Stupid things non petrolheads say....
Discussion
Pebbles167 said:
walm said:
Stupid things non petrolheads say?
"We should build more roads. That will ease congestion."
You are suggesting it wont?"We should build more roads. That will ease congestion."
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
walm said:
Pebbles167 said:
walm said:
Stupid things non petrolheads say?
"We should build more roads. That will ease congestion."
You are suggesting it wont?"We should build more roads. That will ease congestion."
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
walm said:
Read the link; of course it will but ignore induced demand at your peril.
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
No, he was ridiculing those who suggest that induced demand makes any road building totally pointless. Demand is only induced by improved roads, railways etc because the journey is now easier than it was before. So someone is obviously getting benefit from the improvement.Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
Dr Jekyll said:
walm said:
Read the link; of course it will but ignore induced demand at your peril.
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
No, he was ridiculing those who suggest that induced demand makes any road building totally pointless. Demand is only induced by improved roads, railways etc because the journey is now easier than it was before. So someone is obviously getting benefit from the improvement.Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
He thinks that because building a new hospital won't cause more injuries then building a new road won't stimulate demand.
He thinks that because building a new school won't cause a population explosion building a new road won't stimulate demand.
Perhaps I am taking his examples too literally but they aren't analogous in any way and imply that he doesn't understand the nuances behind the somewhat surprising fact that building a new road will ease congestion far less than expected if you don't take induced demand into account.
walm said:
Dr Jekyll said:
walm said:
Read the link; of course it will but ignore induced demand at your peril.
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
No, he was ridiculing those who suggest that induced demand makes any road building totally pointless. Demand is only induced by improved roads, railways etc because the journey is now easier than it was before. So someone is obviously getting benefit from the improvement.Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
He thinks that because building a new hospital won't cause more injuries then building a new road won't stimulate demand.
He thinks that because building a new school won't cause a population explosion building a new road won't stimulate demand.
Perhaps I am taking his examples too literally but they aren't analogous in any way and imply that he doesn't understand the nuances behind the somewhat surprising fact that building a new road will ease congestion far less than expected if you don't take induced demand into account.
Roads are NOT built for the sake of building roads, they are built to meet a particular identified demand.
People do not say Oh look! there is some space there, lets build a new road on it, or even look, they have built a new road, so I must go out a buy a vehicle, so that I can go and fill it up.
If the rather ridiculous statement, that we must not build more roads, because they will only fill up with more vehicles is true, then equally we must not build more prisons because they will only fill up with more criminals, or we must not build more hospitals because they will only fill up with more sick people. Or we must not build more houses because they will only fill up with more and more people is just as true.
Do you seriously believe we build more roads, just for the sake of building more roads???
Do you not think that the UK`s rocketing population, and therefore rocketing demand, might have something to do with why we build more roads/ houses / hospitals / schools prisons etc??
busta said:
MartG said:
Quite apart from checking if she was licenced to tow one
How could she not be?https://www.gov.uk/towing-with-car
king idiots who can't tow a caravan , haven't maintained their caravan and have no idea how to park the things I would strongly support an additional test for ANYONE who doesn't have a class 1 or 2 licence.Pan Pan said:
walm said:
Dr Jekyll said:
walm said:
Read the link; of course it will but ignore induced demand at your peril.
Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
No, he was ridiculing those who suggest that induced demand makes any road building totally pointless. Demand is only induced by improved roads, railways etc because the journey is now easier than it was before. So someone is obviously getting benefit from the improvement.Pan Pan is simply denying the existence of induced demand or at least ridiculing people who suggest that it might be relevant when considering road building.
He thinks that because building a new hospital won't cause more injuries then building a new road won't stimulate demand.
He thinks that because building a new school won't cause a population explosion building a new road won't stimulate demand.
Perhaps I am taking his examples too literally but they aren't analogous in any way and imply that he doesn't understand the nuances behind the somewhat surprising fact that building a new road will ease congestion far less than expected if you don't take induced demand into account.
Roads are NOT built for the sake of building roads, they are built to meet a particular identified demand.
People do not say Oh look! there is some space there, lets build a new road on it, or even look, they have built a new road, so I must go out a buy a vehicle, so that I can go and fill it up.
If the rather ridiculous statement, that we must not build more roads, because they will only fill up with more vehicles is true, then equally we must not build more prisons because they will only fill up with more criminals, or we must not build more hospitals because they will only fill up with more sick people. Or we must not build more houses because they will only fill up with more and more people is just as true.
Do you seriously believe we build more roads, just for the sake of building more roads???
Do you not think that the UK`s rocketing population, and therefore rocketing demand, might have something to do with why we build more roads/ houses / hospitals / schools prisons etc??
To clarify: This is not an argument for not improving road networks, quite the opposite.
A lady at work, when I explained her BMW was rear wheel drive thought that it meant the rear wheels would steer the car as she turned the steering wheel, not the front.
She really couldn't grasp the concept until I explained that if you lifted the car off the ground and pressed the accelerator, only the rear wheels would spin. She was shocked to learn that not all 4 wheels would turn.
I then asked her what she thought four wheel drive meant. Apparently she thought it meant all 4 wheels would steer the car which was why they were better in the snow than others.
I think in the end she understood but it was harder than it should have been.
She really couldn't grasp the concept until I explained that if you lifted the car off the ground and pressed the accelerator, only the rear wheels would spin. She was shocked to learn that not all 4 wheels would turn.
I then asked her what she thought four wheel drive meant. Apparently she thought it meant all 4 wheels would steer the car which was why they were better in the snow than others.
I think in the end she understood but it was harder than it should have been.
ORD said:
Wow! That's a pretty impressive one. You wonder why, in her world, she had never seen a car steering with (a) its rear wheels or (b) all of its wheels.
It is actually slightly scary that people who know so little about how cars work are allowed to drive one at 70mph.
Must be all those forklifts she sees driving about on the roads...It is actually slightly scary that people who know so little about how cars work are allowed to drive one at 70mph.
WetPaint said:
A lady at work, when I explained her BMW was rear wheel drive thought that it meant the rear wheels would steer the car as she turned the steering wheel, not the front.
She really couldn't grasp the concept until I explained that if you lifted the car off the ground and pressed the accelerator, only the rear wheels would spin. She was shocked to learn that not all 4 wheels would turn.
I had a similar conversation with someone about FWD.She really couldn't grasp the concept until I explained that if you lifted the car off the ground and pressed the accelerator, only the rear wheels would spin. She was shocked to learn that not all 4 wheels would turn.
'So what do the rear wheels do then?' she asked
'err, they stop the back of the car scraping on the ground'
WetPaint said:
ORD said:
Wow! That's a pretty impressive one. You wonder why, in her world, she had never seen a car steering with (a) its rear wheels or (b) all of its wheels.
It is actually slightly scary that people who know so little about how cars work are allowed to drive one at 70mph.
Must be all those forklifts she sees driving about on the roads...It is actually slightly scary that people who know so little about how cars work are allowed to drive one at 70mph.
ORD said:
A favourite of mine (that I may have posted before):-
'Why buy a fast car? You won't get there any sooner'
People who say that kind of thing instantly get filed into a little box in my head with 'idiot' written on one side and 'tt' on the other.
Even ignoring the obvious inaccuracy of the statement, why choose to st on someone's parade and insult them? I would never look at a new car on which someone had spent a lot of money and say 'Why buy a dull Ecobox smoker pile of crap? You'll hate your life even more'
If anyone ever says that to me I just challenge them to a race.'Why buy a fast car? You won't get there any sooner'
People who say that kind of thing instantly get filed into a little box in my head with 'idiot' written on one side and 't
t' on the other.Even ignoring the obvious inaccuracy of the statement, why choose to s
t on someone's parade and insult them? I would never look at a new car on which someone had spent a lot of money and say 'Why buy a dull Ecobox smoker pile of crap? You'll hate your life even more' Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff