor.turton@> wrote in message
news:MPG.20eb392810b0de398abc4@news.karoo.co.uk...
> In article <_u5gi.4543$ri2.2439@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, NM says...
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and in
>> > 2004
>> > four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed involved lorries.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> To get a balance here we need to know how many lorry drivers were killed
>> by cyclists in the same period. :-)
>>
> No idea but I suspect a few had a cardio episode from cycling.
>
or maybe more had cardio episodes from not cycling ..

Robin wrote:
> "Conor" <conor.turton@> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20eb392810b0de398abc4@news.karoo.co.uk...
>> In article <_u5gi.4543$ri2.2439@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, NM says...
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>> The year before 21 cyclists were killed, nine involved lorries and in
>>>> 2004
>>>> four of eight accidents in which cyclists were killed involved lorries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To get a balance here we need to know how many lorry drivers were killed
>>> by cyclists in the same period. :-)
>>>
>> No idea but I suspect a few had a cardio episode from cycling.
>>
> or maybe more had cardio episodes from not cycling ..
>
>
LOL. That really takes the biscuit.
--
Moving things in still pictures!

In article <1182875572.900560.290150@o61g2000hsh. .com>,
allan tracy says...
> >
> > What has this got to do with making other road users aware of the limited
> > sightlines from the driving seat of a lorry?
>
> My point precisely, they're just not fit to be used in an urban
> environment and in any other industry wouldn't be allowed to.
>
No problem. I'm sure you have no issue with your local area being
blocked solid by Transits.


--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

In article <46817403.192669484@news.>, Neil Williams
says...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:11:44 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brimstone@m> wrote:
>
> >> So how would you see urban deliveries? A rail head at every
> >> supermarket and high street perhaps?
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Completely unrealistic. However, there may be some mileage in using a
> larger number of smaller vehicles for local distribution, be that from
> rail or road.
>
Of course. Because 26 Ford Transits[1] driving from the DC to your
local Tesco several times a day take up far less room than an artic
don't they?

[1] 26 Transits being the number required to shift one artic load

--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

In article <1182888149.719920.300270@m36g2000hse. .com>,
says...

> Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years mainly
> due to the failure of the road system to deliver reliability. ASDA,
> Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been turning to rail increasingly
> for the long stuff.
>
Wrong.

EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of the
above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their own
railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail allows
Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as the new Tesco
white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.

Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
stuff onto rail.

--
Conor

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, David Cantrell wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:39:00AM +0100, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
>> In article <ZuidnV_2VIXoQh3bnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com>,
>> brimstone@m (Brimstone) wrote:
>>
>>> Two lorries will be parked in Trafalgar Square, central London, to
>>> allow other road users to see first hand how limited a lorry driver's
>>> vision is.
>>
>> If their vision is that limited, why are they allowed on the roads?
>
> Because you and all the whinging cyclists have yet to come up with
> anything better.

8 Freight.

And zeppelins, damn it!

tom

--
Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly
every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Conor wrote:

> In article <1182888149.719920.300270@m36g2000hse. .com>,
> says...
>
>> Although railfreight has been growing for the last ten years mainly
>> due to the failure of the road system to deliver reliability. ASDA,
>> Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys have been turning to rail increasingly
>> for the long stuff.
>
> Wrong.
>
> EDDIE STOBART who runs the warehousing at either end on behalf of the
> above has turned to railfreight because Stobarts have their own
> railheads and goods trains. Sending loads to Scotch by rail allows
> Stobarts to free up lorries to go do other work such as the new Tesco
> white goods RDC they're opening up at Goole.
>
> Believe me, lorry journeys haven't been reduced by Stobarts putting
> stuff onto rail.

Er, what? If they hadn't put that stuff on rail, they would have had to
buy more lorries for this RDC thing etc. It's not a reduction, but it is a
smaller increase!

tom

--
Science is bound, by the everlasting vow of honour, to face fearlessly
every problem which can be fairly presented to it. -- Lord Kelvin