Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

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

There are plenty of examples of where your allowance to drive on the road can be removed. For example, if there is a pedestrian on the road ahead, you have no right of way.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh for god's sake shut up you're like a stuck record. You make that stupid claim, I tell you why you're wrong, you try and nitpick and weedle your way out of it, then it's quiet for a bit, then you simply restate the claim again because you think it will wind me up. You've made clear your imagination, and I've explained to you why it's not reality, now give it a rest.

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

Bonjy. You keep repeating yourself, you keep being wrong. If even a pedestrian can legally prevent your right of way, then you clearly have only restricted permission to use the roads, even when you have met all the criteria.

Read this again. It clearly hasn't sunk in-

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/docume ... r00845.pdf

Give it up boy. You're nothing but entertainment now.

__________________________________________________________
campaigning for a national White Bicycle Plan

Cab · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Give it up boy. You're nothing but entertainment now.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He isn't really entertaining though. Thats the sad part.

He's not even stuck to his point, this topic has splintered into niggling little points all over the place.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

Unknown · June 2007

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

The people that ambulances can't save because they can't get throught the traffic has got to be very minimal. You can pretend that it's a lot if you want to, which you probably are going to, but you're deluding yourself.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fair enough, you've got your opinion, I've got mine. I could just as easily say you're deluding yourself. It's not a very good way of conducting a discussion though!

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

Air pollution, yes you might get slightly less pollution if you didn't have cars. Not by a great deal though.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I disagree, the levels of particluates, NOx and SOx produced are high enough in urban areas to cause significant respiratory problems. Okay a lot of these are generated by commercial and public transport traffic, but a significant amount are also produced private vehicles. Reduce them and you'll reduce the negative health effects.

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

Again, what's your point? We have got cars, so there's no point postulating. Go and join the other greens and campaign for cars to get banned if you feel that strongly about it. You'll only be listened to by people who are similarly deluded.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The point of this discussion was to make you see the impact private vehicles have both economically and socially, remember when I first engaged your arguments a few pages back? I don't want cars banned, I don't believe I ever said I did! I want people to realise the impacts of their decisions, that's all.

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

And the sedentary lifestyle guff, well that's only a problem if you let it be. You can perfectly well go to the gym, or go swimming after work, or simply go for a walk in the evening with the dog, or whatever. The car doesn't FORCE people to become couch potatoes. The fact is they WANT to be couch potatoes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I didn't say it did force people to lead sedentary lifestyles, but it does enable them to (it could be argued that encourages them to!) and that fact has to be taken into account when assessing the impact of private motor vehicles on society and the environment (both the 'green' one and the economic one).

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Read this again. It clearly hasn't sunk in-

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/docume ... r00845.pdf
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Since when has the word of imperial college been the law?

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

You dimwit. That doesn't answer my question. They build new roads around your flat to reach places which have just been created/built. If they weren't there, there would be no need for the road. It has nothing to do with cars being responsible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, REACH by car. They can 'reach' then now on foot via the path.
It's not due to the fact that the flat's there why the roads are being built, it's only due to the need for CARS to get there which is why the roads are being built.
Same with a lot of villages in times gone by.

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

Read this again. It clearly hasn't sunk in-

http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/docume ... r00845.pdf
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Since when has the word of imperial college been the law?

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

Read it Bonj. It contains historical information about rights, and what had to be done to force drivers to accept their reduced priority and limited access to roads.

Stop trying to weedle out of it.

__________________________________________________________
campaigning for a national White Bicycle Plan

The Endorser · June 2007

As a cyclist and car driver I applaud this.

However, it is a very hollow gesture, as the police have no powers to enforce or prosecute any one for breaking any speed limit under 30, so the idiots can still abuse it with impunity.

Taking the moral high ground since 1969

Mister Paul · June 2007

Poor boy. Remember this-

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

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bonj
So the roads wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for car drivers.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Funny I thought roads existed before the car was ever thought about
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
True, 'roads' existed, but very few and far between, and not as we know them today. There were just a few dirt tracks here and there. The growth in the road network has been exponential since the invention of the car.
For example, the A1 was one of the only trunk roads that existed, and was basically a farm track - petering out every few miles.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now you've changed it to this-

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

Yes, REACH by car. They can 'reach' then now on foot via the path.
It's not due to the fact that the flat's there why the roads are being built, it's only due to the need for CARS to get there which is why the roads are being built.
Same with a lot of villages in times gone by.

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

So you were saying that cars are responsible for roads that weren't there before, and now you're saying that they aren't, and that the only reason that roads are needed is for cars to access places. __________________________________________________________
campaigning for a national White Bicycle Plan

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

We are not thinking of today's car-centric society with the cars taken out; we are thinking of an alternative society which never had them. Communities would be more compact and essential services more local.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well YOU are. I've not seen anybody else trying to rewrite the course of history. Imagine a world where nuclear fusion had been invented in the 18th century. We wouldn't have oil problems. Imagine a world where all the countries had fused together and there was never any need for ships. It's all what-ifs, and imagination. What's the point? It didn't happen like that. So what are you getting at?
The use of the car is something which evolved from its invention. But as it did, so did the need for the use of it. So we're stuck with it, I'm afraid - contrary to the designs of your fantasy world.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It was you who started off with the "if cars hadn't been invented" line. My argument is simple, if they hadn't been invented we'd have never come to rely on them.
As far as air pollution is concerned, in cities most of it is produced by motor vehicles. That's what people are breathing, and it's killing them. Air pollution produced by aircraft and power stations damages the environment but tends to be further away from your mouth and nose.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Originally posted by The Boss

Read it Bonj. It contains historical information about rights, and what had to be done to force drivers to accept their reduced priority and limited access to roads.

Stop trying to weedle out of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
At most, it's some professor's interpretation of the law. It's not THE LETTER OF the law. It's not the DEFINITION of the law.
Since when did her majesty the Queen appoint imperial college to a position of being able to tell me what I can and can't do on the roads?
So why would I bother reading it? It's no more valid than Nexus is on climate change.

dondare · June 2007

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

As a cyclist and car driver I applaud this.

However, it is a very hollow gesture, as the police have no powers to enforce or prosecute any one for breaking any speed limit under 30, so the idiots can still abuse it with impunity.

Taking the moral high ground since 1969
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I take it that you've gone back to the original topic and are not following one of this thread's many branches.
That's what I thought. A 20 mph limit is not legally enforcible.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

So you were saying that cars are responsible for roads that weren't there before, and now you're saying that they aren't, and that the only reason that roads are needed is for cars to access places. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I'm saying the general reason we have as many roads as we do is because there's lots of cars needing to use them, and this use of cars has grown and grown over the years, so the number of tarmac roads has grown aswell to cope with them. This has made places more accessible that weren't accessible before.
You may want to believe in your little fantasy world that ALL roads are only there because of the penny farthing and have not only been there but been lovely smooth tarmac since back in the 17th century, but it's just not the case I'm afraid flower.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

It was you who started off with the "if cars hadn't been invented" line. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The 'if cars hadn't been invented' is only ever going to be a hypothetical what-if. This is fine for illustrating the fact that most of the volume of the road network is due to the growth in the use of the car, as I'm using the hypothesis to make a point, but you're not - you're just imagining a world without cars for the sake of imagining it.

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

My argument is simple, if they hadn't been invented we'd have never come to rely on them. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> .... Yes, agreed. So what's your point? You wish cars didn't exist. Yes, we know.

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

Originally posted by The Boss

Read it Bonj. It contains historical information about rights, and what had to be done to force drivers to accept their reduced priority and limited access to roads.

Stop trying to weedle out of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
At most, it's some professor's interpretation of the law. It's not THE LETTER OF the law. It's not the DEFINITION of the law.
Since when did her majesty the Queen appoint imperial college to a position of being able to tell me what I can and can't do on the roads?
So why would I bother reading it? It's no more valid than Nexus is on climate change.

