Talk:Transport 2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everybody should buy a V8 Range Rover just to annoy these idiots. I can't believe I am reading this rubbish.

Perhaps instead everyone should buy a bicycle just to annoy you ?

Contents 1 Opening 2 Neutrality Dispute 3 Left-wing godless commie unionists? 4 Pseudo science 5 SERA

[edit] Opening

Can we source Transport 2000 opposes all car use, calling car supporters 'wheel nuts'. They support a maximum speed of 20mph on most roads and 50mph on motorways. I find it hard to believe that anyobne would advocate such a stupid policy. Are they really opposed to the police using cars? etc etc, SqueakBox 20:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Oppose all car use" might be more accurately rephrased as "wish to severly limit car use".

As for the rest, it's true, have a look through their web site, particularly:

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/maintainCampaigns.asp?CampaignID=22 20's plenty http://www.transport2000.org.uk/celebrity/maintainEditorDiary.asp?EditorDiaryID=16 Wheel nuts http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=265 Page requesting drivers keep to 40 or 50 on motorways. Soundwave

What's so stupid about that? It's hardly mainstream, but it's not outright insane. --Saforrest 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposing all vehicle use would be insane, not only because of the police but also deliveries. Trying to reduce the speed limit would enormously waste people's time and quickly reduce Britain to the state of a third world country while seriouslty stressing its people out. I am all for reducing vehicular transport but with sensible solutions. So much travel could be replaced by people working and receving education from home via computers, for instance, but just opposing all car use or trying to make all car journies unpleasant strikes me as the worst sort of political correctness rather than a viable, well thought out and realistic option, SqueakBox 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am now readin what they actually say. They don't say 20mph on most roads but yes in urban areas where kids are playing, which is an excellent idea. Indeed all their ideas seem sensible, leading me to conclude the insanity was here at wikipedia with (an activist?) editor exagerrating Transport 2000 claims. While keeping lorry speeds to 40-50mph may be uneconomic (you have to pay the driver for longer) all their other stuff looks okay and not how itt was described by the above editor and previously, bnut not curently, in the article, SqueakBox 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the 20 limits, once in force, would apply at all times whether children are playing or not. I support 20mph limits on roads where the nature of the road clearly supports it, such as narrow streets or cul-de-sacs, but the majority of current 20 limits are on through roads and are clearly a political move to force cars away and increase congestion. Transport 2000 actively support the strict enforcement of such current limits (in 2000 they started a judicial review to attempt to remove any leeway in enforcement).[1]

And what's wrong with that? Why have limits if they're not enforced (though this logic escapes many motorists it seems). Most 20 limits round here apply only during school hours, when

lights are flashing. "political move to force cars away and increase congestion" - this statement makes no sense at all. If cars are forced away there won't be congestion.

Exile 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the gut reaction of most people, if asked, would be that 20 limits are sensible, but the trouble is nobody actually wants to keep to that speed themselves, they just want everyone else's car to slow down. People are often hypocrites and don't slow to 20 just because a child might potentially play on that road at some point, yet in the opinion surveys the same people claim to support a max speed of 20. Soundwave

I personally believe trying to restructure society so people need their cars less is a much better route to go than just making people's journies more painful but the governement is so addicted to oil revenues it doesn't actually want that, SqueakBox 23:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring society is a tall order and a government would have to be verging on totalitarian to achieve it. The current policy is to try to limit congestion and pollution by "rationing by price" either through fuel duty, variable vehicle duty, and congestion charges. Is this sensible or desirable? A good question - but one for a different article.

Exile 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

I removed the POV warning because it's been there for months and no one has raised any neutrality issues here on the discussion page. If people aren't going to back up their claims of POV then the label should be removed. --Corinthian 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put POV tag on one of the sections (March 2006), where it describes the purpose of cycle-friendly city design as "making driving as unpleasant as possible", describes toll roads as "penalising motorists", uses quotation marks to imply that "traffic reduction" is a joke, and describes the main purpose of traffic calming measures as being to "make driving as unpleasant as possible.

