I realise I've been raving recently about Macs, so I decided to take a look at what at what the latest version of Windows has to offer.
My first challenge was getting videos on the Microsoft website to play. To be fair both Apple and Microsoft seem to be under the illusion that someone shopping for a new computer and operating system will be browsing their website on a fast computer with a huge monitor, which doesn't make sense. At least, however, the content on the Mac website all worked for me, whereas some of the Microsoft videos didn't.
In any case the selection of features that Windows 7 was being sold with having were also fairly amusing to me. It is true to say that Microsoft is boasting features that Apple isn't; the reason being most of them are features that Macs have been doing for years!
"Windows Search" is possibly the best example of this. It's an incredibly fast search system that finds files on the computer very quickly. You might see it and say "Wow! That's impressive!" until you realise that Apple users have had Spotlight, which is at least as good, for four years.
There's also the new fancy "clipping tool" which is an application that allows the user to capture only a portion of the screen as a screenshot. Nice... but, again, for years Apple users have only needed press Apple key + Shift + 4 to do that.
Overall I've found that whilst Windows 7 has a couple of nice features, there is nothing at all about it that particularly impresses me.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Fanboy!
Something with which I am becoming increasingly familiar with is the various ways in which people respond when I tell them that I have been converted to using an Apple Mac computer.
I wrote on this blog last March when I first tried using a Mac about a year ago and it's fair to say that by now I'm a complete convert. I find they are extremely reliable and very enjoyable to use.
The thing is that, having realised how awful an experience using Windows based systems are by comparison I find myself trying to explain to people that it doesn't have to be that way, and that they should perhaps try a Mac too. When I do this most of them look at me as though I've suddenly gone completely insane.
Not use windows?! Are you insane?!
For the die-hard Windows user there is a stereotype into the shape of which they will try to bend the converted Mac user. This is the poor gullible individual, ignorant to the world of computers, who has been duped into buying an overpriced inferior product by snappy advertising. Apple has brainwashed them into being a "fanboy", who will mindlessly buy anything with an Apple symbol on it. They are to be pittied.
I have been treated to lectures on the evils of being "tied in to expensive hardware", not having "native unicode support" (whatever that is?), which are perhaps true. Also how the file and memory management systems are inferior, which I consider to be less generous in terms of fact given the superior speed and smooth running of OS.X even on lower spec machines than their Windows counterparts.
Most amusing though was the assertion that OS.X is simply a dumbed down version of UNIX for people who are too stupid to use UNIX proper. Anyone making such a statement is completely missing the point.
One has to ask oneself what a computer is for, and the answer for most people is given in terms of performing certain tasks. If an operating system makes doing this fast and easy someone used to a more involved method may indeed call it "dumbing down", but does that really matter if it does the task better and more easily? Apple wins every time not on an on-paper comparison of specs, but when it comes to the so-called "user experience" which is in many respects much more important.
The average computer user frankly doesn't give a toss whether or not NTFS or WinFS is technically superior as a file system to HFS+. What they want is a computer that works well and is easy to use. The beauty of an OS.X system is that it does both of these things, and Apple are very good at improving and integrating the aspects of a computer that most people actually care about.
It "just works", to use their slogan.
On the other hand, every verson of Windows I've ever used has required constant adjustment and and insider knowledge to make it work properly.
A good example was when I commented how much quicker my Mac Mini would boot compared with my PC of the same age. The response I got was "well, you're obviously not keeping your windows install clean are you!". Well, perhaps not. But why should I, as an average computer user, need to know about keeping the system clean of all the small programs that are want to install themselves in the background of a Windows system, and how to delete them?
It strikes me that there are a considerable number of computer users that must actually enjoy the constant tinkering with their systems to keep them working. Either that or they enjoy having the knowledge of how to do it and being the authority figure on computers to those other Windows users around them who aren't in the know.
Apple perhaps annoys those people the most by making the need for such insider knowledge redundant. OS.X is far more intuitive and easier to set up and adjust; no tinkering or regular cleaning up required.
All of this said, I suspect that the main reason most people remain with their Windows PCs, and replace them with new Windows PCs, is not because of a fair and balanced comparitive apprisal of both alternatives, but simply because Windows is something familiar, whereas OS.X is an unknown quantity. People in general like to remain set in their ways.
In trying to convey this I like the analogy of trying to sell a motorboat to an individual who is tasked with rowing heavy cargo across a lake. You can point out that the motorboat with its engine is faster and will make crossing the lake significantly easier, but you'll only be told "No, that's no good! Where on earth would I mount the oars?!"
Indeed one problem that can arise is that using a Mac will often require that the user un-learns a lot of the habitual clunky circuitous ways in which one must things if you were trying to get the same result in Windows. I recall Rosie trying to import her pictures from her Windows laptop onto the Mac Mini. In doing so she'd manually organised all of her photos into folders and moved those folders from her USB stick across into the iPhoto directory, as one would do in Windows, then was confused when iPhoto wouldn't let her load them into the library; she'd spent 30 minutes on this. She was just a little bit miffed when I pointed out all she needed to do was plug in the USB stick and click "add photos" in the menu bar.
Anyone who has gotten used to iPhoto will agree that perhaps "dumbing down" isn't quite so bad after all.
So I will enjoy my motorboat and encourage others to give it a try themselves; if some people like the exercise of having to row hard to keep up as far as I'm concerned they're welcome to it.
I wrote on this blog last March when I first tried using a Mac about a year ago and it's fair to say that by now I'm a complete convert. I find they are extremely reliable and very enjoyable to use.
The thing is that, having realised how awful an experience using Windows based systems are by comparison I find myself trying to explain to people that it doesn't have to be that way, and that they should perhaps try a Mac too. When I do this most of them look at me as though I've suddenly gone completely insane.
Not use windows?! Are you insane?!
For the die-hard Windows user there is a stereotype into the shape of which they will try to bend the converted Mac user. This is the poor gullible individual, ignorant to the world of computers, who has been duped into buying an overpriced inferior product by snappy advertising. Apple has brainwashed them into being a "fanboy", who will mindlessly buy anything with an Apple symbol on it. They are to be pittied.
I have been treated to lectures on the evils of being "tied in to expensive hardware", not having "native unicode support" (whatever that is?), which are perhaps true. Also how the file and memory management systems are inferior, which I consider to be less generous in terms of fact given the superior speed and smooth running of OS.X even on lower spec machines than their Windows counterparts.
Most amusing though was the assertion that OS.X is simply a dumbed down version of UNIX for people who are too stupid to use UNIX proper. Anyone making such a statement is completely missing the point.
One has to ask oneself what a computer is for, and the answer for most people is given in terms of performing certain tasks. If an operating system makes doing this fast and easy someone used to a more involved method may indeed call it "dumbing down", but does that really matter if it does the task better and more easily? Apple wins every time not on an on-paper comparison of specs, but when it comes to the so-called "user experience" which is in many respects much more important.
The average computer user frankly doesn't give a toss whether or not NTFS or WinFS is technically superior as a file system to HFS+. What they want is a computer that works well and is easy to use. The beauty of an OS.X system is that it does both of these things, and Apple are very good at improving and integrating the aspects of a computer that most people actually care about.
It "just works", to use their slogan.
On the other hand, every verson of Windows I've ever used has required constant adjustment and and insider knowledge to make it work properly.
A good example was when I commented how much quicker my Mac Mini would boot compared with my PC of the same age. The response I got was "well, you're obviously not keeping your windows install clean are you!". Well, perhaps not. But why should I, as an average computer user, need to know about keeping the system clean of all the small programs that are want to install themselves in the background of a Windows system, and how to delete them?
It strikes me that there are a considerable number of computer users that must actually enjoy the constant tinkering with their systems to keep them working. Either that or they enjoy having the knowledge of how to do it and being the authority figure on computers to those other Windows users around them who aren't in the know.
Apple perhaps annoys those people the most by making the need for such insider knowledge redundant. OS.X is far more intuitive and easier to set up and adjust; no tinkering or regular cleaning up required.
All of this said, I suspect that the main reason most people remain with their Windows PCs, and replace them with new Windows PCs, is not because of a fair and balanced comparitive apprisal of both alternatives, but simply because Windows is something familiar, whereas OS.X is an unknown quantity. People in general like to remain set in their ways.
In trying to convey this I like the analogy of trying to sell a motorboat to an individual who is tasked with rowing heavy cargo across a lake. You can point out that the motorboat with its engine is faster and will make crossing the lake significantly easier, but you'll only be told "No, that's no good! Where on earth would I mount the oars?!"
Indeed one problem that can arise is that using a Mac will often require that the user un-learns a lot of the habitual clunky circuitous ways in which one must things if you were trying to get the same result in Windows. I recall Rosie trying to import her pictures from her Windows laptop onto the Mac Mini. In doing so she'd manually organised all of her photos into folders and moved those folders from her USB stick across into the iPhoto directory, as one would do in Windows, then was confused when iPhoto wouldn't let her load them into the library; she'd spent 30 minutes on this. She was just a little bit miffed when I pointed out all she needed to do was plug in the USB stick and click "add photos" in the menu bar.
Anyone who has gotten used to iPhoto will agree that perhaps "dumbing down" isn't quite so bad after all.
So I will enjoy my motorboat and encourage others to give it a try themselves; if some people like the exercise of having to row hard to keep up as far as I'm concerned they're welcome to it.
Friday, 6 November 2009
iTablet
The rumours about a new Apple "netbook" computer in the form of a tablet, possibly called the "iTablet", seem to be increasing.
I would expect this device to in effect be a giant iPhone. Rumours seem to suggest it would have a 10" screen and have 3G capability, allowing it to access the internet over the mobile phone network in the same way as the iPhone does. Needless to say it would also have Wi-Fi and the same touch-screen control interface as the iPhone.
Below is one example of what this might look like.
Such a device would be very attractive to me, not least because I find the iPhone's screen a bit small for web browsing and certainly too small for word processing. I would be very interested to get one of these, if of course they indeed turn out to exist.
I would expect this device to in effect be a giant iPhone. Rumours seem to suggest it would have a 10" screen and have 3G capability, allowing it to access the internet over the mobile phone network in the same way as the iPhone does. Needless to say it would also have Wi-Fi and the same touch-screen control interface as the iPhone.
Below is one example of what this might look like.
Such a device would be very attractive to me, not least because I find the iPhone's screen a bit small for web browsing and certainly too small for word processing. I would be very interested to get one of these, if of course they indeed turn out to exist.
Thursday, 5 November 2009
New computer?
It has been over 5 years now since I last bought a computer, and so I am now doing something that I have being trying to put off for a while, which is considering buying a new computer.
This is not some kind of inherent urge that must be answered, but simply a changing of the times. The performance that programs and web content demand from computers increases over time. I have a 5 year old laptop and an 8 year old desktop PC, and these are simply unable to cope.
I am one who has defended Microsoft for countless years, but a couple of years back I decided that my next computer would be an Apple Mac. There were three main factors in this. First, my Brother and Dad both have Macs and I was impressed with what I saw, second Windows Vista came out and I decided I certainly didn't want to upgrade to that given the reviews it was getting, and finally I got myself an iPhone and I was so impressed with the interface I wanted to try getting an apple computer.
I replaced my 8-year old PC's tower with a Mac Mini inherited from my Dad recently and I have been very impressed with it. The interface is very intuitive and it's age only shows occasionally when it's asked to run newer programs or streaming video off the internet. In 6 months I have only had one thing that hasn't worked perfectly, and that is that iChat doesn't like the webcam I'm using. Just one issue in over 6 months! The "it just works" reputation is well earned.
Windows is adept at not "just working". For example I am typing this at my lunch break at work and I just had to restart my computer because it refused to eject my USB stick, saying a program was still using it which I was pretty sure wasn't true. Such issues are something that most PC users will find to be a day-to-day occurrence.
The problem I have with my current Mac Mini is that many of the things I want to do with it, including programming and watching movies, would work a lot better with a larger screen. My 15" TFT monitor was far from the largest available when I bought it in 2001. It seems to me that 21" or larger seems to be the smallest nowadays; I use a pair of 24" monitors at work.
The trouble is that getting a new monitor would be limited by the capabilities of the graphics card in my Mac Mini, so replacing the monitor to a worthwhile size will mean replacing the Mac Mini too. I started looking at the price of decent 24" monitors and adding that to the cost of a new Mac Mini. Then, as I browsed apple's website to see what their monitors were like, I considered the new iMac.
The iMac is an all-in-one computer. It's the size and shape of a monitor but everything, save the keyboard and mouse, is included inside the monitor casing. That includes a small set of speakers, microphone, webcam, disk drive, card reader, wireless cards, everything. In the latest version there is only one external cable, the power cable; the keyboard and mouse are wireless.
The one I like the look of also has a 27" screen.
I am quickly falling in love with the idea of getting one of these, not least because I like the way in which it is all integrated. Critics of Apple computers will constantly point out that, unlike windows, Apple controls the hardware. I will point out that a great thing about Apple computers is that Apple controls the hardware, which means that everything works perfectly together because it is designed as such. The more I see of these computers the more I come to think that sourcing the hardware and operating system from completely separate companies is just asking for trouble.
Thoughts here of my windows laptop and its habit of lying dormant as intended with the lid closed, as expected, but then shutting down the moment the lid is opened springs to mind. Or indeed trying to set Windows XP to understand that I have a UK keyboard on my laptop. I am also fairly certain that it is the wireless card on my laptop that is causing it to crash completely, bringing up the dreaded blue screen of death, the windows trademark.
Even the recent release of Windows 7 hasn't changed my mind. It's much more stable than Vista, but then XP has a similar "better than Windows ME" citation that isn't saying much. Frankly I've given up on Microsoft trying to sort its act out.
So, an iMac it is then. Now all I need to do is work out how I'm going to afford it.
This is not some kind of inherent urge that must be answered, but simply a changing of the times. The performance that programs and web content demand from computers increases over time. I have a 5 year old laptop and an 8 year old desktop PC, and these are simply unable to cope.
I am one who has defended Microsoft for countless years, but a couple of years back I decided that my next computer would be an Apple Mac. There were three main factors in this. First, my Brother and Dad both have Macs and I was impressed with what I saw, second Windows Vista came out and I decided I certainly didn't want to upgrade to that given the reviews it was getting, and finally I got myself an iPhone and I was so impressed with the interface I wanted to try getting an apple computer.
I replaced my 8-year old PC's tower with a Mac Mini inherited from my Dad recently and I have been very impressed with it. The interface is very intuitive and it's age only shows occasionally when it's asked to run newer programs or streaming video off the internet. In 6 months I have only had one thing that hasn't worked perfectly, and that is that iChat doesn't like the webcam I'm using. Just one issue in over 6 months! The "it just works" reputation is well earned.
Windows is adept at not "just working". For example I am typing this at my lunch break at work and I just had to restart my computer because it refused to eject my USB stick, saying a program was still using it which I was pretty sure wasn't true. Such issues are something that most PC users will find to be a day-to-day occurrence.
The problem I have with my current Mac Mini is that many of the things I want to do with it, including programming and watching movies, would work a lot better with a larger screen. My 15" TFT monitor was far from the largest available when I bought it in 2001. It seems to me that 21" or larger seems to be the smallest nowadays; I use a pair of 24" monitors at work.
The trouble is that getting a new monitor would be limited by the capabilities of the graphics card in my Mac Mini, so replacing the monitor to a worthwhile size will mean replacing the Mac Mini too. I started looking at the price of decent 24" monitors and adding that to the cost of a new Mac Mini. Then, as I browsed apple's website to see what their monitors were like, I considered the new iMac.
The iMac is an all-in-one computer. It's the size and shape of a monitor but everything, save the keyboard and mouse, is included inside the monitor casing. That includes a small set of speakers, microphone, webcam, disk drive, card reader, wireless cards, everything. In the latest version there is only one external cable, the power cable; the keyboard and mouse are wireless.
The one I like the look of also has a 27" screen.
I am quickly falling in love with the idea of getting one of these, not least because I like the way in which it is all integrated. Critics of Apple computers will constantly point out that, unlike windows, Apple controls the hardware. I will point out that a great thing about Apple computers is that Apple controls the hardware, which means that everything works perfectly together because it is designed as such. The more I see of these computers the more I come to think that sourcing the hardware and operating system from completely separate companies is just asking for trouble.
Thoughts here of my windows laptop and its habit of lying dormant as intended with the lid closed, as expected, but then shutting down the moment the lid is opened springs to mind. Or indeed trying to set Windows XP to understand that I have a UK keyboard on my laptop. I am also fairly certain that it is the wireless card on my laptop that is causing it to crash completely, bringing up the dreaded blue screen of death, the windows trademark.
Even the recent release of Windows 7 hasn't changed my mind. It's much more stable than Vista, but then XP has a similar "better than Windows ME" citation that isn't saying much. Frankly I've given up on Microsoft trying to sort its act out.
So, an iMac it is then. Now all I need to do is work out how I'm going to afford it.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Question time
It seems that this evening the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin, is to appear on the BBC's Question Time, so I thought I'd just write a few words about this.
I don't think anybody is under any doubts as to exactly what a far-right party such as the BNP stands for, so I won't bother going into details as to what it is about me that engenders the intense dislike I feel toward them. Worse though is the way in which the lessons of the middle of the last century have been so easily forgotten by many of the current generation of voters; we know that the far right doesn't have any solutions, it just likes to pin problems on scapegoats.
This is one of those situations where it is easy to fall into a trap. It's easy to say "don't let him on the program!" and take on the very nature of the beast oneself. We are lucky to live in a country where we can enjoy freedom of speech, and so the BNP should of course have the right to say what it is they want to say. That said, I am a little disappointed that the BBC should give the BNP such a platform and any legitimacy that might appear to come with it.
As a final point, I would like to comment on the BNP's keystone policy, which seems to be the repatriation of those who are not of "indigenous" British descent.
When a family of, for example, African origins has called the UK home for many generations, where on earth but the UK is their home?
I would like to know by what criteria "indigenous British" could ever even be defined, because immigration is certainly not a new phenomenon to this country. The British Empire once spanned the globe, and as a consequence the migration to and from the British isles has been significant for centuries. Many in this country can even trace their ancestory back to the Norman conquest. The Normans weren't "ethnically British", they were immigrants from Europe. After that, what about Viking or even Roman settlers?
I suspect such thoughts are far too deep for the BNP and those who support them. History has told us that if a useful scapegoat can be found for all life's problems for many people rationality can take a back seat.
I am glad that overall the BNP recieve as little support as they do. It gives me more faith in people.
I don't think anybody is under any doubts as to exactly what a far-right party such as the BNP stands for, so I won't bother going into details as to what it is about me that engenders the intense dislike I feel toward them. Worse though is the way in which the lessons of the middle of the last century have been so easily forgotten by many of the current generation of voters; we know that the far right doesn't have any solutions, it just likes to pin problems on scapegoats.
This is one of those situations where it is easy to fall into a trap. It's easy to say "don't let him on the program!" and take on the very nature of the beast oneself. We are lucky to live in a country where we can enjoy freedom of speech, and so the BNP should of course have the right to say what it is they want to say. That said, I am a little disappointed that the BBC should give the BNP such a platform and any legitimacy that might appear to come with it.
As a final point, I would like to comment on the BNP's keystone policy, which seems to be the repatriation of those who are not of "indigenous" British descent.
When a family of, for example, African origins has called the UK home for many generations, where on earth but the UK is their home?
I would like to know by what criteria "indigenous British" could ever even be defined, because immigration is certainly not a new phenomenon to this country. The British Empire once spanned the globe, and as a consequence the migration to and from the British isles has been significant for centuries. Many in this country can even trace their ancestory back to the Norman conquest. The Normans weren't "ethnically British", they were immigrants from Europe. After that, what about Viking or even Roman settlers?
I suspect such thoughts are far too deep for the BNP and those who support them. History has told us that if a useful scapegoat can be found for all life's problems for many people rationality can take a back seat.
I am glad that overall the BNP recieve as little support as they do. It gives me more faith in people.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Could have been much worse!
It is clear to me that I have offended the motoring gods and yesterday they sent me a warning!
Rosie and I were travelling north on the M1 yesterday lunchtime; heading for Nottingham to collect more of her stuff to move into my flat. I was driving and just South of Leicester, as I pulled into the middle lane to overtake a horse box, I heard a loud bang. Looking round I saw dust and smoke coming from the right hand side of a white transit van that had just overtaken us in the right hand lane.
As we watched the van swung sharply to the left across in front of us at a complete right angle to the road as it crossed the the middle lane, sliding sideways at at least 60mph. It narrowly missed the rear of the horse box and continued to slide, somehow staying upright, and by the time it ploughed into the foliage beyond the hard shoulder it had turned a complete 180 degrees and was travelling backwards. The van was alongside us by this point, and must have been doing about 50mph at the moment of impact.
The whole thing was over so quickly and yet it happened in a kind of curious slow motion. It was incredibly cinematic, almost like watching a cinema screen, probably because it was so dramatic, so large, and so out of the ordinary. The crystal clarity of it all was surreal, and despite the fact it happened a mere 25m ahead of us we looked on with a strange sense of detachment. There wasn't even any need for me to take evasive action, even though I was ready to, the van cleanly missed us and everything else on the road to make possibly one of the softest 50mph crashes in history.
It is a fact that travelling in a car is one of the most dangerous things that most people do on a day to day basis. This isn't something that most people are inclined to believe however, probably because inside our metal boxes the danger seems so distant. Even as I watched this accident unfold and two tonnes of metal whirled across the road completely out of control in front of me I didn't feel afraid. The realisation that things could have come off much, much worse is one that's entirely rational.
Perhaps the most shocking thing that came from this whole episode, I believe, is what happened when we went to the police station to make a statement as witnesses to what had happened. We were greeted by a locked front door and a sign listing opening hours, saying that the police station was closed all day.
It seems that the police are closed on Sundays.
Rosie and I were travelling north on the M1 yesterday lunchtime; heading for Nottingham to collect more of her stuff to move into my flat. I was driving and just South of Leicester, as I pulled into the middle lane to overtake a horse box, I heard a loud bang. Looking round I saw dust and smoke coming from the right hand side of a white transit van that had just overtaken us in the right hand lane.
As we watched the van swung sharply to the left across in front of us at a complete right angle to the road as it crossed the the middle lane, sliding sideways at at least 60mph. It narrowly missed the rear of the horse box and continued to slide, somehow staying upright, and by the time it ploughed into the foliage beyond the hard shoulder it had turned a complete 180 degrees and was travelling backwards. The van was alongside us by this point, and must have been doing about 50mph at the moment of impact.
The whole thing was over so quickly and yet it happened in a kind of curious slow motion. It was incredibly cinematic, almost like watching a cinema screen, probably because it was so dramatic, so large, and so out of the ordinary. The crystal clarity of it all was surreal, and despite the fact it happened a mere 25m ahead of us we looked on with a strange sense of detachment. There wasn't even any need for me to take evasive action, even though I was ready to, the van cleanly missed us and everything else on the road to make possibly one of the softest 50mph crashes in history.
It is a fact that travelling in a car is one of the most dangerous things that most people do on a day to day basis. This isn't something that most people are inclined to believe however, probably because inside our metal boxes the danger seems so distant. Even as I watched this accident unfold and two tonnes of metal whirled across the road completely out of control in front of me I didn't feel afraid. The realisation that things could have come off much, much worse is one that's entirely rational.
Perhaps the most shocking thing that came from this whole episode, I believe, is what happened when we went to the police station to make a statement as witnesses to what had happened. We were greeted by a locked front door and a sign listing opening hours, saying that the police station was closed all day.
It seems that the police are closed on Sundays.
Friday, 21 August 2009
...and another thing!
Whilst I'm ranting about the RAC, I'll post another link to this.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
Basically it's another demonstration of how they are able to, by choosing the numbers that represent only a small part of the picture, suggest that a great injustice is being done to motorists.
Who are these "motorists" anyway, are they a separate species? Are we not all just human beings trying to get from A to B using the best method made available to us?
Anyway, they will argue that the BCR, or "Benefit-Cost ratio" of road schemes is much higher than for public transport schemes, thus the money should be spent on roads.
They quote average BCRs for different types of projects undertaken:
- Highways Agency Roads - 4.66
- Local roads - 4.23
- Heavy rail schemes - 2.83
- Light rail schemes - 2.14
- Local public transport schemes - 1.71
First, road schemes never include the cost of vehicles in the calculations, because the user pays for them directly. This makes road schemes appear cheaper when in fact on an overall cost per user basis they are much more expensive.
Secondly, and most significantly, fuel duty is included in the calculations. This means that any analysis using this set of criteria will come out in favour of a scheme that puts more cars on the roads. Light rail schemes, for example, which are designed to reduce congestion by attracting motorists out of their cars, have to gain a high enough benefit cost ratio to get approval despite the loss of income to the treasury from fuel duty counting against them.
Numbers can be useful, but they should always be viewed in context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)