Cycling wrong way up one way streets to be made legal



In news:[email protected],
Dervin <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:36:09 -0700, Sir Jeremy wrote:
>
>> On 4 Jun, 13:57, Dervin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:40:19 +0100, Nick wrote:
>>>> That seems sensible. They had a guy on the radio discussing it. He
>>>> said that cyclists were already doing it. He also said that when
>>>> you have a law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious
>>>> negative consequences it is sensible to consider if the law is
>>>> really needed.
>>>
>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>
>> and breaking the speed limit?
>
> There's a reason for speed limits. To reduce fuel emissions.

Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the
diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which
interest dictates and credulity encourages.
 
On 4 Jun, 14:48, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:36:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <[email protected]> said in
> <b8e85480-8a82-4949-8489-986eb0de5...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> > when you have a
> >> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
> >> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
> >> So why is pot still illegal?
> >and breaking the speed limit?
>
> You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound


Couldn't think of any. Annoying the 'mentalists counts as a positive
consequence.
 
On 4 Jun, 14:49, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <[email protected]> said in
> <de63be8d-a76b-440b-8d7a-8664da1f2...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Why in the name of left-handed Greek buggery have they asked "Captain
> >> Gatso" to comment?
> >Because he's a folk hero
>
> FSVO hero, and indeed folk.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound


What does FSVO mean?
 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".

>Couldn't think of any. Annoying the 'mentalists counts as a positive
>consequence.

If you can't think of any obvious negative consequences of speeding,
it's time you turned in your driving license.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
POHB wrote:
> or at least to be trialled on a few roads in part of London.

My initial thoughts are as follows:

I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
"wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

The argument being presented seems to be that cycling the wrong way down
one-way streets should be legalised because some bike users do it
already and it can't be policed. That seems to me to be a bad argument.
Maybe next, using the same argument, they should legalise maiming
cyclists by cutting them up at corners?
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >> and breaking the speed limit?
| >
| > There's a reason for speed limits. To reduce fuel emissions.
|
| Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

Buy an old Leyland car.

I reckon more unburnt fuel came out of my metro that it was burning, as the
performance showed...

pOB
 
"Peter Pie Eater" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The argument being presented seems to be that cycling the wrong way down
> one-way streets should be legalised because some bike users do it already
> and it can't be policed. That seems to me to be a bad argument.

In those terms, maybe. But add the critical extra bit "and it seems to work
fine - no carnage has resulted", and it becomes a rather better one.

clive
 
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> > when you have a
>>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
>>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>
>>and breaking the speed limit?
>
>You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".

Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
concept from time to time.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:24:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>> You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
>> Couldn't think of any. Annoying the 'mentalists counts as a positive
>> consequence.
>
> If you can't think of any obvious negative consequences of speeding,
> it's time you turned in your driving license.

Can you think of any - that is, any that /are/ consequences of
/speeding/ per se? To qualify you'll need to demonstrate that they
apply to travelling at 31 mph in a 30 mph limit, and that they would
cease to be "negative" if the speed limit was increased to 31 mph.

--
Matt B
 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, Dave Larrington wrote:

> In news:[email protected],
> Dervin <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:36:09 -0700, Sir Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>> On 4 Jun, 13:57, Dervin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:40:19 +0100, Nick wrote:
>>>>> That seems sensible. They had a guy on the radio discussing it. He
>>>>> said that cyclists were already doing it. He also said that when
>>>>> you have a law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious
>>>>> negative consequences it is sensible to consider if the law is
>>>>> really needed.
>>>>
>>>> So why is pot still illegal?
>>>
>>> and breaking the speed limit?
>>
>> There's a reason for speed limits. To reduce fuel emissions.
>
> Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

I've got a cycling friend who's a diabetic, if that helps.

tom

--
I had no idea it was going to end in such tragedy
 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 08:26:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 4 Jun, 14:49, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy

<snip>

>> >Because he's a folk hero
>>
>> FSVO hero, and indeed folk.
>
>
>What does FSVO mean?

JFGI.

(For Some Values Of, if you CBA.)
--

Tim

I understand very little of what's being discussed
but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)
 
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:31:44 +0100 someone who may be Peter Pie
Eater <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I'm always stepping out in front of cyclists on those damn contraflow
>one way roads. It just doesn't come naturally to me to look in the
>"wrong direction" when crossing a one way street.

Except that it isn't a one-way street. Rather it is one-way for
certain types of vehicle and two-way for others street.

This isn't just something to beware of with bikes. One may also find
trams, buses and taxis being driven both ways along some street.
People tend to be rather more careful about stepping out into these
streets without looking, which is a testament to the low level of
danger which bikes and their riders pose to others.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
On 4 Jun, 16:50, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:48:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
> you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >>> > when you have a
> >>> > law that is widely disobeyed without any obvious negative consequences
> >>> > it is sensible to consider if the law is really needed.
> >>> So why is pot still illegal?
>
> >>and breaking the speed limit?
>
> >You missed the bit about "obvious negative consequences".
>
> Until relatively recently if councils measured the speed motorists
> were driving down roads and a weighted average was higher than the
> speed limit they raised the speed limit. I still hear the same
> concept from time to time.
>
> --
>   David Hansen, Edinburgh
>  I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
>  http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

That's the best way to determine speed limits.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Clive George wrote:
>"Peter Pie Eater" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> The argument being presented seems to be that cycling the wrong way down
>> one-way streets should be legalised because some bike users do it already
>> and it can't be policed. That seems to me to be a bad argument.
>
>In those terms, maybe. But add the critical extra bit "and it seems to work
>fine - no carnage has resulted", and it becomes a rather better one.

And there are obvious benefits to cyclists so long as it isn't dangerous.
 
On 04/06/2008 15:47, Dave Larrington wondered:
> Where can I get one of these vehicles that emits fuel?

Acquire a diesel-powered motor vehicle, fill the tank to the brim, then
drive at speed over bumps and around roundabouts. That should do the trick.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:12:15 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email protected]> said in
<abdadd19-8850-41e6-9f68-8c9a73f7c43f@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>AF is defeated by GC's KUATB though

Entirely appropriate. It means: Keep Up At The Back.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Cycling wrong way up one way street
Replies
214
Views
6K
UK and Europe
JNugent
J
Vincent_CFC
Do you know charities organizing cycling ride?
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Vincent_CFC
Vincent_CFC
Joe Johnson
Share your cycling videos and where they were taken!
Replies
0
Views
7K
UK and Europe
Joe Johnson
Joe Johnson
A
Cycling trainer for youth in birmingham - where to find?
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
aksle
A
neil16377
Cycling hills of wales. !!project!!
Replies
3
Views
3K
UK and Europe
Joe Johnson
Joe Johnson
Top Bottom Back