|
HortonNash posted:I've posted it before but... This is what really annoys me about a lot of animal rights campaigns. People wring their hands over whether or not to kill animals for medical purposes and have to prove that there's a clear benefit to humanity by doing it, but they're fine with packing them into tight, dirty spaces and transporting them for miles in lorries and then killing them, just so someone can have a different sort of snack instead of a vegetable snack. If the England and Wales Greens are going to make policy based on improving animal welfare and reducing pollution, they could start with better controls on farming and fishing.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
Shelf Adventure posted:You could probably raise it to 80 with no problem because a huge amount of cars are already going 80 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Do you have any evidence for that, though? Reducing the speed limit would increase the time available to react to something unexpected and greatly reduce the amount of energy involved in a collision. In other words there are good, intuitive reasons to think it would make motorways safer. You can argue that it isn't worth the trade-off, but that's a different claim. That's less true when you have smoothly flowing traffic that is all traveling in the same direction, at least for vehicle-vehicle collisions - its more the relative speed that matters. Also, the higher the speed limit, the higher the traffic carrying capacity of the road so the more likely that the traffic will be smoothly flowing, which tends to be safer. No statistics on hand, but that's what family involved in motorway safety tell me. Ultimately, there probably is an optimal speed limit that minimises accidents (and the impact of accidents) but in the case of motorways and dual carriageways at least its a more complex question than slower is safer
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:The Greens never have to worry about being in power, so they can offer their middle class target demographic pretty much anything. The flip side of this is most of these policies wouldn't actually see the light of day, because if the Greens ever get near power there'll have to be a bunch of pragmatism involved. There's a lot of focus on the fringe stuff, but their core is basically leftist. Every party promises things to the groups that make up their base, but it's the core philosophy that most influences what they get up to. So yeah, the Greens have a bunch of seriously misguided policies that will ultimately gently caress over the poor, but compare that to the main parties who have loving over the poor as part of their core 'sensible' agenda. The head of the DWP runs his portfolio on faith and in the face of contradicting evidence, and that's infinitely more damaging than a minority party pandering to some of their members in their manifesto
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
G1mby posted:Ultimately, there probably is an optimal speed limit that minimises accidents (and the impact of accidents) but in the case of motorways and dual carriageways at least its a more complex question than slower is safer As somebody who drives at pretty much bang on the speed limit whenever possible, I'd much rather see minimum speed limits introduced (yes I know these are unworkable). Middle aged men pootling along at 50mph during rush hour causes a horrendous level of completely unnecessary bottlenecking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Do you have any evidence for that, though? Reducing the speed limit would increase the time available to react to something unexpected and greatly reduce the amount of energy involved in a collision. In other words there are good, intuitive reasons to think it would make motorways safer. You can argue that it isn't worth the trade-off, but that's a different claim. Well ultimately on a motorway if everyone around me is going at the same speed its not going to make a whole lot of difference if something unexpected happens. If I'm going at 70mph and someone swerves into my lane at 70mph ahead of me, we're not going to collide as we are going at the same speed, same as if we were both doing 50mph. If they are going slower than the speed of traffic however, well, it could get nasty. Speed on its own is not inherently dangerous, speed that is inappropriate for the conditions is. For example one thing that I see regularly that really pisses me off is when people amble down a slip road to join the motorway at 40mph before trying to merge into 70mph traffic whilst still going at 40. Which means everyone ends up having to change into a different lane, or slam their brakes on, all of which increase the risk of an accident. Now if that person used the slip road properly and got up to 70mph to merge into traffic going at the same speed, its a lot safer. So thats an instance for you where faster = safer. On the other side of the coin there are situations where just because you can legally do up to a certain speed does not mean that you should. There are country lanes around my neck of the woods where legally I could drive at at 60mph, but you won't find me going faster than 40mph, and I would call anyone going faster than that a complete loving tool. However, as you wanted some evidence, have a read through. Road Casualties Annual Report 2013 General Overview and Trends posted:In 2013, motorways carried around 20 per cent of GB motor traffic, but accounted for just 6 per cent of road deaths (100 deaths) and 3 per cent of serious injuries (660 serious casualties) which means they are the safest road type. Mile-per-mile, the risk of death on motorways was around 5 times lower than the equivalent figure for rural roads and 3 times lower than for urban roads. You may also find this interesting as well; Contributary Factors of Reported Road Accidents quote:Contributory factor reported in accident Note how low excess speed is in those contributing factors. I am personally fed up of always hearing in the media about how everyone needs to slow down, instead people should actually pay attention to what they are doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Um did you guys forget about the greatest party, the RESPECT Party?????
