A week into the currency of a new registration mark and there are usually dozens of vehicles flaunting it. This time, the number I have seen can be counted on my thumbs. Has the change last year to the new-style marks, with the year indication in the middle, finally caused the great British motoring public tolose its obsession with having the latest registration mark on Day 1?
I can remember the rush to have the new mark each August as long ago as "E" suffixes, in 1967 (the year the changeover date changed from January). Everyone ridiculed people who did it, but we all noticed!
My parents even postponed their 30th wedding anniversary present to themselves by three weeks to get the then latest mark - "just to keep the resale value up, of course"! (And managed to get one with the number ofthe year in which they were married)
"52" Registrations
Moderator: Site Management Team
I've seen a good four or five new registration cars in the village where I live (that's out of about 100 houses), so it seems as popular as ever... well, excepting of course that there's now two plates a year instead of the single one that existed previously...
Chris.
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Two reasons for less interest these days -
1) The change is every 6 months rather than yearly ( 'R' was last full year reg)
2) A letter prefix or suffix was instantly noticable, letters in the middle of the plate less so.
Is March change more popular than September ?02, 03 etc is more distinct then 51,52 .......
N.B. Isn't this thread more about cars than roads ?
1) The change is every 6 months rather than yearly ( 'R' was last full year reg)
2) A letter prefix or suffix was instantly noticable, letters in the middle of the plate less so.
Is March change more popular than September ?02, 03 etc is more distinct then 51,52 .......
N.B. Isn't this thread more about cars than roads ?
AKA M5 Driver
-
PeterA5145
- Member
- Posts: 25347
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
- Location: Stockport, Cheshire
- Contact:
<<A letter prefix or suffix was instantly noticable, letters in the middle of the plate less so.>>
This is certainly true - I can't say I've noticed a single one so far, despite commuting 27 miles each way on the motorway every day. Although forecasts are for a record number of new registrations this year, topping last year's 2.5 million. As last week's "Times" headline said, "Labour admits defeat in war against the car".
<<N.B. Isn't this thread more about cars than roads ?>>
And why not? What are roads for, after all? And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board.
(Cue usual rant about the impenetrable presentation of messages, and the impossibility of seeing a summary of all recent messages beyond the last four)
Regards,
Peter
This is certainly true - I can't say I've noticed a single one so far, despite commuting 27 miles each way on the motorway every day. Although forecasts are for a record number of new registrations this year, topping last year's 2.5 million. As last week's "Times" headline said, "Labour admits defeat in war against the car".
<<N.B. Isn't this thread more about cars than roads ?>>
And why not? What are roads for, after all? And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board.
(Cue usual rant about the impenetrable presentation of messages, and the impossibility of seeing a summary of all recent messages beyond the last four)
Regards,
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
Ian: <<N.B. Isn't this thread more about cars than roads ?>>
PeterE: << And why not? What are roads for, after all? >>
Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, access to housing, shops, offices...
<< And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board. >>
Well, we've got a "Driving" board (which has received a grand total of five messages since it was instigated).
When I was manager I was very keen to ensure that this wasn't seen as a cars site - one of my first acts was to take it out of MSN's "Cars" classification and put it under "Places and Travel". SABRE's remit is the history, geography and structure of the road network. Obviously we stray onto related topics from time to time, but I do strongly believe that it shouldn't become another carsgroup - there are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet.
On the other hand, this thread is at least about numbering
Guy
PeterE: << And why not? What are roads for, after all? >>
Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, access to housing, shops, offices...
<< And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board. >>
Well, we've got a "Driving" board (which has received a grand total of five messages since it was instigated).
When I was manager I was very keen to ensure that this wasn't seen as a cars site - one of my first acts was to take it out of MSN's "Cars" classification and put it under "Places and Travel". SABRE's remit is the history, geography and structure of the road network. Obviously we stray onto related topics from time to time, but I do strongly believe that it shouldn't become another carsgroup - there are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet.
On the other hand, this thread is at least about numbering
Guy
-
PeterA5145
- Member
- Posts: 25347
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
- Location: Stockport, Cheshire
- Contact:
<<PeterE: << And why not? What are roads for, after all? >>
Guy: Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, access to housing, shops, offices...>>
Of course, but cars account for over 90% of passenger-miles on the roads, and if there were no motor vehicles there would be no need for a numbering system.
As Neil Young said, "we got fuel to burn, we got roads to drive..."
<< PeterE: <<And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board. >>
Guy: Well, we've got a "Driving" board (which has received a grand total of five messages since it was instigated).>>
Largely due to the perverse structure of MSN Groups. I'm sure that the collective membership of this group could have had stimulating discussions on various driving-related topics - for example the proposed ban on mobile phones. If time wasn't so short I might have tried to to start a few threads myself - "the lost art of overtaking" springs to mind as a good topic.
<<When I was manager I was very keen to ensure that this wasn't seen as a cars site - one of my first acts was to take it out of MSN's "Cars" classification and put it under "Places and Travel". SABRE's remit is the history, geography and structure of the road network. Obviously we stray onto related topics from time to time, but I do strongly believe that it shouldn't become another cars group - there are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet.>>
Yes, of course this isn't an offshoot of the ABD. But we can't wash our hands of the subject entirely, and treat roads purely as a sterile academic exercise. It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy.
Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm
Regards,
Peter
Guy: Cyclists, pedestrians, public transport, access to housing, shops, offices...>>
Of course, but cars account for over 90% of passenger-miles on the roads, and if there were no motor vehicles there would be no need for a numbering system.
As Neil Young said, "we got fuel to burn, we got roads to drive..."
<< PeterE: <<And the way this forum works, it wouldn't be a practical proposition to sideline such discussion to a separate "Cars" board. >>
Guy: Well, we've got a "Driving" board (which has received a grand total of five messages since it was instigated).>>
Largely due to the perverse structure of MSN Groups. I'm sure that the collective membership of this group could have had stimulating discussions on various driving-related topics - for example the proposed ban on mobile phones. If time wasn't so short I might have tried to to start a few threads myself - "the lost art of overtaking" springs to mind as a good topic.
<<When I was manager I was very keen to ensure that this wasn't seen as a cars site - one of my first acts was to take it out of MSN's "Cars" classification and put it under "Places and Travel". SABRE's remit is the history, geography and structure of the road network. Obviously we stray onto related topics from time to time, but I do strongly believe that it shouldn't become another cars group - there are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet.>>
Yes, of course this isn't an offshoot of the ABD. But we can't wash our hands of the subject entirely, and treat roads purely as a sterile academic exercise. It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy.
Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm
Regards,
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
<<When I was manager I was very keen to ensure that this wasn't seen as a cars site - one of my first acts was to take it out of MSN's "Cars" classification and put it under "Places and Travel". SABRE's remit is the history, geography and structure of the road network. Obviously we stray onto related topics from time to time, but I do strongly believe that it shouldn't become another carsgroup - there are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet. On the other hand, this thread is at least about numbering >>
I'd agree with that appraisal - however, this topic I think is acceptable, as would be topics about the actual road use, and vehicle speeds etc. What I do think is outside the remit of the group is discussion of car types (i.e. what's better, Merc or BMW for example)
Just my opinion...
Chris.
>>I'd agree with that appraisal - however, this topic I think is acceptable, as would be topics about the actual road use, and vehicle speeds etc. What I do think is outside the remit of the group is discussion of car types (i.e. what's better, Merc or BMW for example)
Just my opinion...
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
PeterE: << Yes, of course this isn't an offshoot of the ABD. But we can't wash our hands of the subject entirely, and treat roads purely as a sterile academic exercise. >>
Yes we can! Some of us do.
<< It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. >>
Hmm, well I think some people might disagree with you. Have you seen Richard Green's "Pint Glass Numbers"?
<< We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy. >>
Oh indeed, and to be serious I'm glad that issues of transport policy are raised here. But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree?
<< Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm>>
Oh wow. And how long has that been up on Richard Green's site? It shows what a chasm there is between theiragenda and ours. If the author could be bothered to identify himself, I'd email him and tell him that we've discovered a few other anomalies like that...
Guy
Yes we can! Some of us do.
<< It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. >>
Hmm, well I think some people might disagree with you. Have you seen Richard Green's "Pint Glass Numbers"?
<< We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy. >>
Oh indeed, and to be serious I'm glad that issues of transport policy are raised here. But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree?
<< Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm>>
Oh wow. And how long has that been up on Richard Green's site? It shows what a chasm there is between theiragenda and ours. If the author could be bothered to identify himself, I'd email him and tell him that we've discovered a few other anomalies like that...
Guy
-
PeterA5145
- Member
- Posts: 25347
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
- Location: Stockport, Cheshire
- Contact:
<<PeterE: << Yes, of course this isn't an offshoot of the ABD. But we can't wash our hands of the subject entirely, and treat roads purely as a sterile academic exercise. >>
Guy: Yes we can! Some of us do.>>
Well, it's a bit sad and pathetic if you can take that attitude over a serious subject that impacts on the daily lives of everyone in the UK. You can't discuss road numbering and junction design without any consideration of how it actually affects people.
<<<< It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. >>
Hmm, well I think some people might disagree with you. Have you seen Richard Green's "Pint Glass Numbers"? >>
Indeed I have, and found it rather amusing. And with my CAMRA hat on, I'm well aware of the pathetic, anal-retentive activities of the beer spotters.
<<<< We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy. >>
Oh indeed, and to be serious I'm glad that issues of transport policy are raised here. But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree? >>
Up to a point - but surely the reason for road numbering is to make the road network more usable for people. It doesn't exist in a vacuum - it impacts on everyone's daily lives. So we need to have a proper, comprehensible numbering system, and we also need to have a decent road system that actually meets people's transport needs.
<<<< Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm >>
Oh wow. And how long has that been up on Richard Green's site? It shows what a chasm there is between their agenda and ours. If the author could be bothered to identify himself, I'd email him and tell him that we've discovered a few other anomalies like that...>>
But it clearly points out the stupidity and ignorance of the authorities responsible for road numbering, which has been often mentioned on this site. They are also stupid and ignorant in many other aspects of their approach to roads.
Also what is "our" agenda? As you've said yourself, this group has no agenda, it is simply a discussion forum. So therefore if people wish to raise controversial issues, that is their right - it doesn't make it the official policy of the group.
But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads.
And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it.
Regards,
Peter
Guy: Yes we can! Some of us do.>>
Well, it's a bit sad and pathetic if you can take that attitude over a serious subject that impacts on the daily lives of everyone in the UK. You can't discuss road numbering and junction design without any consideration of how it actually affects people.
<<<< It's not like collecting beer bottle labels. >>
Hmm, well I think some people might disagree with you. Have you seen Richard Green's "Pint Glass Numbers"? >>
Indeed I have, and found it rather amusing. And with my CAMRA hat on, I'm well aware of the pathetic, anal-retentive activities of the beer spotters.
<<<< We are all users of the roads in various ways, and inevitably our experiences of using them will colour our views on policy. >>
Oh indeed, and to be serious I'm glad that issues of transport policy are raised here. But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree? >>
Up to a point - but surely the reason for road numbering is to make the road network more usable for people. It doesn't exist in a vacuum - it impacts on everyone's daily lives. So we need to have a proper, comprehensible numbering system, and we also need to have a decent road system that actually meets people's transport needs.
<<<< Interestingly, a very SABRE-like page has recently appeared on the ABD website, on a topic this community has discussed in the past:
http://www.abd.org.uk/b1106.htm >>
Oh wow. And how long has that been up on Richard Green's site? It shows what a chasm there is between their agenda and ours. If the author could be bothered to identify himself, I'd email him and tell him that we've discovered a few other anomalies like that...>>
But it clearly points out the stupidity and ignorance of the authorities responsible for road numbering, which has been often mentioned on this site. They are also stupid and ignorant in many other aspects of their approach to roads.
Also what is "our" agenda? As you've said yourself, this group has no agenda, it is simply a discussion forum. So therefore if people wish to raise controversial issues, that is their right - it doesn't make it the official policy of the group.
But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads.
And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it.
Regards,
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
PeterE: << Yes, of course this isn't an offshoot of the ABD. But we can't wash our hands of the subject entirely, and treat roads purely as a sterile academic exercise. >>
-----------------
Guy wrote;
Yes we can! Some of us do.
----------------------------------------------
What's the point of that? There must be an overall purpose to one's interest somewhere along the line.For me, it started as a means of getting my dad and I to football and rugby games by the quickest route possible, which broadened into planning holiday routes.I'm sure for others, it may be the history, engineering, politics, economics etc. of roads and transport, but I'd be very surprised if there were many members of the group, who were interested in roads in a purely academic, number-crunching sense.
------------------
Guy wrote;
But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree?