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

For goodness sake Bonj, it's no-one's interpretation of the law. It's a record of historical facts and developed attitudes. Now stop being so silly.

You haven't read it. You need to. Then you might have a glimpse of how big a fool you are making of yourself.

__________________________________________________________
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 dondare

I take it that you've gone back to the original topic and are not following one of this thread's many branches.
That's what I thought. A 20 mph limit is not legally enforcible.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, perhaps it's time we did go back to the original topic.
So it's not legally enforceable. So all the 20mph signs actually amount to is a request to go 20mph or less, not actually even a legal requirement.

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

So you were saying that cars are responsible for roads that weren't there before, and now you're saying that they aren't, and that the only reason that roads are needed is for cars to access places. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I'm saying the general reason we have as many roads as we do is because there's lots of cars needing to use them, and this use of cars has grown and grown over the years, so the number of tarmac roads has grown aswell to cope with them. This has made places more accessible that weren't accessible before.
You may want to believe in your little fantasy world that ALL roads are only there because of the penny farthing and have not only been there but been lovely smooth tarmac since back in the 17th century, but it's just not the case I'm afraid flower.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh, so you're generalising now. Because it makes it easier for you to squirm out of your ridiculous position.

It has only made places more accesable to cars than before. Your original claim was that we have cars to thank for being able to reach places that couldn't be reached before by other methods of transport. That's complete rubbish. Flower.

Be careful Bonjy. You're climbing hte exponential curve. The language will start soon, and before the end of the day you'll be having to re-register yourself with another username beginning with B.

Why not just be completely honest and come back as Buffoon?

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

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 Mister Paul

Originally posted by The Boss

Read it Bonj. It contains historical information about rights, and what had to be done to force drivers to accept their reduced priority and limited access to roads.

Stop trying to weedle out of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
At most, it's some professor's interpretation of the law. It's not THE LETTER OF the law. It's not the DEFINITION of the law.
Since when did her majesty the Queen appoint imperial college to a position of being able to tell me what I can and can't do on the roads?
So why would I bother reading it? It's no more valid than Nexus is on climate change.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The legal status of motor vehicles, and indeed of bicycles, on the road is very clear. If you can't accept it that makes you wrong.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Endorser · June 2007

That's it mate. Th whole exercise ammount to nothing more than a tasty bit of posiive publicity for whichever PR hungry organisaion came up with it. I always observe such limits 9usually found O/S schools etc) but i often wonder why I bother as impatient cyclists & car/tractor/motorcycle/moped pilots all come sailing past, most of them offerning a stream of abuse for my thoughtlessness at politely observing the signs. In a sense, a few people like me behaving themselves encourages all this banzai overtaking and probably makes the roads even more dangerous!

Taking the moral high ground since 1969

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

For goodness sake Bonj, it's no-one's interpretation of the law. It's a record of historical facts and developed attitudes. Now stop being so silly.

You haven't read it. You need to. Then you might have a glimpse of how big a fool you are making of yourself.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
For the purposes of clarity, I'll summarise:
You: Claim that motorists have no right to be on the road, as their permission to be there is condition so therefore is not a right.
Me: Assert that a right can be conditional aswell as fundamental, so the fact that permission is conditional does not detract from its status as a right.
You: Declare that you think that the legal definition of a right as in the official law of the land cannot be conditional.
Me: Request a quote from said official law of the land that backs this up.
You: Produce a quote from imperial college and try to convince me to read it.

CAN'T YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS? If you're so sure of the definition of a 'right' in law, then show me that definition IN LAW! Not in some bloody backstreet college's liberalist commie rantings.

If imperial college is the best you can come up with that backs you up, then it's obviously NOT the law of the land is it, you dimwit!

I'm sure it DOES back you up, otherwise you wouldn't be flapping it in my face trying to get me to read it.

Perhaps even some evidence as to the notion that imperial college have been nominated official responsibility for publishing the correct legal definitions of such terms like 'rights' and 'privileges' - but no, I doubt it will be forthcoming...

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

It was you who started off with the "if cars hadn't been invented" line. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The 'if cars hadn't been invented' is only ever going to be a hypothetical what-if. This is fine for illustrating the fact that most of the volume of the road network is due to the growth in the use of the car, as I'm using the hypothesis to make a point, but you're not - you're just imagining a world without cars for the sake of imagining it.

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

My argument is simple, if they hadn't been invented we'd have never come to rely on them. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> .... Yes, agreed. So what's your point? You wish cars didn't exist. Yes, we know.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Your argument seems to be that since cars need roads then we only have roads because there are cars; and that is bollox.
It is true that we have so many roads because cars take up a lot of space compared to pedestrians and cyclists, but why should acres of asphalt log-jammed with motor vehicles be considered a good thing in itself?

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Mister Paul · June 2007

That's not what happened, Bonjy. As the last 16 pages will testify.

You're doing that thing again with fingers in your ears, refusing to read documents that will teach you a thing or two.

__________________________________________________________
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 has only made places more accesable to cars than before. Your original claim was that we have cars to thank for being able to reach places that couldn't be reached before by other methods of transport. That's complete rubbish. Flower.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You don't know that, you'd just like to believe it.
Frankly I think in the strictest sense of being accessible at all, you're probably right. i.e. if it hadn't been for cars and the roads that have been built because of their widespread use, most journeys by bike would still be possible. But a lot of them would be a lot more difficult. Oh, and, contrary to another myth that I'm sure your deluded head likes to believe, the friction coefficient of a bike wheel on burgundy tarmac is no different than that of a bike wheel on black tarmac.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

The legal status of motor vehicles, and indeed of bicycles, on the road is very clear. If you can't accept it that makes you wrong.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I wish it was - I've been asking for links to it for 15 pages. All that's been managed is a link to imperial college.

Mister Paul · June 2007

Are they not enforceable?

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =193492006

__________________________________________________________
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 dondare

Your argument seems to be that since cars need roads then we only have roads because there are cars; and that is bollox.
It is true that we have so many roads because cars take up a lot of space compared to pedestrians and cyclists, but why should acres of asphalt log-jammed with motor vehicles be considered a good thing in itself?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It's not, but you're again failing to make a point in favour of letting your car-hating emotions run away with you.
The point I'm making is that due to the rise in car use there are routes which are currently tarmac that otherwise wouldn't have been. This is advantageous to cyclists.

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 dondare

The legal status of motor vehicles, and indeed of bicycles, on the road is very clear. If you can't accept it that makes you wrong.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I wish it was - I've been asking for links to it for 15 pages. All that's been managed is a link to imperial college.

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

...and if you read it, it would be a start to your understanding.

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

dondare · June 2007

"In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked."

Sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about.
It would seem that is something requires a licence or is subject to conditions, then it is a privilege rather than a right.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

Are they not enforceable?

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =193492006
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
In scotland, yes! And it seems only due to a byelaw brought in by the council. It would appear that in Portsmouth, they're still only asking rather than telling.

The Bosscp · June 2007

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

"In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the citizen, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked."

Sounds like someone who knows what they're talking about.
It would seem that is something requires a licence or is subject to conditions, then it is a privilege rather than a right.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Where's that from though?! If you don't cite the source, it's obvious you've just made it up.

The Endorser · June 2007

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

Are they not enforceable?[/br]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">No mate - Scottish law is very different to that in England and Wales, and the entire sytstem fo prosecuting cases different too.

In Blihty and Wales there is no statutory power, act, or common law that permits prosecution for simply exceeding a speed limit set at less han 30mph.

Sorry about typing - stepdaughter spilled milkshake over this effing keyboard and it's not been right since!

Taking the moral high ground since 1969

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories