Criminals on TV

On 28 Aug, 13:52, Sir Jeremy wrote:

There aren't any motorised vehicles on segregated facilities such as
the Camel Trail, Tarka trail and any number of Sustrans cycleways-

Clearly my Oregon Scientific handlebar cam suffers hallucinations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFIQNN0BFic

"NM" wrote in message
news
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:19:23 GMT someone who may be NM
wrote this:-

AIUI the budget for gritting cycletracks is paid for directly
from the taxes specifically levied on cyclists for upkeep of
their tracks.
There are no taxes specifically levied on any group of road
users for the upkeep of the roads.


Then if you want your cycle ways gritted, pay for it yourselves
by raising a levy amoungst cyclists.
Why should cycleways be treated differently to any other part of
the public highway?


They shouldn't, they should pay ved and insurance just like cars,
Why?

I'm
all for equality not freebees for cyclists.
Perhaps when the dasy comes that a motor vehicle does as little
damage to a loose road surface as a bicycle does then VED and other
motoring taxes can be abandoned. Until then, the vehicles (cars and
lorries) which do the damage pay for it.
Therefore the cyclist that require grit laying should pay for it.
That comes as standard, but since car drivers want something
different they have to pay extra.


Like VED?
Exactly.
Great we agree, motorist want that bit extra, in this case road
gritting, they pay VED and they get it. So... if you cyclists want your
tracks gritted then pay VED, as you have just demonstrated, it works.

I didn't say anything about "gritting".
the thread is about gritting.

Never heard of "thread drift"?

Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
news
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:19:23 GMT someone who may be NM
wrote this:-

AIUI the budget for gritting cycletracks is paid for directly
from the taxes specifically levied on cyclists for upkeep of
their tracks.
There are no taxes specifically levied on any group of road
users for the upkeep of the roads.


Then if you want your cycle ways gritted, pay for it yourselves
by raising a levy amoungst cyclists.
Why should cycleways be treated differently to any other part of
the public highway?


They shouldn't, they should pay ved and insurance just like cars,
Why?

I'm
all for equality not freebees for cyclists.
Perhaps when the dasy comes that a motor vehicle does as little
damage to a loose road surface as a bicycle does then VED and other
motoring taxes can be abandoned. Until then, the vehicles (cars and
lorries) which do the damage pay for it.
Therefore the cyclist that require grit laying should pay for it.
That comes as standard, but since car drivers want something
different they have to pay extra.


Like VED?
Exactly.
Great we agree, motorist want that bit extra, in this case road
gritting, they pay VED and they get it. So... if you cyclists want your
tracks gritted then pay VED, as you have just demonstrated, it works.
I didn't say anything about "gritting".
the thread is about gritting.

Never heard of "thread drift"?


The drift you introduced; you introduced it, how can I answer questions
about it, only you know the answers?

"JNugent" wrote
No-one has yet shown that the driver should have known or anticipated
that a particular bend was icy at a particular moment, even if the
previous ten miles of his route had been ice-free.

Pay particular attention to the word "particular".



He should have driven carefully round the corner because there might have
been black ice, on any piece of road. I hate falling off on ice, so I take
great care I don't. This involves some pessimism, and I find myself slowing
needlessly. This is balanced by the times I find that there was a need. For
instance, I often move out towards the road centre when a car which should
give way at a side junction could it me if the driver didn't stop. I did
this drunk one night and the ******* didn't stop, at least, he stopped where
I would have been. But he didn't get me, I had time to glare at him, but
didn't bother to say anything. I have ridden in North Wales on days like
this, but took great care. He had every reason to take great care, but in
the nature of things could not know whether this bend was iced. A decent
driver would surely have slowed so that if there was, he could handle it. It
is interesting that you think he took a reasonable level of care. I think he
took a chance on the prescence of ice, in the knowledge that even if he shot
across the road, bounced off a wall etc. he would probably be OK. We have to
share the road with people who take that attitude.

Mike Sales

On Aug 28, 10:01 am, JNugent
wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:


[Prestatyn to Llandulas - that's some commute - see:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Prestatyn&dadd...
Some mistake somewhere?]

Llanddulas (note the double d), wonder what was open in Lladdulas on a
sunday morning?

NM wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
Marc Brett wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:11:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Perhaps when the dasy comes that a motor vehicle does as little
damage to a loose road surface as a bicycle does then VED and other
motoring taxes can be abandoned. Until then, the vehicles (cars and
lorries) which do the damage pay for it.

yawn VED and other motoring taxes are not used to pay for roads --
they go into the general taxation pool. Councils and central government
pay for roads. So non-motorists subsidise motorists, and vice-versa.
What a wonderful world!


Ah, so motorists aren't really paying any more, despite their
exclusive donation under the heading of "VED"? yawn

They do, of course, every time they buy fuel as you well know.

....in addition.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
®i©ardo wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
NM wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 07:19:23 GMT someone who may be NM
wrote this:-

AIUI the budget for gritting cycletracks is paid for directly
from the taxes specifically levied on cyclists for upkeep of
their tracks.
There are no taxes specifically levied on any group of road
users for the upkeep of the roads.


Then if you want your cycle ways gritted, pay for it yourselves
by raising a levy amoungst cyclists.
Why should cycleways be treated differently to any other part of
the public highway?


They shouldn't, they should pay ved and insurance just like cars,
Why?

I'm
all for equality not freebees for cyclists.
Perhaps when the dasy comes that a motor vehicle does as little
damage to a loose road surface as a bicycle does then VED and other
motoring taxes can be abandoned. Until then, the vehicles (cars and
lorries) which do the damage pay for it.
Therefore the cyclist that require grit laying should pay for it.
That comes as standard, but since car drivers want something
different they have to pay extra.


Like VED?
Exactly.
Great we agree, motorist want that bit extra, in this case road gritting,
they pay VED and they get it. So... if you cyclists want your tracks
gritted then pay VED, as you have just demonstrated, it works.

I didn't say anything about "gritting".


Said he, through gritted teeth.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:11:06 -0000, "The other view point, there is
one you know...http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm"
said in
.com:

tut, so weak, it as if your trying desperately to hate the car.

Yes, compared with the incredible ease car drivers have hating
everyone else, including each other, it's really rather pathetic,
isn't it?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:51:07 +0100, JNugent
said in
:

The point in this case, of course, being that one person did
something really stupid and killed some folks, whereas they were
doing something entirely reasonable.

This keeps getting repeated.
What do you say it was that the driver did that was "really stupid"
(and which caused the accident)?

Drove too fast - much too fast - round a corner on an icy road.
Don't tell me you wouldn't feel stupid if you lost control and wiped
out that badly?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:59:07 -0700, Sir Jeremy
said in
.com:

I think that going cycling in icy conditions isn't "entirely
reasonable" and by taking such a risk must bear at least some
responsibility for the accident. Nothing is risk free, there are no
virgins in the bordello.

Neither is going driving in said conditions. There is, however, a
difference between the risk posed to oneself (in this case, one
might fall off) and the risk posed to others.

Balance of risk. Cars: nice and safe for the occupant, not so safe
for those outside. Simple, really.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound