http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Tag: sharing road space - Recent Posts en Sun, 31 May 2026 20:58:59 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59197 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:29:31 +0000 crowriver 59197@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That may be the case now, with very low interest rates as a seemingly endless policy of the BoE. In the 80s and 90s interest rates fluctuated quite a lot. I remember earning quite good interest on modest savings in the mid-90s, at a time when many householders were caught in a negative equity trap and paying relatively high interest on the inflated mortgages they took out in the late 80s. My interest wasn't enough to pay the rent, but it certainly helped.</p> <p>After that point, the property bubble started again and kept going for over a decade. Lots of people got greedy as they saw the profits that could be made by essentially doing very little. Credit is still incredibly cheap, it's just that the rules on who can borrow how much have gone back to being almost as tough as they were in the 1970s... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59195 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:09:16 +0000 alibali 59195@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>I think, on the whole, that people's choices were so completely engineered and constrained that any other outcome was, for most people, unavoidable</em></p> <p>Agreed. The reality is that to make the contrary choice would have meant being denied the substantial benefits afforded the majority and then have the "upside" stolen by high inflation and low interest rates that support debt and devalue savings, a situation engineered by the same forces that shaped the earlier phase. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59194 Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:05:10 +0000 ruggtomcat 59194@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And it was only 30odd years ago, they are the same people. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59186 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 21:59:14 +0000 Instography 59186@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>We don't seem to disagree much. I think the late 1970s and early 80s was revolutionary and driven by, at the risk of sounding too conspiratorial, a network of interests with bankers at the centre. My main issue was the implication that people really only have themselves to blame, that they could have used their free will to reject all this and would now be sitting comfortably untroubled by the recession. I think, on the whole, that people's choices were so completely engineered and constrained that any other outcome was, for most people, unavoidable. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59178 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:35:11 +0000 crowriver 59178@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Insto, I hear you. What I'm saying is there was a drip-drip-drip effect rather than just a small group of "bad apple" bankers to blame. </p> <p>Property was already growing into a bubble in the 1970s, but it was quite tricky to get a mortgage in those days, so lots of folk rented or lived in council houses: there was no stigma attached back then (rather like some countries in Europe today, Germany springs to mind). </p> <p>I'd argue several things that Thatcher did had a huge effect. </p> <p>Lifting exchange controls and capital flow restrictions in 1979, nearly the first thing she did in office. That decimated investment in manufacturing in the UK as investors looked to the US, Japan, Germany. Following a severe recession, financial services were touted as the replacement for the lost industries...</p> <p>She also abolished rent controls and security of tenure for tenants, leading to 'market rents', large numbers of evictions and short term lets, with rents going up after 6 months in some cases. Once there was a good profit to be made from renting out property, the buy to let era was ushered in.</p> <p>The privatisation at knock down prices of social housing was a killer blow for the poor and unemployed. All the good housing stock was creamed off, often sold on at a profit. Only the problem estates and high rises were left in the public sector... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59161 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:35:56 +0000 Instography 59161@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>When the social rented sector was reduced to a rump, when local authorities were forced to ring-fence their housing revenue accounts so that rents were pushed up to 'market' levels, then I'd argue that people were forced. When all the other choices have gone, the notion of an unforced choice goes with it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59156 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 10:01:32 +0000 chdot 59156@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<a href="http://www.johnlydon.com/interviews/jl07.html">It’s for like Hippies I suppose from that generation; that have grown up into corporate lawyers.</a>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59154 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:50:38 +0000 crowriver 59154@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sure, people were sold a dream by ideologues and big business. Just as they were with motor cars in the 1950s/60s. And people were very willing to believe the dream, to buy into it, to take on unwise levels of debt. Yes, folk were encouraged, persuaded, by those in positions of power, but nobody forced them. Almost everyone, especially in the UK, wanted to believe they were richer, more successful, higher status than they really were. Why did/do they do it? Because everybody else is doing it too. We used to call it "the rat race" in the olden days.</p> <p>There was always the option to not get involved in the property ladder game, or to live within one's means. But who wants to be a hippy, communist or loser? Very few. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472&page=2#post-59148 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:15:18 +0000 Instography 59148@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm not sure what you're saying then when you say, "Did a "few individuals" force millions of households across the Western world to get up to their scalps in debt, buying houses, holiday villas, cars, consumer durables, etc, that they could not realistically afford? Did a "few individuals" create huge speculative property bubbles on a global level too?".</p> <p>If you look back over the history of both industry pressure and public policy, the answer is a plain and emphatic yes, they did. When you give people enormous discounts - 70-80% of the market value - to get into debt to buy their own council house, when at the same time you create, in effect mortgages on 120-150% of the market value and 3-5x income multiples to encourage people to chase a housing bubble, and when they then bundle those mortgages up into securitised, tradable assets, changing them from balance sheet liabilities into assets, then yes, the whole housing bubble was created by a comparatively few individuals. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59147 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 02:06:09 +0000 crowriver 59147@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Instography, the problem seems to have been that private debt became the answer to problems that, not so long ago, government felt it had a responsibility to solve in different ways. Yes, this was all in the interests of the financial industry, who've had 'their people' in government for too long. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59146 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:57:00 +0000 Instography 59146@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Well, since the sub-prime mortgage market kicked of the in US, we only need to go back as far as the 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. It had its parallels in the UK - the lowering of reserve asset ratios and the loosening of restrictions on access to credit. Same thing. Debt is good. Officially sanctioned and encouraged. People, please, buy stuff, especially houses. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59144 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:49:38 +0000 crowriver 59144@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I would suggest it's necessary to look further back into history to see the roots of the current crisis. It's a systemic issue that's been developing for quite a while so far as I can see. At least as far back as 1979, if not before.</p> <p>Maybe you remember slogans like "property owning democracy", or the big share issues in the privatisations of the 1980s? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59143 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:48:05 +0000 Instography 59143@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yeah, poor people sat in their houses and decided that they would sort themselves out for mortgage and then they decided to bundle those mortgages up and sell them as financial derivatives and called it the sub-prime market. Yep, that's how finance works. A consumer driven market if ever there was one. If only they'd been more canny with their finances we could have avoided this whole credit crunch thing. Bloody poor people. Always coming along wanting stuff and screwing things up for everyone else. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59142 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 00:53:09 +0000 ruggtomcat 59142@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>well, yeah. The conditions for this to happen were decided upon by a very small number of people. The major directions of international finance were not decided by the millions of people buying houses, but the thousands of people selling debt. Societies have always been controlled by a relatively small elite. Weather they got there by democratic election, hereditary, force or economic acumen. Its not such a great leap to suggest that the current system by which people gain power promotes greed and discourages philanthropy. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59128 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:46:12 +0000 crowriver 59128@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ruggtomcat, it's quite likely there are lots of psycho execs and managers out there, maybe most of us have met at least one.</p> <p>The problem with the theory is it basically says these "few individuals" are to blame for the global economic crisis. The old "bad apples" idea. This seems a misleading fallacy.</p> <p>Did a "few individuals" force millions of households across the Western world to get up to their scalps in debt, buying houses, holiday villas, cars, consumer durables, etc, that they could not realistically afford? Did a "few individuals" create huge speculative property bubbles on a global level too? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-59125 Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:00:25 +0000 ruggtomcat 59125@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>here is an interesting related article <a href="http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1091678--weeding-out-corporate-psychopaths" rel="nofollow">http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1091678--weeding-out-corporate-psychopaths</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58675 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:54:23 +0000 crowriver 58675@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>One commenter on the Grauniad puts it quite well:</p> <p><em>Individuals who drive cars that the observers personally valued as more costly tend not to wait at cross roads</p> <p>When questioned by Berkeley researchers, people from lower income brackets report having better self-standards of behaviour</p> <p>People from higher income brackets over-estimate their acheivements to Berkeley researchers</p> <p>People from lower income backgrounds are susceptible to the influence of input from Berkeley researchers</em></p> <p>He might have added "people from the Bay area of San Francisco" as a qualifier. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58674 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:52:05 +0000 Cyclingmollie 58674@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Anth: <em>"I have some sympathy with that line of reasoning in charity payments"</em></p> <p>Fair enough but I was ten years old on a second-hand bike, giving up my weekend to ride around a dozen farms collecting for a minister who barely acknowledged the effort. It was a learning experience of course but not about charity. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58670 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 20:15:58 +0000 crowriver 58670@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>But they're observing them doing very simple things - who waits and who pushes in - and I can't say much of it struck me as peculiarly American.</em></p> <p>The problem is that they don't really know much about the "who". </p> <p>"the scientists ranked the driver's class on a scale of one to five according to the model, age and appearance of the car."<br /> And from the report:<br /> "There was high agreement among the four coders for vehicle status (α = 0.95), driver sex (α = 0.98), and driver age (α = 0.87)."</p> <p>A whole raft of assumptions made about who drives what type of car, and why, and what constitutes "high status" or "low status" vehicle remain unchallenged through this approach. Although it appears they have taken measures to prevent the people conducting the survey influencing each other's results, their key assumption about cars revealing the class of their owners is inherently flawed.</p> <p><em>Anyway, even if the measures of class and behavioural norms are culturally specific, it's still possible to make a general observation that however you define them, people ranked as 'upper' class as more likely to violate their own culture's norms.</em></p> <p>Which assumes that there are shared norms that everyone agrees on. Patently this is not the case. What is deemed unethical is dependent to some extent on context, and varies according to class, occupation, locale, family and peer group.</p> <p>It is also not clear from the supporting material for the report how exactly they decided who was "upper" and who "lower" class in the lab studies. I cannot access the full article as it's behind a paywall, so this remains unclear. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58660 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:42:55 +0000 Roibeard 58660@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh, and if this isn't an example of a CCE thread ceilidhing, then I don't know what is!</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58659 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:41:29 +0000 Roibeard 58659@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Darkerside Actually they may do ~20% better if you claimed the expenses, then donated the same amount back under the Gift Aid scheme (if applicable)...</p> <p>I do give regularly, through a centralised fund, that doesn't have western, post-modern, liberal social values (HMG!); although I suppose I do give via HMG too...</p> <p>I'll draw a veil over the details under the "right hand shouldn't know what the left hand does" clause.</p> <p>@ruggtomcat - great animation, really illustrates the ideas, even though I might disagree with some of the development, I do tend to pitch charity at root cause eradication rather than symptoms.</p> <p>Still, it amazes me that we have so many emergency services funded by charity (RNLI, air ambulance, etc) - surely this is a HMG concern?</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58658 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:38:29 +0000 ARobComp 58658@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I work for a charity and frankly I don't like the third sector. (thankfully my charity works as more of a social enterprise than a real charity - phew!) </p> <p>I agree that it is difficult to know where the money goes and honestly I see it spent on some ridiculous stuff by some of our bigger, very well meaning, very good at advertising and marketing themselves, but ultimately awful at what they do, partners.</p> <p>I suggest giving to local charities that have a visible impact on your local community. </p> <p>I also recommend "Dead Aid" a book by Dambisa Moyo.<br /> She explains how Aid has basically set africa back to being worse off than it was 40 years ago. (I work heavily in Africa and can only agree) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58657 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:30:18 +0000 Darkerside 58657@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Interesting thread drift, but since we're all revealing our inner scrooges...</p> <p>With the exception of a single donation earlier this year, I don't give money to charity. Whilst clearly an skewed viewpoint, I've seen how some charities spend money, and therefore am never comfortable that the funds would actually end up in the right place.</p> <p>Instead I give time heavily to two charities, tend not to claim back travel expenses and am comfortable knowing what they get paid for the services I provide (voluntary ambulance sector, before it all sounds too odd). </p> <p>Clearly many charities would fall apart if everyone did this, so it's not overly logical. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58656 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:04:04 +0000 ruggtomcat 58656@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>check out 'first as tragedy, then as farce' by RSAnimate on youtube for a clearer articulation about whats wrong with charity. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58655 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:55:15 +0000 Dave 58655@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've never been comfortable with charities. If I force myself to articulate it, I guess I believe that experts should decide what activities conducive to the good of society are most deserving of my support at any given time, rather than having to make a subjective assessment personally.</p> <p>I could almost envision some kind of organised system where people would have a certain proportion of their income deducted around payday and used to keep all the good stuff going, like social welfare, help for the elderly, soldiers, kittens, the health system, etc. etc. ;-)</p> <p>Conversely, if something is undeserving to the point that it can't be justified to the real experts at targeted wealth distribution in HMG, I'm loath to be guilted into supporting it personally just because it *sounds* good.</p> <p>Makes me sound a bit evil though. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58652 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:51:23 +0000 Instography 58652@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>But they're observing them doing very simple things - who waits and who pushes in - and I can't say much of it struck me as peculiarly American.</p> <p>Anyway, even if the measures of class and behavioural norms are culturally specific, it's still possible to make a general observation that however you define them, people ranked as 'upper' class as more likely to violate their own culture's norms. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58651 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:24:10 +0000 crowriver 58651@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em> researchers concealed themselves close to a crossroads in the Bay Area of San Francisco and spied on drivers</em></p> <p>It's really very specific to California, it doesn't even represent the US. As a commenter pointed out on the Grauniad site, American notions of class and appropriate standards of behaviour are rather different from European ones. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58619 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:52:28 +0000 steveo 58619@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And just to buck the trend, I never give to people coming round the door and live in a council estate. Although I may just be living up to a cultural stereo type. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58618 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:49:05 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 58618@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>we give in different ways</em>"</p> <p>I have <em>some</em> sympathy with that line of reasoning in charity payments. I've got various direct debits and things set up for some selected charities, and you do start feeling 'well if I give to everyone....'.</p> <p>That said, I usually find a few quid if someone comes round the door (generally get the RNLI every year - other than that it's just clothes bags, but the last time I filled one and left it as directed and on the correct day it didn't get picked up) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=5472#post-58615 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:39:52 +0000 Cyclingmollie 58615@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've been there Anth. I used to cycle round the farms to collect for Christian Aid. I always got something in the envelopes at the cottages. At the big house I was told one year "we give in different ways" and went away with nothing. </p>