Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

dondare · June 2007

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

Driving instructors teach people how to pass a driving test, they don't teach people how to drive safely. This is why I want there to be more than just a 'pass for life' in a person's driving lifetime. I want advanced driving courses after say 5 years, I want skidpan courses, and I want re-evaluations every 10 years or so.

I'd agree on your final point and in the real world you'd expect both people to accomodate oneanother. but since in this thread people have suggested that a pedestrian has right of way, it needs clarification - otherwise its not a valid assertion. In fact judging by the number of teenage children who seem to enjoy slowing traffic deliberately by taking their sweet time to cross a road at 0.5mph, I'd say it would be very useful to know who is correct.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What can you do? Certainly not run them down, or even nudge them out of the way. They have a right to be there (or an entitlement to be there if the word "right" is not, er, right in this case) but they do not have a right to obstruct traffic (which includes non-motor traffic) and so if they're doing it deliberately then they're breaking the law. But what can you do? Rsoles are rsoles.

(BTW my Driving Instuctor said use the horn but I doubt if that would help much.)

Cretin · 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 Cretin

Oh and I did not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions - I said they have right of way at junctions when already crossing, and pedestrian crossings.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Highway code says that they have priority when they are already crossing the road that you turn into.

S.146 of the HC does not, as we, said state that peds only have priority at junctions. If this is the case, then what is that suggesting?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No it does not state that, you're correct. But it does not also say that pedestrians have right of way in the highway - it only says at junctions and crossings.

You are suggesting that the lack of anything in the HC that gives pedestrians right of way or priority in the highway (above examples excepted) implies they do indeed have a right of way? I can't agree with this - otherwise the HC would just say 'you MUST give way to pedestrians at all times'.

So could you please tell me where other than the afore-mentioned examples the highway code states that pedestrians have a right of way (or priority) in the highway, because if you cannot than I suggest you've been casting aspersions on other people's posts.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

For Knob's sake:

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.

Definitions of carriageway, rights of bicycles etc.
http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-paper ... rriage.pdf

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

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 Flying_Monkey

Bonj- you are simply wrong, so do stop saying the same thing. Now you are being even more wrong that before by saying that pedestrians are 'legally obliged' to hurry up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well that is taking it to an extreme I admit, but....

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

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. No normal road user is allowed deliberately to obstruct traffic<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Take note, Mister Paul... Not. Allowed. To. Obstruct. Traffic.

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

That's right Bonj. No-one is allowed to deliberately obstruct traffic.

Now why are you telling me? I already know that, you buffoon.

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

dondare · June 2007

I don't pay too much attention to the HC.
It's like "Janet and John learn to use the roads."

You're not the boss of me.

Cretin · 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 Cretin

Driving instructors teach people how to pass a driving test, they don't teach people how to drive safely. This is why I want there to be more than just a 'pass for life' in a person's driving lifetime. I want advanced driving courses after say 5 years, I want skidpan courses, and I want re-evaluations every 10 years or so.

I'd agree on your final point and in the real world you'd expect both people to accomodate oneanother. but since in this thread people have suggested that a pedestrian has right of way, it needs clarification - otherwise its not a valid assertion. In fact judging by the number of teenage children who seem to enjoy slowing traffic deliberately by taking their sweet time to cross a road at 0.5mph, I'd say it would be very useful to know who is correct.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What can you do? Certainly not run them down, or even nudge them out of the way. They have a right to be there (or an entitlement to be there if the word "right" is not, er, right in this case) but they do not have a right to obstruct traffic (which includes non-motor traffic) and so if they're doing it deliberately then they're breaking the law. But what can you do? Rsoles are rsoles.

(BTW my Driving Instuctor said use the horn but I doubt if that would help much.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've found similar people (in fact more people) who are happy to block my progress on shared footpaths. They simply refuse to get out of the way, even though I'm the one on the cycle part of the path, with a pedestrian part alongside them completely empty. They have the temerity to shout and shake their fist, as though I'm somehow weeing in a church's font.

dondare · June 2007

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

For Knob's sake:

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.

Definitions of carriageway, rights of bicycles etc.
http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-paper ... rriage.pdf

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Very good. Now prove that the information in those links is both legally and factually correct. To my satisfaction. You can't can you?

dondare · 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 dondare

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

Driving instructors teach people how to pass a driving test, they don't teach people how to drive safely. This is why I want there to be more than just a 'pass for life' in a person's driving lifetime. I want advanced driving courses after say 5 years, I want skidpan courses, and I want re-evaluations every 10 years or so.

