#11
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. Please translate this into English or at least a Human language. Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On 16/09/2019 17:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqS9tS3MpvM Entitled Liverpool resident thinks he owns the public road. It's a common misapprehension. And not helped by the proliferation of so-called residents' parking schemes. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On 17/09/2019 05:46, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Oh what a compliment comeing from YOU. Please call me a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered, goisher kopf, inbred trout-defiler? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On 17/09/2019 06:36, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. Oooh! Another great compliment coming from YOU. Now please ejaculate to me the further honour from YOU of being so disgusting that even sheep won't have sex with me. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. Please translate this into English or at least a Human language. Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you. Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:01:02 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote:
On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. Please translate this into English or at least a Human language. Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you. Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might. The point is 'Pounder and His Little Dog' have joined the Circus. According to Pounder they live next to a married couple consisting of a talking dog and a cycling ape. There is the teeniest tiniest possibility this is all in Pounder's imagination. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On 18/09/2019 06:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:01:02 AM UTC+1, Peter Keller wrote: On 17/09/2019 06:55, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:36:36 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:46:12 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote: Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:39:41 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 20:09, Simon Jester wrote: On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:59:03 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 15/09/2019 00:39, Simon Jester wrote: We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Nice troll attempt. A much better and fairer system would be a requirement for all motor vehicles to be kept off the road at night when at or near their registered keeper's (or other daily user's) addresses. This would mean that streets would not not filled with nose to tail parked cars and that all cars were off the road unless in use away from home (a minimum distance of at least, say, five miles would have to be used as the arbiter of whether the vehicle was "at home" or not). Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide a private parking (garage) space at their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story. And they would have to provide as much space as was necessary for all the vehicles registered there - or reduce their number, perhaps to zero. Of course, since the system, like most administrative law, would have to largely operate on trust, the penalty for breaching that trust (eg, false declarations of address, etc) would have to be severe, up to and including confiscation of the vehicle(s) and disqualification from driving, as well as the more usual penalties for deception, for anyone making, or being an accessory to the making of, a false declaration for the purpose of circumventing the law. I like this idea in theory. The practical needs thinking about. Let me slightly re-word the first two sentences of my third paragraph: "Anyone who could not or would not acquire and/or provide AND USE a private parking (garage) space at OR NEAR their address could not keep a motor vehicle there. End of story." The important result would be no domestic garaging on the highway and an end to concepts such as "residents-only parking". And a market might develop in the renting out of defensible off-street parking in residential areas where such things were either non-existent or inadequate in number - garages in blocks, etc. OK, I'll go along with that. You are and always will be a ******. Is there some point you are failing to make? Nugent suggested this yet you are not calling him a ******. Feel free to join the discussion. How do feel about the apes parking their bicycles outside your Little Dog's circus tent? Mr Nugent has one more beaten you up. He always beats you up. You really are a sad little **** all. Please translate this into English or at least a Human language. Maybe the Dog married to the Ape in the next tent can help you. Maybe not the dog, but a sheep might. The point is 'Pounder and His Little Dog' have joined the Circus. According to Pounder they live next to a married couple consisting of a talking dog and a cycling ape. There is the teeniest tiniest possibility this is all in Pounder's imagination. Yes -- just a teeny poasibility -- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars.
Even places with plenty of cheap flat land for emergency lanes and/or bike lanes look more scenic with fewer motor vehicles. Any infant knows this. A baby will see a passing cyclist and his head will lock onto the movement with the smoothness of an hydraulic actuator. A baby will rarely do this with a motor vehicle. This point needs to be emphasized more as the beauty of cycling and cyclists isn't a minor luxury to be occasionally enjoyed by the general public. It's a basic human right for everyone. Thomas Paine would have included cycling in _Rights of Man_ if bicycles had been invented back then. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Start off taxing carbon. Then start taxing footprint area occupied by a vehicle. Then start taxing rubber . . . Tax ugly. Bret Cahill |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Enough is enough
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 5:36:35 AM UTC+1, Bret Cahill wrote:
We have a great road network, unfortunately it is infested with cars. Even places with plenty of cheap flat land for emergency lanes and/or bike lanes look more scenic with fewer motor vehicles. Any infant knows this. A baby will see a passing cyclist and his head will lock onto the movement with the smoothness of an hydraulic actuator. A baby will rarely do this with a motor vehicle. This point needs to be emphasized more as the beauty of cycling and cyclists isn't a minor luxury to be occasionally enjoyed by the general public. It's a basic human right for everyone. Thomas Paine would have included cycling in _Rights of Man_ if bicycles had been invented back then. I suggest we stop issuing any more driving licences. New drivers can put their name on a waiting list until a current licence holder dies or surrenders their licence for medical reasons or gets disqualified for criminal activity such as speeding. Start off taxing carbon. Then start taxing footprint area occupied by a vehicle. Then start taxing rubber . . . In the UK we do tax carbon, it's called VED. Some, incredibly stupid, people call it Road Tax even though the road fund was abolished in 1936. Their belief in the mythical god Road Tax allows them to assuage their guilt when they put cyclists in danger. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|