John Hamilton writes in today's hun: Stop these lycra louts

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 11:39:53 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> They are only using the easement to the road in spite of the road.
>> The law forces them to walk alongside the road, not on the road.
>> If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,, like
>> they did before roads existed.
>
>Go take a trip to the country one day. There are plenty of roads with no
>footpath. Pedestrians us the road, walking on the tarmac, there are specific
>road rules to govern this use (peds are supposed to walk on the right,
>facing traffic). As I said, pedestrians use publicly-funded road facilities.

Same again, if there where no road, they would still be walking the
same path.
They are not road users, iteven in those small number of cases you
cite, the road happens to be where they desire to walk and so are
forced to walk on it.
Anyone forced to walk on a road is not a user of it, they are simply
on it becuase it is in the way of where they choose to walk.

I there was no road and only a path for pedestrains then they would be
path users, but as they are not accounted for in planning, they get
nothing and are forced to walk the roads at great risk to their lives.

>
>> You do realsi ethat pedestrins existed beforew cars, rads bicycles,
>> and horse andd cart
>> for that simple reason alone. to now call them road users any time
>> they may choose to walk where a road is, is simply absurd
>
>See above
>
>> Only a complete kook would suggest such an idea.
>
>And good day to you too.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"RV" wrote:

> Anyone forced to walk on a road is not a user of it, they are simply
> on it becuase it is in the way of where they choose to walk.

Hmmm! Interesting logic here.

Maybe I can try that one out and drive my car along the Citylink tollway.
"No, I'm not a user, the tollway is just where I want to go"

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:31:41 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RV" wrote:
>
>> Anyone forced to walk on a road is not a user of it, they are simply
>> on it becuase it is in the way of where they choose to walk.
>
>Hmmm! Interesting logic here.
>
>Maybe I can try that one out and drive my car along the Citylink tollway.
>"No, I'm not a user, the tollway is just where I want to go"

But Citylink is a road for vehicles, so therefore you would be a road
user becuase you are in or on a vehicle.
Pedestrians are not users of it at anytime.

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:41:48 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "RV" wrote:
>>> Sorry but I have to correct something there.
>>>
>>> Pedestrinas in fact cross the road, moslty to avoid that which travels
>>> along the road, using it.
>>> I beleive the only purpose pets have for using the road is to get run
>>> over by a road users, at which point the pet becomes part of the road,
>>> being used as road not uisng the road itself..
>> As the ill-informed Mr Hamilton has claimed that all cyclists should be
>> registered, whether riding on the road, footpaths or bike paths (his major
>> gripe seems to be allegedly rude cyclists overtaking him on shared trails),
>> then I really think the comparison with pedestrains being registered is a
>> very valid one.
>>
>> Pedestrians walk along the road easement, be that on the footpath. They are
>> using publicly provided facilities.
>
> They are only using the easement to the road in spite of the road.
> The law forces them to walk alongside the road, not on the road.
> If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,, like
> they did before roads existed.

You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
pedestrians?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[monsterman]

RV wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:41:48 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "RV" wrote:
>>> Sorry but I have to correct something there.
>>>
>>> Pedestrinas in fact cross the road, moslty to avoid that which travels
>>> along the road, using it.
>>> I beleive the only purpose pets have for using the road is to get run
>>> over by a road users, at which point the pet becomes part of the road,
>>> being used as road not uisng the road itself..
>> As the ill-informed Mr Hamilton has claimed that all cyclists should be
>> registered, whether riding on the road, footpaths or bike paths (his major
>> gripe seems to be allegedly rude cyclists overtaking him on shared trails),
>> then I really think the comparison with pedestrains being registered is a
>> very valid one.
>>
>> Pedestrians walk along the road easement, be that on the footpath. They are
>> using publicly provided facilities.
>
> They are only using the easement to the road in spite of the road.
> The law forces them to walk alongside the road, not on the road.
> If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,, like
> they did before roads existed.

You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
pedestrians?
--
Cheers
Euan

what about the first "trolled" ones?

 

[Aeek]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 01:22:45 +1100, monsterman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Euan Wrote:
>> RV wrote:

>> > If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,,
>> like
>> > they did before roads existed.
>>
>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>> pedestrians?
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Euan
>what about the first "trolled" ones?

No, that's for fishes.

 

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:12:22 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:41:48 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "RV" wrote:
>>>> Sorry but I have to correct something there.
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrinas in fact cross the road, moslty to avoid that which travels
>>>> along the road, using it.
>>>> I beleive the only purpose pets have for using the road is to get run
>>>> over by a road users, at which point the pet becomes part of the road,
>>>> being used as road not uisng the road itself..
>>> As the ill-informed Mr Hamilton has claimed that all cyclists should be
>>> registered, whether riding on the road, footpaths or bike paths (his major
>>> gripe seems to be allegedly rude cyclists overtaking him on shared trails),
>>> then I really think the comparison with pedestrains being registered is a
>>> very valid one.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians walk along the road easement, be that on the footpath. They are
>>> using publicly provided facilities.
>>
>> They are only using the easement to the road in spite of the road.
>> The law forces them to walk alongside the road, not on the road.
>> If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,, like
>> they did before roads existed.
>
>You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>pedestrians?

The tolling was to account for the vehicular damage to the roads, not
paid by pedestrian unless some local extortion was involved at the
time.

 

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:12:22 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:41:48 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> "RV" wrote:
>>>> Sorry but I have to correct something there.
>>>>
>>>> Pedestrinas in fact cross the road, moslty to avoid that which travels
>>>> along the road, using it.
>>>> I beleive the only purpose pets have for using the road is to get run
>>>> over by a road users, at which point the pet becomes part of the road,
>>>> being used as road not uisng the road itself..
>>> As the ill-informed Mr Hamilton has claimed that all cyclists should be
>>> registered, whether riding on the road, footpaths or bike paths (his major
>>> gripe seems to be allegedly rude cyclists overtaking him on shared trails),
>>> then I really think the comparison with pedestrains being registered is a
>>> very valid one.
>>>
>>> Pedestrians walk along the road easement, be that on the footpath. They are
>>> using publicly provided facilities.
>>
>> They are only using the easement to the road in spite of the road.
>> The law forces them to walk alongside the road, not on the road.
>> If the road where not there they would be walking the same path,, like
>> they did before roads existed.
>
>You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>pedestrians?

And on that point, you do know that arguing using gross exaggerations
against someone you claim has grossly exaggerated an issue to begin
with, is plain hypocrisy at best.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:12:22 GMT
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
> pedestrians?

Which were those?

I thought the first tolled roads were the English turnpikes which were
carriage roads. The toll was to maintain them well enough for
carriage use.

Zebee

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:

>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>> pedestrians?
>
> The tolling was to account for the vehicular damage to the roads, not
> paid by pedestrian unless some local extortion was involved at the
> time.

No, that's wrong. I know that the Romans used tolls as a means of
raising revenue. Yes there were carriages however the vast majority of
traffic was pedestrian and they all paid a toll.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:

>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>> pedestrians?
>
> And on that point, you do know that arguing using gross exaggerations
> against someone you claim has grossly exaggerated an issue to begin
> with, is plain hypocrisy at best.

1) Where have I accused you of exaggeration?
2) Where have I exaggerated?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[ritcho]

But Citylink is a road for vehicles, so therefore you would be a road
user becuase you are in or on a vehicle.
Pedestrians are not users of it at anytime.

The user/non-user 'debate' is a semantic diversion that is not helpful. The Hun correspondent wrote a piece of vindictive garbage about cyclists and is the one that should be brought into line.

Ritch

 

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:24:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>
>>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>>> pedestrians?
>>
>> The tolling was to account for the vehicular damage to the roads, not
>> paid by pedestrian unless some local extortion was involved at the
>> time.
>
>No, that's wrong. I know that the Romans used tolls as a means of
>raising revenue. Yes there were carriages however the vast majority of
>traffic was pedestrian and they all paid a toll.

That was extortion
Taxes are paid for something, money taken for nothing is just
extortion
If extortion where accepted by anyone as a tax, then they would have
taxed the air you breath a long loing time ago.
But they dont and nevert did.

 

[RV]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:26:03 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>
>>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>>> pedestrians?
>>
>> And on that point, you do know that arguing using gross exaggerations
>> against someone you claim has grossly exaggerated an issue to begin
>> with, is plain hypocrisy at best.
>
>1) Where have I accused you of exaggeration?
>2) Where have I exaggerated?

The OP claims the Herald Sun exagerated, so noted.
But in arguing against, Peter did ther very same thing.

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:24:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> RV wrote:
>>
>>>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>>>> pedestrians?
>>> The tolling was to account for the vehicular damage to the roads, not
>>> paid by pedestrian unless some local extortion was involved at the
>>> time.
>> No, that's wrong. I know that the Romans used tolls as a means of
>> raising revenue. Yes there were carriages however the vast majority of
>> traffic was pedestrian and they all paid a toll.
>
> That was extortion
> Taxes are paid for something, money taken for nothing is just
> extortion
> If extortion where accepted by anyone as a tax, then they would have
> taxed the air you breath a long loing time ago.
> But they dont and nevert did.

Doesn't change the fact that tolls were orginally levied primarily on
pedetrians, does it?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:26:03 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> RV wrote:
>>
>>>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>>>> pedestrians?
>>> And on that point, you do know that arguing using gross exaggerations
>>> against someone you claim has grossly exaggerated an issue to begin
>>> with, is plain hypocrisy at best.
>> 1) Where have I accused you of exaggeration?
>> 2) Where have I exaggerated?
>
> The OP claims the Herald Sun exagerated, so noted.
> But in arguing against, Peter did ther very same thing.

Then why accuse me?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Peter Signorini]

"RV" wrote:

> The OP claims the Herald Sun exagerated, so noted.
> But in arguing against, Peter did ther very same thing.

Hey man, you never heard of irony? I was painting a ludicrous suggestion
(licencing pedestrins) to point out the futility of Hamilton's carping
carry-on. How is that hypocritical?

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

 

[RV]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:43:32 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:24:57 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> RV wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You do know that the first tolled roads in history were primarily for
>>>>> pedestrians?
>>>> The tolling was to account for the vehicular damage to the roads, not
>>>> paid by pedestrian unless some local extortion was involved at the
>>>> time.
>>> No, that's wrong. I know that the Romans used tolls as a means of
>>> raising revenue. Yes there were carriages however the vast majority of
>>> traffic was pedestrian and they all paid a toll.
>>
>> That was extortion
>> Taxes are paid for something, money taken for nothing is just
>> extortion
>> If extortion where accepted by anyone as a tax, then they would have
>> taxed the air you breath a long loing time ago.
>> But they dont and nevert did.
>
>Doesn't change the fact that tolls were orginally levied primarily on
>pedetrians, does it?

It changes the fact completely, it wasnt taxed
Extortions of long gone past have no relevance to the topic.

 

[RV]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:05:32 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RV" wrote:
>
>> The OP claims the Herald Sun exagerated, so noted.
>> But in arguing against, Peter did ther very same thing.
>
>Hey man, you never heard of irony? I was painting a ludicrous suggestion
>(licencing pedestrins) to point out the futility of Hamilton's carping
>carry-on. How is that hypocritical?

#1, ********
#2, Looks like you failed to inform the other posters here.

 

[RoadCyclist]

IMO

This is a very heated issue.

Venting here does not do anything positive to make cycling safer and more
popular or to educate the misguided Australian motorists. Write to the
neswpapers and officials instead. Myself, I wrote to the editor and the
author. So did a few of my riding buddies. Write to cycling press too. And
even the motoring press.

Mind you, the author is a bigoted cretin and will remain so, most likely.

We need to defend ourselves and even go on offensive. Critical mass of
riders who are also voters (don't forget to add your friends and families)
might just swing the cycling safety issue in our favour. Not that I like the
global warming and price of petrol or the situation in M/E where a "friendly
folks with oil" seem to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives, but
these things may be the best things to happen to cycling in a long time. Add
the total worsening chaos on the roads (carnage and congestion) and all of a
sudden the smarter folks begin to realise that a bicycle is one of the best
things ever invented by G*ds creatures.

I am off the soap-box now. Stay Upright all.

PS I hear Steve Bracks (Vic Premier) has become a bit of a cyclist, perhaps
we need to get him on board.