-------------------
It's the root, since that where everything else branches off from, but the site IMO should be and is about far more than
the road equivalent of train spotting. If we don't have a broad range of topics to discuss, things will get very stale very quickly.
Regards,
Graham.
-----------------
Guy wrote;
Yes we can! Some of us do.
----------------------------------------------
What's the point of that? There must be an overall purpose to one's interest somewhere along the line.For me, it started as a means of getting my dad and I to football and rugby games by the quickest route possible, which broadened into planning holiday routes.I'm sure for others, it may be the history, engineering, politics, economics etc. of roads and transport, but I'd be very surprised if there were many members of the group, who were interested in roads in a purely academic, number-crunching sense.
------------------
Guy wrote;
But it is, first and foremost, a site specifically about the "academic" aspects of the road network - at least that's my view of it. Or do others disagree?
-------------------
It's the root, since that where everything else branches off from, but the site IMO should be and is about far more than
the road equivalent of train spotting. If we don't have a broad range of topics to discuss, things will get very stale very quickly.
Regards,
Graham.
-
PeterA5145
- Member
- Posts: 25347
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
- Location: Stockport, Cheshire
- Contact:
<<It's the root, since that where everything else branches off from, but the site IMO should be and is about far more than the road equivalent of train spotting. If we don't have a broad range of topics to discuss, things will get very stale very quickly.>>
Hear, hear. Roads affect all of us. Even if you hold the view that we have quite enough of them already, you must accept that. It isn't, and can never be, like studying the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And if anyone wishes to argue the case for "bad junctions" not to be improved, then fire away!
Regards,
Peter
Hear, hear. Roads affect all of us. Even if you hold the view that we have quite enough of them already, you must accept that. It isn't, and can never be, like studying the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And if anyone wishes to argue the case for "bad junctions" not to be improved, then fire away!
Regards,
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
OK Peter, I know you and I have very different conceptions of this group's purpose, and I'm glad that it's enough of a "broad church" that it can accommodate both of us. I think my view is probably closer to Brad's original purpose, but he doesn't run it any more, and the membership has changed somewhat, so the discussion topics are bound to drift over time.
I don't think it's "sad and pathetic" to treat the study of the road network as an academic exercise. I used to do research into linguistics, looking at the structure of language. Language is something we use all the time (even more than roads), but I think it's still legitimate to look at the subject in the abstract. If there were everan academic subject of "odology" then perhaps it should be split into "pure and applied".
<< But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads. >>
Is this true? I'd be interested in doing a straw poll to find out.
<< And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it. >>
Why? I don't need to. And, to be honest, I'd rather not add to the amount of traffic on the roads. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reducing the number of cars.
Guy
I don't think it's "sad and pathetic" to treat the study of the road network as an academic exercise. I used to do research into linguistics, looking at the structure of language. Language is something we use all the time (even more than roads), but I think it's still legitimate to look at the subject in the abstract. If there were everan academic subject of "odology" then perhaps it should be split into "pure and applied".
<< But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads. >>
Is this true? I'd be interested in doing a straw poll to find out.
<< And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it. >>
Why? I don't need to. And, to be honest, I'd rather not add to the amount of traffic on the roads. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reducing the number of cars.
Guy
<<I'm wholeheartedly in favour of reducing the number of cars.>>
I'm interested why you would want to do this? Surely cars on the road is a sign of economic prosperity - people driving to work, shops,and leisure, the transportation of goods, etc. New road programmes allow for increased road use, and shorter journey times, which has to be a good thing - less time wasted for goods in transit, less time stuck in traffic for commuters.
I could understand, say, if you were concerned about the environmental impact of vehicles and would prefer alternative fuelled vehicles, but to say that the numbers of vehicles should be reduced simply isn't sustainable.
I rely on my vehicle, as do most people that don't live in towns - we need to get to work or the shops or where-ever - there simply is no option. What would you have us do instead? no-longer is there the option of working on the land in the country, as farming is increasingly mechanised. I, and most other country people have no desire to move into towns - I've been there and tried that, for some reason living in a million pound flat with peoplecreating noiseall around doesn't particularly appeal.
The other point, as I've made before, is that modern roads, particularly motorways have an excellent safety record - therefore the construction of new bypasses and motorways not only increases economic prosperity, but it also improves safety, for all road users and also residents living along the older routes.
In case you accuse me of holding a blinkered view of the world, from behind my windscreen, I will point out that in my free time I cycle for leisure - as a cyclist it is much more pleasant to cycle where there is space to do so, namely on either country lanes with very little traffic, or on busier roads which have mini-tarmac verges (so motorists can pass easily) - i.e. not older primary routes where there is no space for the cars and HGVs to overtake.
Peter: << But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads. >>
Guy: <<Is this true? I'd be interested in doing a straw poll to find out.>>
Well, I feelmy opinion on this is clear - I would definitely in favour of large-scale roads construction, provided the work is done to minimize environmental impact in areas of special interest or outstanding beauty - the A303 cut-and-cover tunnel at Stonehenge for instance is, in my opinion, an excellent compromise. However, I don't feel that roads always necessarily detract from the landscape - I've said before that the M6 through Lancashire and Cumbria is a beautiful piece of road.
The reason for this is two-fold - firstly it improves capacity and speed vehicles can travel the network, and secondly it improves safety for all road users.
Sorry if I've rambled on a bit, but these are my opinions on the subject. I undertand that SABRE is supposedly neither pro- nor anti- roads, but I also think most people here are at least in favour of sorting out the messes of the bad junctions, and improving traffic flow, if not more.
Chris.
I'm interested why you would want to do this? Surely cars on the road is a sign of economic prosperity - people driving to work, shops,and leisure, the transportation of goods, etc. New road programmes allow for increased road use, and shorter journey times, which has to be a good thing - less time wasted for goods in transit, less time stuck in traffic for commuters.
I could understand, say, if you were concerned about the environmental impact of vehicles and would prefer alternative fuelled vehicles, but to say that the numbers of vehicles should be reduced simply isn't sustainable.
I rely on my vehicle, as do most people that don't live in towns - we need to get to work or the shops or where-ever - there simply is no option. What would you have us do instead? no-longer is there the option of working on the land in the country, as farming is increasingly mechanised. I, and most other country people have no desire to move into towns - I've been there and tried that, for some reason living in a million pound flat with peoplecreating noiseall around doesn't particularly appeal.
The other point, as I've made before, is that modern roads, particularly motorways have an excellent safety record - therefore the construction of new bypasses and motorways not only increases economic prosperity, but it also improves safety, for all road users and also residents living along the older routes.
In case you accuse me of holding a blinkered view of the world, from behind my windscreen, I will point out that in my free time I cycle for leisure - as a cyclist it is much more pleasant to cycle where there is space to do so, namely on either country lanes with very little traffic, or on busier roads which have mini-tarmac verges (so motorists can pass easily) - i.e. not older primary routes where there is no space for the cars and HGVs to overtake.
Peter: << But from following discussion over the past few months, it's quite clear to me that a large majority on this group favours the construction of a lot of new roads. >>
Guy: <<Is this true? I'd be interested in doing a straw poll to find out.>>
Well, I feelmy opinion on this is clear - I would definitely in favour of large-scale roads construction, provided the work is done to minimize environmental impact in areas of special interest or outstanding beauty - the A303 cut-and-cover tunnel at Stonehenge for instance is, in my opinion, an excellent compromise. However, I don't feel that roads always necessarily detract from the landscape - I've said before that the M6 through Lancashire and Cumbria is a beautiful piece of road.
The reason for this is two-fold - firstly it improves capacity and speed vehicles can travel the network, and secondly it improves safety for all road users.
Sorry if I've rambled on a bit, but these are my opinions on the subject. I undertand that SABRE is supposedly neither pro- nor anti- roads, but I also think most people here are at least in favour of sorting out the messes of the bad junctions, and improving traffic flow, if not more.
Chris.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Well, I come back from the weekend to this. Firstly, both PeterE and Guy have been here long enough to know not to get sucked in to a debate--sorry, slanging match--and then proceed to do so.Secondly, I personally find it a little difficult to take that this group is 'sterile' and 'academic'. However, so be it.
I hope all members know the 'official' stance of the group as a whole. It's up there on the About SABRE link. If in doubt, here is the gist below...
We are here to have lively and (hopefully) entertaining debates on anything roads-related. Simple as that. Clearly there is going to be a significant overlap with driving and cars (all road vehicles in fact): that goes with the territory. And of course every member has the right to express their views. What we are not about is (yet another) forum for motorists, or any other road user, to grind their axes.There are already plenty of them (forums, motorists, and axes). Yes, by all means put your view across, if relevant, but do not belittle any other opinion simply because it differs from your own.
I realise some of us run our own websites, or are members of other forums, or actual societies with (vested) interests. That's fine. Point those who maybe interested to your off-sitearea of things.
This is my 'professional' view. My personal view differs, and those members who want my opinion on non-roads topics, are invited to email me privately.
Let's push things forward.
Paul
Site Mananger
I hope all members know the 'official' stance of the group as a whole. It's up there on the About SABRE link. If in doubt, here is the gist below...
We are here to have lively and (hopefully) entertaining debates on anything roads-related. Simple as that. Clearly there is going to be a significant overlap with driving and cars (all road vehicles in fact): that goes with the territory. And of course every member has the right to express their views. What we are not about is (yet another) forum for motorists, or any other road user, to grind their axes.There are already plenty of them (forums, motorists, and axes). Yes, by all means put your view across, if relevant, but do not belittle any other opinion simply because it differs from your own.
I realise some of us run our own websites, or are members of other forums, or actual societies with (vested) interests. That's fine. Point those who maybe interested to your off-sitearea of things.
This is my 'professional' view. My personal view differs, and those members who want my opinion on non-roads topics, are invited to email me privately.
Let's push things forward.
Paul
Site Mananger
Regards,
Paul
Paul
Peter: <<And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it.>>
Oh, come on, Peter!That was a bit cutting, or if it wasn't meant to be then it sounded it to me.
It seemed to imply a couple of things to me - that Guy needs to learn to drive to be 'normal' or at least a worthy member of SABRE, and that he (and the rest of us non-drivers) are some kind of idiots for not having wanted or not having been able to learn to drive. Gee, thanks.
I don't want to start a shouting match over this but the last thing I want (personally and officially as an assistant manager) is for SABRE to become a site for the strudy of roads from the sole viewpoint of a motorist. You might not like a new pelican crossing on a dual carriageway but perhaps pedestrians think it's great - if that's said on here then I'm not going to silence it.
Chris
Oh, come on, Peter!That was a bit cutting, or if it wasn't meant to be then it sounded it to me.
It seemed to imply a couple of things to me - that Guy needs to learn to drive to be 'normal' or at least a worthy member of SABRE, and that he (and the rest of us non-drivers) are some kind of idiots for not having wanted or not having been able to learn to drive. Gee, thanks.
I don't want to start a shouting match over this but the last thing I want (personally and officially as an assistant manager) is for SABRE to become a site for the strudy of roads from the sole viewpoint of a motorist. You might not like a new pelican crossing on a dual carriageway but perhaps pedestrians think it's great - if that's said on here then I'm not going to silence it.
Chris
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
For the record, I've held a drivinglicence since March 97. I hardly drive though because I can't afford and don't need a car. This is because I'm 'lucky' enough tolive in a city with excellent public transport, expensive car parking, and generally difficult city centre access. If money was no object I'd have one though. A lot of my friends drive. That's fine because they have jobs that would otherwise be impossible or gruelling to connect to via public transport. One of them lives in the country and if some else is using the car for the day she simply can't go anywhere.
Paul
Paul
Regards,
Paul
Paul
-
PeterA5145
- Member
- Posts: 25347
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
- Location: Stockport, Cheshire
- Contact:
<<Peter: <<And maybe it's about time you learned to drive a car or motorbike. It's not that difficult, most of us have managed it.>>
Oh, come on, Peter! That was a bit cutting, or if it wasn't meant to be then it sounded it to me.>>
Apologies - I shouldn't have said that and I unreservedly retract it.
<<I don't want to start a shouting match over this but the last thing I want (personally and officially as an assistant manager) is for SABRE to become a site for the study of roads from the sole viewpoint of a motorist. You might not like a new pelican crossing on a dual carriageway but perhaps pedestrians think it's great - if that's said on here then I'm not going to silence it.>>
Agreed - but we can't lose sight of the fact that we are discussing something that affects people's daily lives in a major way.
Incidentally, I spotted my first "52" car today - a Nissan Almera, of all things.
Regards,
Peter
Oh, come on, Peter! That was a bit cutting, or if it wasn't meant to be then it sounded it to me.>>
Apologies - I shouldn't have said that and I unreservedly retract it.
<<I don't want to start a shouting match over this but the last thing I want (personally and officially as an assistant manager) is for SABRE to become a site for the study of roads from the sole viewpoint of a motorist. You might not like a new pelican crossing on a dual carriageway but perhaps pedestrians think it's great - if that's said on here then I'm not going to silence it.>>
Agreed - but we can't lose sight of the fact that we are discussing something that affects people's daily lives in a major way.
Incidentally, I spotted my first "52" car today - a Nissan Almera, of all things.
Regards,
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
It's a while since we've had a fight on these boards. And Guy, you seem to be caught up in it again. Stand in the corner.
Basically, this comes down to the fact that, unlike most people with an interest in roads, Guy has no desire or need to have a car, as he says so himself. Which is perfectly fine. And brings an added dimension to some of the discussions on this board (like this one)
I live in a city, and rarely drive to get to another part of it. And I hate the alternatives offered by public transport, which is relevent to this forum in my opinion.
Personally, I don't relate to Guy's lack of desire to be able to drive. I bought my first car a couple of days before my 17th birthday.
I currently own 2 cars. One out of necessity, because I travel a long distance to work, and the public transport alternative would take 3 times as long. I wish I didn't have to, but I do. It's a diesel, which is the best way of keeping costs down.
Now I know this is going to **** some people off, but I really would rather we had a decent train service in this country. I also wish we had some decent roads. And both of these are relevent to this forum, as is the fact that I amongst others, have no choice but to drive. As is the fact that there are too many cars on the roads. And I think the amount of new cars bought is also an issue.
Anyway I'm ranting again. Sorry.
I've not seen many 52s. One of my mates has one though. Very nice and shiny it is too.
Basically, this comes down to the fact that, unlike most people with an interest in roads, Guy has no desire or need to have a car, as he says so himself. Which is perfectly fine. And brings an added dimension to some of the discussions on this board (like this one)
I live in a city, and rarely drive to get to another part of it. And I hate the alternatives offered by public transport, which is relevent to this forum in my opinion.
Personally, I don't relate to Guy's lack of desire to be able to drive. I bought my first car a couple of days before my 17th birthday.
I currently own 2 cars. One out of necessity, because I travel a long distance to work, and the public transport alternative would take 3 times as long. I wish I didn't have to, but I do. It's a diesel, which is the best way of keeping costs down.
Now I know this is going to **** some people off, but I really would rather we had a decent train service in this country. I also wish we had some decent roads. And both of these are relevent to this forum, as is the fact that I amongst others, have no choice but to drive. As is the fact that there are too many cars on the roads. And I think the amount of new cars bought is also an issue.
Anyway I'm ranting again. Sorry.
I've not seen many 52s. One of my mates has one though. Very nice and shiny it is too.
pjkh: << Personally, I don't relate to Guy's lack of desire to be able to drive. >>
I think it comes down to the fact that I've got quite poor hand-eye coordination. I did have driving lessons once, but I found that it was very difficult for me to estimate safe braking distances. When I got to a junction I'd either brake much too soon, or put myself in danger by trying to do it too late (thank goodness for dual controls!). After about ten lessons I judged that it probably wasn't worth the expense, since I prefer walking for short journeys and rail travel for longer ones. The only times it's ever been a handicap is when I've had to transport a lot of luggage, but on those occasions I've either hired a van or asked a friend to help me out. Normally I don't need to drive at all.
And of course, on the rare occasions when I do travel by road, I have all the fun of reading the map, studying the signs, looking at the shape of the junctions and other Sabristic pleasures! Try doing all that when you're driving...
Guy
I think it comes down to the fact that I've got quite poor hand-eye coordination. I did have driving lessons once, but I found that it was very difficult for me to estimate safe braking distances. When I got to a junction I'd either brake much too soon, or put myself in danger by trying to do it too late (thank goodness for dual controls!). After about ten lessons I judged that it probably wasn't worth the expense, since I prefer walking for short journeys and rail travel for longer ones. The only times it's ever been a handicap is when I've had to transport a lot of luggage, but on those occasions I've either hired a van or asked a friend to help me out. Normally I don't need to drive at all.
And of course, on the rare occasions when I do travel by road, I have all the fun of reading the map, studying the signs, looking at the shape of the junctions and other Sabristic pleasures! Try doing all that when you're driving...
Guy