On 10/02/07, Roger Millin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve addded: > > No, not only his. Mine too. > In my post the word 'only' referred to 'opinion', Steve, it was not > meant to imply that Adrian was the only person to hold such views. > Although it is true to say that, as of a few minutes ago, you and > Adrian were in a minority of 2 to 1,004,171. ;-) > Roger >
LOL! What you say is true, Roger. On this list, at least. But not, thankfully, in the outside world. Congestion isn't engineered; it's something that comes about as a result of increased road use. In London we accepted the congestion charge on behalf of all of you because the situation had become intolerable in our city as it will eventually in yours. In addition, there are those of us who believe in global warming (I can't believe there there are dinasours who still don't, but it takes all sorts...) who feel that the wholesale use of the internal combustion engine at the sort of levels it is now, is killing the world. We are in favour of limiting car use, and making those that use cars pay for what is a privilege not a right. We have made some moves towards making big cars pay more for the roads. Why not go the whole hog and make them pay in relationship to the use they make of roads. ie through their fuel. I know this is going to lead to restrictions in our freedom of movement, and as a libertarian I don't like that. I'm from the coutry too, so don't tell me I don't understand the plight of rural communities either. Or that I'm anti-car either; I own two, how could I be? But what else are we going to do? Drive blindly towards the precipice encased in our hermetically sealed tin pods? Or like Niall, argue that there's no precipice at all? Steve