I'd agree on your final point and in the real world you'd expect both people to accomodate oneanother. but since in this thread people have suggested that a pedestrian has right of way, it needs clarification - otherwise its not a valid assertion. In fact judging by the number of teenage children who seem to enjoy slowing traffic deliberately by taking their sweet time to cross a road at 0.5mph, I'd say it would be very useful to know who is correct.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What can you do? Certainly not run them down, or even nudge them out of the way. They have a right to be there (or an entitlement to be there if the word "right" is not, er, right in this case) but they do not have a right to obstruct traffic (which includes non-motor traffic) and so if they're doing it deliberately then they're breaking the law. But what can you do? Rsoles are rsoles.

(BTW my Driving Instuctor said use the horn but I doubt if that would help much.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've found similar people (in fact more people) who are happy to block my progress on shared footpaths. They simply refuse to get out of the way, even though I'm the one on the cycle part of the path, with a pedestrian part alongside them completely empty. They have the temerity to shout and shake their fist, as though I'm somehow weeing in a church's font.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Shared-use paths are the work of the Devil.

Oddballcp · June 2007

What in the name of all that's righteous has any of this got to do with Portsmouth?

http://victoryatseaonline.com/war/kellys.html

Mister Paul · June 2007

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

I'd agree on your final point and in the real world you'd expect both people to accomodate oneanother. but since in this thread people have suggested that a pedestrian has right of way, it needs clarification - otherwise its not a valid assertion. In fact judging by the number of teenage children who seem to enjoy slowing traffic deliberately by taking their sweet time to cross a road at 0.5mph, I'd say it would be very useful to know who is correct.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why? Isn't it irrelevant? Unless you're thinking of running them over and claiming that it was their fault because they didn'd have priority.

This whole argument hasn't really been worth it. There have been some interesting points from it, and learning for everyone I think, but nowhere near enough to warrant so many pages (and so much buffoonery).

We're coming at it from the wrong angle. It's been mentioned a few times, but it's about preferring others. If a driver rounds a bend and there's a person crossing, then the right thing to do would be to slow and let them continue, without revving, honking, speeding up or shouting abuse, or expecting them to rush out of the way. There's absolutely no need. If, on the other side, a pedestrian is crossing the road then they should ensure as far as possible that there is enough room (or at a junction that the queueing cars have seen them).

Arguing about rights merely fuels the controlling, possessive road-users urges to consider no-one but themself.

No-one has suggested anywhere, either on this discussion or in the past on here, that pedestrians should deliberately and unnecessarily hold up traffic.

There have however been plenty of comments the other way -that peds shouldn't be there, that they should give way, get out of the way, run away. To not cross until the driver decides to give them permission to enter their road space. All of which is extremely childish, and dangerous. This is the exact reason why pedestrian crossings with lights had to be introduced -to force drivers to do what they should do anyway.

So, to summarise, grow up Bonj.

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

Flying_Monkey · 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 Flying_Monkey

Bonj- you are simply wrong, so do stop saying the same thing. Now you are being even more wrong that before by saying that pedestrians are 'legally obliged' to hurry up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well that is taking it to an extreme I admit, but....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, you are just wrong. [:o)]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Tourist Tony · June 2007

And having trawled through Hansard as well, the law gives the public the right to pass and repass on the Highway, but not to trespass on it. That does not mean enter without permission, it means commit a tort. In this case, to use the Public Highway for a purpose for which it is not dedicated. Under Common Law (amd the long list of statutes quoted above) the public have the right of passage and carriage. Carriage means carrying, not vehicle.
Cartways and carriageways gained their modern meaning late in the 19th century, before the existence of cars. The LGA 1888(IIRC) established the rights of cyclists on the Highway.

Here is a link to the history of motoring law and road construction
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub ... endocument

I love this quote from 1897:
"First British driver to die from injuries sustained in a motoring accident: Mr Henry Lindfield of Brighton whose electrical carriage overturned on Saturday 12 February 1898. One of his legs was amputated, and he died of shock the following day. Autocar blamed the crash on excessive speed..."

Abd to answer the SS trolls and their refusal to accept costs of motoring, rights to the road, etc, here's a regularly quoted piece.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub ... enDocument

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

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

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

Oh and I did not say that pedestrians only have priority at junctions - I said they have right of way at junctions when already crossing, and pedestrian crossings.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The Highway code says that they have priority when they are already crossing the road that you turn into.

S.146 of the HC does not, as we, said state that peds only have priority at junctions. If this is the case, then what is that suggesting?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No it does not state that, you're correct. But it does not also say that pedestrians have right of way in the highway - it only says at junctions and crossings.

You are suggesting that the lack of anything in the HC that gives pedestrians right of way or priority in the highway (above examples excepted) implies they do indeed have a right of way? I can't agree with this - otherwise the HC would just say 'you MUST give way to pedestrians at all times'.

So could you please tell me where other than the afore-mentioned examples the highway code states that pedestrians have a right of way (or priority) in the highway, because if you cannot than I suggest you've been casting aspersions on other people's posts.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You agree with me but disagree? Very interesting.

The HC states that special care should be taken at junctions. It says that if you turn at a junction to find a pedestrian crossing the road, then the pedestrian has priority. It does not, for the third time, say that crossing pedestrians only have priority at junctions.

I have made no reference at all to any 'afore-mentioned examples'. So there have been no aspersions cast.

Read my last post. You'll see that you're barking up the wrong tree completely.

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

Tourist Tony · 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 Tourist Tony

For Knob's sake:

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.

Definitions of carriageway, rights of bicycles etc.
http://www.bbtrust.org.uk/seymour-paper ... rriage.pdf

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Very good. Now prove that the information in those links is both legally and factually correct. To my satisfaction. You can't can you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You forgot the smiley....[:D]

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

dondare · June 2007

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

And having trawled through Hansard as well, the law gives the public the right to pass and repass on the Highway, but not to trespass on it. That does not mean enter without permission, it means commit a tort. In this case, to use the Public Highway for a purpose for which it is not dedicated. Under Common Law (amd the long list of statutes quoted above) the public have the right of passage and carriage. Carriage means carrying, not vehicle.
Cartways and carriageways gained their modern meaning late in the 19th century, before the existence of cars. The LGA 1888(IIRC) established the rights of cyclists on the Highway.

Here is a link to the history of motoring law and road construction
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub ... endocument

I love this quote from 1897:
"First British driver to die from injuries sustained in a motoring accident: Mr Henry Lindfield of Brighton whose electrical carriage overturned on Saturday 12 February 1898. One of his legs was amputated, and he died of shock the following day. Autocar blamed the crash on excessive speed..."

Abd to answer the SS trolls and their refusal to accept costs of motoring, rights to the road, etc, here's a regularly quoted piece.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub ... enDocument

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pah! More fictions and prejudices that you've no way of actually proving.
[xx(]

Tourist Tony · June 2007

[:D][:D]

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

I swore blind nothing, nothing has been proved, my arguments haven't changed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You refused to accept that law-abiding motorists have a right to be on the road. You then did a huge U-turn when Regulator backed up what I was saying which is that they do.

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

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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Neither do you! So you can't say that motorists don't have one!
If you define a right as a conditional right, then motorists do have a right to be on the road.
If you define a right as a fundamental unconditional right, then they don't. BUT ONLY THEN. So you should include this caveat when making your sweeping statements about motorists in the future, and you certainly shouldn't go shooting your mouth off that YOUR definition of 'right' is the only real accepted one in British law, when you can't prove that at all.

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

I found such a definition, and you refused to accept it<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You didn't find a definition that represents what is 'enshrined in the constitution of the country'.
You found something in wikipedia, but that didn't support the notion that 'right' and 'conditional permission' were mutually exclusive, as you hoped I'd think it would do.
Somebody else found something published by imperial college, and I quite rightly questionned since when their word has been representative of the letter of the law.

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

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
So that's a pretty pi55-poor sort of "right"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well it's not really, because it's not too difficult to refrain from breaking the law, and it's not too difficult to renew your other obligations such as insurance, tax disc and MOT. What other ways "that do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you" can lead to the loss of your right to drive on the road?
At the moment I can only think of one reason, which is that a medical condition causes you to become declared unfit to drive by a doctor. Yes this could happen and it would lead you to lose your right to drive possibly through no fault of your own, but it is pretty unfortunate, pretty unlucky, and at the end of the day, pretty unlikely if you keep healthy and safe. Are there any others?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Moving house and not informing the DVLA for instance, how many ways do there need to be?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But moving house and not informing the DVLA comes under breaking the law, as it's a legal obligation to inform them - it's something you legally MUST do. Irrelevant, but I don't think the penalty for it is being banned anyway.
I did quite clearly say "What other ways that do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you can lead to the loss of your right to drive on the road?"

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">and it should be distinguished both in language and in law from what I understand a "Right" to be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Maybe it should! But it isn't, at the moment - is it?!
Yes, it is. Right as opposed to permission or privilege.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, it's not. It'd be possible for you to prove it if it were.

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

You won't accept any qualification any way, so why even wonder?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Like I say, I'm not asking in a cynically questionning way, I'm just curious - so it's not my place to either 'accept' or 'reject' it.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is the rules of the countryside you idiot. It defines a public right of way as a highway that allows a public right of passage. Now a highway could be a footpath, bridleway, clearing in a forest, anything. It makes no connection between this and a carriageway!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Why? Isn't it irrelevant? Unless you're thinking of running them over and claiming that it was their fault because they didn'd have priority.

This whole argument hasn't really been worth it. There have been some interesting points from it, and learning for everyone I think, but nowhere near enough to warrant so many pages (and so much buffoonery).

We're coming at it from the wrong angle. It's been mentioned a few times, but it's about preferring others. If a driver rounds a bend and there's a person crossing, then the right thing to do would be to slow and let them continue, without revving, honking, speeding up or shouting abuse, or expecting them to rush out of the way. There's absolutely no need. If, on the other side, a pedestrian is crossing the road then they should ensure as far as possible that there is enough room (or at a junction that the queueing cars have seen them).

Arguing about rights merely fuels the controlling, possessive road-users urges to consider no-one but themself.

No-one has suggested anywhere, either on this discussion or in the past on here, that pedestrians should deliberately and unnecessarily hold up traffic.

There have however been plenty of comments the other way -that peds shouldn't be there, that they should give way, get out of the way, run away. To not cross until the driver decides to give them permission to enter their road space. All of which is extremely childish, and dangerous. This is the exact reason why pedestrian crossings with lights had to be introduced -to force drivers to do what they should do anyway.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Exactly. Why are rights relevant in the first place? I'm always pointing this out, as I have done in countless of the past arguments about whether a pedestrian has the right to walk in the road holding up traffic, whether a motorist legally has to stop, etc., I always raise the point about why it matters who has the 'right' of way, because they're more likely to consider safety first and it's not going to come down to who has the legal priority, yet the anti-car brigade always trot out the same old line - "but a motorist doesn't have the right to be on the road", which constantly harks back to the same old argument about what the definition of a 'right' is, which in 30-odd pages of this argument, no-one has successfully produced an official one.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

That's right Bonj. No-one is allowed to deliberately obstruct traffic.

Now why are you telling me? I already know that, you buffoon.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You do now, it seems - you appear to have learnt your lesson. So are you going to be a good boy and promise you won't do it again?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paulstuff about relevance and time spent<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'll take that as a tacit agreement that you were wrong to suggest that pedestrians have an basic right of way or priority over vehicular traffic.

Really, and I said this many pages ago, I am reluctant to argue with anybody who can't answer simple questions put to them. When asked to qualify statements or inferences you have made that have no basis in fact, you can't bring yourself to admit that you may have been wrong. Instead you'd rather cloud the issue and talk about something similar, or perhaps turn the question around and try to confuse anybody reading, or in this case write about moral obligations and telling people to 'grow up'.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paulyou think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How ironic, and what a waste of time.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I am reluctant to argue with anybody who can't answer simple questions put to them. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You mean like people who claim an anti-motorist ethos exists on this forum then refuses to offer a shred of evidence?

Like you did, cretin, with your very first post?

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Moving house and not informing the DVLA for instance, how many ways do there need to be?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But moving house and not informing the DVLA comes under breaking the law, as it's a legal obligation to inform them - it's something you legally MUST do. Irrelevant, but I don't think the penalty for it is being banned anyway.
I did quite clearly say "What other ways that do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you can lead to the loss of your right to drive on the road?"

[/quote]
Moving house without informing the DVLA is not illegal.

You're not the boss of me.

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

I swore blind nothing, nothing has been proved, my arguments haven't changed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You refused to accept that law-abiding motorists have a right to be on the road. You then did a huge U-turn when Regulator backed up what I was saying which is that they do.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No swearing, no blinding, no U-turning.
I extrapolated Reg's argument then added a question mark!

I guess that you talk and think in a monotone.

You're not the boss of me.

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

Moving house and not informing the DVLA for instance, how many ways do there need to be?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But moving house and not informing the DVLA comes under breaking the law, as it's a legal obligation to inform them - it's something you legally MUST do. Irrelevant, but I don't think the penalty for it is being banned anyway.
I did quite clearly say "What other ways that do not involve you breaking the law or the law being invoked against you can lead to the loss of your right to drive on the road?"

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Moving house without informing the DVLA is not illegal.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Alright if you want to be ULTRA pedantic, it's not the moving house that's illegal but the not telling DVLA.
From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Dr ... G_10021376
It is a legal requirement to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when you change name and or address. Failure to notify DVLA could result in a œ1000 fine.
Note the terms "legal requirement". That means it's illegal if you DON'T do it.

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 Paulstuff about relevance and time spent<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'll take that as a tacit agreement that you were wrong to suggest that pedestrians have an basic right of way or priority over vehicular traffic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why? There is no hint of an agreement in that at all. Are you reading what is there, or what you want to see?

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

Really, and I said this many pages ago, I am reluctant to argue with anybody who can't answer simple questions put to them. When asked to qualify statements or inferences you have made that have no basis in fact, you can't bring yourself to admit that you may have been wrong. Instead you'd rather cloud the issue and talk about something similar, or perhaps turn the question around and try to confuse anybody reading, or in this case write about moral obligations and telling people to 'grow up'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've answered your questions. I'm not going to answer your questions about things I never said.

You've done pretty well, apart from your introduction to the forum yesterday, to keep your head up and put across discussion that had some relevant parts. Now I'm afraid, because you don't get the answers you're looking for (probably because you're telling people that they've said something which they haven't), you're dipping a toe in the water of mere arguing.

Unless you step back up to the mark again, there's neither any need nor point in responding to you.
<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 Paulyou think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How ironic, and what a waste of time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, I agree. Trying to subtley pick at a reasoned and considerate view of the roads, in order to try to slip in some SS propaganda at some point, when you think that you've gained enough respect, is very much a waste of time. It's saved you some time in that you couldn't keep to your gameplan for long. You ought to be pleased.

__________________________________________________________
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

Exactly. Why are rights relevant in the first place? I'm always pointing this out, as I have done in countless of the past arguments about whether a pedestrian has the right to walk in the road holding up traffic, whether a motorist legally has to stop, etc., I always raise the point about why it matters who has the 'right' of way, because they're more likely to consider safety first and it's not going to come down to who has the legal priority, yet the anti-car brigade always trot out the same old line - "but a motorist doesn't have the right to be on the road", which constantly harks back to the same old argument about what the definition of a 'right' is, which in 30-odd pages of this argument, no-one has successfully produced an official one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<ahem> It was you, young Bonjy, who started on this whole rights argument many moons ago, when you started spouting all your big-engined, aggressive 'my road' nonsense. No-one has forgotten that so you can stop trying to pretend.

__________________________________________________________
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

It was you, young Bonjy, who started on this whole rights argument many moons ago, when you started spouting all your big-engined, aggressive 'my road' nonsense. No-one has forgotten that so you can stop trying to pretend.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No it wasn't, that's just another lie from you.

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

It was you, young Bonjy, who started on this whole rights argument many moons ago, when you started spouting all your big-engined, aggressive 'my road' nonsense. No-one has forgotten that so you can stop trying to pretend.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No it wasn't, that's just another lie from you.

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

Oh yes it was. It came out of your whole 'pedestrians should get out of the road' rant.

No-one has forgotten that so you can stop trying to pretend.

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

Cretin · June 2007

Mister Paul I do not require or even want your approval on my postings in this forum. Your confidence in your imagined superioity is impressive, but self-defeating. I hereby give you your prize:

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/1 ... 982ka4.jpg

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories