Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

domd1979 · June 2007

Rubbish. Improving public transport is not "prohibitively expensive" - public transport investment produces good positive cost/benefit ratios. Where's your evidence to the contrary? If the kind of cash spent on the roads was invested in public transport, alongside sensible demand management policies, you'd see hell of a lot of benefit.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I don't see that there is much development to be made in public transport. Everything that needs doing (more tracks, double decker trains, cheaper fares etc) is prohibitively expensive. I can't see any government ever doing anything about it. They'll tax motorists as a cash cow but nothing will ever change.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

There is also a "Legal Right". It is not a fundamental right as it depends on the law of the land. But it is not conditional as it cannot be revoked without the law being changed.
I suppose you could argue that a legal right (such as the pedestrian's right to walk on the pavement) can be revoked, for instance by placing him in jail. A legal right is always therefore a conditional right.
Would you say that?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
YES! At last! What a complete U-turn.
So it's obviously just me you disagree with, rather than the point I was making.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No U turn, Simply asking someone else's opinion.

A legal right is not the same as a conditional right.
You have a legal right to do something unless you're specifically banned.
You have a conditional right to do something only if you've specifically been granted permission.
Legal rights are only removed if you break the law. Conditional rights can be refused or removed even if you haven't broken any laws.

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Regulator

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Regulator

Just to settle the argument:

A fundamental right is something that is not granted by the state, but which arises from social mores and is immutable (e.g. a human right). Fundamental rights cannot be revoked, but may be derogated from under certain conditions (for example see the derogations in the Human Rights Act 1998) and only in the wider interest.

There are also conditional rights (often referred to as privileges). These are granted by the state and can be revoked. A driving license is a conditional right - it is granted by the state and can be revoked if you don't stick to the rules.

Fundamental rights do not carry obligations on the individual - other than to respect the same rights for other individuals.

Conditional rights normally carry obligations (hence the use of 'conditional') - you can have a driving license but in order to do so you must pass a test, keep to the rules of the road, etc.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is also a "Legal Right". It is not a fundamental right as it depends on the law of the land. But it is not conditional as it cannot be revoked.
I suppose you could argue that a legal right (such as the pedestrian's right to walk on the pavement) can be revoked, for instance by placing him in jail. A legal right is always therefore a conditional right.
Would you say that?

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Legal rights are conditional rights, granted through common or statute law. However, you don't always have to have a right in order to do something - the UK operates a system of law which means everything is OK unless there is a law banning or restricting it. The best way to think of conditional rights (legal rights) is as 'permission' to do something.

Pedestrians do not have 'a right' to walk on the pavement as no permission is required. However, cyclists, horseriders and motor vehicles are barred from using pavements. Cyclists do have the right to cycle on certain pavements if permission is given to the cyclists (e.g. the pavement is designated shared use) - this is a conditional right.

Cyclists do not have 'the right' to cycle on the road, as permission is not required for non-motorised road use. However, motorists do have the right to be on the road if they hold a driving license - but again that is a conditional right, and it can be revoked by the state.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If riding on the road (for instance) is not a fundamental right, a statutory right, a legal right or a conditional right, what would you call it?

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

Rubbish. Improving public transport is not "prohibitively expensive" - public transport investment produces good positive cost/benefit ratios. Where's your evidence to the contrary? If the kind of cash spent on the roads was invested in public transport, alongside sensible demand management policies, you'd see hell of a lot of benefit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If it isn't prohibitively expensive, than why is it not happening? Or would you say the cost of doubling the rail capacity into say, London, is cheap? The trains are full to the brim, why are the train companies therefore not paying for extra track to be laid?

In my opinion the money spent on the road network is not nearly enough, the roads around here are a testament to that opinion.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I apologise for not being absolutely scrupulous in repeating my arguments. I think my meaning was clear.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, no, it wasn't clear because originally you said that public transport is not a viable option for the majority of working folk in this country. You've edited that out of the post, and are now saying that driving is the only option for some.

That's understood now, and I agree with your revised claim. Thanks for clarifying it.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Relocating so as not to use that car is not an option for most people.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I disagree. For some maybe. you'd be surprised at how many don't rely on cars. But again, it's not as easy as whether or not it is an option. It's more about someone's values (where they are prepared to/want to live for example) affecting their choices. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Considering the costs inherent in moving to a different home, I don't blame them, and I won't judge them for not considering it as an option.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who is 'them'? You're talking about quite a specific group aren't you?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I'm not particularly concerned with the speed of vehicles on the roads I use (and I use a variety of them). I'm more concerned with their observation and their ability to pass me safely. Very rarely have I been troubled by cars driving too fast for the conditions, it tends to be idiots who only give me 2 feet of room as they pass, and often by my reckoning within the speed limit.

But I am disappointed that so many people feel cycling is unsafe - its like the fear of crime, or the fear of paedophiles - its completely disproportionate to the real likelyhood.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That makes two of us, and applies to most on here. But we need to accept the genuine concerns of some. Cycling is not as dangerous as a lot of people think. To others -the less assertive, those with children for example- traffic speed will always be an issue. Some drivers do not give cyclists the courtesy that they should -both in terms of speed when passing the less confident and room- and 20mph limits would help this.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Most countries that do not have a car culture are not economically comparable to Britain. Virtually all first-world nations have high levels of private vehicle ownership.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We need to make the distinction between national culture and regional success. The Netherlands has a high level of private vehicle ownership, but cycling is ingrained takes natural priority in somewhere like Amsterdam.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Netherlands are a very different proposition to England - within cities, great - but they have the space. They've planned for these things, wide open streets, huge pavements with dedicated turning points for cyclists, etc. I can't see that happening in many cities in the UK, and its a shame. In the Netherlands, between cities, many people will still use cars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I know. That's what I said. But they are economically comparable. And, as they have been able to accommodate cycling well in ancient towns and cities, so there is a lot more that we could do. We're failing if we don't think we can change things. It's not easy, but it's possible.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Your assertion is not fact. Public transport is not actually something that has much history. It was adequate for the times when it was popular, in a heavily industrialised society, but our country is not like that now and it is for most people, an irrelevence. People do not have the same work patterns as they once did, unless I've somehow gone back in time 30 years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There is a difference between cars being blamed for the historical deterioration in public transport, and cars today holding back adequate progress and development in public transport.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't see that there is much development to be made in public transport. Everything that needs doing (more tracks, double decker trains, cheaper fares etc) is prohibitively expensive. I can't see any government ever doing anything about it. They'll tax motorists as a cash cow but nothing will ever change.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If it was, then things wouldn't have improved at all. But they have. for example, we now have far more accessable buses than we used to. And fares aren't the general issue. In most cities it is cheaper to get into the centre on public transport than it is to drive in and park. It's not just about doubling tracks, and there is plenty that can be done.

Taxing motorists has little to do with any of it. Why do you bring that into it?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

snorri · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Everything that needs doing (more tracks, double decker trains, cheaper fares etc) is prohibitively expensive. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Continuing to subsidise private transport, as we do in this country, is also prohibitively expensive, and also socially unjust as much of the population is denied the benefits.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

I think if we're getting to the crux of it Bonj, is that you've been using the wrong word all along. Unless you're now accepting that your place on the road is not what you would want it to be. Which is exactly what many people have been trying to explain to you for a long, long time.

The standing of cars in comparison to horses, cycles and pedestrians on the road is completely different. I think everyone has been obsessing, thanks to you, over one particular word.

Read that link I gave to you. You'll understand it a lot better then.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I think you're the one that's been using the wrong word in the wrong assertion, i.e. one that is false.
The issue is not with my understanding, but the fact that what you've believed up to now is not actually the case.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonj,

If you round a corner and there is a pedestrian in the road, it is your duty to stop, not theirs to run out of your way.

That's where this all started, that's the centre of the argument, and that's the fact that you don't like. you've spent days trying to argue against it by pulling words apart, but yu can't.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Taxing motorists has little to do with any of it. Why do you bring that into it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is an argument that is regularly used in interviews in the press, television and radio by those who want to see greater public funding of public transport - by raising taxes on private motoring.

Transport 2000 is an organisation that supports raising taxes from motorists and ringfencing the revenue for public transport.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by snorri

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Everything that needs doing (more tracks, double decker trains, cheaper fares etc) is prohibitively expensive. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Continuing to subsidise private transport, as we do in this country, is also prohibitively expensive, and also socially unjust as much of the population is denied the benefits.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Your repeated argument about pedestrians not being able to cross the road if cars are going slower is a red herring, and is something that could only come out of your head.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No it isn't.
Traffic lights in cities are timed to coincide with traffic moving between them at an average speed of 14mph.
If during rush hour they are running at maximum capacity, then drivers need to go 30mph half the time in order to be able to stop at the lights the other half. With the speed limit 20mph, they're going to need to be going most of the time, and traffic moving all the time at full capacity isn't good for pedestrians.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Now, put that made up disadvantage against the advantages. Which comes out top?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The only 'advantages' have a flip side - e.g. there might be less injuries, but if peds feel safer they will be more likely to saunter across the road without looking.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

