akirk wrote:Rolyan wrote:akirk wrote:Not sure that we can quantify it as either shape...
however it doesn't matter - I think my principle still makes sense:
- if you can improve for a sub-section of the population without affecting the majority, then you do so...
- if there is an issue with the sub-section of the population you deal with the underlying issue, you don't slap on sticking plasters to cover it up...
not really an AD discussion - more of a general principle I think
Alasdair
We can definitely quantify it as a general bell curve, but the exact shape is obviously dependent. It may be skewed, it may not even be 'normal' but its nearer a bell curve than a straight line.
Who says that you only improve for a sub-section of the population if it can be done so without affecting the majority? I know that you obviously say that, as will some others, I'm just wondering when it became the rule. Who says your rule is the right one, or the commonly accepted general principle? Presumably you don't want the majority to pay taxes to support the minority who may genuinely need welfare?
Here's an alternative - there's a group of drivers, and the skill level is mixed, even though all are deemed competent to drive. A small percentage of that group would be better served by a change in road design, and even though others will be 'affected', it is still worth considering.
Perhaps if we were a bit more humanist, and a bit less elitist, everything would be that bit more pleasant.
I think the same pattern is repeating itself - you are massively misunderstanding something because it is written and not spoken - and pulling out all sorts of assumptions from that...
It is democracy - you don't improve one small sub-section of society if the detriment to the majority of society outweighs it...
At no point have I said that you don't make improvements if only a small sub-section enjoy those improvements - it is about balancing that against its impact elsewhere... understanding those improvements in the context of the full demographic using the roads...
And a desire to deal with the underlying issues (rather than the symptoms for political expediency) is totally humanitarian - and the correct action... we live in a world of sound-bites and quick 'fixes' which are all about appearance not substance - as with this, someone suggests that there is an issue for a % of society in dealing with t-junctions, the response is mini roundabouts, rather than the trickier and yet more long term solution of understanding why that population demographic has difficulties, understanding how the population is changing, and then looking at how we address driving across the population to deal with a changing demographic...
I totally fail to understand where you feel any of that is elitist - it is pragmatic, logical and long-term / thoughtful - however it could also be painful, expensive, and politically sensitive... but at no point is it in any way elitist!
Alasdair
I always try and be polite and fair, and I find your first paragraph rather dismissive.
You said that you shouldn't deal with it if it 'affects' the majority, I questioned that, and you now change it to the 'detriment' of the majority.
You are as guilty of assumptions the same as I, yet I honestly thought this was a forum to debate these issues. I didn't realise that if I disagreed with you, you would be so dismissive. God forbid that I may have a different opinion, according to you it's just that I don't understand.
The populist papers have no doubt got the reactions they wanted, but it's disappointing to see them here. Clearly, you are convinced that I am wrong and don't understand and you are not prepared to even entertain an alternative. That's a shame really. All I wanted to explore was this idea that in a group of motorists there may be many who are competent but not at your level, and I would like to see road design take them into account, without this assumption that they have failings or issues. I know all about treating the symptoms (perhaps more than you, although I don't know your employment). My point was that we can't start off by assuming that all these drivers are wrong, or have a problem. They may just be at a different level to you/us.
You could have disagreed without being so dismissive, but hey ho! Because of my background I've always been involved in debates that explore all options, sometimes at a highly philosophical level; perhaps I've become blinded with that approach, as I feel that sometimes these forums are much more about 'this is my opinion and that's it' rather than 'have we considered this'. I've spent decades working with people and challenging them to understand that everything we know for certain, all your facts, all your obvious points, all your definitions, all your comments about democracy etc., are nothing more than just your opinion. No facts, no hard truths and no universal and obvious laws. Just an opinion that can and should be questioned. Perhaps that approach is not suitable for a driving forum where there can be 20 pages about steering!
My bad!