These are not neutrally-written statements, and they severely misrepresent the purpose and effect of such schemes. Ojw 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks indicate, not surprisingly, a quote from the T2000 site. Besides, "Traffic calming" is a loaded term, and should certainly not be used as though it is neutral word - it is a euphemism for speed humps, width restrictions, and chicanes. All of which are designed to make the driver - the person who actually pays for the road through his endless taxes (on the car purchase, on annual road tax, on fuel...) - play second fiddle to non-tax-paying road users like cyclists and pedestrians.--Corinthian 17:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Quotation marks page mentions that "Ironic quotes should be used with care... they could be eaily confused with quotations." Ojw 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The disputed section needs to be written neither from the point of view of environmental nutters nor petrolheads. That is, even if it is written BY someone who might be regarded as one or other it should read as if written from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). A good start is

- if allegations are made, they should be supported. That is, if some pro-car organisation accuses T2000 of anti-car bias, give the quote, plus any response to this from T2000. - avoid adjectives! - avoid stating opinion as if it is accepted fact.

I will have a go at drafting and will post here for comment/amendment

"The group’s independence could be disputed, given that several public transport unions and companies are members. It lists quotes from opponents of those aims under the heading “Mad quotes”, which could be seen as confrontational. "

unfortunately I haven't managed to avoid adjectives, but have put them in a conditional statement.

Exile 10:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the Polices section is fine however the contravercy section has alot of POV. such as pseudo science that Ojw has talked about below. --Ehouk1 16:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The policies sections has been mostly cleaned-up now, so maybe that tag can go be replaced with something more suitable? This is the edit that I originally marked as POV. Ojw 17:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the tag should be removed from the 'Policys' but I am going to put one on 'Contravercy' --Ehouk1 12:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Why does the intro mention nothing about Transport 2000's anti-car agenda? Most of the organisation's work is devoted towards penalising the motorist in one way or another - every one of their major policies specifically attacks car usage - and it is misleading to suggest that their main aim is the promotion of walking, cycling and taking buses. Their main aim is to hinder the driver, and the advancement of the pedestrian etc. is merely a means to this end. This article is morphing into a hagiography of T2000's glorious left-wing transport vision. --Corinthian 02:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In this article, what we would need is quotes from other organisations (such as the ABM) supporting this allegation and labelled as such, not as established fact. Ie it is a fact that T2000 are accused of an anti-car agenda, not that they actually have one.

Of course to some extent promoting public transport is largely going to be at the expense of car use. And there may be good reasons for being anti-car (cars kill 3,000 a year and cause airborne pollution). The place for this sort of debate would be in a separate article on transport policy issues.

Exile 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Which we must avoid, please edit boldly, SqueakBox 14:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference for what you claim is Transport2000's main aim? The material I've read all seems to indicate that their declared aim (safety, environmental quality, etc) is primary, and the reduction of car use is their suggestion for achieving that, rather than the other way around.

Indeed, a search for "transport 2000 anti-car" shows only the Association of British Motorists' comments, plus Corinthian's edits to an old version of this article reading "The group neither engages in nor encourages any discourse about transport issues, and focuses solely upon vilifying its opponents and prosecuting its radically anti-car agenda". Ojw 19:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from policy. Softgrow 12:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

- I have removed the tag from controversy, I feel that the concerns that led me to put it on have been addressed. However the sentence: "The group is closely identified with the green environmental movement." as this alone is not a criticism or belong under this section. --Ehouk1 19:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing godless commie unionists?

This page talks at length about left-wing union politics to the point where someone reading this page might come away with the impression that Transport2000 comprises mostly trades unions. However, in the list of member organisations I can only find 2 trades unions out of 29 total member groups.

I'll put the full list on our page here, as it provides a useful indication of the sort of people contributing to this group, and many of the linked organisations are interesting articles in themselves. Ojw 12:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please source that Bush and Thatcher are hate figures for Transport 2000 (of course we all know the major active role Thatcher plays in promoting the car though we shouldn't forget her husband was a major shareholder in Halfords). Please source that Transport 2000 don't engage in discourse, only attacks, SqueakBox 16:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo science

Can anyone find a reference for the use of pseudo science by this group? Ojw 19:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SERA

The wikilink to SERA in this article goes via a redirect to the article Southern Education and Research Alliance. Is this really where it should be going? If not then may be the SERA redirect page should become a disambiguation page giving the different options for the initials as there appears to be several around.

Keith D 12:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)