In message , Andy Champ
writes
Dave wrote:
Why do you think that speed cameras have been turned back to front
so they get a photo of the driver and possibly any front seat
passenger?

Because the new ones were designed by a biker?

Shhhh ...

I wasn't going to say that


--
geoff

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message

Ha ha ha! Why does it have to be 'striking pink' or 'a striking
green & yellow combo'? Is that for safety reasons?

Um, wouldn't that be answered by "it's not attention seeking for
the reasons you think, it's about safety".


Then you accept that they put themselves into such dangerous
positions that they need to be far more visible than any other
traffic?

Well, if "such dangerous positions" includes "riding on the road in
accordance with the HC", maybe. Personally I'm starting to have my
doubts about the effectiveness about hi-viz, but it's recommended in
the HC, which ought to be a good enough explanation for TMH.

So, we've established that poncy coloured lycra isn't for practical
purposes, or it would be black or dark blue, and it isn't for safety
reasons or it would be hi viz.

The ones you were complaining about - 'striking pink' etc - are higher
visibility than the black or dark blue you think people should wear.
That fits the advice in the HC, so safety reasons seems entirely
reasonable.

******. 'Striking pink' or 'a striking green & yellow combo' is neither
practical nor safety compliant. Its because you like dressing up.

It's amusing that somebody who resents government interference in his
life so much is desperately keen to regulate the clothes other people
wear.

Nice try, no cigar. I'm not trying to regulate what they wear, just
establish why they wish to dress like *******.

Meanwhile we've had two lovely bike rides this weekend. Lots of people
smiling, all happy to see us - even the ones in cars who had to wait a
little bit where the road was a bit narrow.

Oh goody. Were there nice little flowers & bunny wunnies to look at? Did
you save the ickle planet?

****wit.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
news
Dave wrote:

Why do you think that speed cameras have been turned back to front so
they get a photo of the driver and possibly any front seat passenger?

Because the new ones were designed by a biker?


Andy

:-)

It saves on doing the wheelies as you pass them.

Adam

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:46:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:27:49 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message
om...

Cyclists don't have to be identifiable & traceable. Mororists do.

Motorists don't.. the cars do.


Motorists do.

Car drivers don't.
Only PSV drivers have identification "plates" they have to wear.

But a motorist still has to be named if their identity is requested from
he
registered keeper of the vehicle - a cyclist carries no identifying marks
on their cycle so cannot be traced in the same way.

However they can be traced.


Drivers must have current address details registered on pain
of sizeable fine for failing to do so. The registered keeper must
identify
who was driving at a particular time when required, on pain of a fine
and
points on their own licence for failing to do so.

So they don't have to identify them if they are prepared to pay up.


They are legally required to identify them. Failing to do so usually
results in a penalty, which with the points can cause someone to risk
losing their licence and for many that would mean their job and then their
home and these frequently lead to marriages/partnerships breaking up, so
yes you could say that they don't have to identify them - in the same way
that you don't have to bother insuring yourself to drive if you're willing
to pay the fine and lose your car.

SteveW

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message

Ha ha ha! Why does it have to be 'striking pink' or 'a striking
green & yellow combo'? Is that for safety reasons?

Um, wouldn't that be answered by "it's not attention seeking for
the reasons you think, it's about safety".


Then you accept that they put themselves into such dangerous
positions that they need to be far more visible than any other
traffic?

Well, if "such dangerous positions" includes "riding on the road in
accordance with the HC", maybe. Personally I'm starting to have my
doubts about the effectiveness about hi-viz, but it's recommended in
the HC, which ought to be a good enough explanation for TMH.

So, we've established that poncy coloured lycra isn't for practical
purposes, or it would be black or dark blue, and it isn't for safety
reasons or it would be hi viz.

The ones you were complaining about - 'striking pink' etc - are higher
visibility than the black or dark blue you think people should wear.
That fits the advice in the HC, so safety reasons seems entirely
reasonable.

******. 'Striking pink' or 'a striking green & yellow combo' is neither
practical nor safety compliant. Its because you like dressing up.

The cut is practical, the colour is practical, the colour is safety
compliant. You're wrong on all counts.
Though dressing up to annoy you would be a benefit.

(a dark colour may be appropriate for lying underneath a car spannering an
engine - but bright colours work just fine in many other circumstances,
including riding a bike, especially since the invention of the washing
machine some years ago).

It's amusing that somebody who resents government interference in his
life so much is desperately keen to regulate the clothes other people
wear.

Nice try, no cigar. I'm not trying to regulate what they wear, just
establish why they wish to dress like *******.

We've established why cyclists wear what they do. The fact that you don't
understand it is your problem, not theirs.

Meanwhile we've had two lovely bike rides this weekend. Lots of people
smiling, all happy to see us - even the ones in cars who had to wait a
little bit where the road was a bit narrow.

Oh goody. Were there nice little flowers & bunny wunnies to look at? Did
you save the ickle planet?

Actually there were several bunnies, and the verges were growing very well -
bluebell season too. You forgot lambs - lots of little ones bounding all
over the place in the way they do. Not sure about saving the planet - we
were just out for a ride, enjoying ourselves. The people we met seemed to be
out enjoying themselves too. This is how life is supposed to be.

****wit.

Giggle. Is that the best response you can come up with? Does it annoy you so
much that people can have a great time riding a bike, and that other people
actually share some of that enjoyment? I would say I must remember to do it
some more in that case, except I will be doing so anyway.

In article , Andy Champ wrote:

err... Motorists don't pay VED for _using_ a car. It's paid for having
a car that you _could_ use.

Tell that to TMH, who said "If you want to use a car, you pay VED".
(And you could use a SORNed car, so long as you unSORN it and pay the tax
first. So long as you don't actually use it, you can SORN it.)

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Clive George"
saying something like:

Meanwhile we've had two lovely bike rides this weekend. Lots of people
smiling, all happy to see us - even the ones in cars who had to wait a
little bit where the road was a bit narrow.

Are you sure they were waving?

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Clive George"
saying something like:

Meanwhile we've had two lovely bike rides this weekend. Lots of people
smiling, all happy to see us - even the ones in cars who had to wait a
little bit where the road was a bit narrow.

Are you sure they were waving?

'fraid so :-) It was a sunny day, everybody was out enjoying themselves,
nobody in a hurry, all very friendly.

Andy Champ wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:

For paying extra VED just for being cyclists, that is. If cyclists
want to use a car, they do pay VED like everyone else (with the same
exceptions as everyone).

err... Motorists don't pay VED for _using_ a car. It's paid for having
a car that you _could_ use.

Strictly, its for having it on the Queens Highway.

You don't need to license it if it doesnt touch her majesty's tarmac.
Andy

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Andy Champ wrote:
err... Motorists don't pay VED for _using_ a car. It's paid for having
a car that you _could_ use.

Tell that to TMH, who said "If you want to use a car, you pay VED".
(And you could use a SORNed car, so long as you unSORN it and pay the tax
first. So long as you don't actually use it, you can SORN it.)

NMo., SORN doesn't relate to its being used or not: It relates to
whether its on a road or not. Even parked up.

On 4 May 2009 07:41:54 GMT, Huge wrote:

On Sun, 03 May 2009 13:39:12 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

Be carefiul what you ask for. In Eire, they abolished the tax disk and put
the tax on fuel. Then they introduced an administration charge for having
your Insurance and MOT checked each year. After a while, the admin charge
was the same as the road tax had been. Now they have *two* taxes where there
was previously only one.

Oh dear. Huge spouts ****e again.

How sad it must be to be so obsessed. How inadequate and empty your life
must be that instead of being "wrong" I "spout ****e", at least so far
as some inconsequential **** is concerned. Die soon, eh?

Hmmm, alomg the way the attributions have been somewhat messed up here, as
there's nothing of what I said in the above.

SteveW

On Sun, 3 May 2009 21:36:08 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:46:56 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:27:49 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message
om...

Cyclists don't have to be identifiable & traceable. Mororists do.

Motorists don't.. the cars do.


Motorists do.

Car drivers don't.
Only PSV drivers have identification "plates" they have to wear.

But a motorist still has to be named if their identity is requested from
he
registered keeper of the vehicle - a cyclist carries no identifying marks
on their cycle so cannot be traced in the same way.

However they can be traced.

And how is a cyclist that rides across a pedestrian crossing causing
pedestrians to jump out of the way to be traced? With no markings on their
"vehicle", unless someone actually manages to catch up and stop them or
they stand out in some particular way, they are unlikely ever to be traced,
whereas with a car, they can be traced later via the registration plate.

I have certainly reported a bad driver and had the police follow it up from
his registration number. I have had no way to do the same with a bad
cyclist.

SteveW

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

Oh dear. Huge spouts ****e again.

How sad it must be to be so obsessed. How inadequate and empty your life
must be that instead of being "wrong" I "spout ****e", at least so far
as some inconsequential **** is concerned. Die soon, eh?

Hmmm, alomg the way the attributions have been somewhat messed up here, as
there's nothing of what I said in the above.

Don't worry, it's just Huge being unable to drive a newsreader. Poor old
******'s losing it. I really worry about his blood pressure, y'know. It
can't be long before he pops a blood vessel in his brain, with all that
bile and venom in his system.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
Alan Braggins wrote:

For paying extra VED just for being cyclists, that is. If cyclists
want to use a car, they do pay VED like everyone else (with the same
exceptions as everyone).

err... Motorists don't pay VED for _using_ a car. It's paid for
having a car that you _could_ use.

Strictly, its for having it on the Queens Highway.

You don't need to license it if it doesnt touch her majesty's tarmac.


But you do need to SORN it or it will cost you £70!

On Sat, 2 May 2009 23:52:16 +0100, Clive George wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 May 2009 21:40:05 UTC, "jsabine" wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Clive George wrote:

All cyclists? Those honest hardworking shipbuilders? I think you've
got a touch of class envy there.

They wern't cyclists, tyhey were blokes on bikes.

So, what's the difference between a 'cyclist' and a 'bloke on a bike'?

Arrogance, IMO!

The problem is there are cyclists....and cyclists. Just like motorists,
good and bad. Unfortunately there are many more cyclists who are
holier-than-thou and very arrogant. And I'm speaking as a pedestrian.

My house is not on a particularly busy road (neither is it a residential
backwater). But just walking down to the shops, more often than not I
get a cyclist whizzing past me on the pavement, missing me by
millimetres, with a silent approach that is dangerous. People are badly
injured by these kinds of cyclists, yet if they don't stop there is no
way of tracing them as they have no number plate or other means of
identification.

Are these cyclists the lycra-clad keenies TMH hates, or "normal" people who
TMH likes?

Is the pavement marked as shared use?

(If it is, blame the clods who made it so, and bring it up in the local
paper, making sure it's the "facility" which is pointed to as the source of
the problem. Shared use pavements help none of us. If it's not shared use, I
have no qualms about recommending collision courses, having taken
appropriate care.)

There are some places where shared use makes sense - even if it hasn't been
officially implemented). We have a road near us that is dead straight for
0.7 miles and used to be national speed limit. It has now been reduced to a
40 limit and had cycle lanes painted on both sides, but the lanes for other
traffic are too narrow to give good clearance when passing bikes and heavy
traffic flow prevents easy overtaking by crossing the centreline. The road
runs through farmers fields and has only a few houses at one end, hence
very few pedestrians. Many cyclists use the footpath making it safer for
themselves, easier for other vehicles and with so few pedestrians, a
minimal amount of courtesy from the cyclists overcomes any conflict of
interests with pedestrians.

SteveW