There is also a "Legal Right". It is not a fundamental right as it depends on the law of the land. But it is not conditional as it cannot be revoked without the law being changed.
I suppose you could argue that a legal right (such as the pedestrian's right to walk on the pavement) can be revoked, for instance by placing him in jail. A legal right is always therefore a conditional right.
Would you say that?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
YES! At last! What a complete U-turn.
So it's obviously just me you disagree with, rather than the point I was making.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No U turn, Simply asking someone else's opinion.

A legal right is not the same as a conditional right. 
You have a legal right to do something unless you're specifically banned.
You have a conditional right to do something only if you've specifically been granted permission.
Legal rights are only removed if you break the law. Conditional rights can be refused or removed even if you haven't broken any laws.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Have you not just contradicted yourself there? (see bold)

Although, what you've (finally) admitted, that the 'permission' to drive is a conditional right, is all I've been saying all along - I've never claimed it to be a 'god-given' or 'fundamental' right.

The Bosscp · June 2007

So all the nonsense jibes of "as a motorist, you have no right to be on the road unlike a pedestrian", and "as a cyclist, I have more right to be on the road than you do" can stop now, yes? Everybody agreed?

Cunobelin · June 2007

What I think we agree on is that respect for others.

Your attitude of "If a pedestrian is on a crossing I will beep at them until they get out of my way" is part of the problem

Whether one hates, merely dislikes, or is totally pro "Car", one must be anti to anyone who has such an apalling attitude.

The person who shows least respect is you.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

If I saw anybody beeping a pedestrian on a crossing, I'd be minded to report them to the police. The roads aren't exclusively for any particular group, they're for everybody.

snorri · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There is no point in continuing to engage in discussion on transport issues as long as you are in denial on this basic point.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

What I think we agree on is that respect for others.

Your attitude of "If a pedestrian is on a crossing I will beep at them until they get out of my way" is part of the problem<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Er... I don't think I said I WOULD do that. I merely mused about what would happen in the hypothetical situation if I did.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

If I saw anybody beeping a pedestrian on a crossing, I'd be minded to report them to the police. The roads aren't exclusively for any particular group, they're for everybody.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not dangerous, and therefore not illegal.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Your repeated argument about pedestrians not being able to cross the road if cars are going slower is a red herring, and is something that could only come out of your head.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No it isn't.
Traffic lights in cities are timed to coincide with traffic moving between them at an average speed of 14mph.
If during rush hour they are running at maximum capacity, then drivers need to go 30mph half the time in order to be able to stop at the lights the other half. With the speed limit 20mph, they're going to need to be going most of the time, and traffic moving all the time at full capacity isn't good for pedestrians.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Let's just have a look at this then. Timed to co-incide with traffic moving between them at an average speed of 14mph. what does that mean Bonj? Do you even know?

So what you're saying is that when moving, cars need to be doing 30mph in order to get to the traffic lights, 'to be able to' be made to stop at the red light, so that it brings the average speed down to 14mph, which is what the lights are timed for?

Google is a dangerous thing in some hands.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cunobelin · June 2007

But it does show an overweening arrogance that it at least an unhealthy attitude in a road user.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Now, put that made up disadvantage against the advantages. Which comes out top?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The only 'advantages' have a flip side - e.g. there might be less injuries, but if peds feel safer they will be more likely to saunter across the road without looking.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The stats show that accidents decrease when 20mph limits are put in place. If your ridiculous scenario above was correct, then this wouldn't be the case.

So, how about giving us these disadvantages of the lower limits which outwiegh the advantages? You haven't yet. you've just tied your tongue up.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Taxing motorists has little to do with any of it. Why do you bring that into it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It is an argument that is regularly used in interviews in the press, television and radio by those who want to see greater public funding of public transport - by raising taxes on private motoring.

Transport 2000 is an organisation that supports raising taxes from motorists and ringfencing the revenue for public transport.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Motorists are taxed because it takes so much to get people away from their cars. The government aren't stupid. They know that people won't stop buying petrol. Not necessarily can't, but won't.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

So all the nonsense jibes of "as a motorist, you have no right to be on the road unlike a pedestrian", and "as a cyclist, I have more right to be on the road than you do" can stop now, yes? Everybody agreed?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You round a corner. A pedestrian is crossing the road.

Who has to do what Bonj?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

So all the nonsense jibes of "as a motorist, you have no right to be on the road unlike a pedestrian", and "as a cyclist, I have more right to be on the road than you do" can stop now, yes? Everybody agreed?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You round a corner. A pedestrian is crossing the road.

Who has to do what Bonj?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You get to a zebra crossing. You want to get to the other side. There is no traffic on the road. What do you do Paul?

domd1979 · June 2007

You may not believe it, but its true. The direct costs paid by users of private transport (cars and HGVs) do not cover the external costs they impose. You won't find any credible evidence to prove otherwise...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

You may not believe it, but its true. The direct costs paid by users of private transport (cars and HGVs) do not cover the external costs they impose. You won't find any credible evidence to prove otherwise...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your pie in the sky opinion doesn't really count for the actual truth of the matter, which is that the only vehicle on the road that is subsidised is our good old friend the bus. This is largely to do with the fact that there is only usually about 2 old biddies on it on their way to the bingo, and a student on his way to the fish and chip shop because he can't be bothered to cook. Their 59p fares aren't enough to cover the cost of running the great hulk of a thing.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

So all the nonsense jibes of "as a motorist, you have no right to be on the road unlike a pedestrian", and "as a cyclist, I have more right to be on the road than you do" can stop now, yes? Everybody agreed?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You round a corner. A pedestrian is crossing the road.

Who has to do what Bonj?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You get to a zebra crossing. You want to get to the other side. There is no traffic on the road. What do you do Paul?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you cross the road Bonjy.

Now, enuogh of your diversion. Answer the question which is central to your argument...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

domd1979 · June 2007

Why is it not happening? Politics. Self-interested politicians who are too weak to actually make decisions for the good of society because it might make them a bit unpopular. The fact that there is not enough investment in public transport is not down to value for money.

Turning your question round: how come as the road network is congested, private companies aren't investing in building new toll roads?

The road network will never be able to cope with rising travel demand, because private vehicles are such a hideously inefficient use of infrastructure.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

Rubbish. Improving public transport is not "prohibitively expensive" - public transport investment produces good positive cost/benefit ratios. Where's your evidence to the contrary? If the kind of cash spent on the roads was invested in public transport, alongside sensible demand management policies, you'd see hell of a lot of benefit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If it isn't prohibitively expensive, than why is it not happening? Or would you say the cost of doubling the rail capacity into say, London, is cheap? The trains are full to the brim, why are the train companies therefore not paying for extra track to be laid?

In my opinion the money spent on the road network is not nearly enough, the roads around here are a testament to that opinion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by snorri

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I have already said I do not believe that motorists are subsidised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There is no point in continuing to engage in discussion on transport issues as long as you are in denial on this basic point.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

'Denial' - interesting choice of word. It would imply an element of faith in your belief that your arguments are irrefutable.

Myself, I'd never be so vain.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Have you not just contradicted yourself there? (see bold)

Although, what you've (finally) admitted, that the 'permission' to drive is a conditional right, is all I've been saying all along - I've never claimed it to be a 'god-given' or 'fundamental' right.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Uh uh. I'm using a figure of speech here, posing a question in the form of a statement. I see a very clear distinction between what I would call a legal right and what Regulator calls a conditional right. Neither are God-given, fundamental or intrinsic human rights so there's no need to complicate the argument by considering these concepts.

The problem is that neither you or Regulator have suggested a word for a "right" that is enshrined in the Constitution of one country but not another. You, in particular, wish to degrade the word to include something that can be granted or refused or removed, bought or hired with only the most cursory nod at any legal process or none at all.

You would only lose your "Right" to walk on the footpath (or on the carriageway) if you transgressed the Law of the land and a Court of Law subjected you to some form of constraint.

But you do not have the "Right" to drive on the carriageway at all, until you've satisfied various conditions and bought a licence, and even then this "right" is temporary. You can lose this "right" simply by not renewing the licence or in a host of other ways which do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you. So that's a pretty pi55-poor sort of "right", and it should be distinguished both in language and in law from what I understand a "Right" to be. Now when regulator gets back he can explain but I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to.

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

If I saw anybody beeping a pedestrian on a crossing, I'd be minded to report them to the police. The roads aren't exclusively for any particular group, they're for everybody.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's not dangerous, and therefore not illegal.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But it could be construed as threatening behaviour, and I don't think it should be tolerated - in the same way that revving one's engine at a pedestrian is also not tolerated.

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories