Air pollution

Air pollution

Air pollution

First published in Letters by

I WATCHED the Lendal Bridge closure trial with interest and being a cyclist, occasional pedestrian, taxi customer and bus user, I benefited from this thoroughfare being safer, quicker to pass across and generally nicer without the cars and lorries clogging it up during the day.

As an asthmatic, and someone who cares about people and their health, I feel the subject of air pollution has not been considered enough yet. York has several areas where pollutant levels are so high that they exceed limits set with health in mind, and it is possible that the closure may have reduced the pollution to an acceptable level.

I look forward to a detailed analysis of the closure, which will include data of bus times and usage, traffic densities in other parts of the city, and air quality. It may be that these measurements will deem the closure to have succeeded in its aims, and that the bridge can then be closed for good.

John Cossham, Hull Road, York.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:16pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Tiv says...

The bridge will remain open for the purpose it is there for, motorised transport for all users. Let the traffic flow, wealth for the city will follow.
The bridge will remain open for the purpose it is there for, motorised transport for all users. Let the traffic flow, wealth for the city will follow. Tiv
  • Score: 14

2:08pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Mulgrave says...

I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John? Mulgrave
  • Score: 15

3:12pm Thu 17 Apr 14

wallman says...

so hull rd dosent have traffic problems? it can take 10 mins to get from tang hall lane to melrosegate a distance of jut over half a mile air pollution? or dosent it count because you live there nimby
so hull rd dosent have traffic problems? it can take 10 mins to get from tang hall lane to melrosegate a distance of jut over half a mile air pollution? or dosent it count because you live there nimby wallman
  • Score: 11

3:15pm Thu 17 Apr 14

roadwars says...

Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
I find it just as bewildering, why the Taxi (with it's 2 journeys required for every trip) is seen as better for the traffic levels and the environment than the private car (which just makes the necessary trip).
Something to do with the revenue earned from Taxi and private hire licencing perhaps?...
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]I find it just as bewildering, why the Taxi (with it's 2 journeys required for every trip) is seen as better for the traffic levels and the environment than the private car (which just makes the necessary trip). Something to do with the revenue earned from Taxi and private hire licencing perhaps?... roadwars
  • Score: 13

3:17pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK Jonothon
  • Score: -15

3:34pm Thu 17 Apr 14

roadwars says...

Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
Taxis are just cars, they offer no benefit to the environment or to the traffic flow. Any higher average number of passengers (if true) is purely down to the type of journeys made (e.g. family trips to the station). If we all had to resort to using taxis for our daily commute then they would be utilised essentially as single occupancy vehicles but with an extra return (empty) journey every time.
Add this to the extra congestion caused by them using filter lanes and additional traffic light cycles they multiply the overall stationary traffic problem therefore quite often hold up the beloved busses and their counterparts further back in the queue.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]Taxis are just cars, they offer no benefit to the environment or to the traffic flow. Any higher average number of passengers (if true) is purely down to the type of journeys made (e.g. family trips to the station). If we all had to resort to using taxis for our daily commute then they would be utilised essentially as single occupancy vehicles but with an extra return (empty) journey every time. Add this to the extra congestion caused by them using filter lanes and additional traffic light cycles they multiply the overall stationary traffic problem therefore quite often hold up the beloved busses and their counterparts further back in the queue. roadwars
  • Score: 16

4:32pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

This is one of those letters Merrett asked Semlyn to organise, you know 'Ana can you get some made up letters of support put in the press', can we give it a rest and concentrate on getting this council out of office!
This is one of those letters Merrett asked Semlyn to organise, you know 'Ana can you get some made up letters of support put in the press', can we give it a rest and concentrate on getting this council out of office! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 11

4:36pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........
......
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ...... Igiveinthen
  • Score: 12

5:06pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........

......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........
"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer? Jonothon
  • Score: -11

5:20pm Thu 17 Apr 14

roadwars says...

Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........


......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........

"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I think a lot of us understand the benefit of busses (whether we like them or not) but your defence of Taxis is flawed.
As for the "Professional driver" thing. Professional simply means that it is their main source of income, it doesn't make them any better at it, this is clear to be seen on the roads around York and many other cities.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]I think a lot of us understand the benefit of busses (whether we like them or not) but your defence of Taxis is flawed. As for the "Professional driver" thing. Professional simply means that it is their main source of income, it doesn't make them any better at it, this is clear to be seen on the roads around York and many other cities. roadwars
  • Score: 14

5:22pm Thu 17 Apr 14

strangebuttrue? says...

The council have already said pollution had improved but this was due to local weather conditions and nothing to do with closing the bridge. They have also said there was no change in the volume of traffic in York during the closure and as many vehicles were driving further and standing in queues for longer I would suggest they have been lucky that the weather was wet and windy during the closure or my guess is pollution would have had to have gone up.

Since 2006 when Mr Merrett took his seat on all things traffic in York he has delivered many traffic constraining measures such as this and we have seen no increase in the volume of traffic but yet have had to suffer sustained year on year increases in pollution levels rising by as much as 48% and more generally 33% and the council report this comes from says buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets.

Keep on going with more of the same John? Some seem to find it impossible to learn from mistakes.
The council have already said pollution had improved but this was due to local weather conditions and nothing to do with closing the bridge. They have also said there was no change in the volume of traffic in York during the closure and as many vehicles were driving further and standing in queues for longer I would suggest they have been lucky that the weather was wet and windy during the closure or my guess is pollution would have had to have gone up. Since 2006 when Mr Merrett took his seat on all things traffic in York he has delivered many traffic constraining measures such as this and we have seen no increase in the volume of traffic but yet have had to suffer sustained year on year increases in pollution levels rising by as much as 48% and more generally 33% and the council report this comes from says buses are one of the main reasons York missed it's pollution targets. Keep on going with more of the same John? Some seem to find it impossible to learn from mistakes. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 14

6:10pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........


......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........

"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 10

6:13pm Thu 17 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........

......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand? CaroleBaines
  • Score: -11

7:00pm Thu 17 Apr 14

wallman says...

how can busses create less pollution when you se e 2 or 3 in a row all going to the same place eg no6 or 1
how can busses create less pollution when you se e 2 or 3 in a row all going to the same place eg no6 or 1 wallman
  • Score: 6

7:21pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........


......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?[/p][/quote]Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 7

7:30pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Jonothon says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........



......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........


"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.
"Buses never travel full me old mate"

You're wrong me old mate.
Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker.

Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers"
Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel

Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK)
Car 46.6%
Motorcycle 17.7%
Bus 0.4%
Source, EU Care database 2011
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.[/p][/quote]"Buses never travel full me old mate" You're wrong me old mate. Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker. Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers" Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK) Car 46.6% Motorcycle 17.7% Bus 0.4% Source, EU Care database 2011 Jonothon
  • Score: -10

7:39pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........




......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........



"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.
"Buses never travel full me old mate"

You're wrong me old mate.
Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker.

Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers"
Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel

Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK)
Car 46.6%
Motorcycle 17.7%
Bus 0.4%
Source, EU Care database 2011
It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same.
[quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.[/p][/quote]"Buses never travel full me old mate" You're wrong me old mate. Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker. Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers" Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK) Car 46.6% Motorcycle 17.7% Bus 0.4% Source, EU Care database 2011[/p][/quote]It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 4

8:55pm Thu 17 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........



......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.
Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?[/p][/quote]Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.[/p][/quote]Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -8

9:11pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........




......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.
Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.
Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue?
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?[/p][/quote]Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.[/p][/quote]Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.[/p][/quote]Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 6

9:35pm Thu 17 Apr 14

CaroleBaines says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........





......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.
Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.
Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue?
No. :-)
Come on though, fewer vehicles equals less pollution. I think the bridge thing has been a fiasco with the fines situation. But one cannot argue with that basic premise.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?[/p][/quote]Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.[/p][/quote]Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.[/p][/quote]Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue?[/p][/quote]No. :-) Come on though, fewer vehicles equals less pollution. I think the bridge thing has been a fiasco with the fines situation. But one cannot argue with that basic premise. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -7

9:37pm Thu 17 Apr 14

roadwars says...

And still nobody can explain how Taxis cut congestion or lower pollution...
And still nobody can explain how Taxis cut congestion or lower pollution... roadwars
  • Score: 8

10:32pm Thu 17 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........






......
Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?
Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.
Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.
Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue?
No. :-)
Come on though, fewer vehicles equals less pollution. I think the bridge thing has been a fiasco with the fines situation. But one cannot argue with that basic premise.
Your quite right, can't argue with the basic premise, but lets not forget all those who genuinely do need vehicle access to the city streets and roads to carry out their business, a cousin of mine is a plumber, when the bridge restrictions were in place he had the devil of a time to try and circumnavigate the city and it made him late on a number of occasions. Is the answer congestion charging? with exemptions for those vehicle users who do need access, but just as with the 'bridge' issue, there needs to be alternative routes for the displaced traffic, but that's where it all falls down.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Not saying that at all!! Where did you get that idea? He is saying public transport vehicles carry more passengers, so fewer vehicles for same amount of journeys people need to make, so less pollution. Is that so difficult to understand?[/p][/quote]Bit late with your reply Carole, already replied to his gem of a comment, so why don't you comment on the update.[/p][/quote]Ask yourself why. Answer is not difficult. It might involve the word vacuous.[/p][/quote]Don't understand vacuous, can you give me a clue?[/p][/quote]No. :-) Come on though, fewer vehicles equals less pollution. I think the bridge thing has been a fiasco with the fines situation. But one cannot argue with that basic premise.[/p][/quote]Your quite right, can't argue with the basic premise, but lets not forget all those who genuinely do need vehicle access to the city streets and roads to carry out their business, a cousin of mine is a plumber, when the bridge restrictions were in place he had the devil of a time to try and circumnavigate the city and it made him late on a number of occasions. Is the answer congestion charging? with exemptions for those vehicle users who do need access, but just as with the 'bridge' issue, there needs to be alternative routes for the displaced traffic, but that's where it all falls down. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

1:53am Fri 18 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

roadwars wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
Taxis are just cars, they offer no benefit to the environment or to the traffic flow. Any higher average number of passengers (if true) is purely down to the type of journeys made (e.g. family trips to the station). If we all had to resort to using taxis for our daily commute then they would be utilised essentially as single occupancy vehicles but with an extra return (empty) journey every time.
Add this to the extra congestion caused by them using filter lanes and additional traffic light cycles they multiply the overall stationary traffic problem therefore quite often hold up the beloved busses and their counterparts further back in the queue.
It would have been better if Lendal Bridge had placed a sort-of "2 passenger taxi" stipulation, where taxi's could only cross if they had 2 or more passengers (meaning emppty ones couldn't go over).

As for traffic lights: a number of times recently a taxi has used the bus lane along malton Road near the Elmfield Avenue junction... there has been a Park and Ride bus and several cyclists coming the other way, who all had to stop because the lights had gone red due to the empty taxi (minicab) jumping the queue. Now that's a real conflict of interests!
[quote][p][bold]roadwars[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]Taxis are just cars, they offer no benefit to the environment or to the traffic flow. Any higher average number of passengers (if true) is purely down to the type of journeys made (e.g. family trips to the station). If we all had to resort to using taxis for our daily commute then they would be utilised essentially as single occupancy vehicles but with an extra return (empty) journey every time. Add this to the extra congestion caused by them using filter lanes and additional traffic light cycles they multiply the overall stationary traffic problem therefore quite often hold up the beloved busses and their counterparts further back in the queue.[/p][/quote]It would have been better if Lendal Bridge had placed a sort-of "2 passenger taxi" stipulation, where taxi's could only cross if they had 2 or more passengers (meaning emppty ones couldn't go over). As for traffic lights: a number of times recently a taxi has used the bus lane along malton Road near the Elmfield Avenue junction... there has been a Park and Ride bus and several cyclists coming the other way, who all had to stop because the lights had gone red due to the empty taxi (minicab) jumping the queue. Now that's a real conflict of interests! Magicman!
  • Score: 5

1:57am Fri 18 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

wallman wrote:
how can busses create less pollution when you se e 2 or 3 in a row all going to the same place eg no6 or 1
That isn't the fault of the bus though is it? it's partly the fault of the company, but more so the fault that York has such terrible congestion (made up primarily by private motor vehicles) that a bus can get stuck in a queue for so long that the next one catches up with it - either directly or because passenger numbers increase at the bus stops, so the very first bus along picks up what is effectively double the number of passengers that bus would have if the traffic queue wasn't there, as the other half of the passengers would have missed that very first bus and got on the second one instead.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: how can busses create less pollution when you se e 2 or 3 in a row all going to the same place eg no6 or 1[/p][/quote]That isn't the fault of the bus though is it? it's partly the fault of the company, but more so the fault that York has such terrible congestion (made up primarily by private motor vehicles) that a bus can get stuck in a queue for so long that the next one catches up with it - either directly or because passenger numbers increase at the bus stops, so the very first bus along picks up what is effectively double the number of passengers that bus would have if the traffic queue wasn't there, as the other half of the passengers would have missed that very first bus and got on the second one instead. Magicman!
  • Score: -4

2:03am Fri 18 Apr 14

Magicman! says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........





......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........




"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.
"Buses never travel full me old mate"

You're wrong me old mate.
Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker.

Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers"
Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel

Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK)
Car 46.6%
Motorcycle 17.7%
Bus 0.4%
Source, EU Care database 2011
It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same.
And THAT right there is why York has terrible congestion. Small-minded people who simply refuse to come out of their own little bubble and look at the bigger picture... it is because of people like YOU who *could* use the bus, but point-blank refuse to, that buses end up running late due to getting stuck in a traffic jam...

... All it takes is for a few people to decided to use a different means of transport where that option is sensibly available (similar or less time taken, for example), and those who actually have a physical NEED to be in their car would find they get through one set of traffic lights a couple of cycles sooner - and because of the way York's traffic lights work, they then get through the next lights either 3 or 4 cycles sooner, the next ones after that 4,5 or even 6 cycles sooner - and the number goes up exponentially; in terms of time by YOU deciding not to drive it could save somebody else 30, 40, 50 or even 60 minutes off of their journey time.

... and to think there are people out there who say motorists aren't selfish!!
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.[/p][/quote]"Buses never travel full me old mate" You're wrong me old mate. Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker. Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers" Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK) Car 46.6% Motorcycle 17.7% Bus 0.4% Source, EU Care database 2011[/p][/quote]It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same.[/p][/quote]And THAT right there is why York has terrible congestion. Small-minded people who simply refuse to come out of their own little bubble and look at the bigger picture... it is because of people like YOU who *could* use the bus, but point-blank refuse to, that buses end up running late due to getting stuck in a traffic jam... ... All it takes is for a few people to decided to use a different means of transport where that option is sensibly available (similar or less time taken, for example), and those who actually have a physical NEED to be in their car would find they get through one set of traffic lights a couple of cycles sooner - and because of the way York's traffic lights work, they then get through the next lights either 3 or 4 cycles sooner, the next ones after that 4,5 or even 6 cycles sooner - and the number goes up exponentially; in terms of time by YOU deciding not to drive it could save somebody else 30, 40, 50 or even 60 minutes off of their journey time. ... and to think there are people out there who say motorists aren't selfish!! Magicman!
  • Score: -5

7:09am Fri 18 Apr 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Igiveinthen wrote:
Jonothon wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?
Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities
All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages.

I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK
So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........






......
Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting.........





"

It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger

One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers.
In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.
"Buses never travel full me old mate"

You're wrong me old mate.
Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker.

Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers"
Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel

Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK)
Car 46.6%
Motorcycle 17.7%
Bus 0.4%
Source, EU Care database 2011
It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same.
And THAT right there is why York has terrible congestion. Small-minded people who simply refuse to come out of their own little bubble and look at the bigger picture... it is because of people like YOU who *could* use the bus, but point-blank refuse to, that buses end up running late due to getting stuck in a traffic jam...

... All it takes is for a few people to decided to use a different means of transport where that option is sensibly available (similar or less time taken, for example), and those who actually have a physical NEED to be in their car would find they get through one set of traffic lights a couple of cycles sooner - and because of the way York's traffic lights work, they then get through the next lights either 3 or 4 cycles sooner, the next ones after that 4,5 or even 6 cycles sooner - and the number goes up exponentially; in terms of time by YOU deciding not to drive it could save somebody else 30, 40, 50 or even 60 minutes off of their journey time.

... and to think there are people out there who say motorists aren't selfish!!
Calm down dear, getting excited won't do your BP any good!, did I say that I drive through the city? lets not forget all those who genuinely do need vehicle access to the city streets and roads to carry out their business, you have obviously ignored my reply to CaroleBianes, but it's not unusual as Tom Jones once said.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonothon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: I remain fascinated by the concept of a York taxi being so different from a horrible polluting and dangerous car, and by extension the passenger in the former being a paragon of virtue as opposed to the devil incarnate in the private car next in the queue. The last time I crossed the bridge in my car, over a year ago, was to take an elderly relative to hospital for a scheduled operation, my first choice via Clifton being severely restricted due to roadworks - any problem with that John?[/p][/quote]Mulgrave the answer is that taxis, like buses, are part of the public transport system. if people use public transport, there will be many less cars on the road. less pollution, less traffic jams, less need for expensive road programmes, and obviously less road accidents and fatalities All public road transport vehicles, including taxis, carry more passengers per average journey than private cars so it is not difficult to work out the advantages. I'm not sure what point you are making in your second sentence, but I hope your relative is OK[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... ......[/p][/quote]Igiveinthen asks "So what you are saying is that knackered taxis and buses don't pollute, and they don't have traffic accidents, interesting......... " It's not rocket science. Most cars carry one passenger One bus with 40 passengers pollutes less than 40 cars, and one professional driver will have many less accidents than 40 car drivers. In view of your facility with maths, may I ask if you are by any chance Chancellor of the Exchequer?[/p][/quote]Buses never travel full me old mate!!and as for professional drivers I have experienced them personally by being driven at by a bendy bus driver so preventing me joining the traffic queue in front of him, I have been driving for 52 years both motor cycle and cars without - touch wood - a scrape, so don't try and tell me bus drivers are better than car drivers! As for cars carrying only one passenger, I am a single occupancy driver so does that make me a inconsiderate, why don't I use a bus I hear you say, because I bloody well don't want to, finally I won't even rise to your pathetic attempt at being insulting.[/p][/quote]"Buses never travel full me old mate" You're wrong me old mate. Try travelling on a 12 from Haxby in the morning. Not only full but standing room only till it gets to the centre. Several routes are the same. Anyway if I had meant full, I would not have quoted 40, would have said 70 passengers as that must be close to the standing capacity of a double decker. Then there is your other point "don't try telling me that bus drivers are better than car drivers" Well, this is not just about drivers but here are the comparative safety figures for modes of road travel Safest way to travel by road. Europe wide road fatalities (including UK) Car 46.6% Motorcycle 17.7% Bus 0.4% Source, EU Care database 2011[/p][/quote]It's good to quote figures and statistics, just like pp/Hepworth does, it's ok though I'll just stick with my car thanks all the same.[/p][/quote]And THAT right there is why York has terrible congestion. Small-minded people who simply refuse to come out of their own little bubble and look at the bigger picture... it is because of people like YOU who *could* use the bus, but point-blank refuse to, that buses end up running late due to getting stuck in a traffic jam... ... All it takes is for a few people to decided to use a different means of transport where that option is sensibly available (similar or less time taken, for example), and those who actually have a physical NEED to be in their car would find they get through one set of traffic lights a couple of cycles sooner - and because of the way York's traffic lights work, they then get through the next lights either 3 or 4 cycles sooner, the next ones after that 4,5 or even 6 cycles sooner - and the number goes up exponentially; in terms of time by YOU deciding not to drive it could save somebody else 30, 40, 50 or even 60 minutes off of their journey time. ... and to think there are people out there who say motorists aren't selfish!![/p][/quote]Calm down dear, getting excited won't do your BP any good!, did I say that I drive through the city? lets not forget all those who genuinely do need vehicle access to the city streets and roads to carry out their business, you have obviously ignored my reply to CaroleBianes, but it's not unusual as Tom Jones once said. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree