Scotland's cycling tax

NM wrote:
On 17 Sep, 08:18, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-09-16, Judith M Smith wrote:
On 16 Sep 2009 22:51:43 GMT, Adrian wrote:
"DavidR" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
Well, I'm wondering which class of motorist has to wear hi-vis with a
registration number on the back ...
All of them.
It's called a "number plate".
Wrong It's on the vehicle, not the user.
Have to admit, I don't see a problem with just putting a plate on the
bike.
It would actually be fairer to have the hi-viz jacket with number on
it..
If someone has different bikes they would only pay once. It's a tax
on cyclists - not cycles. All this money for improved facilities
for the cyclists is going to have to come from somewhere.
It's a great idea - I think it should be pushed at every opportunity.
Why not just tattoo a bar code on everyone's forehead at birth? Then you
can use that whether they're in a car, on a bike, or just walking
around.

Wait, it's coming.

Especially if this government is re-elected.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
...

Remind me - why did urc turn to rat-**** - and why did people think
it was necessary to have a moderated group?

Abuse from a poster known as Nuxxy and another who posts under variations of
judith, and jms :-)

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:27:04 +0100 someone who may be Mike Clark
wrote this:-

I know that David is very keen to receive constructive criticism and
feedback.

The problem is that the people with the useful criticism generally
have plenty of other things to do with their time.

His reason for publishing his work under an open licence and
also encouraging feedback through an associated WIKI, or through the
openDemocracy.net, is precisely to allow others to contribute their
expertise to a genuine but informed debate.

Then he thinks too highly of himself. The information which I
pointed out is freely available to anyone who is interested in the
subject. In doing research for the publication Mr MacKay should have
come across them, instead he appears to have developed back of an
envelope models (something scientists are prone to doing when they
blunder into an area they know little about and due to this lack of
knowledge assume that they must re-invent the wheel). I wonder if he
read the SD Commission's reports on nuclear and wind electricity
generation, he certainly should have done if he wanted the
publication to be informed.

Given his recent appointment
as Chief Scientific Advisor to DECC, there is extra value in pointing
out where he may be wrong in his assumptions.

Possibly, possibly not. The authors of the reports I mentioned are
more likely to have success in this matter. I have no idea whether
any of them have contacted Mr MacKay.



--
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 Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:20:36 +0100, "DavidR"
wrote:

snip


Anyway, I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish
to wear something that makes it harder for drivers to recognise shape and
movement in daylight.



wicked!!!


Have you contacted the Highways Agency and informed them that their
workers are at serious risk?


I think I'll save that.

--

I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish
to wear something that makes it harder for drivers to recognise shape and
movement in daylight.
DavidR

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:28:00 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:47:31 -0500, Nobby Anderson
wrote:

snip


Of course you do, sweetheart, anything that makes life more difficult for
cyclists is just fine for you, eh? We must be protected against ourselves
at all costs, and thanks to big-hearted and kindly people like you we
have a change of that happening. You're too good to us, it soooo much
more than we deserve! Oh I long for the day when we're all as miserable,
mean and spiteful as you, so dischuffed with our own miserable lives that
we have to interfere in that of those around us.

Love you dearly,
Nobby


Remind me - why did urc turn to rat-**** - and why did people think
it was necessary to have a moderated group?

Sigh. You neally have a problem with your memory, don't you dearie.

I'll remind you again. It's because of you and your pet dick Nuxxy,
coming in here with the sole intention of stirring up trouble. Hands
up anyone who thinks otherwise...

But for all your faults I still love you. Tell me, do you actually
go to the trouble of retyping your sad little stock loser "I've really
nothing to say and I've finally realised it" comebacks like the one
above every time you use them, or do you keep a file full of them ready
to cut and paste? Oh, hadn't thought of that? Well, you learn something
new every day, eh?

Glad to be of service,
Love and kisses,
Nobby


Many thanks Nobby - I see that you have nothing to contribute as
usual.

Still - I do appreciate the time you spend on my posts.

Remind me - why did urc turn to rat-**** - and why did people think
it was necessary to have a moderated group?

--
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Alistair Gunn wrote:
Well, I'm wondering which class of motorist has to wear hi-vis with a
registration number on the back ...
All of them.

It's called a "number plate".
Wrong It's on the vehicle, not the user
...and the difference (in practice) is...?

It is a point of principle.

Anyway, I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish
to wear something that makes it harder for drivers to recognise shape and
movement in daylight.


There's two issues involved here - number plates not only allow the
vehicle to be spotted they also identify it. The other issue is one of
visibility - which is why since sometime in the 70s most motorcyclists
have ridden around with headlights on. There was a campaign to not be
more visible at one stage - called "fight back - wear black". I rather
think this was when TPTB were thinking of doing something. The riding
round with headlights on has only ever been a voluntary thing.

--

People like you are the reason people like me have to take medication.

?John Wright

Judith M Smith wrote:
Many thanks Nobby

You're welcome love.

Nobby

DavidR wrote:

I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish to wear something that makes
it harder for drivers to recognise shape and movement in daylight.

Do you have those stupid blinking LED lights rather than showing a
proper front and rear light on your cycle?

I can think of 3 guys in Millport who will be slightly concerned about
this - they have about 900 bikes between them!

"lardyninja" wrote in message
...


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ver.5642372.jp

LN

--

Never knowingly understood

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:52:44 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

DavidR wrote:

I don't wear a high-viz vest - I do not wish to wear something that makes
it harder for drivers to recognise shape and movement in daylight.

Do you have those stupid blinking LED lights rather than showing a
proper front and rear light on your cycle?

What, you mean one of those proper legal flashing lights?