Naked road scheme in London

In ,
JLB typed:
You're too pessimistic about the effect of certain commodities running
down. As they become scarce, the price will rise. Various things will
become expensive, perhaps prohibitively so, but nothing will actually
run out. Anyone prepared to pay enough will still have oil. The lack
of cheap liquid fuel will however have a very big effect on internal
combusion engine users and, most of all, aircraft. Powered flight has
no substitute for the cheap energy density achieved with liquid
hydrocarbons. This will result in many changes as so much at present
depends on very cheap log distance transport.

Not that much depends on very cheap energy intensive long distance
transport, though. Life would go on if people couldn't fly places.

A

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:54:10 +0000, JLB wrote:
Trevor Barton wrote:

Nothing I said as far as I'm concerned changes what I said in the
original "crystal ball" paragraph quoted above. I'm not sure what
you believe roads are predmoniantly intended for, these days, or
are you saying that the're not intended for anything? Or are you
operating under a differnet understanding of "intent" than I?
I am just pointing out that you cannot demonstrate the intent of whoever
provides or maintains something by showing who mostly uses it.

I wasn't really trying to do that, perhaps the sentence structure could
have been more clear, because I now see what you're misunderstanding
about my original statement.

I wasn't deducing that the intent was for cars as a direct result of
the observation that most of the users are motor vehicles. What I was
trying to say is a three-step link, which goes: Most of the users
are motor vehicles, therefore it is likely that planners base most
of their planning decisions with primary regard to the requirements of
motor vehicles (lane width, road and junction placement, signage, whatever).
Because they do that, I am inferring that it must be the planner's intent
that the road be used mainly by motor vehicles, because if it wasn't,
they'd do things differently. So, therefore, the road is mainly intended
for motor vehicles, becuase (through an intermediate reasoning step)
they are the primary users.

All I did was shorten it all be omitting the intermediate steps in my
reasoning. And here I spent all the night before last trying to
impress on my daughter the importance of writing her intermediate
workings on her maths homework, and not just write a magic answer,
so that the teacher would understand how she got where she got, and
she'd hopefully get some marks even if the end result was wrong. :-)

--
Trevor Barton

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:42:48 +0000, Richard Bates wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:42:41 +0000, JLB
wrote:

wish, and the preparation of reasonable road surfaces. Bicycles will be
back in their prime as the costs of powered personal transport rises,

I'm going to put myself in a freezer - can somebody defrost me when
the above happens please?

Well, porobably not, because hell will probablt freeze over before that
happens!

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:54:10 +0000, JLB wrote:

Trevor Barton wrote:

Nothing I said as far as I'm concerned changes what I said in the
original "crystal ball" paragraph quoted above. I'm not sure what
you believe roads are predmoniantly intended for, these days, or
are you saying that the're not intended for anything? Or are you
operating under a differnet understanding of "intent" than I?

I am just pointing out that you cannot demonstrate the intent of whoever
provides or maintains something by showing who mostly uses it.


I wasn't really trying to do that, perhaps the sentence structure could
have been more clear, because I now see what you're misunderstanding
about my original statement.

I wasn't deducing that the intent was for cars as a direct result of
the observation that most of the users are motor vehicles. What I was
trying to say is a three-step link, which goes: Most of the users
are motor vehicles, therefore it is likely that planners base most
of their planning decisions with primary regard to the requirements of
motor vehicles (lane width, road and junction placement, signage, whatever).
Because they do that, I am inferring that it must be the planner's intent
that the road be used mainly by motor vehicles, because if it wasn't,
they'd do things differently.

I can see that might be an explanation, but possibly the planners
believe they are providing everything that all the road users need,
equally and without any discrimination. The reason for all the junk,
signs, markings and so on is that the planners see motor vehicle drivers
as having special needs for all this stuff. It does not make the drivers
the primary users or more important than anyone else. This is just a
hypothesis. I don't know what goes on in planners' minds [1]. I just
don't feel comfortable trying to infer drivers are primary users, if
there are such users, from the evidence offered. Also, I'd like to avoid
encouraging drivers to feel that their assumptions of superiority have
any sound basis. The "special needs" theory is therefore appealing.

So, therefore, the road is mainly intended
for motor vehicles, becuase (through an intermediate reasoning step)
they are the primary users.

All I did was shorten it all be omitting the intermediate steps in my
reasoning. And here I spent all the night before last trying to
impress on my daughter the importance of writing her intermediate
workings on her maths homework, and not just write a magic answer,
so that the teacher would understand how she got where she got, and
she'd hopefully get some marks even if the end result was wrong. :-)

Yes, though it's not without risk to go that way. While at university I
once had course work returned with a remark about "Right answer,
entirely wrong method" and marks suitably deducted.


[1] There was a wonderful cartoon in Private Eye years ago. It showed
two people relaxing with coffee in a room with a sign on the wall "Town
Planning Office" and various drawings on boards etc. Outside the window
was a scene of urban chaos; flyovers, jammed-up junctions, ugly tower
blocks, car parks, roadworks.

The one chap remarks to the other, "You know what I *really* hate? People."

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap