Early Day Motion

Bob Downie BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

This has already been noted
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/853539e38763b416

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:20:45 +0100, Bob Downie

BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

(EDM 1433
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Letters/emails to your MP's asking them to support this motion would be
useful.

The signatures have risen from 9 LibDems to 11 plus one Labour.

The EDM may be a quixotic but empty gesture, as they are rarely debated
in parliament. Nevertheless, they may add to awareness of the issues.
If only the EDM had more detail as to why the new HC is so broken.

That's why letters from constituents are so valuable!

http://edmi.parliament.uk/edmi/

On 11 May,

Marc Brett said:

The signatures have risen from 9 LibDems to 11 plus one Labour.

The EDM may be a quixotic but empty gesture, as they are rarely debated
in parliament. Nevertheless, they may add to awareness of the issues.
If only the EDM had more detail as to why the new HC is so broken.

That's why letters from constituents are so valuable!

I've just written to mine (again) asking for support, and offering to give
her a tour of cycling farcilities in the constituency.

--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:20:45 +0100, Bob Downie

BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

(EDM 1433
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Although I have not received a reply from my MP, his name is on the list
of signatures.

Martin.

Response to Martin Dann:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

(EDM 1433
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Although I have not received a reply from my MP, his name is on the list
of signatures.

Martin.

Is he a Liberal Democrat? If so (and the chances are he is), he'll
prolly have signed it because it was proposed by his boss; nearly all of
the signers are LibDems.

I can't help thinking that the EDM might do better if somebody other
than Ming Campbell had proposed it. My MP is as faithful a Blairite as
it's possible to imagine: I'll be interested to see if he's prepared to
put his name next to a bunch of LibDems and Gorgeous George. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all different."

On May 17, 10:56 pm, Mark McNeill <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Response to Martin Dann:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
> revisions to the highway code not be made.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (EDM 1433
>http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Quoted message said:

Although I have not received a reply from my MP, his name is on the list
of signatures.

Quoted message said:

Martin.

Is he a Liberal Democrat? If so (and the chances are he is), he'll
prolly have signed it because it was proposed by his boss; nearly all of
the signers are LibDems.

I can't help thinking that the EDM might do better if somebody other
than Ming Campbell had proposed it. My MP is as faithful a Blairite as
it's possible to imagine: I'll be interested to see if he's prepared to
put his name next to a bunch of LibDems and Gorgeous George. ;-)

You're also fighting the CTC who say to not ask your MP to sign it if
they aren't a LibDem

"But please note: MPs of other parties cannot sign this type of EDM
without the blessing of their party leaderships - so please do not ask
MPs other than LibDem members to sign it!"

Not counting Gorgeous George, currently 3 out of 23 are mainstream
party, non LibDem.

I suspect Lynne Jones signs nearly everything - assuming they are
numbered in order - and it looks like it looking at her voting record
- she's signed 929 of 1509. Bob Spink is similar but Edward Vaizey
looks more discriminating.

If your MP is at the top of the list of EDMs signed its probably worth
targetting them. I did email my MP but she's one of the 100 or so who
have signed no EDMs so I'm not hopeful.

(Vaizey is 156th in the number of EDMs signed so there's probably at
least 100 MPs who could be convinced to sign this.)

I shall be writing to the CTC this weekend to tell them not to renew
my membership in June. What with them screwing up the opportunity in
Matt Seaton's Guardian piece on 10th May because their website wasn't
up to date I'm "well [censored] at them".

Tim.

Marc Brett said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:20:45 +0100, Bob Downie

BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

(EDM 1433
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Letters/emails to your MP's asking them to support this motion would be
useful.

The signatures have risen from 9 LibDems to 11 plus one Labour.

I had a promise from my MP (Andrew Murrison, Con) to sign but his name
is not there (perhaps for the party reasons mentioned elsewhere in this
thread).

Quoted message said:

The EDM may be a quixotic but empty gesture, as they are rarely debated
in parliament. Nevertheless, they may add to awareness of the issues.
If only the EDM had more detail as to why the new HC is so broken.

That's why letters from constituents are so valuable!

Sadly, although Dr Murrison sounded interested, I have just had a letter
from one of his "researchers" spouting the same old twaddle of
"practicable" and "possible" having the same meaning and confusing the
problem of implied legal pressure with the "must/must not" direct legal
pressure. He sounded like he worked for the DoT rather than his MP.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

Peter Amey said:

Sadly, although Dr Murrison sounded interested, I have just had a letter
from one of his "researchers" spouting the same old twaddle of
"practicable" and "possible" having the same meaning and confusing the
problem of implied legal pressure with the "must/must not" direct legal
pressure. He sounded like he worked for the DoT rather than his MP.

Understandable: Joe Researcher is asked to "research" what the DfT are
up to. He goes and asks the DfT, they provide their stock answer, he
passes it on. "Research" doe snot /necessarily/ imply depth and rigour
in the wider sense.

I'd get back to the MP and ask him if he thinks the words mean the same
thing, and unless he does then how that is a clear demonstration that
it's *not* clear.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

in message <[email hidden]>, Martin Dann

(') said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:20:45 +0100, Bob Downie

BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk said:

Menzies Campbell has started an Earl Day Motion which asks that the
revisions to the highway code not be made.

(EDM 1433
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=33216&SESSION=885)

Although I have not received a reply from my MP, his name is on the list
of signatures.

I have not received a reply from mine, and his is not. :-(

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Amey said:

Sadly, although Dr Murrison sounded interested, I have just had a letter
from one of his "researchers" spouting the same old twaddle of
"practicable" and "possible" having the same meaning and confusing the
problem of implied legal pressure with the "must/must not" direct legal
pressure. He sounded like he worked for the DoT rather than his MP.

Understandable: Joe Researcher is asked to "research" what the DfT are
up to. He goes and asks the DfT, they provide their stock answer, he
passes it on. "Research" doe snot /necessarily/ imply depth and rigour
in the wider sense.

Surely it's not a question of whether they mean the same thing, but more
that the wording has been made no better despite assurances that it
would be? Whichever of the two phrases is used, it is unacceptable as
it conveys a sense that cyclists should use facilities where provided
rather than leaving it to their discretion.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Amey said:

Sadly, although Dr Murrison sounded interested, I have just had a letter
from one of his "researchers" spouting the same old twaddle of
"practicable" and "possible" having the same meaning and confusing the
problem of implied legal pressure with the "must/must not" direct legal
pressure. He sounded like he worked for the DoT rather than his MP.

Understandable: Joe Researcher is asked to "research" what the DfT are
up to. He goes and asks the DfT, they provide their stock answer, he
passes it on. "Research" doe snot /necessarily/ imply depth and rigour
in the wider sense.

Surely it's not a question of whether they mean the same thing, but more
that the wording has been made no better despite assurances that it
would be? Whichever of the two phrases is used, it is unacceptable as
it conveys a sense that cyclists should use facilities where provided
rather than leaving it to their discretion.

Precisement, mon brave. The HC should do no more than indicate that for
certain individuals and in certain circumstances, alternatives to the
road are available and may be used entirely at the discretion of the
individual cyclist. Any other wording, including that proposed (and
that proposed to be proposed), will give ammunition to insurers,
motorists, WVM, over-zealous constables, old buffers with too little to
do any any other groups with an agenda to clear the roads of the cycling
menace.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

Brian G said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Amey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Sadly, although Dr Murrison sounded interested, I have just had a letter
> from one of his "researchers" spouting the same old twaddle of
> "practicable" and "possible" having the same meaning and confusing the
> problem of implied legal pressure with the "must/must not" direct legal
> pressure. He sounded like he worked for the DoT rather than his MP.
Understandable: Joe Researcher is asked to "research" what the DfT are
up to. He goes and asks the DfT, they provide their stock answer, he
passes it on. "Research" doe snot /necessarily/ imply depth and rigour
in the wider sense.

Quoted message said:

Surely it's not a question of whether they mean the same thing, but more
that the wording has been made no better despite assurances that it
would be? Whichever of the two phrases is used, it is unacceptable as
it conveys a sense that cyclists should use facilities where provided
rather than leaving it to their discretion.

Precisement, mon brave. The HC should do no more than indicate that for
certain individuals and in certain circumstances, alternatives to the
road are available and may be used entirely at the discretion of the
individual cyclist. Any other wording, including that proposed (and
that proposed to be proposed), will give ammunition to insurers,
motorists, WVM, over-zealous constables, old buffers with too little to
do any any other groups with an agenda to clear the roads of the cycling
menace.

I did suggest in my letter to my MP that merely changing 'possible' to
'appropriate' would solve all the problems.

After all, motorists are not told to use motorways wherever possible.

...d

David Martin said:

On May 18, 12:01 pm, Brian G <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Precisement, mon brave. The HC should do no more than indicate that for
certain individuals and in certain circumstances, alternatives to the
road are available and may be used entirely at the discretion of the
individual cyclist. Any other wording, including that proposed (and
that proposed to be proposed), will give ammunition to insurers,
motorists, WVM, over-zealous constables, old buffers with too little to
do any any other groups with an agenda to clear the roads of the cycling
menace.

I did suggest in my letter to my MP that merely changing 'possible' to
'appropriate' would solve all the problems.

After all, motorists are not told to use motorways wherever possible.

True, but then again motorists do not have a potentially massive army of
unthinking yespersons trying to get them off the roads and on to some
other surface (not yet, anyway ;-) )

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

Brian G wrote on 18/05/2007 12:01 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Precisement, mon brave. The HC should do no more than indicate that for
certain individuals and in certain circumstances, alternatives to the
road are available and may be used entirely at the discretion of the
individual cyclist. Any other wording, including that proposed (and
that proposed to be proposed), will give ammunition to insurers,
motorists, WVM, over-zealous constables, old buffers with too little to
do any any other groups with an agenda to clear the roads of the cycling
menace.

But worry not Comrade. Come the revolution......... ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell