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

[Euan]

RV wrote:
> 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.

The revenue was collected by the government, that makes it a tax whether
you agree with it or not.

The first tolls were levied primarily on pedestrians. What the tolls
were levied for is neither here nor there. Also don't forget that Roman
roads were built primarily for pedestrians, most of them just happened
to be carrying a sword and shield at the time.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[RV]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:53:09 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>RV wrote:
>> 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.
>
>The revenue was collected by the government, that makes it a tax whether
>you agree with it or not.
>
>The first tolls were levied primarily on pedestrians. What the tolls
>were levied for is neither here nor there. Also don't forget that Roman
>roads were built primarily for pedestrians, most of them just happened
>to be carrying a sword and shield at the time.

The system you speak of simply npo0 longer exist, for a good reason,
it wasnt tak, it was proven to be simple extportion.
Irrelevant to the claim made here that on our tax financed roads, that
pedestrains are in any way shape or form, users of it, c claim that is
plain wrong..

If you can make that clasim, then at the rate I see little you have to
complain about some hack in the hun doing the same.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"RV" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The system you speak of simply npo0 longer exist, for a good reason,
> it wasnt tak, it was proven to be simple extportion.
> Irrelevant to the claim made here that on our tax financed roads, that
> pedestrains are in any way shape or form, users of it, c claim that is
> plain wrong..

Well then maybe you should check with Vicroads as to what they regard as a
road user (see below). It seems that you have a basic clash of opinion with
our legal authorities

--
Cheers
Peter

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


http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/83E59010-62EA-406B-9CC2-A0696FB29669/0/part_02.pdf

Victoria Government Gazette P 2 28 October 1999 3

PART 2-APPLICATION OF THE ROAD RULES

Division 1-Roads and road related areas

11. Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road related

areas

(1) The Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road
related

areas.

<snip>

Division 2-Road users and vehicles

14. Road users

A road user is a driver, rider, passenger or pedestrian.

Note Driver is defined in rule 16, pedestrian is defined in rule 18, and
rider is defined in

rule 17.

<snip>

r. 18

18. Who is a pedestrian

A pedestrian includes-

(a) a person driving a motorised wheelchair that cannot travel at over

10 kilometres per hour (on level ground); and

(b) a person in a non-motorised wheelchair; and

(c) a person pushing a motorised or non-motorised wheelchair; and

(d) a person in or on a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.

Note Wheelchair, wheeled recreational device and wheeled toy are defined in
the

dictionary.

 

[Euan]

RV wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:53:09 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The first tolls were levied primarily on pedestrians. What the tolls
>> were levied for is neither here nor there. Also don't forget that Roman
>> roads were built primarily for pedestrians, most of them just happened
>> to be carrying a sword and shield at the time.
>
> The system you speak of simply npo0 longer exist, for a good reason,
> it wasnt tak, it was proven to be simple extportion.

No, they're no longer exist because the Roman Empire fell apart.

> Irrelevant to the claim made here that on our tax financed roads, that
> pedestrains are in any way shape or form, users of it, c claim that is
> plain wrong..

Of course pedestrians are users of tax financed roads, it's tolled roads
that they're not users of in this country presently.

> If you can make that clasim, then at the rate I see little you have to
> complain about some hack in the hun doing the same.

I made not such claim.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[RV]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:12:45 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RV" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The system you speak of simply npo0 longer exist, for a good reason,
>> it wasnt tak, it was proven to be simple extportion.
>> Irrelevant to the claim made here that on our tax financed roads, that
>> pedestrains are in any way shape or form, users of it, c claim that is
>> plain wrong..
>
>Well then maybe you should check with Vicroads as to what they regard as a
>road user (see below). It seems that you have a basic clash of opinion with
>our legal authorities

You should check a few thing yourself like the law.
If any pedestrain uses the road instead of the footpath, they can be
charged with loitering on a public highway.
And lets not foget J walking.
How is it that a pedestrain is a road user according to you, yet would
be charged with a criminal offence of they in fact used any roads the
chose to.

You are argument is running out of road, pedestrians are not road
users, if they where they could face a penalty for doing so.

 

[Aeek]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:58:37 GMT, RV <[email protected]> wrote:

>You should check a few thing yourself like the law.
>If any pedestrain uses the road instead of the footpath, they can be
>charged with loitering on a public highway.

That assumes there is a footpath. Not true in all city streets, let
alone the country.

>And lets not foget J walking.
>How is it that a pedestrain is a road user according to you, yet would
>be charged with a criminal offence of they in fact used any roads the
>chose to.

J walking is only near a designated crossing. No designated crossing,
no crime.

 

[Peter Signorini]

"RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> You are argument is running out of road, pedestrians are not road
> users

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/83E59010-62EA-406B-9CC2-A0696FB29669/0/part_02.pdf

In the simplest of language:

Division 2-Road users and vehicles

14. Road users

A road user is a driver, rider, passenger or pedestrian.


--
Cheers
Peter

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

 

[RV]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:10:07 +1100, Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 11:58:37 GMT, RV <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You should check a few thing yourself like the law.
>>If any pedestrain uses the road instead of the footpath, they can be
>>charged with loitering on a public highway.
>
>That assumes there is a footpath. Not true in all city streets, let
>alone the country.

If the claim they are road users was correct, then the existance of a
footpath would have no relevance at all, and it would be lawfull for
the road user pedestrians to use any road.
But it is not lawfull for them to use the road anywhere there is a
footpath, therefore they are not, by the defintion of the act being
legal or not, "road users",

If they are on the road woith a footpath, they are criminals.

In addition to that, even ifd they do not have a footpath, they are
still not allowed to use the road itself, they must walk on the verge
of the road.
If they where road users as you claim, they would have a right to use
any part of a single lane of the road, just as all other road users
can and are allowed to, tbut pedestrians do not have that right in any
case, footpath or no footpath.
If they did use any parts of the road aside from the verge, footpath
or no footpath, they would be chagred with a criminal offence.

>
>>And lets not foget J walking.
>>How is it that a pedestrain is a road user according to you, yet would
>>be charged with a criminal offence of they in fact used any roads the
>>chose to.
>
>J walking is only near a designated crossing. No designated crossing,
>no crime.

If they where road users, there would be no need to force them to use
a road crossing that is not anoether intertsecting road, but a
crossing, a "pedestrain crossing"

A cyclist is allowed to use the road any where near a cyclist
crossing, as in the case of Npn Hwy bike path, but a pedestrain cannot
use the road to bypass the signals or crossing.
That is J walking.
No such thing as J cycling.

Keep throwing it up, Ill keep shooting it down.
But may I make a suggestion on your effort to throw up a decent
argument you failed to do as yet.
It needs more cowbell.

 

[RV]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:59:02 +1100, "Peter Signorini"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"RV" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> You are argument is running out of road, pedestrians are not road
>> users
>
>http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/83E59010-62EA-406B-9CC2-A0696FB29669/0/part_02.pdf
>
>In the simplest of language:
>
>Division 2-Road users and vehicles
>
>14. Road users
>
>A road user is a driver, rider, passenger or pedestrian.

Misquote all you like it wont worlk.

From the same link.

11. Road Rules apply to vehicles and road users on roads and road
related areas

"road related areas"
Like places where pedestrains walk.

Quote
13. What is a road related area
(1) A road related area is any of the following—
(a) an area that divides a road;
(b) a footpath or nature strip adjacent to a road;
(c) an area that is not a road and that is open to the public and
designated
for use by cyclists or animals;
(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the
public for
driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;
(e) a place that is a road related area by virtue of a declaration
under
section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986—

Quote

(1) A road is—
(a) an area that is open to or used by the public
has as one of its main uses, the driving or riding
(b) a place that is a road by virtue of a declaration
the Road Safety Act 1986—
but does not include a place that is not a road by virtue
section 3(2)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986.


See any pedestrains in (a)
Of course not.

And to your misquote

14. Road users
A road user is a driver, rider, passenger or pedestrian.
Note Driver is defined in rule 16, pedestrian is defined in rule 18,
and rider is defined in
rule 17.

See pedestrian is defined in rule 18,

Looky here, now we can see why you chose to leave out part 18

18. Who is a pedestrian
A pedestrian includes—
(a) a person driving a motorised wheelchair that cannot travel at over
10 kilometres per hour (on level ground); and
(b) a person in a non-motorised wheelchair; and
(c) a person pushing a motorised or non-motorised wheelchair; and
(d) a person in or on a wheeled recreational device or wheeled toy.
Note Wheelchair, wheeled recreational device and wheeled toy are
defined in the
dictionary

Even VicRoads does not claim that a person walking in the absecne of
any vehicle is a road users.
You misquote to substatiate a lie.

I suspect you knew that after reading the document but choose to quote
only that which would serve your case.
Typical lobbyist

For your next attempt, gotta have more cowbel.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

RV wrote:
> "Peter Signorini" 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.

Well, some of us have been chuckling during the entire thread.
#2, You're not supposed to have to inform other people that you're using
irony.

Theo

 

[flyingdutch]

aus.bicycle has recieved a Xmas present.

It's DRS. Except this time he can't spell (nor read)

 

[Aeek]

On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:51:34 GMT, RV <[email protected]> wrote:

>It needs more cowbell.

Why? You got milk?

 

[cfsmtb]

aus.bicycle has recieved a Xmas present.

It's DRS. Except this time he can't spell (nor read)

Oh ****, two years of blessed silence comes to a end!

Either commence top posting and see if the bot spontaneously combusts or starts emitting snot bubbles.

 

[EuanB]

Never thought I'd find myself deliberately top-posting...

Oh ****, two years of blessed silence comes to a end!

Either commence top posting and see if the bot spontaneously combusts or starts emitting snot bubbles.

 

[Parbs]

It wont work you know DRS is just a myth, a fairy story. It's what
parents tell their kids when they want them to grow up to become netcops.

EuanB wrote:
> Never thought I'd find myself deliberately top-posting...
>
>
>
> cfsmtb Wrote:
>> Oh ****, two years of blessed silence comes to a end!
>>
>> Either commence top posting and see if the bot spontaneously combusts
>> or starts emitting snot bubbles.
>
>

 

[monsterman]

nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah

top post !! (now read it again to the Batman tune)

It wont work you know DRS is just a myth, a fairy story. It's what
parents tell their kids when they want them to grow up to become netcops.

EuanB wrote:
> Never thought I'd find myself deliberately top-posting...
>
>
>
> cfsmtb Wrote:
>> Oh ****, two years of blessed silence comes to a end!
>>
>> Either commence top posting and see if the bot spontaneously combusts
>> or starts emitting snot bubbles.
>
>

 

[Resound]

"Aeek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.

I thought they were for billy goats gruff.