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Who couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Conveniance link for the a4e boss interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NWXatbUSzI. The youtube comments are in good form, pretty much every one is a variation on 'lying thieving oval office' although the one that says 'She is 1 lying frog looking bent eyed oval office' is a bit harsh, I think she's very pretty. Apparently I missed this when it was originally on. But wow. That was certainly something. The poor oppressed entrepreneurs of the UK. Good grief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:
There seems to be a widespread misconception among drivers that merging onto a motorway is a 50-50 thing, or even that the merging driver has right of way as he joins the motorway. I can't think of any other reason why somebody would wobble out onto a motorway at 40ish mph, directly in front of a HGV that's barrelling along at 60. (When I'm driving on the motorway myself, I'm always tempted to hold my ground and assert my right of way when I see a slow, incompetent driver confidently expecting me to clear a space for his stately 40mph entrance from the slip road. Sure, I'd probably end up dead, but I'd be right.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:I can't think of any other reason why somebody would wobble out onto a motorway at 40ish mph, directly in front of a HGV that's barrelling along at 60. On that note... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o0afQBxqSs8 (I'm now watching Youtube videos of awful UK drivers.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
What if roads speeds... were in km/h instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Yeah, nice try, Metrication.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:
Pretty much any of those could cover a motorway accident, the point being made is that high speed makes those situations more dangerous and the consequences more deadly. 'Excess speed' in normal conditions means going over the limit, it says nothing about how much that legal speed contributes to accidents. I'm not saying a 55 mph limit will make things better, just that this ain't a good argument that high speed doesn't make a difference. I'm sure there's actual research out there anyway!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Britain's roads, especially the motorways are the safest roads in Europe and the speed limit doesn't need to be reduced
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Metrication posted:What if roads speeds... were in km/h instead? m·s-1 or go home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah, that's logical. A SI numerator and a 6000 year old Sumerian denominator that can't even be divided by 10 properly. SI or not, they're still arbitrary. Speed limits and speedometers should be given in fractions of the speed of light. (and weights at the food market should be given as number of protons)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Apparently I missed this when it was originally on. But wow. That was certainly something. The poor oppressed entrepreneurs of the UK. Good grief. quote:From: Seaside Loafer quote:Dear Seaside Loafer,
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:SI or not, they're still arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:It's more likely a fuel efficiency thing than a safety issue. Nope. Cars are actually more fuel efficient at 65mph than they are at 35mph.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Caroline Lucas is nice though isn't she. Even if she does (?) want the poor to stave and die of easily treatable diseases (apparently).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Caroline Lucas is nice though isn't she. Even if she does (?) want the poor to stave and die of easily treatable diseases (apparently).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Oh and I should mention of course that beyond all the other bollocks pretty much the main reason I'm a Green is that I do actually believe the frankly indisputable data on climate change and if action isn't taken now whoever has survived in 2-3 hundred years will be living in fallout 3; and call me nuts but I don't really trust capitalism to 'get on the case' with this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Oh and I should mention of course that beyond all the other bollocks pretty much the main reason I'm a Green is that I do actually believe the frankly indisputable data on climate change and if action isn't taken now whoever has survived in 2-3 hundred years will be living in fallout 3; and call me nuts but I don't really trust capitalism to 'get on the case' with this. If that's your main concern, an anti-nuclear party is probably the worst choice you could possibly make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:If that's your main concern, an anti-nuclear party is probably the worst choice you could possibly make.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:If that's your main concern, an anti-nuclear party is probably the worst choice you could possibly make. To be fair the amount of money they want to put into renewable R&D is so much more than the current government's wildest dream that it might be viable. Nuclear is by far the preference given current research funding/distribution but it should always be seen as a necessary evil until something more viable and sustainable becomes available. If so much money was poured into renewables that developments occured rapidly, I guess the nuclear stopgap might become unnecessary. Seaside Loafer posted:Christ how many times do I have to say we dont all think that. I want 10 big gently caress off nuclear power stations and the radioactive waste products to be dripped into the mouths of baby seals. Also this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Christ how many times do I have to say we dont all think that. I want 10 big gently caress off nuclear power stations and the radioactive waste products to be dripped into the mouths of baby seals. That's fine and would make perfect sense if you were voting green for other reasons - because you like their social and economic policies or whatever. However, it doesn't make any sense if your "main reason" for voting green is concern over climate change, an issue on which their core policies are unbelievably bad and counterproductive. It's sort of like saying you're voting conservative because you dearly want Britain to become a socialist paradise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:I think you are all missing a very subtle You are missing the point here, and are wrong. Harry Roberts never served in Kenya. Waruhiu Itote was also an army veteran, serving in the Kings African Rifles. Mr Itote and Mr Roberts both had a criminal records. They were both reviled as murdering scumbags by respectable British society. I can see more similarities than differences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:That's fine and would make perfect sense if you were voting green for other reasons - because you like their social and economic policies or whatever. However, it doesn't make any sense if your "main reason" for voting green is concern over climate change, an issue on which their core policies are unbelievably bad and counterproductive. It's sort of like saying you're voting conservative because you dearly want Britain to become a socialist paradise. Well is it better to vote for a party that makes noises about climate change purely to win votes, and then goes investing money in speculative fossil energy sources like shale? The Greens at least have climate change and the need for a modern energy infrastructure as a major concern. When it comes down to it you either have enough energy supply, or you don't. If renewables can't hack it, then a hypothetical Green government would have to make some choices about what else goes into the mix. They at least want to get away from fossil fuels and improve energy efficiency, pragmatism would pull them towards nuclear anyway. And as a leftist group they're less likely to rely on ~the free market~ (with massive public subsidies to ensure profits) to build it for them
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Whilst nuclear is good on paper, the fact that the government is paying EDF literally twice the going rate - £92.50/mwhr - to build Hinkley Point means that in terms of keeping the lights on our hard-nosed realist parties have already screwed the pooch. If that's not terrible energy policy I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:pragmatism would pull them towards nuclear anyway. The Green Part Energy Policy posted:EN261 We will cancel construction of new nuclear stations and nuclear power will not be eligible for government subsidy; the Green Party opposes all nuclear power generation and is particularly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power stations, electricity from which is likely to be significantly more expensive per unit supplied than other low-carbon energy sources, and too slow to deploy to meet our pressing energy needs. Cancellation will avoid the costs and dangers of nuclear energy and waste being passed on to future generations long after any benefits have been exhausted. What other key policies will they be "pragmatically" u-turning post-election? The NHS, free education for all? Out of interest, does it include fusion research in its ban on funding for "nuclear plant research"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:What other key policies will they be "pragmatically" u-turning post-election? The NHS, free education for all? You tell me! It's a hypothetical scenario - and imagine the shift in the political landscape and the change in attitudes that would occur around the Greens winning that kind of power, their 2014 manifesto wouldn't stand as-is. There are plenty of very good, evidence-based arguments that nuclear is one of the greenest viable energy sources we have available, and that it would open the doors to all kinds of green improvements and technologies (like potentially helping developing nations to industrialise cheaply and cleanly). A world where the Green Party gains that much influence wouldn't just allow old prejudices to stand Anyway, the scenario I was talking about was one where renewables can't meet the energy needs of the UK. They'd have to go one way or the other, more fossil fuels or more nuclear. You really think they'd push for more coal and gas? As a party there's at least some pressure on them to accept nuclear, I'm pretty sure almost nobody championing fossil fuels. Does anyone actually know? Are the anti-nuclear holdouts saying that if it came down to it, they'd choose fossil over nuclear? But yeah, nuclear can actually be a major part of a Green platform, so there's no inherent contradiction in reforming their position on it. There's no hypocrisy in embracing a technology that can provide energy cleanly and efficiently for the entire world, and help to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere. How would abolishing the NHS or free education fit with their principles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Anyone fancy a game of if I ruled the country? Rules: You are allowed to do 5 things within a week, you are the fuhrer, then you have to abdicate. Here's mine. 1) Nationalise the railways. 2) Nationalise the post office (at gunpoint) 3) Scrap the nuclear submarines. 4) Build 5 new nuclear power stations. 5) Have everyone from 'Made in Chelsea' publicly hung drawn and quartered apart from Binky who will be my cleaner for life. Discussion and amendments to your policies are allowed but you only have 5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
1. Withdraw from the EU 2. Form a single Anglosphere nation of the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Seth Efrica can come too, just not the whites) 3. Institute an admittedly fairly right-wing marginal tax rate system, e.g. top rate of income tax as low as 95% 4. Return to Imperial measurements, ban Metrication (and metric measurement units) 5. Institute Mincome/negative income tax/something like that in some form or another (have some bods cleverer than I decide on the best way to do it)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Put some big "hands off on pain of death" thing on the NHS. Launch Jeremy Hunt into the sun. Introduce wild Lorikeets into the UK. Launch the rest of the Tories into the sun. Bring back Jeremy Hunt and then launch him into the sun again. There. Wondeful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Whilst nuclear is good on paper, the fact that the government is paying EDF literally twice the going rate - £92.50/mwhr - to build Hinkley Point means that in terms of keeping the lights on our hard-nosed realist parties have already screwed the pooch. If that's not terrible energy policy I don't know what is. It's not "twice the going rate", it's around twice the rate charged for a single very specific reactor in Finland that is being built by a Russian company and massively subsidized by the Russian state in a bid to restore the reputation of their nuclear engineering firms in the western world. They have a bit of a credibility problem at the moment - "from the government of Vladimir Putin and the engineers who gave the world Chernobyl" isn't exactly a tagline that inspires confidence if you're looking to buy a nuclear plant - so they're dumping big piles of their own cash into the project in the hope that if they deliver on time and operate it safely for a few years, they'll start getting considered seriously in other European countries. It may or may not be a good deal for Finland (depending on whether or not they're completely comfortable with having a Russian owned and operated nuclear reactor on their soil), but it's not in any way representative of "the going rate". e - overall, for all its faults, British energy policy has been pretty successful at delivering cheap electricity and gas:  
LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Pretty much any of those could cover a motorway accident, the point being made is that high speed makes those situations more dangerous and the consequences more deadly. 'Excess speed' in normal conditions means going over the limit, it says nothing about how much that legal speed contributes to accidents. Jedit posted:Nope. Cars are actually more fuel efficient at 65mph than they are at 35mph. General China posted:You are missing the point here, and are wrong. Harry Roberts never served in Kenya. Waruhiu Itote was also an army veteran, serving in the Kings African Rifles. Mr Itote and Mr Roberts both had a criminal records. They were both reviled as murdering scumbags by respectable British society. Edit: He also boasted personally of his service in those wars. There's gently caress all chance he'd have sympathised with you on this even if he was making it all up. Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
From what Ive read the Hinkley project is kind of a success of the EU free market, not entirely sure why the UK couldn't have done it as a government project and hire whoever was needed instead of contracts within contracts within contracts but I suppose that's a matter of ideology.
Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:What about at 55mph, the speed in question? (Googling suggests the optimum range is 55-65mph. Anyone driving at the lower end of that should be banned from motorways imo though.) You can optimise mpg at just about any speed below around 90, with careful selection of gear ratios (overdrive gears seem to be coming back in vogue), aerodynamic design and intake and exhaust geometry. Of course because of the historical American speed limit of 55 (a number chosen basically at random) car manufacturers started optimising for around 55, which meant the EU emissions regulations standardised on 90 km/h (56 mph) for one of their three economy measurements, even as the US was abandoning 55. This is why currently most cars give best MPG in that range (in particular most gearboxes are set up so that the 3k or 6k ultra-lean spot used to fool emissions regulations is at 55 mph - which, brilliantly, means making everyone drive at 55 mph would cut emissions but massively shorten the lifespan of their engines - which, being aluminium, use a stupendous amount of carbon in their manufacture). Anyway the point of that ramble is that while modern cars may give good mileage at 55, that's caused by US and EU environmental laws and not laws of physics. Manufacturers could give you as good mileage at 85 (my bike gives more or less identical, optimal mileage at 55 and 80 mph), but there's no point because they'd never be able to sell the car on that number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Caroline Lucas is nice though isn't she. Even if she does (?) want the poor to stave and die of easily treatable diseases (apparently). Unless you're a sex worker (although, in fairness, Green policy is the absolute opposite of her's). The NUS won't be happy about Jim Murphy becoming Scottish Labour leader; after all, when he was NUS President in 1996, he suspended members of the Executive for resisting moves to move their policy from the free education policy decided at Conference to Labour's policy of tuition fees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
